American Politics

[QUOTE=JustTK;2759308]I remember them fighting for the return of their land, against a country that would not listen to a peaceful transition.[/QUOTE]And while doing so, school children were targets. When my people were fighting for their freedom from 500 years of Ottoman rule, our "heroes" and their followers committed acts of terrorism too. I'm just saying that all people do bad things at one point in their history even while fighting for freedom. I have also seen first hand the dislike of Protestant Irish from Catholic Irish and of the Scotch Irish. I believe a lot of the cause of the IRA revolt was due to Protestant prejudice against the Catholics who were in the minority and who asked the Brits for help but the Brits didn't exactly do that and leave. Irish are awesome people. Harp beer is great and so are many other things Irish. Had some absolutely awesome Irish neighbors as a kid. I'm just saying we are all guilty at one point. Peace, Paz and Mir.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2759342]I may be a neoliberal, but I'm no neo colonialist. The USA should end its embargoes and sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. The sanctions hurt the people, not the leaders. And they give the leaders excuses for their own failures. I say this with a heavy heart, because it could slow the supply of young, attractive, nubile strippers that have come poring into my community from the aforementioned countries.

I downloaded Perkins' latest book, the updated and expanded New Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I had a slight bit of exposure through work to possible corruption at the World Bank, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say. I'm not sure whether or not I'll agree yet. If I don't, well, I'm reading a book by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, and I think they're full of sh*t. But it pays to be aware of other peoples' views and not wrap yourself in a cocoon. Thanks for the suggestion.[/QUOTE]Totally agree that USA and everyone else who is part of it should end the embargoes. Just hurts the common person. It does make them more resourceful though. I saw a program where a Cuban used a Russian truck carburetor and his 50's USA vintage car. End the embargoes and they will really prosper and probably thank us.

[QUOTE=ChuchoLoco;2759471] I'm just saying we are all guilty at one point.[/QUOTE]Even The King of all modern presidents, the Great Nelson Mandela sanctioned the use of terrorism to fight for the rights of his people, again bcos peaceful advances had been met with silence.

Sanctions. End them yes. But you also got to ask urself what moral right does any other country have to interfere in the choices that other countries make?

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2759310]I know this is just a rhetorical question that none of the Repubs and Repub Bothsiders here can or will answer any better than their universal No Answer to my question about citing at least one meaningful and now revered legislation ever promoted and passed by Repubs when they controlled the White House, House and Senate. Ever.

But I'll give it a try anyway, just for laughs.

Um. Why would Fox, Idaho, Montana, Texas, Florida and others not mentioned lie so blatantly about those overwhelmed hospitals, staff, rooms, beds, treatments, etc? Welcome to the real world, gents.[/QUOTE]What dumb nickname to you come up with regards to Joe Rogan, Tooms? What is he? A bothsider, a neither sider? To me, he is a thinking man and independent who does not fit into a cooked up group. He was not a Covid denier. He had Covid and got boatloads of shit for going against the official narrative. He had two experts on, who both had Covid and were vaccinated, and were honest about the side effects of the vaccine, and those guests were like his most popular podcasts of all time.

Yeah, there were Republican retards who were adamant that Covid was not real, and you know why? Because you Dems saw the virus as a way to cripple the economy and topple Trump, and that is exactly what happened. Even now, a douche like you is still blaming Trump for the pandemic. The policies on Covid at the federal level with Trump and Biden were practically the same, and there were more so called Covid deaths under Biden than Trump.

It was one thing to call Covid fake in March 2020 when there were so few cases when everything was shut down. Tell me douche what Republicans in 2021 in Texas were saying Covid was not real? Find one.

And how fucking arrogant and stupid do you have to be to lecture me on hospital bed conditions in Texas in 2021? I live in Texas douche. No one wants to respond to you Tooms because you are so damned stupid and this is proof of it. All your posts are orange man bad, Democrats good. "I know Texas conditions better while living in Thailand than people in Texas do. And BTW, people living when Eisenhower was president had it rough but times were great with Carter. Those people were just too stupid to know it". WTF?

You bragged about your portfolio and then you censor posts after you got your ass handed to you. What has your idiotic binary view of the world gotten you? A feeling of superiority? Does that make up for the dent in your wallet?

Given the federal government's economic policies under Trump and Biden, you can pick the greatest president of all time, and he was going to have to deal with a recession, inflation, and a falling market. Tell me, Tooms, did you really think putting people out of work and printing up $11 trillion out of thin air was a problem Biden was somehow going to solve? Really?

