Supreme Court Decisions

NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.

Gentleman's agreement? Trump?.. Lol. Sorry, that has zero credibility as an idea. Trump has repeatedly promised his base that he'd appoint someone who would protect their second amendment rights and overturn Roe vs Wade.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ask Native Americans what they think of "Gentlemen Agreements" (or written agreements for that matter) with scoundrels. I'm sure God has already spoken to Mike Pence and provided him with a list of judicial candidates.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.
Though to this I'd say that anyone who expects Trump to adhere to a "gentlemen's agreement" is fooling himself.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

The other things I heard he said was, he thinks he was likely 20 years too soon because of ther racism and the GOP hate for him. He's right. In 20 years the country will look very different and white people will not be the majority.
That might be right. I thought Obama might have been the new FDR, but he might have just been the first sign of a new political movement.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump and a gentleman's agreement...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...that's hysterical, but it's not funny.

Simply put, Trump is not a gentleman in any way. There's no gentleman's agreement to have with him. He's many things, like a LIAR. He averages 6x a day. He's also a cheater, a psssy-grabber, creep and an extreme issue flopper. He can't be trusted on anything. No American bank will do business with him. So why would you make an agreement and why would you think he's a gentleman?

Here is what I say to our conservative friends...the pain from Trump will come to you, it already has if you work for for Harley Davidson. Seriously I keep hearing conservatives say they're surprised Trump did this or that. Why are you surprised? Because you didn't think about it? Well golly! Ignorance isn't an excuse.

Have you conservatives been tracking the tariff crap and the trade war. People with wealth are going to bleed through the nose, way more than others. The Koch Bros are lobbying already. They're not doing that for fun. They stand to lose a lot, and for no good reason, or one not explained.


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now that Roe v. Wade is coming back into focus, I'm hoping the press delves more into this:



Ronan Farrow, please tell me you're working on an expose that shines a light on what really went down. Not that it would change Trump's choice of nominee to SCOTUS in any way, but I'm just curious how Linda Blair-like the Evangelical spinning will be this time.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.

Gentleman's agreement? Trump?.. Lol. Sorry, that has zero credibility as an idea. Trump has repeatedly promised his base that he'd appoint someone who would protect their second amendment rights and overturn Roe vs Wade.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted about Jimmy Fallon calling him.



On his show Monday, Fallon was like, ***? He said he doesn't even have Trump's number. He's never called him.

But Trump made it all up, like he does everything.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

Our possible next Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick will be the age that Anthony Kennedy currently is in the year 2063.

I wonder if he'll attend the 100th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wyrick




Isn't an Ivy League law degree minimum criteria?

Trump will just say, "hey, we need a non-Ivy League spot."

Another person who stands a better shot is a Michigan alum.

Anyways, it's been nearly 40 years since the last Ivy League-free justice was selected (Sandra Day O'Conner).
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I mentioned upthread about Republican actions "amounting to zero." Here's another example:



Anyways, here are several ideas.

Rachel Maddow pointed out that all you need is 1 Republican senator to block Trump's nominee. Republicans only have 50 votes with McCain to ill to vote.

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkoski are pro-choice and they might not want to be the ones who are responsible for making abortion illegal.

Or how about Jeff Flake?






Another idea is this from political writer Alex Pereene (as we've seen, with Justice Roberts and the Affordable Care Act or the recent cell phone ruling).




okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
50 years ago this month:

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.

--She was such a shoe-in to win that many people who would've voted for her in swing states didn't bother.

--Her email scandal (and a few other scandals) made her more scrutinized than Trump. Sure, Trump had like 500 scandals. But they all canceled each other out, essentially.

--Her frontrunner status and her easily beatable opponent made her more scrutinized.

--She had been around too long that she had tons and tons of baggage. And that baggage had many left-leaning people voting for Jill Stein. (Hillary would've won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with Jill Stein's voters -- of course, Stein's voters wouldn't have voted for her.)

