heybruce

Israel doesn't seem any more peaceful now than it was before Trump was elected. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2023/jan/26/israel-gaza-fighters-trade-fire-after-deadly-west/

Trump destroyed the credibility of the Supreme Court with three appalling appointments. https://news.gallup.com/poll/354908/approval-supreme-court-down-new-low.aspx Blew up the deficit with tax cuts when unemployment was low and the economy he inherited from Obama was doing fine. Undermined US alliances across the world, doing Putin's work for him. Gave Kim Jong Un the prestige and credibility he had long been denied by other Presidents, while getting nothing in return. I could go on for hours, but I have better things to do than try to educate ineducable Trump cultists.

Russia's land grab in Ukraine, using separatists/outlaws, slowed down to a largely static conflict well before Trump's election, and stayed that way through-out his Presidency. Putin resumed the push when he saw Biden repairing US relations with NATO.

Ukraine is fighting with one arm behind its back; Russia frequently launches attacks on Ukraine from Russian territory, while Ukraine is not allowed to launch attacks on Russian territory from Ukraine. This small move partially compensates for this and other major advantages Russia has in the war. All things considered it's amazing Russia hasn't won yet. Their military must really suck. Or maybe it's their leadership.

It's scary that that guy is actually in Germany's government. Full disclosure: I'm American, and I know our situation is in many ways worse.

Once again, the people who want the west to surrender Ukraine to Russia, and presumably other countries when Russia gets ambitious again, insist there are no choices other than surrender or World War III. I don't know if they are active Russia supporters or just Putin's useful idiots. Regardless, they ignore the fact that the world has existed between the extremes of total surrender and total nuclear war since the 1950's. It has often been ugly, but it's been better than the two extremes.

Because you want to deflect.

"Best case scenario is at least 60 days before any western tanks are deployed in combat." Good. That means they have time before the ground thaws and dries out. "The M1A-1 is even worse because it is so complex that it could take months to train the Ukrainians to operate it. " Agree. The contribution of the Abrams tanks is more symbolic. Ukraine needs the German Leopard tanks, lots of them.

Putin is the one digging.

We don't want World War III and we don't want a world that capitulates to aggressive tyrants. Between the two extremes is the policy of limiting aggression by making it extremely painful for the aggressor. That's what we're doing now.

"The best of luck to them." So you admit you are pro-Russia. Unusual, most of the pro-Russia posters pretend to be neutral.

How is it that some people keep forgetting that Putin started this war.

Really? Is that how you describe the invasion of a country by a neighboring country? Good luck rewriting all those history books.

I assume you meant to post "the Putin administration".

I would genuinely enjoy seeing evidence that Tucker Carlson is working for M&M, or whatever marketing company is involved, in creating this lunatic controversy. Maybe it would convince the fools who think Tucker Carlson is an actual newsman that they are wrong, but I doubt it.

You think it's political when the company marketing M&M's changes the footwear on the animated M&M characters? Please explain.

The US can improve background checks, require gun safety training, prosecute those who handle or store guns in a reckless and dangerous manner, prosecute those possessing guns while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, register guns so police can confiscate guns in the possession of people who are not the registered owners, etc. Or: More guns! Only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns! The most likely outcome is a lot of noise with nothing being done.

"The changes sparked controversy from conservatives like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who said the female M&Ms were now "less sexy" with their new footwear. " "In January 2022, Carlson said on his show that "M&Ms will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous until the moment you wouldn't want to have a drink with any one of them."" I don't know if Tucker Carlson is the ultimate snowflake, or just obsessed with eating sexy chocolate women.

"As said, taxing them is a punishment for being productive members of society that give back more than they receive. They pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20%." The rich pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20% on their income, not their wealth. Perhaps you don't believe the rich have earned the increase in value of their investments. Well then, let's tax their accumulated unearned wealth from investments at 100%. After all, if they haven't earned it, why should they get to keep it? The top 1%, and especially the top 0.01%, are very good at hiding income. As one poster already explained, a common tactic is for people to never cash in investments but to "borrow" money using the investments as collateral. They get money for their yacht without ever having to declare income. Regardless, do these job creators build the roads, provide the utilities, educate their work force from grade school up, etc? Their success is dependent upon a very expensive human and physical infrastructure provided by the government. That infrastructure must be paid for, and it is fair to ask those who benefit the most to pay the most. Taxes come in three forms: Taxes on earnings (income tax), taxes on purchases (sales tax) and taxes on wealth (property tax). All have an impact on economies, just as paying your bills has an impact on your bank statement. However not paying your bills or taxes is not a legal option. The rich are doing fine in America; better than ever. The fact that their tax rate has been greatly reduced over the last 50 years has a lot to do with their success. Taxes are clearly not preventing them from accumulating more wealth. The rest of the population and the finances of the Federal government are not doing so well. It's time for the small amount of wealth paid by the rich taxes to get a little bigger.

"So your solution is to cede your country to others. A country is defined by three things, borders, language, and culture." Are you aware that none of those three things are genetic? Are you also aware that culture and language are constantly being influenced by internal and external forces and are constantly evolving as a result? Are you aware that a repressive, patriarchal culture is the reason many women in Japan and other places don't like the culture they are living with and won't support by being "traditional" baby makers? Japan can radically change its culture and economy to encourage more baby making (unlikely), decline economically, culturally, and in population into a much less important country (unpleasant) or adopt a more open, intelligent immigration system (the easiest of the three choices). It seems obvious which is best for Japan and many other countries.

If DT lied about having the 26 documents and stalled the return until the Justice Department was forced to use a search warrant.... But of course this has been pointed out to you many times. You continue to ignore it.

Right, it's so easy. I wonder why it hasn't been done already. (Sarcasm, for those who don't recognize it.)

If Japan wants enough working age people to support its elderly, it needs more young people, and it looks like encouraging Japanese women to make more babies isn't working. Intelligently managed immigration would help. Whether slowing the decline in population, halting the decline or increasing the population is the best approach is open to debate. However maintaining the status quo is asking for trouble in the form of an impoverished nation and neglected senior citizens. A lot of countries will eventually face the same problem. How Japan responds will give instruction on what to do or not do.

Simple solution: Increase immigration. Japan would have no problem finding young, hard working people willing to work on long-term or permanent visas. Language would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Of course Japan is not alone in refusing to see the benefits of intelligent managed immigration.

"...this whole claim about it all hinging on a number of documents to determine legality and severity sounds unlikely." You are correct. The legality issue is determined by the response taken once the classified is found. If the classified was misplaced accidentally and is reported and properly secured right away then no law is broken. If the classified is not properly reported and attempts are made to keep the classified illegally, then obviously the law is broken.