Same to you.
Same to you.
Thank you for your support and agreement with the selected parts you did not quote.
Do you really think you made any relevant point in that last post to which there was no response?
Lol, it's not a deterrent at all. If anything, the present-day actions of NATO actively encourage escalation and the buildup of opposing forces.
Wow, this is just remarkably stupid.
What nation looks at another nation and thinks “well, we weren’t going to attack them, but if we attack them then all these other nations have pledged to step in and launch counter strikes against us, so I guess we’ll attack them”?
You don’t have to be contrary to everything I say. You can just let common sense breath, as difficult as that idea may seem.
NATO literally greenlighted the 2022 destruction of Nordstream, despite Germany's objections, for the sole purpose of global escalation.
You are deeply ignorant of global affairs.
NATO didn’t greenlight anything because that is fundamentally not how NATO works. NATO isn’t a decision making body, NATO is an organization bonded by a treaty to which all member states pledge to follow what they agreed to. So not only is there no evidence to support any of this, it isn’t even possible. This is just conspiratorial nonsense.
As a deterrent tool, it's proven not nearly as reliable as the actual military buildup Poland chose to rely on.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a military alliance is about.
The alliance alone is not supposed to be the deterrent, that’s why every country in NATO is required to spend a certain amount on their own military. That’s not a sign of distrust, it’s common sense when your country is under perceived threat to ramp up and the alliance strongly encourages this. The alliance serves as a layer above national self defense, not in place of it.
Putin tested the resolve of NATO in 2014
You do know Crimea is not part of NATO… right?
The US and Canada should have withdrawn the very year NATO members imposed the Eurozone tariff, or at least after the 2014 failures, because the costs of such a tariff far outweigh the deterrence benefits of NATO then and today
Again… Tariffs have absolutely nothing to do with NATO. Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?
Poland correctly read that as: no one in NATO is going to absorb the first hit for us.
Again, none of this has anything to do with how military alliances work.
You are deeply confused.
Since it doesn't care about keeping Russia in check, or is actually actively building Russia up like Germany is, there is no need to support them anymore, as it's indirectly helping Russia.
You are deeply ignorant about the topics you speak of. The very reason NATO exists is because of the threat Russia poses on the international stage, and it’s destruction is Putin’s greatest dream, which is certainly one of the biggest reasons he launched a cyber campaign in 2016 to elect Trump.
This is why Poland is building their own military since 2014 because they already know NATO is a scam agreement and wholly unreliable.
How is it a scam? When has NATO ally ever been attacked and its member states did not respond?
I'd argue that NATO no longer has America's shared interests down many dimensions, socially, economically, or…
NATO is a military alliance. It has nothing to do with aligning social or economic interests, that’s something else entirely.
But r so sure the rest of nato suddenly drop the usa ?
It’s not that simple. NATO would still exist, possibly in its current form, but it would be rendered effectively useless. NATO is a military alliance, think of it as an international gang formed through a common interest in world peace. It is only as strong as the commitment each member state (especially the more powerful ones) have to the alliance. The US suddenly deciding to attack unprovoked a NATO ally destroys that trust in an instant. And being the most powerful state in the group as well as the global leader of this effort, that would cause trust in the entire institution to fail.
If Putin then decides to attack Poland, what will the rest of NATO do? Will they stand up and engage in war with Russia? Not unless they trust that the rest of their allies will be there to have their back. Without that, no one responds and the alliance is officially toppled.
People get hung up on Trump’s personality and miss that underneath, the worldview is blunt but legible
No, it’s really not. The world is a complex and nuanced place, which means anyone can rationalize a position on any given issue and make it sound defensible. That is what makes Trump so dangerous, he brings this fake made for TV genius persona to really stupid ideas, and because people actually think he’s smart he’s able to get away with spreading them.
All of the benefits Trump is talking about with respect to Greenland, the US is already enjoying, and invading them would almost certainly topple NATO and along with it, the international world order we created after WW2 to which we have been its primary beneficiary. It’s a monumentally stupid move, but Trump doesn’t have the attention span to be able to understand that.
free speech restricts only the government; but every individual is a government of 1.
Really having a difficult time figuring out whether you are dumb enough to think this makes sense or if you are just trolling. Has to be the latter, but I’ll pretend anyway.
