17 hours ago, brabus said:

@Day Man Great clip. Textbook example of putting ego aside and updating viewpoints when new information is presented/previous information is invalidated. Also textbook example of being man enough to admit when you’re wrong and moving forward.

Hope everyone took a good lesson learned out of that self-debrief! I’m sure you did…

So, you're saying Vance went from thinking he's like Adolf Hitler to the greatest politician anyone's ever seen? You think it's because of a true change of heart vs political expediency that will benefit his own career? MMmmmkay. That's a serious change of heart... Now do Rubio. Oh, wait, Lindsey Graham. Should we keep going? Until he won, everyone spoke the truth, but then they hopped on his coattails. Or, maybe it was the Art of the Deal, and he sold them all on what a brilliant man he is. That's logical.

22 minutes ago, slackline said:

So, you're saying Vance went from thinking he's like Adolf Hitler to the greatest politician anyone's ever seen? You think it's because of a true change of heart vs political expediency that will benefit his own career? MMmmmkay. That's a serious change of heart.………….

i think Vance, like most rational people, witnessed the positive changes in federal policy under “orange nazi” as compared to years of leftist democrat representation.

I’ve never heard anybody, except Trump himself, say what a “great man” or “great politician” our current POTUS is. There probably are some who have, but most conservatives recognize hyperbole if and when we hear it, and don’t tend to idolize people.

29 minutes ago, slackline said:

So, you're saying Vance went from thinking he's like Adolf Hitler to the greatest politician anyone's ever seen? You think it's because of a true change of heart vs political expediency that will benefit his own career? MMmmmkay. That's a serious change of heart... Now do Rubio. Oh, wait, Lindsey Graham. Should we keep going? Until he won, everyone spoke the truth, but then they hopped on his coattails. Or, maybe it was the Art of the Deal, and he sold them all on what a brilliant man he is. That's logical.

Or maybe Vance recognized that he was getting caught up in the same political rhetoric that so many others got caught up in? You know, the one where you compare everyone you don't like to Hitler, even though they haven't systematically eliminated millions based on their religion or ethnicity?

Or maybe he made the comment in 2016, when nobody knew how Donald Trump was going to govern? And since then, Donald Trump made very clear his stance on a whole bevy of conservative issues that would appeal to someone like JD Vance.

Now, if he had changed his mind in a matter of weeks because of a political appointment, I think you'd have a point.

But JD Vance is far from the only person who thought Trump was going to be a catastrophe for the conservative movement, but was proven wrong (me).

8 hours ago, bfargin said:

I’ve never heard anybody, except Trump himself, say what a “great man” or “great politician” our current POTUS is. There probably are some who have, but most conservatives recognize hyperbole if and when we hear it, and don’t tend to idolize people.

Really, that's rich. Just today Kegsbreath was saying he was the best CINC he's ever seen. Why lie about something so obvious? Have you not watched any of the footage from a cabinet meeting where they kiss up to him as he cat he's a nap?

And I get it, Biden was garbage. Agreed wholeheartedly, but you guys and your blinders...

8 hours ago, bfargin said:

I’ve never heard anybody, except Trump himself, say what a “great man” or “great politician” our current POTUS is. There probably are some who have, but most conservatives recognize hyperbole if and when we hear it, and don’t tend to idolize people.

Really, that's rich. Just today Kegsbreath was saying he was the best CINC he's ever seen. Why lie about something so obvious? Have you not watched any of the footage from a cabinet meeting where they kiss up to him as he cat he's a nap?

And I get it, Biden was garbage. Agreed wholeheartedly, but you guys and your blinders...

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Or maybe Vance recognized that he was getting caught up in the same political rhetoric that so many others got caught up in? You know, the one where you compare everyone you don't like to Hitler, even though they haven't systematically eliminated millions based on their religion or ethnicity?

Or maybe he made the comment in 2016, when nobody knew how Donald Trump was going to govern? And since then, Donald Trump made very clear his stance on a whole bevy of conservative issues that would appeal to someone like JD Vance.