You dumb Dems crashed the economy to take out Trump but you douches are now having to deal with those chickens coming home to roust. You dumb Dems pushed for this global warming agenda and now the Europeans, who were true believers in that agenda, may be freezing their asses off come this Winter.

Did you learn anything Tooms? Did you learn when the Fed is doing QT, raising rates, and there is an inverted yield curve to not be long the market? Do you know what I meant when I said multiples contract when the Fed is raising rates? If Europeans are freezing their asses off and dying this winter, will you learn from that? Nah, you will just get more arrogant than ever, and this is proof of that.

Lecturing Texas Republicans about hospitals in Texas is a new low for you Tooms. Unfuckingbelievable.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2758873]No, trained medical professionals say that people die with Covid or had Covid related deaths. The media and some members of government change died WITH Covid to died FROM Covid and idiots like you lap it up. For those of us who actually use our brain, there is a huge difference between correlation and causation.

Covid induces the immune system to cause blood clots (as does the vaccine). So if someone with Covid does die of a blood clot in the lungs, I have no problem with calling that a Covid related death. What bugs me is someone like you or the media coming along and saying lockdowns could have saved that person because clots are also caused when the blood is not circulating, I. E. When people are not moving. If someone is sitting on his ass watching TV and not moving due to a lockdown, that is a risk for blood clots too.[/QUOTE]So you don't die from cancer, you die [I]with[/I] cancer.

You don't die from ebola, you die [I]with[/I] ebola.

You don't die from the flu, you die [I]with[/I] the flu.

What are you arguing about? A preposition?

[QUOTE]COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause on the death certificate in 92% of deaths. Pneumonia deaths are identified using multiple cause-of-death codes from the 10th Revision of ICD (ICD10): J12J18, excluding deaths that involve influenza (J09J11). Influenza deaths are identified from the ICD10 codes J09J11, and include deaths with pneumonia or COVID-19 listed as a contributing cause of death.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/tech_notes.htm[/URL]#text=COVID%2 D19%20 is%20 listed%20 as%20 the%20 underlying%20 cause%20 on%20 the, influenza%20 (J09%E2%80%93 J11).

When COVID Deaths Are Dismissed Or Stigmatized, Grief Is Mixed With Shame And Anger.

[URL]https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/30/1011785899/when-covid-deaths-are-dismissed-or-stigmatized-grief-is-mixed-with-shame-and-ang[/URL]

Too many Americans are still in covid denial.

[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/19/covid-million-americans-dead-complacency-ideology/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2758873]So I imply you are ignorant, and you admit it. Xpartan, JustTK is right. Why have a discussion with someone who I suspected and now admits to being ignorant? When I ask you how people die of Covid, are you really so stupid as to not look it up?

And I know what you are going to do with the information I gave you above which is nothing. In your pea brain mind, what I said is not objective information. You will just wave it away with a hand, "Eh, that is just Elvis. ".[/QUOTE]Your words, not mine.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2759522]Even The King of all modern presidents, the Great Nelson Mandela sanctioned the use of terrorism to fight for the rights of his people, again bcos peaceful advances had been met with silence.

Sanctions. End them yes. But you also got to ask urself what moral right does any other country have to interfere in the choices that other countries make?[/QUOTE]What an incredibly great man he was. Probably one of the greatest. Who could ever go through what he did and still be forgiving? Thanks for mentioning him. As far as your question, my answer is none. Cultures and countries have developed their norms etc and they have have worked for them for centuries and should be respected by others who think that their way is better. Allow me to get on my soapbox again. One of the biggest violators is the women's movement who want to have women worldwide become westernized women. Nothing could be worse. This also goes for religion.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2759555]What dumb nickname to you come up with regards to Joe Rogan, Tooms? What is he? A bothsider, a neither sider? To me, he is a thinking man and independent who does not fit into a cooked up group. He was not a Covid denier. He had Covid and got boatloads of shit for going against the official narrative. He had two experts on, who both had Covid and were vaccinated, and were honest about the side effects of the vaccine, and those guests were like his most popular podcasts of all time.

Yeah, there were Republican retards who were adamant that Covid was not real, and you know why? Because you Dems saw the virus as a way to cripple the economy and topple Trump, and that is exactly what happened. Even now, a douche like you is still blaming Trump for the pandemic. The policies on Covid at the federal level with Trump and Biden were practically the same, and there were more so called Covid deaths under Biden than Trump.