No where in the world or anywhere in history has the word government ever been used to apply to the individual. This is entirely made up because you can’t grapple with the idea that you are dead wrong so you have to go down to path of total absurdity to try and save face. Cognitive
The entire reason the first amendment exists is to protect the country from being taken over by a tyrant. The mechanism of the tyrant would be to use state power to silence dissent, and by silencing dissent the tyrant solidifies his power because the opposition would then become too afraid to challenge him.
Your notion of “a government of 1” does not deal with this at all, which is to say out has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of the first amendment.
A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the first conditional.
We’re not talking about the foreigner who crossed the border, we’re talking about the child who was born here. Big difference, and the 14th amendment clearly applies to the latter.
The second condition is being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by a US citizenship perspective.
A foreigner who crosses the border illegally [explained in my #14] does not meet the second conditional.
“by a US citizenship perspective” is totally made up. the 14th amendment neither says nor implies anything like that. It says “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Illegals are subject to US jurisdiction. If they weren’t, that would mean we cannot arrest them if they commit a crime, which would be absurd. And you admitted yourself they are.
Until I say the next thing you think is stupid.
Not my fault the things you say keep getting dumber.
Liberty? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. I support liberty of offensive speech; you support liberty from offensive speech.
No, this is just your fanciful misunderstanding of the entire concept of the 1st amendment.
What you support and are calling free speech is the right of your offensive speech to be platformed by private individuals and entities who do not wish to platform it. That is of course, logically absurd because such a right directly contradicts the free speech rights of said individuals and entities - to not platform it.
That’s the part you don’t get no matter how many times it’s explained to you; free speech necessarily includes the rights of others to criticize your speech and act within their constitutional rights to deny your speech from invading their spaces.
What you are arguing is tantamount to me walking into your home and claiming I have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which for me means living in your house.
I do not think...
“anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens,
just as I do not think there is "separation of church and state," because in neither case does the constitutional language say those things.
Ok, so let’s go back to what you said in post #14:
If the violator continues into the US beyond the border, they are still subject to deportation. In that respect, the violator is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but they retain their foreign nation citizenship, and therefore, jurisdiction. So, there is concurrent jurisdiction
And let’s cross that with the 14th amendment;
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Please square this circle.
Every individual is their own government.
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard you say. And it really is telling, when you have to stoop this or to try and defend your position that’s the point where the light bulb should go off that you are wrong.
The entire purpose of the constitution of to protect individual liberty from the government. If you’re just going to lazily conflate the two because it suits your predisposition on this one issue then any further conversation is pointless.
So, there is concurrent jurisdiction, contrary to your claim.
Contrary to my claim? That was my claim. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
So what exactly is your position here? You seem to be shifting back and forth, I was about to explain in plain English why “anchor babies” are constitutionally citizens, but you already said in your OP you thought the EO should be tossed, so please clarify cause I’m finding it difficult to tell if we’re even disagree on anything here.
Ok Chat
Trans rights are stupid because they violate free speech.
Can you provide an actual, legitimate example of this?
A zygote's life matters more than 9 months of woman's pain
You do realize that the impacts on one’s body that comes along with creating a whole other human being goes far beyond 9 months of pain… right?
Otherwise, they remain subject to the jurisdiction of a nation that is not the United States relative to citizenship,
Jurisdiction isn’t an all or nothing proposition; “you’re either subject to country A or country B”, and even if that were the case it would default to the country you’re actually standing in. What you’re arguing is that being subject to another nation’s laws negates US jurisdiction, the implications of which would be absurd.
It does not apply to criminal entry into this country…
Last I checked, people who enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
If you’re going to post ChatGPT responses the least you could do is feed it the proper context first.
My point was to take RemyBrown’s demented logic - that the possession of greater strength presents greater logical challenges, which leads to the conclusion that the group possessing said trait is generally more capable of making difficult and complex decisions - would mean that we’d be better off only allowing athletes to vote.
It’s not my argument, it’s a byproduct of his, so tag him.
Academics and scientists don't think about political ideas;
So the smartest groups of people in our society do not think about political ideas, but people like Billy Bob working over at the factory do?
Sports you are told to use your physical advantages to dominate others.
…while you are playing the sport. You don’t get to go out to the grocery store and tackle the manager because he won’t give you a refund. So by your logic, athletes face the greatest level of “logical challenges” among us, therefore it would be an even better idea to restrict voting to athletes only.
If you want to actually steelman his argument, it is that having strength presents a logical challenge, which most women dont face.