Now, if he had changed his mind in a matter of weeks because of a political appointment, I think you'd have a point.

But JD Vance is far from the only person who thought Trump was going to be a catastrophe for the conservative movement, but was proven wrong (me).

They did change their tune, almost overnight. Then Trump lost 2020 (I'm sure some of you think he won because he told you to), and their tune changed again, oh, somewhere around Jan 6th... Unsure why. And then it looked like he was going to make a comeback, and they changed their tune again.

As for the Hitler comparisons, I think you guys are forgetting that He didn't start his career out by killing millions of people. There was a slow boil that led to it...

We are a laughing stock, the world over. The cabinet, for being all about merit, is full of unqualified lapdogs. The economy is great for people with enough money to invest, but sucks for everyone else. Trump has stopped science dead in its tracks, to the point that it will be almost impossible to catch up to China now. You guys must not believe climate change is a real thing, which, good for you because he's rolled back every measure that made sense to slow it down. Voting rights have taken another major hit thanks to his SC, which he only likes when they rule in his favor. His SAVE act is a thinly veiled voter suppression act, and if it passes Republicans will take the biggest hit since they're the voters least likely to have a passport. We could go on, but I won't waste any more of your time. The narcissistic attitudes in here by what I used to believe we're critical thinkers is mind boggling.

OK, I'll go back to lurking for another few years.

47 minutes ago, slackline said:

OK, I'll go back to lurking for another few years.

Probably for the best.

@slackline I believe you believe that wild bullshit. Critical thinking indeed. Pro tip, when you consistently consume negative, bullshit information, your brain will transition to thinking that way no matter what. Help yourself by putting down the AOC gummies and focus on all the good things in your life, this country, and the world. You’ll be much happier for it.

10 hours ago, slackline said:

Kegsbreath

Quit reading after this.

55 minutes ago, brabus said:

@slackline I believe you believe that wild bullshit. Critical thinking indeed. Pro tip, when you consistently consume negative, bullshit information, your brain will transition to thinking that way no matter what. Help yourself by putting down the AOC gummies and focus on all the good things in your life, this country, and the world. You’ll be much happier for it.

I noticed none of you can provide legitimate responses to anything. I'm plenty happy, just trying to help you folks take your blinders off. Far be it from me though, if you're happy in your ignorance.

37 minutes ago, Blue said:

Quit reading after this.

Did I hurt your feelings after calling the most unqualified SECDEF in history an accurate name? Truth sucks I guess.

4 hours ago, slackline said:

I noticed none of you can provide legitimate responses to anything. I'm plenty happy, just trying to help you folks take your blinders off. Far be it from me though, if you're happy in your ignorance.

There are hundreds of pages of legitimate responses to all of these topics you brought up, you just choose to ignore them. Enjoy your happiness in willful ignorance.

15 hours ago, slackline said:

YThey did change their tune, almost overnight. Then Trump lost 2020 (I'm sure some of you think he won because he told you to), and their tune changed again, oh, somewhere around Jan 6th... Unsure why. And then it looked like he was going to make a comeback, and they changed their tune again.

As for the Hitler comparisons, I think you guys are forgetting that He didn't start his career out by killing millions of people. There was a slow boil that led to it...

We are a laughing stock, the world over. The cabinet, for being all about merit, is full of unqualified lapdogs. The economy is great for people with enough money to invest, but sucks for everyone else. Trump has stopped science dead in its tracks, to the point that it will be almost impossible to catch up to China now. You guys must not believe climate change is a real thing, which, good for you because he's rolled back every measure that made sense to slow it down. Voting rights have taken another major hit thanks to his SC, which he only likes when they rule in his favor. His SAVE act is a thinly veiled voter suppression act, and if it passes Republicans will take the biggest hit since they're the voters least likely to have a passport. We could go on, but I won't waste any more of your time. The narcissistic attitudes in here by what I used to believe we're critical thinkers is mind boggling.

Bro...

Who cares what emotional response our inferiors have? Seriously? WGAF. The people you reference laughing are our dependents. Our vassals. Groups of people who have forgotten who actually makes the sausage on this planet. And you care about some chump lauging from the sidelines? Okay.

