Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 08 2024 17:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: This is the guy who walked into North Korea and shook Kims hand.Trump is the peace president.
Ah yes, because NK has been at peace with everyone since then. Trump's handshake, as well as declaring that he had fallen in love with KJU, ended all issues with North Korea and nothing bad subsequently happened because Trump brought peace.
On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator.
It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible
EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally
The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one.
However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you?
If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him).
Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening.
If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone.
I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance:
Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists".
You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with).
Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges.
The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise.
It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon.
Sooo the same thing they are doing by handing Trump/Project 2025 control of the most lethal military in the world? That' should work out well /s
We can ignore all the warnings people got that this would happen, and just go with "fool me once, shame on you, fool me 542 times..."
Also, to be fair, the institution of the Supreme Court did give Democrats the power to hold him accountable. Unfortunately, Democrats are even less reliable than Trump's Supreme Court.
He already had control of the military for 4 years and the world was a far safer place than it is now.Enough with the hyperbole.It's like that Selzer poll from 5 days ago that had Harris up +3 in Iowa, Trump wins it by 13.Total fake news.Just relax and don't get so worked up about whats on TV.
Regarding Ukraine they've lost 25% of their population the past 2 1/2 years either via people fleeing or Russia controlling territory.The sanctions have not had the desired effect on Russia, probably even hurt Germany and Europe more than Russia.Ukraine is losing territory and losing the war, the only chance for them would be if NATO escalated which could easily spiral into WW3 which is a scenario far more likely under Harris than Trump.
Conversely, Israel will most certainly feel emboldened to keep escalating its war in the Middle East, which might end up pulling the US into yet another war. Unlike Ukraine, you would actually have to put boots on the ground for this one.
Either way, we are heading into turbulent times. Having the guy who pretty much shat on all of the US' traditional alliances at the helm at a time like this is unlikely to lead to a more secure and stable planet.
This is the guy who walked into North Korea and shook Kims hand.Trump is the peace president. I think people will be surprised at the positive transformation in the USA over the next few years, from RFK Jr dismantling most of the FDA to Ron Paul cutting 50% of all Govt departments.Trump has assembled a dream team. The transition will be rocky but great things are coming.
So you are saying that Trump would not support Israel if they got into a major conflict in the Middle East?
In what world is shaking Kims had a sign of peace to come, especially when they then proceed to try - and fail - to grandstand by shooting rockets into the sea? How does RFK Jr know anything about the FDA and how will you actually track what he's doing? How will you know how he's done a good job? 50% of Govnt depts? This will do what exactly? Make the system more lean and mean?
He’s not the ‘Peace President’ lmao, folks will all use the same wee catchphrases and get annoyed you say it’s a bit cult like
I don’t think he’s a warmonger either.
Not actively starting wars and being a peacemaker, different things. The latter, quite bloody hard.
He dodged too many really tricky scenarios first time round, not the case this time around.
I mean a perpetually single guy can claim to be great at monogomy but it’s not really meaningfully tested.
The rest of your aspirations sound actively awful, but tastes vary. I don’t think Trump is going to deliver quite as radically in those sorta libertarian favoured policies. Something likely, but not to that degree
On November 08 2024 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyway just seen this clip of Bidens speech from yesterday and he is speaking clearer and more coherently than i have seen in years.If he had been like this during the campaign and the debate there'd be no issue at all.
The reason is he gave that speech at 11:30 in the morning, meaning in his good window, as he's a self-admitted "old fart," this is a real biological issue for him. Yeah he would be a better president if he was lucid all the time but that's physically not in the cards for him at this point, unfortunately for all involved.
What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now.
Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for.
I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator.
It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible
EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally
The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one.
However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you?
If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him).
Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening.
If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone.
I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance:
Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists".
You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with).
Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges.
The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise.
Bolded - That is correct, however you may notice GH is talking about "patriotic justice" (which has nothing to do with law), also if you following the law you wouldn't need to "be immune from prosecution" which GH is getting all excited about. This excitement from socialists representative on this forum should tell you all you need to know about socialism.
Italic -
On November 08 2024 14:04 KwarK wrote: It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon.
No, it is the second. After demonizing him all over the world, and prosecuting him, if it was the first Democrats would taken GH route, or would be leaving US in droves. That is unless they count on Trump "forgive and forget" approach which fascists are widely known for.
