HazzMadd

Given that Finland is 't exactly known for its wars of territorial expansion, I always assumed that the mandatory military service was to protect from a potential Russian (and, back in the day, Swedish) invasion - thus being a purely defensive policy. Am I mistaken in this assumption? If not, than would the intended defensive purpose not be in line with a pacifist ethos (since you would probably never actually harm someone)? Especially since a Russian invasion isn't the most far fetched thing in the world.

So do you have to lock yourself up every full moon or do you have more control than that?

To that second point for Trump's 2020 bid, do you think that tactic would actually be successful? Granted, we don't know who the Dems are fielding in 2020, but I imagine that a shift for the Democrats in congress would reflect a shift in either voter turnout or independent dissatisfaction with Trump/the GOP. In both cases, it seems like "Blue Boogey Man" in Congress would fall on deaf ears or be preaching to an already fervent, but numerically stagnant, choir.