Yeah the economy sucks. But why? It goes well beyond any political party or who is the president.

Science stopped dead in it's tracks? By this president? Dude you're hysterical. There has been a replication crisis in science for decades. Science (TM) went off the rails ages ago due to the government inextricably grafting itself into the university system by tying funding and grants to it. Check out how much "social science" replicates...almost none. Any that does (IQ) is verboten from actually being studied for real.

Climate change? Yeah. Ok. We're changing the climate. Guess what. That's all baked in. You know what is going to fix it though? Not a new tax. Not decreasing everyone's quality of life. Nope. It's going to be technology. You know who is dead-set against that though? The Left. We can't implement an actual solution because some poor people might get left behind. Or might not be able to buy Cheetos with the tax money they take from me to give to them...so they can have dignity or something. Instead, we'll get initiatives that seek to re-fortify poor people's homes against noise pollution because they tend to live in noisier areas. Under the guise of "climate justice." So don't confuse not believing in climate change with not buying into the Left's BS way of "fixing" it. They are different and separate.

Voting rights? Dude, GTFO. The Left has gerrymandered the political maps in the country for decades prior to this recent spat specifically to create racial voting blocks in this country. Thankfully, that is coming to end. I know you don't believe me though. But it's true. Just look at New England. 40% republican. Not one republican representative. Doubt you would listen to something by the Federalist, but this episode provides the historical context and the solution. Bottom line: groups of people living together were supposed to be represented together. How to fix that is forcing redistricting boundaries to follow a simple mathematical relationship - the perimeter of a congressional district divided by its area must remain below a certain ratio. Fair. Color blind. Aligned with the intent of our founding. Check it out.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-virginias-twisted-gerrymander-wont-survive-judicial/id983782306?i=1000762441668

And in any case, no one has yet to make a cogent argument as to why you shouldn't need to prove citizenship to be able to vote. It's unimaginable anyone could come down on a different side of this issue, but then again, these are crazy times, and we are a divided people.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by ViperMan

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

The Left has gerrymandered the political maps in the country for decades prior to this recent spat specifically to create racial voting blocks in this country.

Yet actual analysis plainly contradicts you and shows that gerrymandering unfairly supports republicans, not the other way around. To a net of 16-19 seats in the house. What you’re doing is called cherry picking data.

But I get it, sources on a lot of these feelings are hard to find.

Brennan Center for Justice

Gerrymandering and the 2024 Election

In most of the United States, politicians have drawn voting maps designed to keep their party in power.

Center for American Progress

The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering

New CAP analysis finds that the impacts of partisan gerrymandering are comparable to switching the majority of votes in 22 states.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Negat0ry

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Bro...

Who cares what emotional response our inferiors have? Seriously? WGAF. The people you reference laughing are our dependents. Our vassals. Groups of people who have forgotten who actually makes the sausage on this planet. And you care about some chump lauging from the sidelines? Okay.

Yeah the economy sucks. But why? It goes well beyond any political party or who is the president.

Science stopped dead in it's tracks? By this president? Dude you're hysterical. There has been a replication crisis in science for decades. Science (TM) went off the rails ages ago due to the government inextricably grafting itself into the university system by tying funding and grants to it. Check out how much "social science" replicates...almost none. Any that does (IQ) is verboten from actually being studied for real.

Climate change? Yeah. Ok. We're changing the climate. Guess what. That's all baked in. You know what is going to fix it though? Not a new tax. Not decreasing everyone's quality of life. Nope. It's going to be technology. You know who is dead-set against that though? The Left. We can't implement an actual solution because some poor people might get left behind. Or might not be able to buy Cheetos with the tax money they take from me to give to them...so they can have dignity or something. Instead, we'll get initiatives that seek to re-fortify poor people's homes against noise pollution because they tend to live in noisier areas. Under the guise of "climate justice." So don't confuse not believing in climate change with not buying into the Left's BS way of "fixing" it. They are different and separate.

