LosLobo

Duh! Seems they do. 'They display vocalizations include a series of loud barks and braying sounds unlike the short high bark used for a contact call', The Fiordland penguin endemic in NZ. Seems for a Kiwi your knowledge is somewhat limited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiordland_penguin

Ah, I see your confusion now. You're saying you were talking about tariff percentage disparities, not trade deficits. Fair enough—except Trump wasn’t. When he set his tariffs, he used numbers that didn’t come from any official tariff schedule, but from dividing the U.S. trade deficit by US total imports——as if idiocracy, from an unstable self-declared stable genius, could moonlight as geopolitics.

I agree that Trump's unpredictability has led many countries to reconsider their defense relationships with the U.S., but the F-35 remains unmatched in terms of capability. The Gripen is a 4th-generation+ fighter—impressive and affordable—but lacks the stealth, sensor fusion, and multirole capabilities that make the F-35 a 5th-generation jet. While the Gripen may serve as a solid stopgap for some nations, it cannot replace the F-35's advanced technology, interoperability with NATO, or its future-proofing capabilities. The next-gen fighters that could rival the F-35 are still 10–20 years away. Tempest (UK) and FCAS (France, Germany, Spain) are aiming for their first operational aircraft by 2040. The F-35 was first introduced in 2015, with full operational capability (FOC) reached by 2018, and it has been in service for several years. Its development took about 18 years from first prototype flight in 2000 to operational status. Given the advanced technologies these new programs are targeting—such as AI, autonomous systems, and next-gen stealth—it’s reasonable to expect that their development will take 10–20 years, similar to the F-35’s timeline. Sadly, despite any political shifts, the F-35 will continue to dominate as the 5th-generation fighter for decades, well before any viable alternatives are fully operational. By the way you use the term 'we' may I ask what country are you talking about? NB: Just to clarify, the UK has not dropped the F-35 for the Gripen. While countries like Brazil, Thailand, and the Czech Republic have chosen the Gripen, the UK has already purchased the F-35 and remains fully committed to it as a core part of its defense strategy. Additionally, if the UK were to reconsider, it would likely continue relying on its locally built Eurofighter Typhoon alongside the F-35, rather than opting for the Gripen.

Before the election, Trump, a McDonald's fan, claimed Biden would eliminate hamburgers, a fatal blow to Trump, but perhaps a blessing for those downwind. Yet, ironically his 10% tariff on Australia will increase the cost of McDonald's burgers, a major consumer of the Australian beef, possibly making some consumers choose an alternative. This 10% tariff on Australia stems from their rejection of U.S. beef due to concerns about BDE (Mad Cow Disease). Any price increase is essentially a tax on ordinary consumers—something Trump, a billionaire, will never notice. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/the-unsettling-reason-australia-refuses-to-buy-american-beef/ar-AA1CaV8T

Europe isn’t starting from scratch—SAAB, BAE Systems, Airbus, Dassault, Leonardo, and Rheinmetall already produce top-tier military equipment. But while Europe is making strides toward defense independence, the idea that U.S. weapons will be completely replaced in the near future is premature. Fighter jets like Tempest and FCAS are in development, but the F-35 is already deeply integrated into NATO and Asia-Pacific forces, making an immediate shift unlikely. Tanks and armored vehicles from Rheinmetall and BAE Systems are competitive, but U.S. logistical dominance still plays a major role in NATO operations. Similarly, while European missile defense systems exist, the U.S. still leads in cutting-edge tech like the Patriot and THAAD, which even Germany and Poland continue to buy. The transition away from U.S. arms won’t happen overnight. Trump’s foreign policy has pushed Europe toward self-reliance, but full military independence will take decades. The U.S. defense industry isn’t facing an immediate collapse, but in 10-20 years, if Europe’s projects succeed, America’s dominance in arms exports could take a serious hit.

The ideocracy continues .........besides penguins polar bears.

Maybe believe it. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-australia-liberation-day-2054649

You are being misled me old son! The U.S. trade deficit reflects consumer choice for cheaper imports, not a financial loss. Tariffs raise prices for U.S. consumers, not exporters, putting the burden on Americans. The U.S. economy is built on services and tech, with global supply chains making imports more attractive. Returning to past manufacturing is unrealistic—automation means fewer jobs, not more. The future lies in tech, innovation, and services like AI, biotech, and green energy, which require better education and a skilled workforce for higher-paying jobs.