--Her frontrunner status and her easily beatable opponent made liberals on the fence or those too lazy to wait in a long line decide not to vote.

--16 years is a long time, and people forgot (or were too young to remember) between 2000 and 2016 that voting for the third-party candidate is a bad idea. People didn't realize that voting for Stein or that other dude only helped Trump. Many people didn't have the foresight to see that Republicans would control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and, yes, the White House under a Trump victory.

--Many anti-Hillary liberals also didn't get the importance of that vacant seat, or future vacant seats.

--Oh, and there's Russia -- yes, it must've had some impact, as did Hillary's gender.

--There's the media, especially the terrible New York Times. As Jimmy Fallon learned this week, even if you try to appease Trump and avoid looking anti-Trump, he'll come after you.

--Finally, there is rampant opinion (that's still on this board) that Trump is an easily beatable moron who is a moron who is easily beatable. Yet he just steamrolls his way through, breaking norms, lying, lying, lying, making of facts, blah, blah, blah. He's like a monster that you try to kill but he finds a way to turn the tables and survive. The problem is that it's hard to beat somebody who faces no consequences from lying (not from the media, anyway) or for making up facts.

Trump and the Republicans operate from what I call "amounting to zero."

They and Trump could be mean, they could be nasty, they could be raunchy, they could be immoral. But it amounts to zero because they take the "victimhood" posture. So the moment you do something, anything, then you are attacking the victim.

It sounded easy to beat Trump, but if it was so easy, something or somebody would've stopped him by now. He almost always gets his way and gets away with it.
The FBI, the FBI, the FBI -

The Inspector General report showed that a core group of FBI agents were taking action against Hillary by leaeking to the media and Trump campaign (this is different from moderate Republican Strok who was messaging anti-Trump stuff to a lover but was taking no anti-Trump actions). The behavior of the anti-Hillary FBI crowd influenced the behavior of Comey who went out of his way to make sure Hillary got negative treatment that was outside the normal policy.

These anti-Hillary FBI agents are still being investigated and thus are not having their information disclosed and not being discussed by the media, but everything I said above is in the Inspector General's report. It amounts to a coverup, really - having the information on the bad actors who were anti-Hillary suppressed until after the election (or maybe to be dumped as a minor policy slap-on-the-wrist some Friday evening.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

golden sloth said:

Civility was tossed out of politics a decade ago stop pretending this is a competition of ideas and acknowledge it for the bar fight it is.


Which is why Obama's reach across the aisle bulls$it was so stupid and destructive.
I liked him, but he was WAY too slow to recognize how scorched-earth the Republicans were going to be.
That's why I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries. She knew who the Republicans were. Obama did not and that was his biggest failing.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.
These are the words of a man (wiaf) who is trying to come to grips with what he has helped do to the country.

Trump will do as he pleases.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just want to know why Scalia's family made DAMN SURE there was no autopsy.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.
I would be surprised if anyone with half a brain would trust Donald Trump to keep his word on a gentlemen's agreement.

EDIT: Sorry for the redundancy, I didn't see others had made the same point prior to writing my comment.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

OIt's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.

Gentleman's agreement? Trump?.. Lol. Sorry, that has zero credibility as an idea. Trump has repeatedly promised his base that he'd appoint someone who would protect their second amendment rights and overturn Roe vs Wade.
by stating the following I'm not saying I love the concept of abortion, but go ahead and reverse or try and reverse it. You want to see pink pussiehat marches against this conservative wave? Ha, I laugh my ass off at the prospect.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I just want to know why Scalia's family made DAMN SURE there was no autopsy.
My grandfather (Cal band, '38 rose bowl parade) had his corotid arteries clogged and a surgery to clean them out in '99 - was told he'd come home next day, easy procedure. He died 3 days later after never having his blood pressure stabilized and a heart attack. I was by his side as he passed. My dad was kinda pissed, thinking someone must have f'd up his meds, but the siblings ultimately decided to accept that he was gone and nothing they did would bring him back. Focusing on a doctor's error failed to accept that he was 80 and in poor health.