Voting rights? Dude, GTFO. The Left has gerrymandered the political maps in the country for decades prior to this recent spat specifically to create racial voting blocks in this country. Thankfully, that is coming to end. I know you don't believe me though. But it's true. Just look at New England. 40% republican. Not one republican representative. Doubt you would listen to something by the Federalist, but this episode provides the historical context and the solution. Bottom line: groups of people living together were supposed to be represented together. How to fix that is forcing redistricting boundaries to follow a simple mathematical relationship - the perimeter of a congressional district divided by its area must remain below a certain ratio. Fair. Color blind. Aligned with the intent of our founding. Check it out.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-virginias-twisted-gerrymander-wont-survive-judicial/id983782306?i=1000762441668

And in any case, no one has yet to make a cogent argument as to why you shouldn't need to prove citizenship to be able to vote. It's unimaginable anyone could come down on a different side of this issue, but then again, these are crazy times, and we are a divided people.

"Our inferiors?" "Our vassals?" Come on, man. Those "dependents" host our bases, share intelligence, fly our wing, and bleed beside us. NATO interoperability, Five Eyes, AUKUS... none of that works if allies decide we're not worth the hassle. Swagger isn't strategy. You of all people should know the difference.

Economy: we actually agree more than you think. Structural forces matter. But you can't hand-wave away tariff-driven consumer price increases that the CBO says hit lower-income households hardest, then tell the guy making $50K that the market is doing great. That's not an argument; that's a view from a portfolio.

Science: you changed the subject. I'm not talking about social science replication problems. I'm talking about 7,800+ NIH and NSF grants cancelled or frozen in 2025, competitive NIH grants down by half in FY26, 25,000+ science agency employees gone, and NSF staffing down 35%. Meanwhile, China passed us in total scientific publications in 2024 for the first time since we passed the Brits in 1948, and an OECD report from March confirms they've matched or surpassed our R&D spending by purchasing power. You say technology will fix climate change. I actually agree with that. So explain to me how gutting the NSF, slashing DOE's Office of Science, and firing the entire National Science Board gets us there. You're rooting for the racehorse while shooting it in the legs.

Gerrymandering: you're right that both sides do it. I'll give you that. Your New England example is real. But the Brennan Center's analysis of maps used in 2024 shows a net 16-seat Republican advantage from redistricting alone, and Republicans controlled the drawing of 191 districts to Democrats' 75. FactCheck.org surveyed multiple independent statisticians; none concluded Democrats held the larger advantage. Your math-based redistricting fix is actually a solid idea. Lead with that instead of pretending it's a one-sided problem.

SAVE Act: "Why shouldn't you prove citizenship to vote?" Sounds great until you look at how it works. Citizenship is already required. It's already enforced. Utah audited its entire voter roll of 2 million+ people and found one noncitizen registration and zero noncitizen votes. Kansas tried a similar documentary proof requirement and blocked 30,000 registrations in two years; over 99% were eligible citizens. Under the SAVE Act, 52% of registered voters don't have an unexpired passport with their current legal name. Only 1 in 4 Americans without a college degree have a valid passport. Republican women are twice as likely to have changed their surname, meaning their birth certificate won't match. Rural voters, the elderly, working-class folks... these are your people, and this bill hits them hardest. It's a solution to a 0.04% problem that creates a barrier for millions of eligible Americans.

I get it, the forum leans one way and I'm outnumbered. That's fine. But "you're hysterical" and "put down the AOC gummies" aren't rebuttals. Numbers are. I brought some.

First, great response. I wasn't expecting it.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

"Our inferiors?" "Our vassals?" Come on, man. Those "dependents" host our bases, share intelligence, fly our wing, and bleed beside us. NATO interoperability, Five Eyes, AUKUS... none of that works if allies decide we're not worth the hassle. Swagger isn't strategy. You of all people should know the difference.