On November 08 2024 18:22 WombaT wrote: He’s not the ‘Peace President’ lmao, folks will all use the same wee catchphrases and get annoyed you say it’s a bit cult like
I don’t think he’s a warmonger either.
Not actively starting wars and being a peacemaker, different things. The latter, quite bloody hard.
He dodged too many really tricky scenarios first time round, not the case this time around.
I mean a perpetually single guy can claim to be great at monogomy but it’s not really meaningfully tested.
The rest of your aspirations sound actively awful, but tastes vary. I don’t think Trump is going to deliver quite as radically in those sorta libertarian favoured policies. Something likely, but not to that degree
As with many things we shall see
Trump will be a lame duck for the most part, he will struggle personally with his ego realizing he isnt the same populist on cable news that he was in 2016. He will lash out at his GOP cabinet and do some self harm which should limit the damage the GOP can do to our country.
However, make no mistake. Ukraine will get boned, there will be a "peace deal" which will grant Russia its gains, allowing it to fully mobilize and wait for 6 months to a few years and invade again blaming Ukraine for escalation and Trump wont do a damn thing.
There will be show trials for Jack Smith, Garland, any justice that went after any of the GOP. Im guessing these will be mostly harmless, but could escalate if the base wants blood. On that front, there will be mass concentration camps for "illegals" and the base will love the degradation to follow. These latter things is where we could face the really bad timeline of pure fascism. This guy could be the next attorney general, and if his rhetoric isnt clamped down, well, glhf folks x.com
What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now.
Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for.
I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator.
It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible
EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally
The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one.
However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you?
If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him).
Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening.
If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone.
I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance:
Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists".
The only reasonable way to view GH’s posts is that whatever the Dems do, it’s wrong. If they don’t take out Trump then they are fascists enablers, and if they do take out Trump then they are 99% fascists themselves. As always, Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. There’s no sense in engaging.
To me, the worst impact is going to be on the environment. We really do need to transition to a greener economy and Trump is only going to set us back.
We had an impending nuclear apocalypse for 40+ years. Everyone loves a world ending scenario and the media loved the ratings such scary predictions yield. The nuclear apocaplypse never came. US Tax Payers had to pay the bill for pointless military extavagancies because "we are on the verge of WW3". Same thing is going on right now with the Global Warming Apocalypse. The average US tax payer is hit hard by these environmental scare tactics. I do not think it is anything to worry about at all.
Had the USA been reasonable during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s they could've spent a lot less tax money on military. The Soviet Union was no where near as strong as being advertised by the media. The US government would have improved the lives of working people by either lowering taxes or putting that military money into anything but exotic unnecessary bombs and air force toys.
Hopefully, Trump makes good on his energy plans and does the right thing for the working people of the USA. Hopefully, Trump ignores the environment alarmists.
Going "green" has crippled the Canadian economy. The average working Canadian has gotten crushed. Hopefully, Trump avoids the whole thing and gives working people a chance at a decent life.
Middle East Issues On January 20th , 1980 Iran released the US hostages after 444 days in captivity just as Ronald Reagan was being inaugurated. I suspect this is 100% calculated and a direct shot at Jimmy Carter and his administration. I think Reagan was going to burn Iran to the ground had the hostages still been in Iran.
It is interesting how people will go hard at a reasonable leader such as Jimmy Carter. When faced with someone they know will instantly end their lives the "hard line psycho terrorists" suddenly became like Canadian negotiator diplomat guys.
I wonder if the Gaza conflict will magically come to an end just as Donald Trump arrives on the scene?
On November 08 2024 17:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: This is the guy who walked into North Korea and shook Kims hand.Trump is the peace president.
Ah yes, because NK has been at peace with everyone since then. Trump's handshake, as well as declaring that he had fallen in love with KJU, ended all issues with North Korea and nothing bad subsequently happened because Trump brought peace.
During the Obama administration the Koreas were on the brink of war, it was basically always in the news along with ISIS and generally everyone was just waiting for it to pop off.
Under Trump they went from the front page to the footnotes of global news and became basically a non issue. All of todays issues with North Korea started in the last year or two under the Biden administration. The difference being that NK has a ratified security agreement with Russia now, which happened under Biden.
Though it will be interesting to see what approach Trump will take, NK is much more stable now with money and tech flowing in. Not really in a corner anymore so not much of a threat.
