Hanaguma

Not less than human, but not my problem The Ukranians dont have the manpower to run the Russians off. Would you like NATO to solve that problem too? And let's say, for the sake of argument, that Putin gets "hounded from office". Great. Now what? Who will replace him- you think it will be someone reasonable and peaceful? Surely you aren't that naive. So, letting your chips fall would possibly lead to WW3 and a regime change to an even worse madman than Putin. Sorry, but no thanks.

Yes, if necessary. Ukranian land and people are not worth the life of one NATO soldier, nor the risk of escalating into a wider conflict. Sorry, but that is the way it is. Russia could do that, become an international pariah, and let the chips fall where they may.

Welcome to the conversation, Mr. Godwin. So happy you could finally show up!

Democracy can't lose because neither Russia nor Ukraine are democratic countries.

True, that is probably the purpose of the war. I can understand Russian paranoia to an extent. I mean, NATO was created to counter the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Once the Soviet Union fell and the Pact dissolved, the raison d'etre for NATO was diminished. Yet, NATO continued to expand even as Russia was weakened. Now I am not saying that there is an evil plot for NATO to attack Russia, but from their point of view, given their history of being invaded, I can see how they took NATO expansion as aggression. So give Russia a chunk of Ukraine as a buffer zone. That would secure their western border more or less. In turn, get assurances of the future territorial integrity of Ukraine and a specific promise to not go after NATO countries. Offer assistance with economic development to lure Russia away from the Chinese sphere of influence. Long term, it is the only way.

He will stop and he will bluster because he will come up to a hard border with NATO treaty nations. He will have his victory, secure his legacy, and turn to domestic issues to cement his power base and future. But if a cease fire can be negotiated, it would not result in the elimination of the Ukraine so your hypothetical is moot.

You might be right, which is why it was stupid to defend Ukraine as if it were a NATO-lite member in the first place. Waste of 100 billion plus dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere. Give Putin a stalemate in Ukraine that he can propagandize into a victory at home and stop the fighting is the best way forward. A smaller and wiser Ukraine is left. At the same time, renew commitments to the Baltic States and preposition NATO forces from other member countries within their borders. And God forbid, perhaps Europe will finally start to take their own defence seriously and stop faffing about. It is not America's job to defend Europe if they can't be bothered to defend themselves.

Nah, those other countries you mentioned are all NATO members and covered by the NATO treaty. Ukraine is not. That is the biggest difference. The "domino theory" does not apply.

As yes, the aggressive ignorance of the malinformed. God forbid you are exposed to something that might make you think.... But seriously, if you haven't done more than read Wikipedia perhaps you should tone down your opinions until you have actually learned a bit more.

Kinda strange for a Jewish guy to be a nazi sympathizer, but whatever. Enough of the smears, perhaps you might want to take the time to actually listen to what he has to say before reverting to personal attacks.

Agreed, but it is only part of the solution. Also have to remove the incentive to migrate in the first place. Granting people work permits, housing, bus tickets etc will only encourage more to follow. I would suggest building migrant camps on the border to house people until they can have their hearings. No reason to let them roam free in the country.

Dave Smith, from his libertarian podcast "Part of the Problem".

Then how about prosecuting the criminals? Or at least killing them. Everyone knows that the cartels and crime organizations control the border on the Mexican side, and are making bank by ferrying people to the US. Hell, they even wear color coded wristbands (as if they were going to Disneyland) to show who paid, and to whom. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9343557/Color-coded-passage-Why-smugglers-tagging-U-S-bound-migrants-wristbands.html

Of course not. Just authoritatian do-gooders trying to virtue signal. Parliament has more important things to do than hassle social media companies.

Fifty five companies out of 500? Assuming your number is accurate, that is 11% of corporations. Hardly "most" as you claimed. And while you may be right that they don't pay federal corporate income tax, they DO pay myriad other taxes such as payroll tax, property tax, etc. You exaggerated.

The Mayor is right. The city is paying various hotels $300 per night per room to house and feed the illegal migrants.

From the BBC the letter to Rumble from MP Dame Caroline Dimemage ; "While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform. "We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform. "We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour." https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Any evidence to back up these assertions?

Well, the House of Commons is sending letters to media corporations asking them to freeze Brand out. Why is it their business? As you said, it is up to his sponsors. Not a group of politicians. Youtube caved in, Rumble did not.

For example? Who should pay, and to whom, and for what specific purpose?

Not just careers being ruined, but the government leaning on various social media platforms to defund and deplatform Brand before he is even charged with a crime. Never mind convicted. This is scary. He may very well be guilty and if so, he should face the music. But being deprived of his income before an investigation even starts is too much.

Isn't it true that, under the presidency of the Bad Orange Man, that illegal border crossings dropped to the lowest levels in decades? Not to mention the vast majority are single men, not families escaping from oppression in their homelands. Obviously driven by economics rather than by political or social strife, which means they are not asylum seekers in the general sense the word is used.

When you say "spread the wealth", what exactly do you mean? Whose wealth, spread to whom? There is no "the wealth", only wealth already owned by people and organizations.

A wise podcaster often says, "if you want to know who America's enemies will be in the future, look at who we are funding today."

Why not just set the money on fire? At least it would keep a homeless person warm for a couple of hours. It is insane to keep throwing money at this conflict when there is no actual exit strategy. If the Europeans are so worried, let THEM foot the bill.