I don't dispute anything you put forward here. I am, however, very concerned with much of how Europe is allowed to bankroll their social utopias on the backs of American defense. That is real. When you look at what NATO can bring to the fight, much of what entire countries contribute amounts to a single fighter squadron - not nothing - but at the same time, we give them undue credit for what they are able to add to our collective defense. Holding them accountable for the level of insurance they get from us has been a proper political angle that Trump is correct to pressure. Inferior was harsh, but vassal is correct. Europe/Japan and much of the modern world is not what it is without pax americana. Trump is reasserting that, correctly.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Economy: we actually agree more than you think. Structural forces matter. But you can't hand-wave away tariff-driven consumer price increases that the CBO says hit lower-income households hardest, then tell the guy making $50K that the market is doing great. That's not an argument; that's a view from a portfolio.

I do think the economy is shit. And structural forces are the only thing that matters. It's because of how the Federal reserve is intended to function as a central bank. It lends to the US government at below market rates enabling inflation as a means to an end to devalue government debt at the expense of W-2 employees. So yes, the economy sucks. I personally think it's going to suck for a very, very long time. We have a larger generation that is owed out-sized benefits from a smaller generation and working class. That is going to be painful for a very long time as productivity will be unable to match outlays. Tariffs? Eh. They're the flavor of the month and miniscule relative to the larger, structural issue inherent in the system.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Science: you changed the subject. I'm not talking about social science replication problems. I'm talking about 7,800+ NIH and NSF grants cancelled or frozen in 2025, competitive NIH grants down by half in FY26, 25,000+ science agency employees gone, and NSF staffing down 35%. Meanwhile, China passed us in total scientific publications in 2024 for the first time since we passed the Brits in 1948, and an OECD report from March confirms they've matched or surpassed our R&D spending by purchasing power. You say technology will fix climate change. I actually agree with that. So explain to me how gutting the NSF, slashing DOE's Office of Science, and firing the entire National Science Board gets us there. You're rooting for the racehorse while shooting it in the legs.

This could be a subject in its own right. I think we probably do agree a good deal. That said, the functioning of our academic system has become completely divorced from its original intent. Universities used to produce lots of science. Now, the government disallows research that would be fruitful whilst looking to fund programs and research that it thinks will serve as means to justify future spending that they likely already have earmarked, but just need some "study" to allow it to go forward. Don't miss the point I was making by latching onto the social science crisis example - the crisis is everywhere, but most pronounced in the social sciences. Broadly speaking, the government has corrupted what was once a good system. The fix is to remove nearly all funding from these entities and allow them to generate science that is actually profitable - i.e. solves real problems.

On the subject of government science more broadly, I don't think I disagree with you; maybe we were talking about different things and I grabbed onto what I thought you were trying to say. That said, science is not stopped dead in its tracks...please.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

SAVE Act: "Why shouldn't you prove citizenship to vote?" Sounds great until you look at how it works.

Fine then change how it works! The SAVE act is part of a much broader conversation in the country to address issues with voting. Which are numerous. Vote gathering, non-citizen voting, voting month, mail-in voting, and so on. I don't know what to tell you about this other than to say I could easily vote for numerous family members who once upon a time lived in the same state I live in, but no longer do. I still receive ballots for them and just tear them up. You don't see the issue. I do. The bottom line is if you can't be bothered to make even the slightest personal efforts to participate in democracy, then you shouldn't vote. If you need "help" voting, then someone else cares about your vote more than you do, and it shouldn't be counted, because it's really just serving someone else's ends at that point.

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Gerrymandering: you're right that both sides do it. I'll give you that. Your New England example is real. But the Brennan Center's analysis of maps used in 2024 shows a net 16-seat Republican advantage from redistricting alone, and Republicans controlled the drawing of 191 districts to Democrats' 75. FactCheck.org surveyed multiple independent statisticians; none concluded Democrats held the larger advantage. Your math-based redistricting fix is actually a solid idea. Lead with that instead of pretending it's a one-sided problem.

I have no issue eliminating gerrymandering at large from the country. The court recently struck down Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, and they'll be forced to redraw. So will others hopefully. To be clear, that podcast also makes the point that there is no sacred right to partisan gerrymandering, either. That's the Federalist saying that. A conservative powerhouse. Never said that republicans didn't do it, but theirs is generally partisan, rather than racial. Either way, its a ridiculous practice that needs to come to an end, no matter what the intent.

