New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#3076 2025-12-28 13:48:12
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,441
Re: Politics
SpaceNut,
Problem is the hard evidence is dismissed as being generated and not real.
Evidence is law of having sex with minors. That is a crime and documented.
There is no "hard evidence". The person making the accusation claimed to have such evidence, but then later said she lied about that and never had any such evidence. If such evidence does exit, giving a copy of it to the FBI would've been a great place to start.
Accusing someone of a crime is not "evidence" of anything. An accusation of a 20+ year old crime by someone who had their entire deposition thrown out after she later stated that "she made it all up to draw attention to the Epstein case", doesn't help prove anything in a court of law, except that the person making the accusation is a proven liar, by her own admission.
This is why, in the complete absence of corroborating evidence, if someone merely accuses you of a crime, the government doesn't automatically throw you in prison. Maybe you think an accusation alone is sufficient if it's made against someone you don't personally like, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that same "standard of evidence" applied to you.
Offline
Like button can go here
#3077 2026-01-08 21:54:13
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Today's update from Jake Broe. 36 minutes, 46 seconds.
YouTube: The World is on FIRE! Ukraine Has a Plan!
Offline
Like button can go here
#3078 2026-01-09 02:27:54
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,441
Re: Politics
Nothing Was Leared YouTube Channel - White Liberal News Good For US Means Bad For Us ep 103
"Join us next time when we tell you how much better we are as liberals than everyone else." - Karen
Offline
Like button can go here
#3079 2026-01-09 03:42:13
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Posts on LinkedIn from Robert Zubrin:
January 8: Trump is creating domestic chaos in order to impose repression.
January 7: Treaties are laws.
US treaties have the power of law in the USA.
Trump breaking the NATO treaty to seize Danish territory would be a criminal act in the USA.
It would require impeachment and imprisonment.
January 5: The problem with Trump stomp on Maduro isn’t the attack itself.
It’s what he gave away in exchange.
Europe.
Putin offered Trump a free hand in the Western Hemisphere if he gave away Europe.
Trump has taken the deal.
Offline
Like button can go here
#3080 2026-01-11 15:22:03
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 30,280
Re: Politics
What only a 3 way split???
Offline
Like button can go here
#3081 Yesterday 00:22:06
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
It's dangerous to post about politics, but I think I have some important insights.
Donald Trump gave away what he views this to be about. He mentioned the Golden Dome, and "angles". Some people ask why Greenland is so strategically important? Waters surrounding the island? Arctic access? But it's really about the Golden Dome; Trump's big plan for an ICBM defence system. So plans for Golden Dome to work, it requires something be built on Greenland. Of course treaties with Greenland would allow the US to build defensive systems on the island simply by asking, but Trump wants total control. He hates the idea of his Golden Dome protecting an ally, he must have total control.
Currently Canada is the second largest country in land area, behind Russia. Canada is only half of one percent larger than the US, but it is larger. If the US added Greenland, then the US would be second largest. If the US annexes Canada, then it would be the largest in the world.
But also realize Vladimir Putin was a KGB agent before he was deputy mayor of Moscow. He specialized in manipulating people from the West to serve Russia's interest. Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together, and for Russia (or Greater Russia) to be the sole superpower in the world. To be the sole superpower requires ensuring America is not. America must become weak, poor, and pathetic. One of America's great strengths is its allies. America does not stand alone, it has many strong allies. America does not have to pay for the military of those other countries, but those militaries are available should America need them. For Russia to conquer east and central Europe, NATO must be broken. Russia ruled over the Warsaw Pact, dictating to other member nations as an empire to vassal states. Putin views NATO being the same, with America dictating to NATO. So Putin is manipulating Trump to do something stupid to break up NATO. This will leave America isolated, making it much more vulnerable. It will also make Europe vulnerable. Russia has absolutely no chance of defeating NATO together, but Russia believes they can defeat European countries if (and only if) they are conquered one at a time. So the goal is to ensure NATO is not only fractured, but NATO countries no longer provide aid for one another.
If the US invades a NATO country, that will fracture NATO. Greenland is a territory of Denmark, a major NATO member. During the Afghan war, not only did Denmark support USA, but Danish troops suffered more casualties per capita than any other country. And any ships leaving the Baltic Sea (eg Russian ships) must pass through Danish waters. So the US invading Greenland will accomplish that goal.
The US also trades with practically every country on the planet. The US gets rich off trade. But tariffs are damaging trading relationships with America's largest trading partners. Destroying that trade will cut of the US from critical resources, and make America poor.
