Quite a few, starting with, “how is that relevant?”

Just because someone is the moral equivalent of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch does not inherently mean that they are also the intellectual equivalent of the same.

True enough. Used to be, we were the only game in town, and we knew it.

Our smarter presidents tried to make sure we remained the best option, or at least a good option. Trump, as you have noted, makes is the worst option.

Does anyone in Washington understand that a “deal” generally includes giving the other guy something they want, not just demanding things that you want?

No-one is every gonna call it anything but the Epstein ballroom.

Which he will ignore as soon as he finds it inconvenient.

Why do people continue to think you can make a deal with someone who never upholds their end of a deal?

Unlike the Left, we don’t believe in erasing American history — we honor it.”

Really? Because your guys spent the first few months of this year erasing as much history of women and minorities as you could get your hands on.

Oh and you guys are trying to erase about half the history of impeachment in the country.

This is the way.

One reason might be shipping. A car probably takes up the same space in a shipping container as four cars worth of steel.

I don’t know where the break even point is. But it’s likely to be more complex than you describe.

An interesting analyses. It certainly matches what we’ve seen. His attacks on the standard list of people is moderately pathetic, and quite predictable.

He’s never told the truth in his life. How hard would it be to say “no, of course not.”

Trouser Python. Technically true, and no-one is going to check.

Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?

the only time I was ever hesitant about a vaccine was the smallpox vaccine that they brought out just as I was enlisting. It was widly reported that it was risky to take, as it contained actual virus, rather than just the recognition bits.

In retrospect, I have no idea if the reporting was accurate, misinformed, or fearmongering. But at the time, it worried me.

Information flow can never go backwards. There’s plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I’m not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.

The US is obligated by law,

Yea, that’s a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too?

And we provide Israel weapons to bomb Gaza.

That doesn’t always work.

We used to have an agreement, didn’t we? What happened to it?

Oh. Right.

Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed?