Not arguing for or against the gulag point but this graph doesn’t prove anything apart from the fact that in 40s-50s there were medical advancements that reduced mortality rate of prisoners (duh) Proof that works here would be number of prisoners in gulag per capita for example (which would paint completely different picture btw)
One argument I heard about him throughout the years is that he is just afraid of retaliation so he dogwhistles instead but in this day and age nobody who is actually a nazi or conspiracist hiding it anymore and they are not getting any repercussions…
I wouldn’t assume that he supports any of the book content just from having it on the bookshelf. You are not a nazi for having Mein Kampf on the bookshelf (worst example I can think of and it would be uncomfortable at most). If all you have on bookshelf is nazi/conspiracy propaganda though then it’s another topic
Not sure why is he lunatic, but he definitely apologised for and acknowledged what he’s done multiple times
Not sure about OP, but I think that yes, end goal should be banning alcohol consumption completely.
It’s more nuanced that that - he definitely doesn’t want USSR back in terms of economical or political system as is, but he does want to bring back USSR in the name (to get legacy and accomplishments association) and get the same consolidated power to build the totalitarian oligarchy somewhat similar to USSR, but without some checks and balances that were still present even in USSR
I believe Singapore is liberal authoritarian, many of the original policies are progressive even to this day
You are conflating two different problems here imo - Choosing one but not (mostly equally harmful) another thing to restrict, and government banning something as a way of restricting freedom Regarding first one - I don’t are a problem here, everything else can be addressed after this one, but even if it’s not, it’s still a net positive, I don’t understand your argument here naming this policy bad because it doesn’t do all or nothing Regarding ban as a restriction of freedom - banning something just lies on the far scale of taxing something - i.e. the more you tax something, the less people can afford it (tax is always passed onto consumer), so at some point only rich people can afford to smoke which is even worse than ban imo There’s a benefit in additional money from taxes, sure, but tobacco is already taxed quite a lot so this is nothing revolutionary, and the more taxes on something the less revenue from it at some point (considering that less and less people can afford it) Banning it from the certain age and not for everyone is obviously to not make existing smokers suffer and make younger population healthier Some things just should be banned, like murder for example, when there’s no benefit from that thing to anyone at all You would agree that products with lead or coke in in should stay banned and not be sold, right?