Hanaguma

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.

Got it. Hunter aint guilty, but his girlfriend at the time (AKA his sister-in-law) is. After all, SHE is the one who threw the gun that wasnt there into the trash can.

Diplomatic solutions failed with NATO countries for years. They have been slacking since the early 2000s about their responsibilities. Bush and Obama tried to finesse them and were ignored. There was no other way other than a dose of reality. And it seemed to work. IF the population of Europe doesn't want to pay for their own security, they can start studying Russian. But it is a bit ridiculous for an alliance of 600 million members from the richest nations on earth to constantly cry poor and let someone else do the heavy lifting. Proliferation is a fact. Nothing the US can do about it. Nukes are easy to build, store, hide, and/or deploy. It is terrifying but also reality. No president can have any real impact on who gets or doesnt get them.

You assume wrong. That is the problem with so much political discourse, the assumption that a person you disagree with has only the most conveniently extreme position. Building a straw man and then arguing against it. No feeling for nuance whatsoever. Trump was right about NATO. The member states by and large were not meeting their commitments to their own collective defence. He shamed them, and good on him for doing so. Even my homeland Canada was failing to meet its obligations. That is not "cutting them loose", it is encouraging them to step up and defend themselves. None of the other major NATO powers has met their mere 2% of GDP for defence spending obligation. TBH this is probably one of the things that encouraged Putin in his adventurism- NATO relies on Uncle Sugar a little too much. Asia is a different story. No NATO here, just individual countries trying to make ties to combat the CPC. To me, this is where the US needs to spend more time and attention. Russia is no threat. Hell, the European NATO countries should be able to handle Russia on their own if they would only be bothered to take their militaries more seriously. So I liked Trump playing kissy face with Kim the Younger. It kept the rockets from flying over Japan. As Churchill said, "to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war."

Well, first the DHS should be disbanded. It has no purpose that was not well served by other agencies. He overspent on defense IMHO, no need for 700 billion plus for the Pentagon. Didn't get involved in any new wars. Killed some dudes that needed killing. Rightly put America first. Trump's "affection" is merely his well known penchant for liking anyone who says nice things about him. He can and does change on a whim- remember him calling Kim "little rocket man"? Nothing to worry about there.

Nothing that will be anything other than a footnote or a Jeopardy question within 10 years. You survived civil war, Woodrow Wilson, and Pearl Harbor. You will get over Trump faster than you realize. It is somehow comforting for people to catastrophize their political opponents, but the reality is different. The system always wins.

Not really. I think you have over-estimated the impact that Trump had or could have on anything that actually could have any real impact on the US. And now perhaps, back to the topic at hand?

I doubt it. He doesn't have a great capacity for learning from his past mistakes. His behavior in the current election campaign kind of proves that.

Trump's answer was perfectly pragmatic. Nothing is stopping countries from making nukes- it isn't very hard to do. If I were SK, I would definitely have some handy just in case lil Kim makes a move. Same with Japan.

The facts dispute your assertions. Trump DID become President. He did not destroy any institutions, didnt even come close. For a rank amateur, he did rather well at some things- not starting new wars, fostering peace in the Middle East, killing some big name terrorists, keeping the economy humming along. Not sure your evidence of Putin and kim being bosom friends, sounds like hyperbole to me. He isn't the president who said, "tell Vlad (Putin) that I will have more flexibility after I am re-elected", or the SecState who presented Russia with a huge reset button. He DID institute talks with North Korea- a good gesture IMHO. He was a reflection of a divided society (at least politically), not a cause. And certainly not the danget that the hyperventilating left presents him to be.

...nothing about the more important of the two issues, the near doubling of the federal deficit this year? Biden was crowing about cutting the deficit not too long ago, when in reality he did nothing but allow Covid era spending to lapse. And now the fiscal situation is getting worse.

I guess you and I have a fundamentally different take on America. I think the USA is a strong country with institutions that can easily withstand whatever tiny fisted tantrums a losing candidate may throw. It has survived civil war, depression, nuclear threat, etc. It is strong enough to survive a grumpy ex-president.

So, what other qualifications are there? Other than winning an election, that is.

You might not want to talk about the debt, given the current administration's current financial dealings... more than 1.5 trillion added to the debt this year alone, US debt rating downgraded...

Hence the "something like". Haven't read the Constitution lately for the specifics. Have you?

Really? What are the qualifications? I thought it was something like 35 years old, native born citizen...

Lucky for you that domestic issues and the economy were ticking along so smoothly then. You had the time and mental energy to get hyperbolic about such nebulous and irrelevant issues.

He is no threat. He only fills a psychological need in people to feel a sense of crisis. Much the same way every election since 1980 has been billed as "the most important election of our lifetime". Back to the interview, I thought his performance was poor. Similar to his chat with Megyn Kelly. Trump does well in obvious adversarial situations where he can bluster and the interviewer follows along. But with a well prepared journalist who asks good questions and then has follow-ups prepared, he looks bad.

No doubt Covid was mishandled by Trump, no argument there. It highlights one of his biggest character flaws, the inability to be the slightest bit introspective. But again, hardly a "miserable" term for most Americans for most of the term.