Trump is bad.
As an individual:
I'm as-far-as-possible boycotting a lot of US goods (including not using amazon) - even down to the NOT coca-cola cola i now drink.
I'll not be visiting the US ever again (regardless of dems or repubs in charge).
I'm not alone, either.
So yes, i would say he's bad, and terrible for your country, both short, long, and very long term. Let alone the paedo stuff, the grifting, obama on the brain, tarrifs, ice...the economic jeopardy he's playing with the US is astounding to watch.
However, i am interested, as i am sure others are - in what way could he be considered 'good'?
> the loyalty an American will have for this or that foreign adversary will trend to 0
Yeah. National loyalty is not the only motivating force why someone would leak something. The common reasons why someone becomes an insider treat is MICE: Money, Ideology, Compromise, and Ego. It is not specific to immigrants.
I would argue the word loyalty can encompass external pressures like that or internal affinity, ethnic tribalism and everything in between but yes, agreed.
> Because there is a significant part of the country that would love to ban guns completely but they currently don't, and perhaps won't ever, have quite enough support to make a change to the constitution to allow them to.
Both, though I don't know the breakdown. I'm confident saying there's absolutely some people who seem to see onerous regulation as a path to a de facto ban, though.
I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to those pushing regulations if the regulations themselves seemed well thought out and drafted rather than leaning on kneejerk "guns bad, rules good" reactions from voters to get passed. Unfortunately the actual situation seems to be that left-leaning areas where it's easy to push anti-gun law lean farther and farther into restricting both first and second amendment rights without meaningful impact, while the right-leaning areas that actually could use some additional regulation over the perhaps overly lax federal level laws can't or won't do anything.
> There's no indication Edwards knowingly, deliberately invented quotes. It was a clumsy mistake.
Signing off on an article that 'quotes' someone by hallucination?
I would say that, for a journalist- especially on ars - is slightly more than 'clumsy'.
> Nevertheless, this union of a weak neighbor + 1b block is steadily loosing land.
Last I saw (this weekend), the union of Ukraine+friends, was losing land at about 50-75 metres a day.
As well as bopping off 35,000 enemy combatants a month off the 2026 Christmas party list.
And russia can't (or haven't) matched those losses with recruitment.
a single soldier, perhaps two, sent 20km into opposing territory (the advance, the territory gained) doesn't mean actually controlling the ground. Just ask Vlad.
If Russia looses 35000 a month, why does Ukraine:
a) Loose land and cities constantly
b) Mobilize people brutally on streets
c) Keep its bordera closed for men
That's the type of stuff that happens when you're at war. Would you rather Ukraine fight this war with the intent to lose? Russia is fighting to win, why can't Ukraine?
So Russia has catastrophic losses yet there's no mobilization.
Ukraine is said to loose very few men, yet they have to beat people on streets to mobilize them.
Meanwhile, Russian borders are open.
Dude, I was always told that Russia could just roll to Berlin because of all the remaining might of the Soviet Union. I read books by authors like Tom Clancy that lionized Russian might.
And here we are in 2026. An inconsequential country like Ukraine only has to beat people up in the streets and close their borders for men and they can reduce the speed of the Russian bear to meters per day. Make sure all your nukes are working, cause clearly not much else is impressive in your military.
Oh no, allies come to the aid of their allies! China, Iran, and North Korea are more than happy to supply your country, but they're not interested in doing it as loans and gifts. Funny how Russia's incapable of having true long-term allies. Like it's rotten or something.
You’re not even trying to troll properly, are you? Jesus, it takes like a second to find that Ukraine’s population pre war was ~40 mil, Russia’s population ~140 mil. Active personal in Ukraine was ~200k, in Russia ~900k. So ~3x population and ~4x military force. And that is ignoring weapon and turf superiority, huge advantage of first hit and the West dragging their feet.
Russian army is a complete joke. Russia is a raketeer with nukes.
So yes, i would say he's bad, and terrible for your country, both short, long, and very long term. Let alone the paedo stuff, the grifting, obama on the brain, tarrifs, ice...the economic jeopardy he's playing with the US is astounding to watch.
However, i am interested, as i am sure others are - in what way could he be considered 'good'?
reply