heybruce

No you don't. You may think you do, but....

Biological women who identify as men menstruate. So what?

The USSR, a.k.a. the former Russian empire, lost almost 9 million dead and over 28 million wounded in World War II, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union and emerged a world power and with greatly expanded territory. Putin regards the dissolution of that empire as one of the great tragedies of history. Do you really think Putin cares how many lives would be lost in his quest for empire?

Do you have any sources from outside your echo chamber for that one?

Clearly you don't understand that what a US President says matters. The Korean War and first Iraq war began in part because the leaders of North Korea and Iraq misinterpreted US statements about America's defense policy. People who speak without thinking are fools. Sometimes they are entertaining, but they are not fit for public office.

No, you are definitely not following those posters who use legitimate news sources and credible data. You prefer opinions, political theater and anecdotal evidence. Posted earlier.

The BRICS nations are about as influential in world affairs as ASEAN, for the same reason; too many conflicting agendas.

Yes, but Republicans, including Trump, are more likely to increase deficits on their watch. Democrats are more likely to reverse them. Do you recall the Republican panic early in the George W. Bush Presidency regarding the small budget surplus the Clinton administration left them? They were actually arguing for more deficit spending, then they delivered big time.

Have you considered that maybe it's not them?

Trump threatened to pull out of NATO, and speculated on not extending America's nuclear umbrella to cover east Asian allies, which threatened to start a nuclear arms race in east Asia. "There are other reasons for South Koreans to question their decades-old leap of faith in US protection, too. Looming large among them is Donald Trump" “The US simply isn’t perceived to be as reliable as it once was,” Ankit Panda of Carnegie Endowment for Peace said. “Even if the Biden administration behaves like a traditional US administration and offers all the right reassurance signals to South Korea… policy makers will have to keep in the back of their mind the possibility of the US once again electing an administration that would have a different approach for South Korea.” https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/asia/us-nuclear-umbrella-south-korea-analysis-intl-hnk-dst/index.html Trump's failure to understand the consequences of nuclear proliferation is reason enough, many times over, to keep him out of the White House. You neglected to mention Trump's love affair with Kim Jong Un, along with any rich autocrat in the Arab world.

Please tell that to G_Money.

You're not "simply commenting", you're making stuff up. Measle outbreaks returned to the US and the rest of the world in the late 20th century in areas with strong anti-vax sentiments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657116/

Not with measles and many other diseases.

Shutting down shipping through the Red Sea and Suez Canal would be an inconvenience to most of the world, but a major economic blow to Egypt and mid-eastern countries. I know these countries have not shown much competence in dealing with fires in their own backyards, but perhaps it's time to force these countries to do it anyway.

Please show us the sources that support your claim.

So the argument is that the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to kick Fani Willis off the case, but a President and his appointees giving the appearance of a conflict of interest (or more than just appearance) is not enough to throw them out? I'm all in favor of making both conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest grounds for termination, but the rule should be applied to all levels of government, including elected officials and their appointees. BTW: A President pressuring state government officials to change an election result certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.

No, it explains how badly Ukraine wanted to keep Russia out of Ukraine. The article is about intelligence sharing. That's it. No war planning, no war mongering, no war execution. Only intelligence sharing, the intelligence sharing that caused Russia's initial plan for a quick decapitation of the elected government in Kiev and installation of a puppet regime to fail.

My perspective is that women put far more into turning an embryo into a human being, and then more time and effort into raising that human being to adulthood, than men. How is that skewed? Oh wait, I also assume that woman have at least as great a respect for human life and are intellectually at least as capable as men in dealing with the moral issues of abortion. Is that the part of my perspective you object to?

Mearshmeimer clearly thought that Ukraine was a chess piece in the game, and one that should be sacrificed to Russia. Obviously Ukraine disagrees. What repression took place before secessionists, with Russian assistance, took over parts of Donbas? Re-read the NYT article. There was no shadow war against Russia. Identify the part of the article that states there was. There was Ukraine eagerly sharing intelligence with the US in preparation for the ever-present of Russian interference (such as Russia's support for the Donbas separatists) and invasion. The intelligence sharing proved to be useful.

Trump, on the other hand, threatened decades old alliances, cozied up to corrupt autocrats, and did nothing for hours while the mob he summoned to Washington rampaged through the Capitol. Yep, worst President ever.

First a claim by a Fox talking head, then another anecdote, then a rant from an ambitious Republican governor. Still haven't figured out what credible source is, have you?

Scary to think of leaving the echo chamber, isn't it?

The views of one political scientist are interesting but in no way definitive. In scanning the beginning of your link I got the impression that Mearshmeimer favors the kind of global politics practiced by the Nixon/Kissinger duo, which was that great powers have a right to treat smaller countries as pieces on a chessboard. That was hardly an unqualified success. I didn't bother reading your second link, I saw that it was based on a NYTimes article I had already read. Did you? It does not in any way claim or imply that the US government has dominated Ukraine. Funny you didn't address the contrast between Russia's brutal and bloody suppression of a rebellious region, Chechnya, and Ukraines comparatively highly restrained approach in its rebel areas.

Not Houston, just you.

The deficit went up dramatically while Trump was President, starting before Covid. That is a fact. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 No amount of opinions can change that fact. That's why opinions are not valid sources for supporting claims. Pointing out the obvious is not censorship, but it is obviously a waste of time when dealing with Trump supporters.