It was one thing to call Covid fake in March 2020 when there were so few cases when everything was shut down. Tell me douche what Republicans in 2021 in Texas were saying Covid was not real? Find one.

And how fucking arrogant and stupid do you have to be to lecture me on hospital bed conditions in Texas in 2021? I live in Texas douche. No one wants to respond to you Tooms because you are so damned stupid and this is proof of it. All your posts are orange man bad, Democrats good. "I know Texas conditions better while living in Thailand than people in Texas do. And BTW, people living when Eisenhower was president had it rough but times were great with Carter. Those people were just too stupid to know it". WTF?[/QUOTE]Amazing report. You forgot BLM movement and turning Americans against the police force. Now crime and drugs are out of control great job Biden and the other liberals. None of this should have happened, but 45-55% of the population and liberal media hated Trump. Now look at the mess we are in Crime / Drugs are out of control, hyper inflation, one war,(Possibly another war with these clowns in office), border crisis, and homelessness at an all time high. I can go on.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2759555] You dumb Dems pushed for this global warming agenda and now the Europeans, who were true believers in that agenda, may be freezing their asses off come this Winter.[/QUOTE]It's incredible that Biden can keep a straight face when he's bitching about the evil oil companies these days. He had embarked on a plan to put them out of business, and now he's demonizing them for not investing enough to grow production.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote an interesting editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday. It's about a paper published in the respected journal Lancet, that's gotten a ton of coverage in the left-of-center main stream press. It claims rising temperatures have increased global heat deaths among people aged over 65 by 68% over two decades. Lomborg notes that the authors failed to note that the population of people over 65 had increased by 60% over two decades. So the increase in heat deaths was almost entirely due to the increase in the population! That's an incredibly stupid oversight.

Lomborg goes on to say that many more people die from cold than die from heat. He estimates that the higher temperatures cause about 17,000 more heat deaths in older people. But they also result in about 500,000 fewer deaths from cold!

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lan...te-11667580996[/URL]

This climate thing has become like a religion. Many trillions of dollars will be wasted with negligible effects on global warming.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2759555]Lecturing Texas Republicans about hospitals in Texas is a new low for you Tooms. Unfuckingbelievable.[/QUOTE]I think in his heart, like most Democrats, he's a good guy Elvis. He's just been brainwashed by the left-of-center mainstream media, and lives in a cocoon in Bangkok and California where he's gotten used to the idea that COVID paranoia is normal. Yeah, I live in Texas too. And where I live, people were very aware of COVID and the majority were taking precautions during the Omicron wave of late 2021/ early 2022. It was all over the local news, and the hospital administrators were local celebrities. I'm pretty sure that California was hit worse by that wave than Texas. I imagine with a little time we could go through and find similar stories to his about overcrowded hospitals in blue states, but why take the time.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2759555]What dumb nickname to you come up with regards to Joe Rogan, Tooms? What is he? A bothsider, a neither sider? To me, he is a thinking man and independent who does not fit into a cooked up group. He was not a Covid denier. He had Covid and got boatloads of shit for going against the official narrative. He had two experts on, who both had Covid and were vaccinated, and were honest about the side effects of the vaccine, and those guests were like his most popular podcasts of all time.

Yeah, there were Republican retards who were adamant that Covid was not real, and you know why? Because you Dems saw the virus as a way to cripple the economy and topple Trump, and that is exactly what happened. Even now, a douche like you is still blaming Trump for the pandemic. The policies on Covid at the federal level with Trump and Biden were practically the same, and there were more so called Covid deaths under Biden than Trump.

It was one thing to call Covid fake in March 2020 when there were so few cases when everything was shut down. Tell me douche what Republicans in 2021 in Texas were saying Covid was not real? Find one.

And how fucking arrogant and stupid do you have to be to lecture me on hospital bed conditions in Texas in 2021? I live in Texas douche. No one wants to respond to you Tooms because you are so damned stupid and this is proof of it. All your posts are orange man bad, Democrats good. "I know Texas conditions better while living in Thailand than people in Texas do. And BTW, people living when Eisenhower was president had it rough but times were great with Carter. Those people were just too stupid to know it". WTF?

You bragged about your portfolio and then you censor posts after you got your ass handed to you. What has your idiotic binary view of the world gotten you? A feeling of superiority? Does that make up for the dent in your wallet?[/QUOTE]Yes, as expected and predicted, this post goes on the "Gee, you're right. I've got nothing except easily debunked opinions I pull out of my butt" list of Repub replies.

