If you think Socialism is anything other than a boot on your throat, you have paid no attention to history.

And since Democrats are overwhelmingly in charge of California... what are you talking about?

Well, since you're talking about things that are banned or heavily regulated, what the hell are you pretending you're worried about?

It does seem odd that the sellers of a product are also the biggest fear-mongerers for the product. Even people who sell products that are actually dangerous don't do that, even when they should (looking at you Perdue Pharma). Gun manufacturers sure don't run around demanding legislation that would keep people from making guns. Alcohol companies don't do it. Tobacco companies don't do it.

Stop telling me you shouldn't be doing what you're doing when what you're doing is selling me your damn product!

Yes, hence the call to preserve their position through legislation.

It really doesn't guzzle water. Compare the data centers to golf courses.

"Culture wars" are not a global phenomenon.

ports aren't insecure, protocols are

True.

The people who block ports pointlessly just because they've been abused in the ancient past are idiots too.

Huh? Blocking inbound ports in which you don't actively host services or outbound ports in which you don't require traffic is just good security.

You will note that Europe isn't busy doing the same thing with Chinese electronics and software. That's because as brutal a regime as China is they are at least predictable.

Agreed, although countries should also be questioning the predictability of China, especially with regards to their not-so-secret ambitions over Taiwan.

I don't think people really can process just how crazy it is that the president of the United States threatened to seize Greenland by force and that the only reason he stopped is that Congress told him no

In his second term, Trump has shown absolutely no regard for Congress. For the most part, he does whatever he wants and Congress just lets it happen. I'm still not certain what his intent was for disclosing ambitions over Greenland, but I narrow it down to one of two things: he was using it as a bombastic distraction from the fuckery he was actively engaged in at the time, or he does sincerely maintain those ambitions but he's starting with less controversial targets for Americans (Venezuela, Iran, Cuba) before he gets around to countries with more sympathetic ties to the U.S., such as Greenland and Canada.

Yes, it will make the economy more efficient. And just imagine how efficient the economy would become if we managed to eliminate the need for all spending!

Keep in mind that the "American Century" included nuclear nonproliferation. Which, to be sure, was already on life support. But it's dead now. We're all going to miss that.

This is especially true after the latest attack on Iran. The excuse the U.S. gave for that attack was to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon (despite the fact that we reportedly "obliterated" their nuclear program less than a year ago). The irony is that the attack will likely strengthen the Iranians' resolve to develop a nuclear weapon since the U.S. does not attack nations with nuclear capabilities. And other countries that aspire to become nuclear powers are probably looking at that with similar sentiments.

This is the nature of war. You fight knowing what you learned in the last one, not what you couldn't know about the new one.

Russia first invaded Ukraine back in what, 2014? Five years before that document was written?

Now, you may still be right. During Obama's administration, there were people talking about expanding NATO to include Ukraine, even though we had agreed not to do so and Ukraine was even then decades away from being eligible. As I recall, most of the people talking like that were outside of government, but Hillary had been doing some dumb stuff already - like collapsing Libia for no clear reason and despite Qadaffi's compliance - and had a number of ties to the NATO pushers.

It's hard to say if any of that was actually a motivation for Putin, or if he just claimed it was as an excuse.

Biden didn't do more because the Democrats are weak and ineffectual. Obama wasn't willing to do more than send civilian supplies. Republicans sent guns and bombs. Republicans are not at all "close with Russia". There are Republicans who don't want to be involved in the conflict. Not the same thing. And Tucker doesn't count anymore; he is out.

Support your claim that, "the Republicans have repeatedly said they will eliminate all voting rights if they didn't have the filibuster stopping them." With quotes please.

Ukraine can't trust Russia to uphold any agreement, nor are they willing to accept the terms Russia would demand. Russia isn't willing to accept the terms Ukraine would demand and has repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in serious talks.

The only parties interested in a diplomatic settlement are outside of the conflict. Russia doesn't want one, Ukraine doesn't want one, and they're the only ones who count. Both would rather fight to the end. Ukraine's survival as an independent nation is on the line, as is Putin's administration, so for either, it is a fight to the death.

I've heard they're already selling drones to NATO, or at least NATO members. The expertise they're developing will be very relevant in the future.