Eventually South Korea's very low birth rate will impact its viability as a nation. North Korea is coming folks. If something happens on that front I do not see the USA stepping in with ground military as it did in 1949. I think we'll see a lot of South Korean flags on car windows kinda like what we currently see with Ukrainian flags.
For an interesting look at the Korean war and how it was viewed check out the movie or the TV series M*A*S*H. It is not 100% accurate but it provides a great view of how the Korea War was perceived by Americans in the 1970s.
On November 08 2024 20:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Eventually South Korea's very low birth rate will impact its viability as a nation. North Korea is coming folks. If something happens on that front I do not see the USA stepping in with ground military as it did in 1949. I think we'll see a lot of South Korean flags on car windows kinda like what we currently see with Ukrainian flags.
They will get nukes before that. Japan will also get nukes. Quite likely Ukraine too if they get the chance. Hopefully Sweden and the rest of Europe. Maybe Iran, followed by SA in response.
A real scenario for my daughter might be waiting to see which minor conflict between lesser powers is the fist one to go nuclear.
No one is afraid of nukes any longer though. My grandfather has been hearing about how nukes will end the world since he was 5. He is now 80. Eventually, people get numb to stuff like this...
There have been dozens if not hundreds of military conflicts since this video was made. A nuke has never been used.
On November 08 2024 20:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: No one is afraid of nukes any longer though. My grandfather has been hearing about how nukes will end the world since he was 5. He is now 80. Eventually, people get numb to stuff like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60
You should watch Threads. It really convinced me to be afraid.
On November 08 2024 20:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: We had an impending nuclear apocalypse for 40+ years. Everyone loves a world ending scenario and the media loved the ratings such scary predictions yield. The nuclear apocaplypse never came. US Tax Payers had to pay the bill for pointless military extavagancies because "we are on the verge of WW3". Same thing is going on right now with the Global Warming Apocalypse. The average US tax payer is hit hard by these environmental scare tactics. I do not think it is anything to worry about at all.
Had the USA been reasonable during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s they could've spent a lot less tax money on military. The Soviet Union was no where near as strong as being advertised by the media. The US government would have improved the lives of working people by either lowering taxes or putting that military money into anything but exotic unnecessary bombs and air force toys.
Hopefully, Trump makes good on his energy plans and does the right thing for the working people of the USA. Hopefully, Trump ignores the environment alarmists.
Going "green" has crippled the Canadian economy. The average working Canadian has gotten crushed. Hopefully, Trump avoids the whole thing and gives working people a chance at a decent life.
Ignoring climate change is more expensive than dealing with it. Ask the people in Florida.
The problem with climate is that even if you do stuff to mitigate it, that doesn't help if others don't. It is similar to a prisoners dilemma situation. If everyone works towards mitigating climate change, we get less problems, and it is cheaper overall. But if you are the only one who does, and the others don't, you get doubly fucked. You have the costs of going green, but not the savings from less climate change. And, of course, if no one reacts, everyone gets extra fucked.
It has the added problematic of being diffuse in causation and long-term in results.
Edit: Also, this is so frustrating. If there is a problem, and you work hard to prevent it, people will just claim that there was never a problem or a reason to be scared. Nukes are scary. A lot of people worked very hard and very carefully to prevent WW3 from happening. We built complex institutions just to prevent nuclear war. And the ozone layer was scary, but we stopped emitting HCFCs and mostly solved the problem. And now we get people saying that it was just all hysteria.
If there is a threat of a flood, and you build a dam, and that dam prevents the flood, that doesn't mean that the expenditure in the dam was wasted.
On November 08 2024 20:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: No one is afraid of nukes any longer though. My grandfather has been hearing about how nukes will end the world since he was 5. He is now 80. Eventually, people get numb to stuff like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60
You should watch Threads. It really convinced me to be afraid.
I'm not worried at all. I do not want my tax money going towards nuclear bombs. Other forms of military possibly. In general, I'd like to the see USA spend a lot less on military.
On November 08 2024 20:36 Simberto wrote: It has the added problematic of being diffuse in causation and long-term in results.
i am far more worried about managing our Oceans than global warming. There are environmental concerns that must be taken into consideration. IMO, global warming ain't one of 'em.
On November 08 2024 20:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: We had an impending nuclear apocalypse for 40+ years. Everyone loves a world ending scenario and the media loved the ratings such scary predictions yield. The nuclear apocaplypse never came. US Tax Payers had to pay the bill for pointless military extavagancies because "we are on the verge of WW3". Same thing is going on right now with the Global Warming Apocalypse. The average US tax payer is hit hard by these environmental scare tactics. I do not think it is anything to worry about at all.
