Hanaguma

IF you look at your precious list you will see the nations at the top are all small and inconsequential. Of the MAJOR European countries on the list, they all spend less than the US. I don't think using Latvia as a standard has much merit. I DO feel sorry for the Ukranian people, getting dragged into a conflict like this. By all means give to the Red Cross if you want. But like so many people who support the conflict, you don't have any idea of the end game. You have not said what price you are willing to pay to end the war, what constitutes 'winning', and so on. I say that Ukraine is worth zero lives and zero dollars, at least to my country and the US. How about YOU? What specifically are you willing to sacrifice to keep Ukraine out of Russian control? Answer that and I may take what you say seriously.

Targeting the leader of a foreign country is a declaration of war. If you want to escalate the situation, that is the perfect way to go about it. How would the US react if the Russians made an attempt on Biden's life? Not well I imagine. Plus, even if you DO manage to take out Putin without setting off World War 3, there is no guarantee that the next leader in Russia will be any better. Could very well be worse! That kind of warmongering is dangerous and ineffective.

IF not, then where will it come from? You then have two options- borrow it (probably from China) or increase the deficit. Which do you think is more acceptable? It is also $115 for every man woman and child in the USA. $400 per family. Now do you think most people would be happy giving up that $400 to aid Ukraine or would they rather have it to pay for their groceries?

Really? What advanced aid and how much? How far are you prepared to go to defend the Ukraine- you ready to go to war if it looks like Russia will win? How will you pay for the aid you want to send? These are questions you need to answer before you go off spouting meaningless platitudes and bromides. Funny that the same thing didnt happen in 2015 when Putin took the Crimean region. Wonder why... perhaps because Putin has been used by the left and the media (but I repeat myself) as some sort of existential threat to America ever since Trump was elected. A steady diet of Putin Putin Putin has caused derangement in a lot of people. You have spent the better part of 6 years building him up into some kind of Stalin 2.0 figure when he is really just a small man from a broken country with a small economy. He aint worth it. And neither is Ukraine.

Actually it doesn't. It shows that both in dollars and in GDP, the US is spending more to defend Ukraine than countries like the UK and Germany. Which is of course ridiculous. I get that Putin has been made into some mythical boogeyman figure in the media, but reality is different. Whether or not Russia takes the Donbass or whatever other territory matters exactly zero to the big picture of the world. Russia has a GDP somewhere in the range of South Korea. The other Europeans should be able to handle the situation if they choose. You want to find an actual enemy? A country that is worth worrying about? Try China.

Same in many countries. Local elections and national are treated differently. Countries that use a parliamentary system such as in most of Europe, Canada etc., do so in an attempt for the leader to represent the entire nation, rather than small chunks. But you knew that. Also, so did Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she ran one of the worst campaigns in US political history. Can't blame the system when both sides knew the rules beforehand.

To be frank, yes that is my attitude. A pity what is happening in Ukraine, but they aren't worth a single life of an American soldier. Maybe Zelensky shouldn't have been so cocky and should have sat down with Russia before everything kicked off. By the way, what is YOUR endgame- you support direct military involvement? US air force flying combat missions? Love your chart. It shows that, even in GDP terms, the major nations of Europe are slackers compared to the US. So I ask you- where should the $40 billion come from? What government department should lose budget to send to Ukraine?

Ain't a popularity contest, it is more like a chess match. Winning the popular vote is irrelevant. It is like saying the team that gets the most hits should win a baseball game. Besides, both parties were well aware of the reality of the electoral college system when the election began. In any case, not many countries use "popular vote" to choose their leader. Canada doesn't- in the last election the Conservative Party actually got more votes than the Liberals, but the Liberals won the election. This can happen in any country that uses a parliamentary system.

On cable tv yes, but not on tv as a whole. The Big 3 networks (which all lean left) get a total of 20 million viewers for their news shows, which dwarfs all cable news channels, Fox included.

Yes Russia is the aggressor, but so what? How much blood and treasure do you think we should expend to prop up Zelenskyy? How many boys would you like to see come home in body bags? I say zero. Russia is not a global threat, at best they are a regional nuisance. And one that Europe should be easily able to handle if they truly wanted to. Instead, they addicted themselves to Putin's energy resources and have been turning a blind eye for years. Yet somehow when a problem arises, Uncle Sugar has to foot the bill. The US has given far more than the rest of the world combined. It has to end. The $40 billion sent to push back on Putin has to come from somewhere- it's more money than NASA gets in a year! Not worth it.

Really? I have never met one. And believe me, I know a lot of people who are to the right of Attila the Hun politically. I think what does bother people is the obsession over race and victimization.

