killingspark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism

Nope, it's what many parties in western nations have become.

General policies

• An overriding commitment to fiscal responsibility,[59] even if it entails means testing of social programs.[75][76]
• An overriding commitment to reforming public education, whether by equalizing spending on school districts,[77] offering school choice,[78] hiring better teachers,[79] or empowering existing principals and teachers.[80]
• A commitment to market-based solutions in health care, energy, the environment, etc., so long as the solutions are carefully regulated by government to serve the public good.[81][82] The policy goal, says Matthew Miller, is to "harness market forces for public purposes".[6]
• A commitment to provide jobs for everyone willing to work, whether by subsidizing jobs in the private sector[83] or by creating jobs in the public sector.[84]
• A commitment to need-based rather than race-based affirmative action;[85][86] more generally, a commitment to race-neutral ideals.[87]
• A commitment to participate in institutions and processes of global governance, and be of genuine assistance to people in the developing nations.[7][88]

Edit: But if your point was, that I made a mistake there: Yes you are right, I meant the political centre not the radical centre.

That argument only makes sense if you think the political centre would protect you from the fight for scraps that is already happening.

There is growing evidence that the political centre will throw even more parts of the population into poverty so that the rich can keep getting richer.

I am not saying the radical parties are necessarily the fix to that, certainly not the radical liberatarian and especially not the radical right.

I'm just saying the ~~radical~~ political centre is also not doing so great at making the economy work for everyone.

This is only a valid argument if you still believe that anyone is able to improve the economic situation.

Without that believe everything becomes a fight for pieces of a decreasing pie.

Which explains increasing formation of tighter in- and outgroups and the increased support for the political ideology supporting this kind of thinking.

The judge also indicated to Pedraz that a lawyer conveyed to her that Sáenz de Tejada had contacted people linked to a well-known clan, supposedly related to drug trafficking and based in Badajoz, "Los Rocho," with the aim of acting against her.

Among those people would be Cintia Rocho, who stated before the Civil Guard that Sáenz de Tejada told her that Biedma "was a fucking pain in the ass and needed to be eliminated," and that the intention, according to her version, was "to cause physical harm to the magistrate."

Well that's certainly fucked up.

You might benefit from looking at the names of the people reacting to you. I entered this thread with a fresh set of eyes.

You might also benefit from reading what people are writing. I am not questioning the headline or play it down. I am just saying that what you claim to be sources for the claim in the headline do not support that headline.

The headline talks about a clan that was contacted to eliminate a judge. The sources you cite talk about a possible campaign targeted at destroying the credibility of a judge.

Those are wildly different things. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

contacted drug clan to ‘eliminate’ judge

Biedma reported feeling “affected” by a possible orchestrated campaign to “discredit her publicly and professionally,”

Biedma stated that she was aware “of the existence of contacts promoted by the supposed investigated criminal group with people linked to a well-known clan based in the city of Badajoz with the aim of acting against the magistrate.”

Somehow the quotes you share seem to not really support the claim that headline is making.

It's insane, and there are still people defending this bullshit, even blaming the victim. Along the lines of "Why would you pick up something the police shot at you? That's your own fault!". Completely ignoring the fact that the police shot an explosive at schoolkids.

Giving big Ramranch energy

Come on past me, that's not even hard maths. Thanks, I'll fix my comment to reflect that two orders of magnitude error I just made...

240M SEK is roughly 24M USD

Alex Karp had a net worth in excess of 18B USD in 2025 if wikipedia is to be believed.

This is 1/800th of his net worth, or 0.125%

It's not like he needs to monetize this land immediately to keep making money from the rest of his net worth

Edited because I made a silly mistake in conversion rates. 1 sek is roughly 0.1 USD, not 10 USD.

When people spend that amount of money without telling anyone it's probably not an investment but either speculation or for personal use.

Why would anyone need this much woodland for themselves? It's unlikely he bought all of this for himself as a vacation spot. So he's probably buying this speculating on a rise in prices for this kind of land.

And that's interesting. Why would swedens forests increase massively in value?

Time to invent the contractor kink