Just like Trump’s 'big, beautiful' Mexican border wall—this tariff wall won’t be paid for by Mexico—or Canada, Europe, China, Australia, or Thailand. Nope—just like the border wall, Americans will foot the bill.

You seem confused about the characteristics of National Socialism, -- is that the other or just the usual MAGA Projection Derangement Syndrome (PDS)?

Only cheaper, I pay 169 baht here for standard and there are no ads in Thailand. I think US charges more for ads-free. And different TV series and movies, with more Thai and Thai language content. Though you can get US programming with a VPN. AFAIK.

Groceries—those things you need ID to buy. You forgot ‘us’ and ‘US’—and Trump’s favorite covfefe!

Trump’s tariffs—aka taxes—mirror Hoover’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley disaster. Supposed to protect U.S. industries, they instead raised costs, triggered retaliation, failed to revive manufacturing, and helped plunge the world into the Great Depression. His obsession with trade deficits is pure economic illiteracy. A deficit isn’t a loss; it often signals a strong consumer economy. But bully Trump sees it as a scoreboard, and his policies will backfire—hurting businesses, consumers, and global trade, potentially steering us toward another depression. But hey, when has he ever let history or basic economics get in the way of a bad decision?

You're cherry-picking facts and distorting their meaning. Biden didn’t start a trade war—he inherited Trump’s tariffs and has adjusted them strategically. The Russia aluminum tariff wasn’t about trade policy; it was a sanction on an aggressor waging war in Ukraine. Beware Radiochaser's misinformation.

With respect, tariffs are explicitly defined as taxes on imports (or exports). They function as a tax, are collected as a tax, and appear in government revenue as a tax. There's no "in effect" about it—it's a tax, period. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp?

Yet we have proof of a court ruling of being liable for sexual assault because rape in NY law involves penile, not digital penetration. And Biden's accuser - there is no proof of that.

Let’s cut through the nonsense quickly on your most egregious claim: Ah, the MAGA double standard—stolen, unverified diary = truth, but a court ruling against Trump = no big deal. Trump’s court-confirmed sexual abuse – Trump was found liable for digitally raping E. Jean Carroll. This isn’t an "allegation"; it’s a legal ruling. Trump’s additional accusations – Over 20 women have accused him of assault or harassment, including claims of walking in on underage pageant contestants and his involvement in a conveniently dropped lawsuit where a Jane Doe accused him and Epstein of underage rape. By your logic—if Biden’s unverified diary counts, Trump’s numerous allegations should be undeniable. But you’ll probably ignore that, right?

This post is a goldmine of projection, false equivalence, and outright fantasy. Let’s break it down: 1. Projection & Hypocrisy You rail against "irrational hatred" toward Trump, yet immediately launch into a foaming-at-the-mouth attack on Biden, calling him senile, demented, and incapable of walking. If blind loyalty to Trump is "rational", then by your own standard, Biden supporters must also be rational. You can't have it both ways. 2. False Equivalence & Misinformation Trump is documented as a pathological liar, with tens of thousands of fact-checked falsehoods—Biden’s verbal missteps don’t even register in the same universe. Biden has stumbled, sure—but "collapsing" constantly? Pure fiction. Meanwhile, Trump can’t even walk down a ramp without looking like he’s on thin ice. 3. Worship-Level Delusion "Trump riffs on stage like Hendrix"? More like he rambles like a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving. "One of the greatest narrators and raconteurs"? You mean the guy who slurs through "Person, woman, man, camera, TV" and repeats the same stories 10 times in one speech? The Energizer Bunny comparison is rich—Trump spends more time golfing, rage-posting, and whining about persecution than actually working. 4. Misrepresenting the Trump/Biden Scandals Trump’s "consensual activities"? You mean the court-confirmed sexual assault? Paying hush money to cover up an affair? Ashley Biden's diary? The contents are unverified, obtained illegally, and nowhere near comparable to Trump’s decades of predatory behavior, bragging about sexual assault, and being found liable for it in court. Conclusion You're deep in a delusion bubble, regurgitating MAGA fantasyland propaganda while accusing others of being detached from reality. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a butter knife.

From this side of the fence, firing off 460 dubious posts in a week might be an indication of clinical mutation.

This is classic whataboutism, dressed up as some invented concept called “howaboutism.” Post the millions of images/videos/shorts then, otherwise, people might think you just make stuff up.