1 hour ago, Negat0ry said:

Yet actual analysis plainly contradicts you and shows that gerrymandering unfairly supports republicans, not the other way around. To a net of 16-19 seats in the house. What you’re doing is called cherry picking data.

But I get it, sources on a lot of these feelings are hard to find.

Brennan Center for Justice

Gerrymandering and the 2024 Election

In most of the United States, politicians have drawn voting maps designed to keep their party in power.

Center for American Progress

The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering

New CAP analysis finds that the impacts of partisan gerrymandering are comparable to switching the majority of votes in 22 states.

Re-read what I wrote: "The LEFT has engaged in RACIAL gerrymanderring for decades."

Do you not agree with ceasing the practice broadly? Or should there be racial voting blocks in this country?

3:20 mark is the shooting. Agent in suit is VERY lucky

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by uhhello

4 minutes ago, uhhello said:

3:20 mark is the shooting. Agent in suit is VERY lucky

Lot of them are lucky that LEO shooting didn't hit anyone! Holy fields of fire!

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

First, great response. I wasn't expecting it.

I don't dispute anything you put forward here. I am, however, very concerned with much of how Europe is allowed to bankroll their social utopias on the backs of American defense. That is real. When you look at what NATO can bring to the fight, much of what entire countries contribute amounts to a single fighter squadron - not nothing - but at the same time, we give them undue credit for what they are able to add to our collective defense. Holding them accountable for the level of insurance they get from us has been a proper political angle that Trump is correct to pressure. Inferior was harsh, but vassal is correct. Europe/Japan and much of the modern world is not what it is without pax americana. Trump is reasserting that, correctly.

I do think the economy is shit. And structural forces are the only thing that matters. It's because of how the Federal reserve is intended to function as a central bank. It lends to the US government at below market rates enabling inflation as a means to an end to devalue government debt at the expense of W-2 employees. So yes, the economy sucks. I personally think it's going to suck for a very, very long time. We have a larger generation that is owed out-sized benefits from a smaller generation and working class. That is going to be painful for a very long time as productivity will be unable to match outlays. Tariffs? Eh. They're the flavor of the month and miniscule relative to the larger, structural issue inherent in the system.

This could be a subject in its own right. I think we probably do agree a good deal. That said, the functioning of our academic system has become completely divorced from its original intent. Universities used to produce lots of science. Now, the government disallows research that would be fruitful whilst looking to fund programs and research that it thinks will serve as means to justify future spending that they likely already have earmarked, but just need some "study" to allow it to go forward. Don't miss the point I was making by latching onto the social science crisis example - the crisis is everywhere, but most pronounced in the social sciences. Broadly speaking, the government has corrupted what was once a good system. The fix is to remove nearly all funding from these entities and allow them to generate science that is actually profitable - i.e. solves real problems.

On the subject of government science more broadly, I don't think I disagree with you; maybe we were talking about different things and I grabbed onto what I thought you were trying to say. That said, science is not stopped dead in its tracks...please.

Fine then change how it works! The SAVE act is part of a much broader conversation in the country to address issues with voting. Which are numerous. Vote gathering, non-citizen voting, voting month, mail-in voting, and so on. I don't know what to tell you about this other than to say I could easily vote for numerous family members who once upon a time lived in the same state I live in, but no longer do. I still receive ballots for them and just tear them up. You don't see the issue. I do. The bottom line is if you can't be bothered to make even the slightest personal efforts to participate in democracy, then you shouldn't vote. If you need "help" voting, then someone else cares about your vote more than you do, and it shouldn't be counted, because it's really just serving someone else's ends at that point.

I have no issue eliminating gerrymandering at large from the country. The court recently struck down Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, and they'll be forced to redraw. So will others hopefully. To be clear, that podcast also makes the point that there is no sacred right to partisan gerrymandering, either. That's the Federalist saying that. A conservative powerhouse. Never said that republicans didn't do it, but theirs is generally partisan, rather than racial. Either way, its a ridiculous practice that needs to come to an end, no matter what the intent.