But at least you tried. And failed. I can't even point to a list of replies that never even materialized on my request for at least one single piece of meaningful and now revered legislation promoted, fought for and passed when Repubs controlled the White House, the House and the Senate.

That "citation" will never come because it never happened. Nor will it ever happen.

LOL. So you guys keep tweaking your little fantasy math calculations to convince yourselves, "Hey, only 1 in a Trillion people who tested positive for Trump's Pandemic virus suffered even so much as a 2-day sniffle" and ignore the absolute fact of easily observable and quantifiable relality that millions of Americans were flooding and overwhelming hospitals all around the country even with nationwide closure efforts, without which even more millions would have raised and widened "the curve" and Trump would have mass murdered millions more Americans with his Trump's Pandemic than he already did.

And that is why closures were encouraged and in some cases mandated.

Severely sick to the point of requiring hospitalization (and many dying) "from" Covid, "with" Covid, "next to" Covid, "over, under and around" Covid or however you want to put it, after Trump created Trump's Pandemic exactly the way he said on audio recording that it was created, millions of Americans were flooding hospitals and graveyards thanks to his economic decisions.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2759700]It's incredible that Biden can keep a straight face when he's bitching about the evil oil companies these days. He had embarked on a plan to put them out of business, and now he's demonizing them for not investing enough to grow production.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote an interesting editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday. It's about a paper published in the respected journal Lancet, that's gotten a ton of coverage in the left-of-center main stream press. It claims rising temperatures have increased global heat deaths among people aged over 65 by 68% over two decades. Lomborg notes that the authors failed to note that the population of people over 65 had increased by 60% over two decades. So the increase in heat deaths was almost entirely due to the increase in the population! That's an incredibly stupid oversight.

Lomborg goes on to say that many more people die from cold than die from heat. He estimates that the higher temperatures cause about 17,000 more heat deaths in older people. But they also result in about 500,000 fewer deaths from cold!

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lan...te-11667580996[/URL][/QUOTE]Lomborg. Right.

Lomborg's claims are based on a misinterpretation of a scientific study and wrong interpretation of data.[QUOTE]For background, it is useful to remind the reader that [b]Lomborg has no training in climate or health science and has a track record of getting the science of climate change wrong[/b]. Readers should also be reminded that publishing a graph on Facebook or Twitter is not how science is done, as this approach is prone to bias and errors. When scientists make new discoveries in their fields that they think are relevant to the broader scientific community, the proper approach is to submit their work to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, where the assumptions, data collection and processing, and interpretations can be assessed by other experts in the field. Simply publishing a figure on social media is not a valid approach to produce reliable knowledge and this method should be seen as a red flag indicating that the person who posted it doesn't have solid arguments to back the claim.

Lomborg has repeated similar claims about climate change impacts on health for several years. In a 2016 Wall Street Journal article, Lomborg relied on a 2015 article published in The Lancet by Antonio Gasparrini, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and his colleagues to claim that cold deaths significantly outweigh heat deaths and that climate change will be beneficial. Gasparrini told Climate Feedback how Lomborg had misinterpreted his 2015 work in addition to the Zhao paper, of which Gasparrini is also a co-author:

In the 2015 article, we computed both cold and heat-related deaths in a number of locations and countries, and indeed the former were much larger. However, the analysis focuses on the historical period and does not compute the differences in both cold and heat-related deaths in scenarios with and without climate change. That is, it provides no information on if the predicted decrease in cold-related deaths will offset the predicted increase in heat-related deaths.

[b]Lomborg and others who have cited my 2015 article to support the claim that climate change will be beneficial conveniently ignore that we actually addressed this question in the following article published in The Lancet Planetary Health, where we computed such a net effect. It turned out that in many countries, especially in highly populated tropical areas, the increase in heat-related deaths is much higher than the reduction in cold-related deaths, with an increase in net mortality[/b], especially under more extreme scenarios of global warming. A separate analysis led by other research groups has confirmed these results in both the US and Europe.[/QUOTE][URL]https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/global-warming-contributes-to-increased-heat-related-mortality-contrary-to-bjorn-lomborgs-unsupported-claims-that-climate-change-is-saving-hundreds-of-thousands-of-lives-each-year[/URL]

Next.

[QUOTE=Xpartan;2759721]Lomborg. Right.