Maga Mike’s post is loaded with a salad of logical fallacies. Let’s dissect them: 1. Hasty Generalization: Example: "The Europeans act like their <deleted> doesn’t stink." Explanation: This statement generalizes the attitudes of all Europeans based on an unspecified, likely exaggerated, observation. It's an over-simplification of the situation, assuming that all Europeans share the same self-perception or behavior, which isn't supported by any evidence provided. It’s a clear case of hasty generalization, where Mike jumps to conclusions about an entire population based on a narrow or inaccurate view. 2. False Cause (Post Hoc): Example: "I figured the EU rate would be lower." Explanation: This suggests that because Europeans often present themselves as superior or have a certain attitude (implied by the derogatory comment), their poverty rate should be lower. It's an example of false cause, assuming that a population's self-image or behavior directly impacts their poverty rate without any logical connection or evidence. In reality, a country’s poverty rate is shaped by complex economic, political, and social factors—not by national pride or attitudes. 3. Ad Hominem: Example: "The Europeans act like their <deleted> doesn’t stink." Explanation: Instead of addressing the actual issue—the poverty rate and its implications—Mike attacks the character or presumed attitude of Europeans. This is an ad hominem attack, where the argument is sidestepped by attacking a group’s character or perceived arrogance, rather than engaging with the actual data or the reasons behind the poverty statistics. 4. Appeal to Emotion: Example: "The Europeans act like their <deleted> doesn’t stink." Explanation: This statement is designed to evoke a negative emotional response toward Europeans, relying on a stereotype or negative characterization to sway opinion rather than presenting factual evidence. It’s an appeal to emotion, as it plays on the reader’s emotions rather than reasoning logically or presenting a balanced argument. 5. Cherry-Picking: Example: The criticism of the EU poverty rate without considering the nuances of poverty measurement. Explanation: Mike selectively focuses on the EU poverty rate and uses his preconceptions about European attitudes to dismiss it, while failing to acknowledge that poverty is defined and measured differently in each region. This is cherry-picking, where only certain data points are highlighted, ignoring broader context that would change the narrative. 6. False Comparison: Example: Implicit in the comparison between the EU, US, and Australian poverty rates. Explanation: By comparing the EU’s poverty rate to the US and Australian rates, Mike assumes these regions are directly comparable without considering differences in poverty measurement or economic context. The poverty rates in these regions are calculated differently, and this comparison doesn’t account for variations in social safety nets, income distribution, and national wealth. This is a false comparison, as the data isn’t directly equivalent without further context. In summary, Mike’s post is riddled with logical fallacies such as hasty generalization, false cause, ad hominem, and appeal to emotion, among others. These undermine the argument by diverting attention from the data and using emotional or dismissive language to make a point that isn’t supported by solid reasoning.

Maga Mike’s statement about the EU poverty rate being "lower than expected" is a bit misguided, and his general tone suggests a misunderstanding of both the numbers and the social context. Let’s break it down: EU Poverty Rate: The EU's poverty and social exclusion rate of 21% in 2023, affecting nearly 95 million people, is indeed a significant number. However, it’s worth noting that the EU's method of calculating poverty includes not just income but also social exclusion and material deprivation, which paints a broader picture than income alone. Australia's Poverty Rate: Australia’s poverty rate in 2024 at 13.4% (3.3 million people, including 761,000 children) is a sobering statistic. It's also important to consider that the measurement used to define poverty (50% of the median household income) can vary by country and may not directly equate to EU or US standards. US Poverty Rate: In the US, the official poverty rate was 12.7% in 2023, with 36.8 million people living in poverty, which is comparable to the EU and Australia but at a different threshold. Key Points for Fact-checking: Different Definitions: The EU includes broader criteria like social exclusion, which can inflate their statistics in ways the US or Australia may not. Economic Differences: The wealth disparity between EU countries can influence the overall poverty rate. Countries like Germany might have lower rates, while others, like Romania or Bulgaria, might be higher. Misinformation Habit: Given Mike's history of presenting flawed data, it's fair to question his broader claims without the full context or consideration of how poverty is measured and reported across different regions. Maga Mike’s critique is a classic case of simplifying complex data to fit a narrative. His comment about Europeans acting like their "stuff doesn't stink" is an opinion that doesn't add value to the poverty discussion and distracts from a more nuanced examination of social issues across the globe.

You don’t think about Trump… yet you started a whole thread about him. Classic cognitive dissonance. That’s Projection Derangement Syndrome—pretending others are obsessed while proving your own fixation.

Nice try, but your script is straight out of the MAGA playbook. Fake confession, blame shift to "the media," and a smug punchline. You didn’t "wake up"—you just came to troll.