Brother, appreciate the response. Genuinely a better exchange than what I’ve gotten from most of the thread, and I mean that.

Allies: we’re closer than you think. European defense freeloading is real, and pressing NATO members to hit their commitments is legitimate. No argument. Where I’d push back is on “vassal.” A vassal doesn’t get a vote on your force posture, basing, or overflight. Allies do. And when they stop seeing the value proposition, you lose access; not troops, access. That’s the part that matters operationally. We need them to want us there. Pressure them on spending? Absolutely. Treat them like subordinates? That’s how you end up renegotiating SOFAs you didn’t want to renegotiate. Believe me, I've been an EO and an Attaché, I understand their weaknesses and faults, but they still bring a lot to the table.

Economy: you’re right about the structural picture. Fed policy, generational entitlement math, productivity versus outlays; solid analysis. Where I’ll push back is calling tariffs “miniscule.” The Yale Budget Lab estimated the current tariff regime costs the average American household roughly $3,800 per year in increased costs. That’s not macroeconomically transformative, but for the family making $50K, it’s a month’s groceries. Both things can be true: structural forces dominate the long-term picture AND tariffs are making the short-term pain worse for the people least able to absorb it.

Science: I think we’re closer here than your first post suggested, and I appreciate you saying so. But I have to push back on “remove nearly all funding and let them produce profitable science.” Basic research doesn’t work that way. The internet came from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) funding. GPS came from DoD. mRNA vaccine technology sat in NIH-funded labs for decades before it had a commercial application. Semiconductors, radar, the Human Genome Project; none of those had a viable business case at the time they were funded. Private capital doesn’t invest in 20-year timelines with uncertain payoffs. Government does. That’s the entire point. If you strip that out and only fund what’s immediately profitable, you get incremental product improvement, not breakthrough innovation. And right now, China isn’t being incremental. They passed us in total scientific publications, top-cited research papers, and R&D spending by purchasing power. They’re not doing that by letting the market sort it out; they’re doing it with massive, sustained state investment in basic science. We can argue about waste in the system all day (and there is waste), but the answer to waste isn’t demolition. It’s reform.

Climate: you didn’t respond to this part, so I’ll put it out there again. We agreed that technology is the answer. So here’s the problem: China makes 80% of the world’s solar cells, 70% of wind turbines, 70% of lithium batteries. They invested $1 trillion in clean energy in 2025; four times what they put into fossil fuels. EVs went from 6% of Chinese car sales in 2020 to over 50% in 2025, and they became the world’s largest auto exporter in that period. Ford’s CEO said publicly that Chinese vehicle technology is “far superior” and that if they lose this competition, “we do not have a future Ford.” Meanwhile, this administration killed EV tax credits (expire September), residential solar credits (expire end of year), wind/solar project credits (expire 2027), froze offshore wind permits, and is trying to rescind the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which is the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases at all. That’s not “technology will fix it.” That’s ceding the technology race to China while telling ourselves we’re winning. If technology is the answer, where’s the investment?

SAVE Act: “Fine then change how it works” is actually fair, and I respect that. But your ballot example (receiving ballots for family members who moved) is a mail-in ballot integrity issue, not a citizenship issue. The SAVE Act doesn’t fix that. It requires documentary proof of citizenship to register, which is a different problem aimed at a different (and nearly nonexistent) threat. Utah audited 2 million+ voters and found one noncitizen registration, zero noncitizen votes. There are better, less disruptive ways to verify citizenship (database matching through USCIS, for example) that don’t require grandma to dig up a birth certificate from 1948 or a married woman whose name doesn’t match her documents to take a day off work to visit an election office. I’m with you that election integrity matters. I just think this particular bill is a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do.

Gerrymandering: sounds like we actually agree. Kill it everywhere, use a mathematical standard, done. I’ll take the win.

20 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Probably for the best.

Sick come back bro. You really showed me!