Lomborg's claims are based on a misinterpretation of a scientific study and wrong interpretation of data.[URL]https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/global-warming-contributes-to-increased-heat-related-mortality-contrary-to-bjorn-lomborgs-unsupported-claims-that-climate-change-is-saving-hundreds-of-thousands-of-lives-each-year[/URL]

Next.[/QUOTE]Your link is not convincing. Lomborg appears to base his estimate in part on work by Zhao, Guo, Ye, Gasparrini, Tong and Overcenco.

[URL]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196[/URL](21) 00081-4/ fulltext.

The paper states that, "Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% eCI 4 087 9675 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, consisting of 4 594 098 cold-related deaths (3 337 2225 640 617) and 489 075 heat-related deaths (304 216732 518; table 1)".

Now you can put as much lipstick as you want on that pig, but the fact is that about 10 X more people die from cold than heat, and common sense dictates that with global warming you'll have a net reduction in deaths related to heat and cold. The authors actually say that "at a global level, the results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce net temperature-related deaths in the short term. " They go onto to say in the long run climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden, but do not relate this expectation to heat and cold related deaths (more on that in a minute.).

Your hit piece either makes no reference to what Lomborg wrote in the WSJ article, or mischaracterizes what he wrote. For example, one of the co-authors of Zhao et al's paper, trying to discredit Lomborg, says that "in highly populated tropical areas, the increase in heat-related deaths is much higher than the reduction in cold-related deaths. " No shit Sherlock. I don't imagine there are many deaths from cold occurring in Indonesia.

Claims that Lomborg doesn't publish outside of Facebook and the popular press are lies. Just take a look in Google Scholar. Claims that he's not qualified to comment because he doesn't have a degree in climate science or meteorology or whatever are bull shit too. Those are Mickey Mouse degrees. The research is done by people with degrees in physics, mathematics (including statistics), computer science, engineering and the like. Lomborg's background is in statistics. In the words of Hillary Clinton, it takes a village. No individual has the background to fully understand all the technical, social and economic aspects of climate change, and Lomborg comes about as close as anyone. The science is difficult. I believe climate models divide the atmosphere and surface of the earth up into three dimensional grid blocks and then use differential equations to describe fluid flow, heat transfer, and mass transfer (evaporation for example) within and between the blocks. And then there are all sorts of other considerations related to physics that I don't understand that have to be incorporated into the model.

Lomborg's claim to fame prior to global warming was looking at how you can get the most bang for the buck from charitable endeavors. For example, does it make more sense to spend money on vaccinating kids or providing micronutrients in third world countries. He looks at economics. He thinks about how much good $2 trillion dollars would provide if invested in endeavors like ending malaria and other diseases or helping poverty stricken kids, instead of getting medieval about reducing carbon emissions. Many climate scientists don't like that. They're a bit like some in public health and epidemiology who detested anyone who dared to question whether peoples jobs or the economy should be considerations in how we responded to COVID. Scientific American devoted an entire issue to lambasting Lomborg by the way.

Now, UNRELATED TO TEMPERATURE CHANGES, burning of fossil fuels does cause deaths, mostly as a result of people breathing particulate matter in third world countries. For that reason, and also the relationship between carbon emissions and global warming, it does make sense to migrate away from coal in particular. Unfortunately, Democratic politicians and mainstream European politicians approach the problem in a destructive way, because they don't have common sense or they're trying to appeal to their base or both. The way to do it in the USA would be to place a REASONABLE tax on fossil fuels, levied at the point the fuels are burned so as to not affect exports (which would hurt our exporters without reducing carbon emissions as Australia and Russia and other countries would pick up the slack). And if you want to actually spend taxpayer money, do it in developing countries. I read the other day, I think in the Economist, that for every dollar spent in the UK on reducing carbon emissions, you'd get 10 X more reduction if you spent the money in India instead. More importantly, in the short term, you'd be saving lots of lives from particulate emissions in India, while you wouldn't in the UK. As JustTK and ChuchoLoco point out, you'd want to do this better than we have in the past, as sometimes chunks of the money have disappeared when funneled through the World Bank and similar institutions. The USA accounts for 14% of the world's carbon emissions, and that percentage is going to get much smaller with time. You spend tons of money in the USA on reducing carbon emissions, and you won't make that much difference if wordwide emissions.

