When asked about to what extent the financial situation of Americans is motivating him to make a deal, President Trump stated: "Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters, when I'm talking about Iran, is they can't have a nuclear weapon."
GOP congressman of Kentucky's 4th district. Has a competitive primary next Tuesday against a Trump-endorsed challenger.
Erskine-Smith was endorsed by Carney himself, yet loses to some Bengali dude, after they printed those ballots in Bengali. The left is being consumed by its own mass immigration. I fear for the 2026 census!
Right off his introduction with the evil music, the movie wants you to think of Farquaad as a villain. Shrek is one of my favourite movies ever, and re-watching it as an adult makes me rethink Farquaad's role.
First of all, consider what each character in the movie wants. What does Shrek want? He wants the removal of fairytale creatures who intruded upon his swamp. What does Donkey want? Personal companionship and protection. What does Fiona want? To be rescued by her true love and have her curse be broken. None of these motivations are wrong or bad, but they are also undeniably self-centred. So what does Farquaad want? He wants a princess in order to legitimize his rule and produce a heir. Farquaad's motives, I believe, are the least self-centred of all. Above all, he wants to maintain Duloc as a "perfect place" for him and its citizens.
In the film, Duloc is portrayed as extraordinarily clean. No homeless, beggars, thieves, etc. From this we can assume Duloc was also prosperous, and at peace, for the soldiers fought amongst each other in a tournament, which was likely a regular occurrence given the existence of an arena in the city for it. In Scared Shrekless, Duloc is revisted and portrayed as an abandoned ghost town. From this I conclude Farquaad's governance kept Duloc where it was until he got consumed by the dragon. Not imprisoned, or even tortured. Killed. Without even a trial by a jury of his peers.
There are many parts in the film where Farquaad could've been much more evil than he really was. He let Shrek live when he had him at gun point. He honoured his end of the deal and granted Shrek the deed to his land when he brought Fiona. He had the fairytale creatures deported, when he could've enslaved or exterminated them at a lesser cost. And if Farquaad is an evil racist for doing this, what does this make Shrek for going on a treacherous quest all just to get them out of his land? You could also say that torturing Gingy and having the bear mat were villain-like qualities for Farquaad, yet Shrek is depicted as consuming a jar of human eyeballs for dinner. Shrek laments that people judge him for the way he looks, yet not only behaves that way and relishes in it, but also hypocritically ridicules Farquaad for his height, a quality he had no control over either.
Asking this because the primary there is tomorrow and it appears very likely he'll win.
This is the first in my province in a while which demonstrates a competitive race. Their last federal poll had the CPC at 38% in Ontario (also considered a terrible poll for them), which demonstrates in my mind Ford has only ever won elections because of a split opposition that Poilievre did not have.
Notable in the poll also is Ford's extremely poor performance with Gen Z voters (18%) and a tie in his old GTA stronghold region. The Ontario Liberals have been a headless chicken for quite some time, so imagine what they could muster when that is no longer the case.
This question is not necessarily about the endorsement of political violence, because let's say he dies of some natural cause.
I'll give you my perspective: As a right-leaning individual from Canada, I defended Trump when I encountered some who wished the shooter had succeeded in July 2024. Now, with how belligerent he has acted toward my country for no reason, I just feel apathetic in that scenario.
If you believe it is moral to celebrate his death, why? If not, why also? What is your idea of a threshold for this?