Much more: the US dollar is the international trade currency. The US currently has federal debt of $38.45 trillion. If countries dump US treasury bonds, stop purchasing US debt, the US will be in great financial trouble. The US federal budget deficit for 2025 was $111 billion. With no one purchasing bonds, no one loaning the US money, the US federal government will be in great trouble. But with threatening to invade Greenland, threatening to annex Canada, and tariffs that offend everyone on the planet, the US is well on its way to accomplishing Russia's goal.
America will be isolated, no allies. Poor, unable to sustain the current defence budget. Weak. Pathetic.
This is everything Russia wants. So why is America doing this?
Offline
Like button can go here
#3082 Yesterday 13:24:50
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,441
Re: Politics
RobertDyck,
It's dangerous to post about politics, but I think I have some important insights.
The only danger posed to you by posting about politics comes from your fellow leftists. You've made so many objectively false assertions that it's hard for me to take your "important insights" as anything more than a recitation of your beliefs about unreality.
The US also trades with practically every country on the planet. The US gets rich off trade. But tariffs are damaging trading relationships with America's largest trading partners. Destroying that trade will cut of the US from critical resources, and make America poor.
Given the spate of news about international trade lately, Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. isn’t very dependent on it. Indeed, looking at trade as a percentage of gross domestic product – a metric economists sometimes call the “openness index” – the U.S. is one of the least trade-oriented nations in the world.
...
In fact, of the 193 countries examined by the World Bank, only two were less involved in international trade than the U.S. Those were Nigeria, at 26%, and Sudan at 3%. Most world economic powers scored considerably higher, with Germany at 100%, France at 73%, the U.K. at 70%, India at 49%, and China at 38%. Who knew?
...
It’s also important to look at the trajectory of trade-to-GDP ratios over time. As for the U.S., the ratio rose from 9% in 1960 to just under 11% in 1970 to 25% by 2000.Since then, the ratio has ranged from 22% in 2002 to 31% in 2012 – remaining low compared to almost every other country. The U.S. has registered a relatively low trade-to-GDP ratio throughout its history.
The US "gets rich off trade", according to you, but is involved in less trade as a percentage of the national economy than any nation except Nigeria and Sudan?
About 99.9% of the businesses which comprise America's "real economy" are small businesses who employ domestic laborers. They generate almost half of the GDP. They're responsible for over half all net new job growth. It's always been that way.
The US currently has federal debt of $38.45 trillion.
This was 100% the result of wildly excessive US federal government spending, not a lack of domestic productivity. The debt will be paid back when we quit allowing deficit spending. I've heard all manner of lame excuses for Congress failing to pass a budget in regular order, but none of those excuses are an acceptable substitute for budgeting.
Congress wouldn't have much free time to debate allowing men in women's bathrooms if they were scrutinizing every line item in the federal budget.
If countries dump US treasury bonds, stop purchasing US debt, the US will be in great financial trouble.
The US federal government "big spending" advocates will be in trouble, because with your governments' help (by refusing to purchase US debt), we will cut them off from foreign currency sources used to paper-over their spending sprees. Please urge your government to stop purchasing US federal debt. Please and thank you.
The US federal budget deficit for 2025 was $111 billion.
The cost of maintaining US military bases overseas is estimated at $80-100 billion.
With no one purchasing bonds, no one loaning the US money, the US federal government will be in great trouble.
Not really. See above.
America will be isolated, no allies. Poor, unable to sustain the current defence budget. Weak. Pathetic.
This is everything Russia wants. So why is America doing this?
If you had any true insight, then you would already know the answer.
People advocating for maintaining the status quo are the proximal reason why America's budget deficit is $111B and the cumulative debt over time is $38.45T and climbing. The status quo is unsustainable for the US, which is why President Trump is ending it.
We do not care about what Russia wants. Russia is not even a factor in our thinking. It's only a factor in your thinking. Russia has an economy the size of Italy. Any nation with an economy the size of Italy is not going to take over the world, nor will it dictate terms to the US, now or ever. The Russians pose more of a threat to themselves than they pose to the US.
The left, which you are a part of, are famous for "false framing" of issues based upon ideologically-motivated distortions of reality. The only question I keep asking myself is if you truly only "know" what you've been indoctrinated to believe, or if you're deliberately making objectively false assertions which you somehow believe will influence the thinking of other people.