[B]Next.[/B]

For those of you that never access "the other side" - thru choice or ignorance, here is the alternative story of Russian atrocities.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyXhwbj6_yA[/URL]

You might think, why believe this BS? My media is so much more trustworthy. But when you say that you should know that you sound like a Christian arguing that your god is more beleiveable than any other god.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2759763]Now you can put as much lipstick as you want on that pig[/QUOTE]According to a slew of evironmental scientists and economists that's precisely what you are doing when you push Bjorn Lomborg, who appears as yet another dishonest, conspiracy theory peddler that panders to far right entities. Here's a pretty thorough critique on him from the London School of Economics.

[URL]https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/[/URL]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2759766]For those of you that never access "the other side" - thru choice or ignorance, here is the alternative story of Russian atrocities.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyXhwbj6_yA[/URL]

You might think, why believe this BS? My media is so much more trustworthy. But when you say that you should know that you sound like a Christian arguing that your god is more beleiveable than any other god.[/QUOTE]TK, I have been reading and watching a lot of Peter Zeihan. I think what he says is fascinating. He predicted the Ukraine war but thought Russia was going to do a lot better than it did.

He looks back at the past and since the end of WW2 the navy of the USA has kept international shipping lanes open and has borne all the expenses. Now that we are not importing any more oil from abroad, which was really the one good we needed more than any other, he thinks the days of the USA keeping all the shipping lanes open at our expense is done. He also makes the point that the Americas free trade zone is pretty self sufficient. We have free trade agreements with all of Central America, Mexico, Canada, Colombia, and Chile and those countries can fill most all of our needs.

You may not believe the American navy is keeping the shipping lanes open for Iranian or Saudi crude headed to China or Japan but we are. The question now is why are we taking on this cost.

Given how feeble the Russian army is and how they will have so few young men who can be soldiers because of demographics, I would ask why are we paying for NATO. Clearly, Europe can defend itself from Russia.

The USA navy is like police officers. They do so much good that you never hear about. All you hear about is the bad. TK, maybe I am wrong, but I think you naively believe that you have not benefitted from this free trade while virtually everyone in the world has. Regardless, if Zeihan is right, your complaints about America's military involvement in the world will be way down as we will withdraw from protecting the world and just protect the Americas.

But be careful what you wish for. If we pull in our navy, the rest of the world including you is going to be paying a lot more for traded goods.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2759710]
But at least you tried. And failed. I can't even point to a list of replies that never even materialized on my request for at least one single piece of meaningful and now revered legislation promoted, fought for and passed when Repubs controlled the White House, the House and the Senate.[/QUOTE]No, Tooms, you make a stupid conjecture and no one calls you on it and then you declare victory. Your theory is the Republican Congress has been worthless with the passing of laws while the Democrats have been great. In truth, there never was partisan voting to the extent it goes on today.

So your first dumb claim is that if a bill passes into law with a large number of Republicans voting for it, the only people who should get credit for it are the Democratic majority. That is just stupid and binary.

And who made the abortion law and then took it away? Yeah, that was the Supreme Court. Congress had nothing to do with it.

And who made up the laws with masks and travel during Covid? The CDC, a private company, run by executive branch appointees. Again, Congress did nothing there.

Let's take a great law, the Securities Act of 1933, the first law regulating the stock market and the law that created the SEC. You want to give all the credit to the Democrats for this one right? But it is not enough to pass the law. The executive branch often under control of Republicans has to regulate the market and decide how to enforce the law. Then you have the courts that may step in if the SEC goes too far. It takes all three branches of government to make sure the law runs smoothly, and it takes good people in both parties to make sure that it does.

But in your stupid binary brain all good laws are created by Democrats and all bad ones by Republicans, and I repeat that POV is so fucking stupid no one wants to respond to it. This whole binary bullshit splits the country apart.

With you, everything good is Democrat and everything bad is Republican. Most important things in life are not due to politics, and it is obnoxious and childish to take credit for the random good and blame others for the random bad. It is to the point where things are so bad I want you stupid credit hounding Democratic douches to go live in your own country and we will split things in half.

But we have seen what one party Democratic rule is. We have California and New York, and we all know that if things were so fucking great there, people and businesses would not be flooding into Texas and Florida, and they are.

And look at you. You moved to Thailand. You are the typical Californian. You screw up your state with your dumb excessive and expensive regulations, leave it because it is too expensive, and then lecture everyone else on how to govern. You and all the other Californians who have left that state but are political know-it-alls are complete hypocrites.

Why should anyone listen to you and your California political POV when you left that state for somewhere cheaper?