The whole point of his op is to justify why men should be allowed to vote while women shouldn’t. He’s not merely pointing out a logical challenge experienced by only one gender, he’s using it to argue that that gender is in fact smarter, or if you prefer, “better equipped” to make difficult while important decisions.
My sarcasm points to the stupidity of this idea. Intelligence isn’t formed by restraining yourself from punching walls or the annoying kid sitting behind you.
5 years ago, being pro Hitler was taboo.
Today, it's being edgy.
No, it’s just being an asshole.
Why is this relevant? It's because being physically stronger means men have to think more logically than woman and act less on their emotions.
Ah, so logical abilities are dictated by one’s strength. That’s news to the entire world of academia, science, law, medicine, and sports…
It would be rather tedious for me to create a one million page PDF for you.
The list you presented was tedious enough… for the people who compiled it. All you did was copy and paste it without knowing about anything that was on it.
Not really just ideological purity. Several decades of philosophical argumentation and reasoning to acquire the best philosophy and then apply it consistently.
Not sure what point you were trying to make. Philosophy is useless when you’re starting off with fantasy.
How were those things in the list mischaracterized?
Start looking into them and you’ll find out
You don't need to look at why those things are instituted.
OMG.
If you are going to criticize government spending to the point of calling it waste, then yes, you need to know what the spending is for. This is basic common sense.
You have all the context you need there.
You don’t have any content there, all you have are right wing labels depicting these programs as caricatures of what they actually are and what they were actually for. But you wouldn’t know that because you wouldn’t even bother to look into them.
It would be tedious to look at everything
Yes, it turns out that leading the free world is a complex job that requires an interest and capacity in nuance. Welcome to the real world.
As for eliciting an emotional reaction. It should.
Whether it should is a question answered by the facts surrounding the issue, which would cannot even be bothered to look into so your opinion here is utterly useless.
We know it harms society as a hole to do anything on that list I posted, and yet it's done for some apparent reason.
The reasons are right there at your finger tips, but you cannot be bothered
We are literally doomed if we do not get spending under control.
Your examples account for a few million dollars out of a $7T budget. That’s not even enough to qualify as a rounding error.
Oh, I’m not confused, I see exactly what you are doing.
You’re not using fraud in the normal sense because you know that’s not happening the way you guys say, which is why no one on the right is even questioning why if DOGE discovered all this fraud which they then eliminated… where are the charges?
No, what you guys are doing is being fundamentally dishonest. The word fraud carries with it a strong emotional connotation because how the word is actually used to mean. So when you scream fraud, you’re attempting to elicit those emotions from your audience without earning it and where it doesn’t belong. That’s called propaganda.
To accomplish this in a way that passes the sniff test (at least to a certain group of people) you conflate “fraud” with “waste” and then conflate “waste” with “any government spending I disagree with”. You were quick to copy and paste your little list up there of all the “waste”, but did you even look into why any of those programs were instituted? No, you read the right wing headline and that was good enough for you.
is your position really that wasteful spending isn't rampant in government?
Yes. First of all, I was actually talking about fraud, not waste. Fraud is the word right wingers use because it sounds ominous, but as soon as they find their hands on the steering wheel they somehow are unable to figure out where it is. That’s why, despite DOGE bragging endlessly about how much fraud they eliminated, they still haven’t made any notable arrests yet. Because it was always bullshit. Which is not to say it’s not happening anywhere, but that it’s no where near as pervasive as the propaganda arm of this administration alleges.
But when it comes to waste, that’s kind of a pointless conversation because waste turns out to be any form of government spending you don’t like. And when your political ideology is basically “government = bad”, it becomes meaningless to even bother using the word.
examples of government waste you claim is non existent despite evidence that the government is imperfect
I know you really thought you were flexing right here, but you only proved my point. Trump created an entire department whose sole mission in life was to find fraud and waste. They found no fraud, and with regards to waste, your list includes something like $15M in a budget of almost $7T. If your point was to prove how efficient the government is, the fact that this was the most impactful list you could come up with certainly proves it.
Moreover, most of the examples provided are not nearly as wasteful as you all pretend. You guys like to use buzzwords to describe them while having no idea what they actually do or why we have an interest in it. That’s exactly the ignorance I was talking about. Pick any one item on this list and we can look at it together to assess just how wasteful it was.
it's always been the position its better to cut too deep and make some mistakes since that is easily reversible than it is to not go deep enough considering how rare government spending cuts are.
