nauseus

Maybe they were dinky wee party balloons over the western Aleutians just for a day trip?

Not easy at 60,000ft. The air force shot it down with a single missile (no warhead) so that the debris would come down in shallow water. The navy is retrieving what they can for evaluation.

Once again - no evidence - just hearsay with no detail. If there were truly three previously under Trump then at least one of them would have made the news. I expect that The Billings Gazette will know. But will they tell?!

I can't open your link but never mind. Trump did not demand 4% but he did suggest it. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nato-summit-trump-spending-idAFKBN1K12C0 He also warned Germany not to become over-reliant on Russian gas. As we can see now, both were good ideas and both would not have made Putin happy!

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending but most NATO members did not follow that guideline. By the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets. Even after Russia annexed Crimea, several members were still deficient contributors by the time of the 2022 Ukraine invasion. The fact is that several NATO members relied on the USA to provide and pay for European security for decades - Trump decided that that was not fair - and I agree with him on that. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

The spending was increasing too, but not from all. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/nato-allies-now-spend-50-billion-more-defense-2016 Nothing to do with my boat. All Trump wanted was for NATO members to contribute the 2% that they agreed to spend themselves (2% of GDP on defense).

Other President's failed. However, Trump was effective in getting defense spending increase pledges across NATO, particularly from Germany,

Poor guy, that is not the way that anyone should go. RIP. Telescopic toilets coming out of the ground in the middle of the night? Why don't they just have public conveniences anymore? People often need to take a pee when the sun's up too!

No worries, The link with the OP opened up OK for me.

This is the byline: By Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner The New York Times Jan 27, 2023 at 3:30 pm This is the copyright: c.2023 The New York Times Company

Talk about living on the edge! I see a few flights moving ex Auckland now - let's hope there is no more harm to people.

SCUBA tanks by the look. They need to stop things like this if they want to the aid to continue coming in because any anti-aiders will jump on it.

I read it. It's just the same old style of propaganda, with no actual proof of any of its claims.

Look at it more closely.

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

I know. The story said that dairy had become more profitable. But the cost of the pollution is high in all other ways - this has already affected lower reaches of rivers, nearly all of which eventually drain into the sea. Fertilizer run-off can deplete the oxygen in rivers careful and harmful algal blooms have wide-ranging effects on aquatic species that can be lethal too. South Island, in particular, is mostly rugged and a far more natural environment for sheep than cattle. I was hoping that the UK could help out and import more sheep again now we're out of the EU. We owe the Kiwis after all! ????

This backs up the "rock snot" stories I've been hearing about in some NZ rivers over the last few years. Anthropogenic eutrophication from the nitrogen and phosphorus used in farming fertilizers is a problem everywhere they are used. I think that NZ dairy exports were driven up by demand from China but it looks like a return to sheep farming would be a better way to go - there must be a better market for lamb these days - it's expensive enough.

Followed the jumping cow.

I didn't like it - I loved it - mainly for the last sentetnce.

I'm not "mixing and matching statistics". I was showing how the numbers from various sources differ greatly. Stop your flaming nonsense.

Those rascals!

See my added comment. However the numbers from various sources differ greatly. Here is the US Treasury version from: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=The federal government spent %246.27,the United States that year. So normally here about 20%.

From your own link: Government spending in the United States was last recorded at 37.0 percent of GDP in 2022, according to initial estimates. Looks like you have a point. Can't see <20% after about 1960.

The numbers are relevant and show averages over two 3 tear periods of relative stability. Using this data over these periods was suggested by Candide, who is the person I was talking to. Not you.

OK fair enough: From the table I linked before and for Obama's last 3 and Trump's first 3. 2013 $16,738 2014 $17,824 2015 $18,151 2016 $19,573 2,835 2017 $20,245 2018 $21,516 2019 $22,719 3,146 Well you got me. Over three years the debt went up about 300B more under Trump. If you look at annual debt fluctuations then 100B annually is not relatively huge, especially when more than half of that difference was used on extra defense spending. I also don't recognize the direct GFC / Covid comparison, as Covid resulted in far more debt and so was far more costly, both financially and in other ways.