Had the USA been reasonable during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s they could've spent a lot less tax money on military. The Soviet Union was no where near as strong as being advertised by the media. The US government would have improved the lives of working people by either lowering taxes or putting that military money into anything but exotic unnecessary bombs and air force toys.
Hopefully, Trump makes good on his energy plans and does the right thing for the working people of the USA. Hopefully, Trump ignores the environment alarmists.
Going "green" has crippled the Canadian economy. The average working Canadian has gotten crushed. Hopefully, Trump avoids the whole thing and gives working people a chance at a decent life.
Ignoring climate change is more expensive than dealing with it. Ask the people in Florida.
The U of Miami Hurricanes for their name 100 years ago because bad weather hits florida a lot. crippling your economy while purporting to save the world from climate change is worse. Ask the people in Ontario, Canada where hydro rates are up by an order of magnitude.
On November 08 2024 20:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: We had an impending nuclear apocalypse for 40+ years. Everyone loves a world ending scenario and the media loved the ratings such scary predictions yield. The nuclear apocaplypse never came. US Tax Payers had to pay the bill for pointless military extavagancies because "we are on the verge of WW3". Same thing is going on right now with the Global Warming Apocalypse. The average US tax payer is hit hard by these environmental scare tactics. I do not think it is anything to worry about at all.
Had the USA been reasonable during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s they could've spent a lot less tax money on military. The Soviet Union was no where near as strong as being advertised by the media. The US government would have improved the lives of working people by either lowering taxes or putting that military money into anything but exotic unnecessary bombs and air force toys.
Hopefully, Trump makes good on his energy plans and does the right thing for the working people of the USA. Hopefully, Trump ignores the environment alarmists.
Going "green" has crippled the Canadian economy. The average working Canadian has gotten crushed. Hopefully, Trump avoids the whole thing and gives working people a chance at a decent life.
Edit: Also, this is so frustrating. If there is a problem, and you work hard to prevent it, people will just claim that there was never a problem or a reason to be scared. Nukes are scary. A lot of people worked very hard and very carefully to prevent WW3 from happening. We built complex institutions just to prevent nuclear war. And the ozone layer was scary, but we stopped emitting HCFCs and mostly solved the problem. And now we get people saying that it was just all hysteria.
This is what Jimmy did a few pages back pretty much verbatim.
On November 08 2024 20:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: We had an impending nuclear apocalypse for 40+ years. Everyone loves a world ending scenario and the media loved the ratings such scary predictions yield. The nuclear apocaplypse never came. US Tax Payers had to pay the bill for pointless military extavagancies because "we are on the verge of WW3". Same thing is going on right now with the Global Warming Apocalypse. The average US tax payer is hit hard by these environmental scare tactics. I do not think it is anything to worry about at all.
Had the USA been reasonable during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s they could've spent a lot less tax money on military. The Soviet Union was no where near as strong as being advertised by the media. The US government would have improved the lives of working people by either lowering taxes or putting that military money into anything but exotic unnecessary bombs and air force toys.
Hopefully, Trump makes good on his energy plans and does the right thing for the working people of the USA. Hopefully, Trump ignores the environment alarmists.
Going "green" has crippled the Canadian economy. The average working Canadian has gotten crushed. Hopefully, Trump avoids the whole thing and gives working people a chance at a decent life.
Edit: Also, this is so frustrating. If there is a problem, and you work hard to prevent it, people will just claim that there was never a problem or a reason to be scared. Nukes are scary. A lot of people worked very hard and very carefully to prevent WW3 from happening. We built complex institutions just to prevent nuclear war. And the ozone layer was scary, but we stopped emitting HCFCs and mostly solved the problem. And now we get people saying that it was just all hysteria.
This is what Jimmy did a few pages back pretty much verbatim.
The Canada//Soviet wheat deal was a big indicator how weak the Soviet Union really was. The Soviet Union's power was exaggerated.
We were never "2 minutes to midnight" as the Iron Maiden song goes. There was a lot of wasted tax payer money during that era.
The initial predictions about the Ozone Layer was that it was permanently damaged and would never grow back. The initial predictions about AIDS was that it would be a world wide epidemic and being HIV+ meant certain death. WHO didn't remove the impending AIDS epidemic as a big health threat until 2010. So they kept it going a long long time.