Said no responsible governing party, ever. This philosophy is absurd on its face, cutting agencies and laying off workers by the thousands, only to have to recall them wastes significant resources both during and after the occurrence as it is extremely chaotic. It causes delays in the system which have to be rectified, it causes progress to be lost which then has to be gain all over again, and the workers in those cases often get back pay so you can end up paying triple for what turns out to be less than what you would have gotten if you just left it alone.
But what these blunders really demonstrate is that this wasn’ta matter of DOGE “cutting too deep”, it means they had no idea what they were doing at all. It would be one thing to lay off workers and find yourself dealing with unintended consequences of those layoffs, but that’s not what this is. What this shows is that they themselves didn’t have any idea what the people they were firing even do. That is unforgivable stupidity. Do not try and spin that into a virtue, that just shows you to be fundamentally unserious.
also it was a Biden official who demanded the pointless slaughter of poultry to artificially raise prices.
It wasn’t pointless, that’s just your ignorance showing… again. The purpose of killing a portion of the stock was to prevent the spread of avian flu, which has the potential to be FAR more catastrophic than the price increases we we ended up seeing.
Illegals can't pay taxes because employers have to pay them off the books and yet still use american resources also per the law of supply and demand artificially deflate wages while simultaneously increasing housing costs.
Illegals pay taxes through ITIN’s or borrowed social security numbers, not to mention sales and gas taxes. It’s a fact that undocumented immigrants contribute tens of billions of dollars to federal state and local taxes, while they cannot collect the benefits their native born counterparts do. Every study on this finds them to be a net positive or at the very least self sufficient.
Then can drive down wages in specific sectors, but to the extent that is true it translates to lower prices for the rest of us and in most cases these are the jobs Americans don’t even want to do in the first place.
Housing is one of those examples. Who do you think is building them? Getting rid of all undocumented workers will cause construction costs to rise.
No serious study on any of this finds that our economy will benefit from getting rid of these people.
Let me tell you we can simultaneously remove lazy employees and reward good ones with good pay increases while also creating computer programs to implement zero trust architecture to increase due diligence and make fraud less likely.
Yeah, technological advancements can help make us more efficient. Ground breaking thinking there.
What I was responding to was the idea that you’re just going to walk into an agency, fire half the staff, and think that by doing so you’ve made everything more efficient. That’s just plain stupid. Technology adaptation happens gradually as your team learns and effectuates its implementation. Doesn’t matter how advanced it is, you have to build it into your operating procedures. That takes people.
They were working on eliminating a significant portion of fraud, but for some reason, they faced push-back, which is as absurd as it is to face push-back for such a thing
They weren’t facing push back. They were facing backlash, not for “working on eliminating fraud”, but for lying about the amount of fraud that was taking place. It was classic propaganda - pretend there is rampant fraud, blame this non-existent rampant fraud on democrats, then paint yourself as the hero coming to save the day. This both elevates yourself as the real “man of the people” who dares to go against the grain for the good of honest working Americans, while pretending the democrats are the pro-fraud party working hard to screw you over. It’s nauseating, but with at least some it clearly works.
Many people working for DOGE, in fact, seem frustrated that it's a bit harder to cut wasteful spending in government than in the private sector
It frustrating because it turns out government spending isn’t as wasteful as they’ve been propagandized to believe. Like when they fired people over at the department of energy only to realize that whoops… turns out those are the people guarding our nukes. Or when they fired all those pointless government doctors, only to find out that those people were needed to fight back against the avian flu which was sending the price of poultry and eggs soaring.
Just because you don’t understand why we need something doesn’t mean we don’t, it just means you’re ignorant. And that’s ok, we all are. The problem with MAGA is their pervasive inability to tell the difference.
Anyone who actually cares about creating a social safety net, though, should be opposed to open borders
Actually, what you’re calling “open borders” it turns out strengthens the social safety net. The people here illegally pay into the system but are legally prohibited from pulling from it, so unlike Americans in their comparable income brackets they’re actually a net positive.
But sure, let’s get rid of them, cause you know, ew brown.
and want some due diligence when it comes to benefits, without added bureaucracy
Due diligence is done by people. There’s always a way to improve efficiency, but the idea that the way to increase due diligence is by slashing your work force is ridiculous.
The safety net is unsustainable under the current levels of fraud.
I thought DOGE got rid of it all…
Im not ready yet to call trump a fascist
I can help you with that if you like…