If you wanted to convince other people that your beliefs have merit, then you would not argue from objectively false premises.
These are the false-premise / false-framing "talking points" you've recited here:
1. America "gets rich" off of trade.
This is plainly false.
2. America will be "much poorer" when our politicians can't engage in deficit spending because no other country will buy our debt.
A government's spending cap being limited to available tax revenue does not mean a nation gets poorer. I've never seen a nation that was taxed and spent into prosperity.
3. Russia will somehow achieve an exploitable geopolitical advantage if America can no longer engage in deficit spending to prop-up other nations, militarily and/or economically.
Russia has thus far failed to militarily conquer their next door neighbor when America and European nations devote a minor fraction of their GDP to weapons procurement on behalf of Ukraine. They've done a lot of economic damage to themselves and Ukraine, but historically Russia always leaves themselves in a worse economic and military position. Their war in Ukraine hasn't bucked that trend.
4. If America is no longer part of NATO, then America will somehow be "much more vulnerable".
Iraq War I was a preview of exactly what would happen if Russia's military was pitted against America's military.
5. Europe is vulnerable to Russia.
Russia can't militarily defeat Ukraine, but somehow it's gonna defeat a significant portion of European military forces after the US leaves?
Offline
Like button can go here
#3083 Yesterday 19:40:53
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
kbd512: I'm not leftist. The leftists hate me because I'm too right-wing. If you think I'm a lefty, that says something about you.
You sound like a cult member. No matter how much Trump lies, you believe him. No matter how much he destroys the US, you're a fawning sycophant. I should not trade insults, but Trump is so corrupt... I don't know how to characterize it. Grocery prices skyrocket, Trump claims prices are coming down, and you believe him. Trump claims healthcare will get more affordable, even though prices are so high people are dying. But you believe him. I worked in Virginia in 1996, I had worked in Alberta for 7 months, they let me continue Alberta Health coverage for up to a year as.long as I paid premiums. What I paid per quarter worked out to US$75. I was a contractor in Alberta so had to pay both employee and employer portions. What I paid was triple what normal employees in Alberta paid. But an American coworker paid $75 per month. So he paid triple what I paid. He was single, healthy, mid-30s. One YouTuber said this year for her family of 4 she pays $1,384.76 per month! She and her husband are 30-something, their 2 children are middle school age. This is insane!!!
Reference, YouTube: What I pay for US Health Insurance | USA to Canada Immigration Ep 15
Offline
Like button can go here
#3084 Yesterday 21:42:08
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 23,946
Re: Politics
For RobertDyck ... this topic of yours is about Politics, and I believe the query I posed today to Gemini fits the theme.
I wanted to know if States can pull their representatives home for consultation, and the answer is NO.
Conversation with Gemini
Question re Quorum Congress and Senate - Hello Again.
Hello! It’s good to see you again.
I'm ready whenever you are. Whether you're looking for details on what constitutes a quorum (the minimum number of members required to conduct business) or how the House and Senate differ in their procedural rules, just let me know.
Since I remember you were previously looking for tools to help with precision (like that Bambusi bread slicer we discussed for a knife guide), I'll make sure to keep my explanation of Congressional "rules of the house" just as organized and easy to follow.
How can I help you with your question regarding the Quorum?
My question is about the power of a State (or any State) to pull it's representatives home for consultation. This is routinely done at the Ambassadorial level between Nations. Do States have the same power in the US system?
It is fascinating that you draw the comparison to ambassadors, as that is exactly how the relationship between States and their federal representatives was viewed before the current Constitution was adopted.
To answer your question directly: No, States do not have the power to "pull home" or recall their Representatives or Senators under the current U.S. Constitution.
Here is the breakdown of why that power exists for nations with ambassadors but was intentionally removed for U.S. States.
1. The Historical "Ambassador" ModelUnder the Articles of Confederation (the system used before the Constitution), your intuition was exactly right. Members of Congress were essentially seen as ambassadors from sovereign states.
The Power to Recall: Under the Articles, state legislatures had the explicit power to recall their delegates at any time and send others in their place.
The Power to Consult: States could (and did) pull their representatives back for instructions, treating them as agents of the state government rather than independent legislators.
2. The Constitutional Shift (1787)
When the Framers wrote the current Constitution, they deliberately moved away from the "ambassador" model. They wanted a national government where representatives were "beyond the control of the individual States until the next election."
