🇮🇳🇵🇰 - "Srinagar under air raid by PAF fighters. Official statement shortly on big developments on aerial battle over the city." - NDTV
🇵🇰🇮🇳 - Swarm of Pakistani drones are in Delhi's airspace.
- Geo News, citing security sources
Pakistani version ofc.
- Geo News, citing security sources
Pakistani version ofc.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - Prime Minister of Pakistan calls urgent meeting for National Command Authority, which is responsible for nukes.
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - India responding to Pakistani military action, Indian official says - CNN
Forwarded from Constantine’s Notebook
🇮🇳🇵🇰 - India says Pakistan violated the ceasefire.
🇨🇦 - I’m not an electoral law expert. I’m just someone who still believes that democracy depends as much on perception as it does on procedures.
When a riding flips because of a single vote, following a judicial recount, and 840 ballots are rejected, I’m not questioning the legal result. But I can’t help asking a simple question:
Will people trust the process?
That matters, because a healthy democracy isn’t just about rules being followed — it’s about collective confidence in the legitimacy of outcomes.
Some will say these are rare edge cases. That everything was verified. I believe them. But I also think this kind of scenario raises a real optics issue: when margins are this tight, and several recounts all happen to swing in the same political direction — just a few seats short of a majority — it’s understandable if some citizens feel uneasy.
And that unease isn’t necessarily partisan. It stems from the sense that the process feels too opaque, too technical, too hard to follow from the outside, and therefore too vulnerable to public doubt.
This isn’t a hostile critique. It’s a call to do better. To make the process more transparent, more readable, more accessible.
Because democracy isn’t just about what’s legal. It’s about what people believe to be legitimate.
When a riding flips because of a single vote, following a judicial recount, and 840 ballots are rejected, I’m not questioning the legal result. But I can’t help asking a simple question:
Will people trust the process?
That matters, because a healthy democracy isn’t just about rules being followed — it’s about collective confidence in the legitimacy of outcomes.
Some will say these are rare edge cases. That everything was verified. I believe them. But I also think this kind of scenario raises a real optics issue: when margins are this tight, and several recounts all happen to swing in the same political direction — just a few seats short of a majority — it’s understandable if some citizens feel uneasy.
And that unease isn’t necessarily partisan. It stems from the sense that the process feels too opaque, too technical, too hard to follow from the outside, and therefore too vulnerable to public doubt.
This isn’t a hostile critique. It’s a call to do better. To make the process more transparent, more readable, more accessible.
Because democracy isn’t just about what’s legal. It’s about what people believe to be legitimate.
Global Intel Watch
🇺🇸 - Inb4 Trade deal imo
🇺🇸 — Turned out to be Trump announcing prescription drug price caps
🇺🇸💲🤝💲🇸🇾 — Trump announced the end of sanctions on Syria during his visit to Saudi Arabia
Forwarded from Tabz - Alternative Media (TabZ)
@TabZLIVE
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🇺🇸 — Minnesotan Governor Tim Walz has reportedly met with the National Guard and state police ahead of a potential pardon of Derek Chauvin, former police officer and convicted killer of George Floyd
- KSTP/ABC5
- KSTP/ABC5
Forwarded from Mediterranean Man (Mediterranean Man)
>Sanctions in Syria are removed.
>Less than 13 hours later, a Cybertruck is seen in Damascus.
Capitalism.
>Less than 13 hours later, a Cybertruck is seen in Damascus.
Capitalism.
Forwarded from Constantine’s Notebook
🇺🇸🇵🇸 - US President Donald Trump says America should "take" Gaza and turn it into a "freedom zone".