candide

It's quite interesting to see that on average, the performance was better under Obama than under Trump, including during his second mandate. Trump would not like this chart. 😀 BTW, what were the Fed interest rates under Trump?

That's rich! 😀

It has to be demonstrated that it's the case, which you don't. Canada is obviously benefiting from the importance of the U.S. army. Would the U.S. army budget be lower if Canada spent more on it's army? It is a bit more clear in Europe. While % of defense budget in European countries has decreased since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. army presence in Europe has even much more decreased. Having said that it's obvious that European countries should spending more on defense. Actually, it's probably not so much about spending more than to spend better ( in a more coordinated way). Let's take the same example: if ten countries buy each 400 tanks when only 3000 are needed to defend the Eastern borders, it means money is wasted. On the other hand, if not enough money is invested in logistics to carry these tanks and the related troops, that's a problem. Or if not enough money is spent on detection or anti-missiles near the Eastern borders, etc.. That's the key problem. Each countries spends money for its own local defense, and too few for improving capabilities at the regional level.

Anyone noticed that the same guys who are supporting Putin's argument that he's being threatened by NATO, are also complaining that NATO countries don't spend enough on defense? 😀

As usual Trump is lying in order to mislead people like you. European countries pay their share of the NATO organisation's own budget and the U.S. is not paying their bills. What European countries don't do is spend enough money for their own army. They don't spend enough but that's another matter. The fact, for example, that a country may buy only 300 tanks when it ideally should buy 400 tanks, absolutely doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer is paying the missing tanks.

Ah, ok!

No problem. It also happens to me sometimes.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. That was absolutely not aimed at you. Your post was showing real facts, I gave a comment about them in my first post (Democrats may have started more wars, but the recent wars have been started by Republicans). No problem at all. My second reply was my explanation about why "it is so out of control" now. For example, when one political leader continuously claims, without evidence, that there had been massive fraud and that he actually won the election (and even after it has been debunked by courts and multiple audits and recounts), and the majority of his supporters believe him, how cannot it get out of control? I can cite a long list of other MAGA alternative facts, but I guess you also know them.

The one who surely has a good laugh is Putin.

As usual, he's lying. Not "every charge". Of course you know it already.

Danderman posted this one Quote from his post "Ray Epps was a hard core Trump supporter, and Oath Keeper chapter president:" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Epps_(military_veteran)

The key issue is that everyone has a right to her/his opinion, but not to her/his own facts. It never happened in the past that one side made up its own facts to this extent (except maybe about the war in Iraq).

Can you read? "it doesn't exonerate China"

It looks like the beginning of dementia... From your link: "I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will," he wrote. "There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money. Besides that, I like her boyfriend, Travis, even though he may be a Liberal, and probably can’t stand me!" he added 😅

Very bad from the Democrats to start the Mexican war and WW1, WW2! 🤣 From your link the Republicans started all the recent wars the Gulf War the War in Afghanistan the Iraq War

This has been already debunked. You can further save your time.

Another anedoctical evidence. There are also cases among anti-woke, if you see what I mean. Anedoctical evidence on both sides.

I am not claiming abuses don't continue, but societies (in the U.S. or elsewhere) are much less tolerant to it than before. Laws have also been improved in several countries regarding prescription, charges, penalties, pedo sexual tourism etc...

Sorry, but it's you who must back your claim by more than anedoctical and unrepresentative evidence. There are several woke or liberal stances (with which you may or may not agree), but being pro-pedo or pro-sex crime is not part of them. Ex. The 'woke' me too movement which resulted in several offenses against minors being revealed.

An unknown assistant professor who is certainly not considered as a scientific authority. Neither a leading figure among so-called woke and liberals, BTW. Edit. Additionally she's a poor scientist because paedophilia is a scientific expression drawn from Greek which means more or less the same: liking or being attracted by children.

Deflection. How is it related to your claim that woke and liberals are pro- pedo?

It means you are not arguing any more that the woke movement and the liberals are pro-pedo.

There was no formal agreement, and there is no Soviet Union any more (because it has been torpedoed by Russian in June 1991). I guess if you ask Poland or the Baltic States, they would tell you that adhering to NATO has protected them from a conflict with Russia

Russia has a low GDP level and a declining population. It certainly needs resources, including human resources.

The demand in the U.S. is certainly the main issue. However, it doesn't exonerate China (although it stated to act against it). As to the imaginary causality you are evoking, it's absolutely ridiculous. BTW, fentanyl initially started as a "white problem" in the U.S.