The Decision: During the Constitutional Convention, delegates debated including a recall provision but ultimately rejected it. They feared it would make the national government unstable and leave representatives constantly looking over their shoulders at state politics instead of focusing on national issues.
The Supreme Court View: The Court has since affirmed this (most notably in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton), stating that once a representative is elected and seated, they form a national body. A state cannot unilaterally shorten their term or "pull them home" for consultation against their will.
3. Comparison with Ambassadors
Feature Foreign Ambassadors U.S. Congress Members
Who they represent The Executive/Sovereign State The People of their district or state
Recall Power Sending nation can recall at any time States cannot recall; only the House/Senate can expel (2/3 vote)
Duration of Service "At the pleasure" of the sender Fixed terms (2 or 6 years)
Status Diplomatic agents National legislators
4. Can a State Compel Consultation?While a State Governor or Legislature can certainly invite their representatives back for a meeting or "consultation," they have no legal authority to force them to leave Washington D.C. In fact, Article I, Section 5 gives the House and Senate the power to "compel the attendance of absent members." If a State tried to keep its representatives at home, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House or Senate could theoretically be dispatched to bring them back to the Capitol to ensure a quorum.
Summary: While it feels like an ambassadorial relationship, the U.S. system treats Congress as a unified national body. Once elected, a representative's seat belongs to them for the duration of their term, and the State has no "recall button" to push.
Since we've touched on how the House and Senate protect their own membership, would you like me to look into the specific rules they use to "compel attendance" when they are short of a quorum?
Thank you ** very ** much for this important reminder of US history! I will publish your reply as part of a discussion about political systems.
You are very welcome! I’m honored that you’ll be sharing that explanation as part of your discussion. It is a critical distinction that often gets lost in modern political debate: the transition from a "confederation of sovereign states" to a "federal union of the people."
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#3085 Today 10:03:05
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,441
Re: Politics
RobertDyck,
I'm not leftist. The leftists hate me because I'm too right-wing. If you think I'm a lefty, that says something about you.
You only look, waddle, and quack like a duck... but you're absolutely NOT a duck!
I got it.
You sound like a cult member. No matter how much Trump lies, you believe him. No matter how much he destroys the US, you're a fawning sycophant.
Offline
Like button can go here
#3086 Today 11:15:36
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
So,byou repeat the same thing and think that proves anything. I believe in reducing cost for average working people. That means reducing government, reducing taxes, empowering citizens. But when a corporation drastically raises cost of healthcare with the threat of pay what I demand or you die? That's not free enterprise, that's extortion.
Donald Trump is not interested in helping you, he's only interested in himself. He claimed he reduced the cost of groceries, but look at what you pay. It's increased. Now he claims he'll reduce cost of healthcare. And you believe him? You remind me of a speech by George W. Bush: YouTube: Fool me once, shame on you
Offline
Like button can go here
#3087 Today 11:28:49
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Offline
Like button can go here
#3088 Today 11:54:29
- kbd512
- Administrator
- Registered: 2015-01-02
- Posts: 8,441
Re: Politics
RobertDyck,
A fringe benefit of knowing how to count is knowing how much money I spent buying groceries and gas under Biden vs Trump.
Donald Trump is not interested in helping you, he's only interested in himself.
If I have to live under another Democrat claiming to want to help me, then I might not be able to afford to live indoors.
You remind me of a speech by Kamala Harris: YouTube: Unburdened by What Has Been
Offline
Like button can go here
#3089 Today 14:22:10
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Not defending Kamala Harris. US voters need an option for "none of the above". If that wins, none of the candidates win. Another election is held, and all candidates whose name was on the ballot are not allowed the second time. They're not banned for life, just until someone else is elected. Because "none of the above" means majority voted against all of them.
Offline
Like button can go here
#3090 Today 15:35:32
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Ballotpedia: Presidential candidates, 2024
For the 2024 US presidential election, there were 24 candidates. You didn't have to chose between Satan vs Beelzebub. Media may claim only 2 parties, but those are the ones that pay mainstream media billions of dollars. You don't have to vote for the ones that bribe media. Why didn't you vote for the Libertarian candidate?
Offline
Like button can go here
#3091 Today 17:27:27
- RobertDyck
- Moderator
- From: Winnipeg, Canada
- Registered: 2002-08-20
- Posts: 8,360
- Website
Re: Politics
Click image for YouTube video.
I Tried To Make Something In America (The Smarter Scrubber Experiment) - Smarter Every Day 308
Offline
Like button can go here