Kind of a no win scenario for Democrats. If Trump skates (like he usually does) then they look petty and vindictive. There is a bruising fight for the GOP nomination. Trump may win and is elected again. If Trump gets tarred enough, he doesn't run. Then the GOP can relax and dig into their deeeeeeeeep bench of young, energetic, and charismatic presidential hopefuls. The Democrats are forced to reckon with the prospect of an 80 plus year old Biden trying to fend off his nimble and photogenic opponent. The GOP wins again. Or the Democrats dump Biden/convince him to not run again. Who do they have? Can you see Kamala Harris trying again to win the nomination. She got zero delegates last time and was a proven lightweight. Who is left? Revenge of the Hillary- third time is the charm? Lost to Obama, lost to Trump, now lose again to the GOP. Not a great legacy for her at all.

Actually, it does. Context is important. And slavery WAS normal the world over. That doesn't mean that it wasn't abhorrent, but it was normal. Far too many gullible people have been lulled into believing that slavery was a uniquely American problem and therefore should create abnormal feelings of guilt and shame.

Now, how to teach about slavery in an age appropriate way.... First a general overview. Slavery existed in virtually every society, country, and on every continent on Earth at one time or another. Second, it was an ancient practice, generally used on captives in war but also commercially. Third, slavery in Africa began with Africans enslaving each other, then capturing each other to sell to either the Muslims in the Eastern slave trade or the Europeans in the Western slave trade. Countries gradually eliminated slavery from the Enlightenment onward. It was not unique to the United States, nor practiced in every state. But it was eliminated in 1865. Good start?

The do, 99% plus of the time. Nothing wrong with teaching that. It is about as controversial as saying that people have 5 toes on each foot. Some rare cases, people have more or fewer, but 5 is the standard for the vast majority. No use obsessing over the outliers.

...which means what, exactly? Gay people are perhaps 3-4% of the population. Trans something like 0.1%. Given that, how much of the classroom and the curriculum need be devoted to them? Young kids in early elementary school, like the ones mentioned in the law, should focus on the basics. No need to get into socially conscious or political themes at that age.

It is a proposal. It will fail. If by some chance it gets past the state legislature then it will fail in appeal at the Supreme Court level. This is a non starter as an issue. BTW I think he did answer your question about the girl. He answered it the same way I would- "yes she should". Also give her father 10 minutes alone in a room with the rapist and a ball peen hammer.

It is strange, I actually HEARD Governor DeSantis say "gay". On more than one occasion. I even saw him (gasp) converse with an openly gay man. Who has a gay husband. And (horrors) is about to be the father of two babies! Even worse, the governor actually gave gifts to the gays. How dare he flout his own law! So let's leave the hyperbole out of it. Nothing wrong with family photos in the classroom. Anything political, leave it at home. No rainbow flags, no Blue Lives Matter flags.... nothing

...which is fine in normal conversation, but not acceptable in a hearing like this. This testimony was obviously prepared in advance, Cassidy had time to get her thoughts together and still couldnt remember what was said. That says something. Especially when no form of cross examination or questioning was allowed.

Just read the transcript. No propaganda needed. "Something to the effect of.." comes up 19 times.

You may be right. THis may be "the bombshell". Perhaps "the walls are closing in". Is it "the beginning of the end" for the Bad Orange Man? Forgive me for being skeptical but we have been hearing that kind of hyperbole for years now. Can't blame the Democrats for trying, especially considering how deeply unpopular the current occupant of the White House is. They have nothing to run on in the fall, no accomplishments to speak of, so the best they can hope for is to drag the corpse of the 2020 campaign back out and keep beating on it.

It is a pity that young Ms. Hutchinson can't actually remember what was actually said. Her testimony was riddled with "he said something to the effect of...." or that she overheard "something to the effect of...". IF there were any genuine cross examination of her testimony she would be torn apart in short order. Her memory of fairly recent and major events is rather vague and spotty. She was "in the vicinity of conversations" that she never took part in. She offers indirect, overhear paraphrases, not direct eyewitness testimony. Not to mention that the whole incident, Trump muscling his protective detail and trying to choke one of them, is comical. This is the same guy the Democrats said needed two hands to hold a glass of water. Now he can drive with one hand while fending off a trained federal agent with the other? It defies credibility.

The difference may be that Trump was smart enough to NOT actually voice his reasons. Biden, for his 50 years of experience in Washington, could not do so. He had to, for various reasons, explicitly telegraph what he was doing. There were political debts to be paid, and Biden paid them.

So why not just answer and make Senator Blackburn look stupid? It was an easy lay-up. Yet she balked. And it is also VERY relevant to SCOTUS. Many decisions by the Court are based on gender and gender rights. If she cannot even define what a gender is, then how can she rule on issues relating to it?

A pretty much straight party line vote, as most tend to be.