Now, what is the Scalia conspiracy theory? How is it different than my dear grandpa?, whose middle name I gave to one of my kids.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

NYCGOBEARS said:

wifeisafurd said:

okaydo said:

OIt's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.

Gentleman's agreement? Trump?.. Lol. Sorry, that has zero credibility as an idea. Trump has repeatedly promised his base that he'd appoint someone who would protect their second amendment rights and overturn Roe vs Wade.
by stating the following I'm not saying I love the concept of abortion, but go ahead and reverse or try and reverse it. You want to see pink pussiehat marches against this conservative wave? Ha, I laugh my ass off at the prospect.
When does life begin?
When are you taking something away from a being that possesses something to be lost?

Having had 5 kids, I recognize that immediately after egg fertilization, my future children were nothing more than a collection of spastically active cells. No organization of itself into consciousness, thus not an entity which would recognize itself or its loss. How is that different from the insects I regularly been killing as pests around the back screen door (an argument that they are less than the insects can be made, no?)

Yet, at some point, I reason those cells do organize into an entity that if life were taken away, a conscious loss would occur. When is that? After the baby is born? After the baby resembles a human? This is the question?

I grew up being told that the instant the sperm meets egg, there was something sacred that instantaneously occurred and this life could not be touched. However, I now believe that consciousness is developed over time and one grows into it. I do not think this collection of cells, for instance, knows what it's missing, nor has enough history to feel that anything has been taken away.

Plenty of pregnancies are lost at this stage naturally. Do we feel that a death of human life has occurred? Sad, YES, but so sad as it would be with a stillborn. Why is that?

Thoughts anyone?

?cb=1247413306

6 weeks:


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

When does life begin?

Under the tenets of the Jewish faith life begins when your child graduates medical school.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My above thinking illustrates why I believe millions would again mobilize and rally against any overturn of roe vs wade. The Bible bumpers and stupid uneducateds would be pushing things too far and have a revolt from within against their ranks and implode. Women like the right to choose.

It's a theory.
Basically, I'm looking for their demise any way I can get it.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In all seriousness, if you believe in God, the most honest answer is that only God knows when life begins. Thus, the most honest position to hold if you support the right to abortion is that an abortion may be the termination of a human life but under certain circumstances it is a justifiable killing. I have never heard a Pro Choice advocate put it that way. They uniformily deny the fetus is a being with a right to life. It is a debate I pretty much never venture into. I will close with: if men were the ones that had babies, abortion would have always been legal because that is how men roll. They would have drafted a religious principle along the way to memorialize and certify the right to have one (Just like the Theocracy in The Handmaid's Tale legitimizes rape by means of The Ceremony).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

In all seriousness, if you believe in God, the most honest answer is that only God knows when life begins. Thus, the most honest position to hold if you support the right to abortion is that an abortion may be the termination of a human life but under certain circumstances it is a justifiable killing. I have never heard a Pro Choice advocate put it that way. They uniformily deny the fetus is a being with a right to life. It is a debate I pretty much never venture into. I will close with: if men were the ones that had babies, abortion would have always been legal because that is how men roll. They would have drafted a religious principle along the way to memorialize and certify the right to have one (Just like the Theocracy in The Handmaid's Tale legitimizes rape by means of The Ceremony).
Bingo
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

CIn all seriousness, if you believe in God, the most honest answer is that only God knows when life begins. Thus, the most honest position to hold if you support the right to abortion is that an abortion may be the termination of a human life but under certain circumstances it is a justifiable killing. I have never heard a Pro Choice advocate put it that way. They uniformily deny the fetus is a being with a right to life. It is a debate I pretty much never venture into. I will close with: if men were the ones that had babies, abortion would have always been legal because that is how men roll. They would have drafted a religious principle along the way to memorialize and certify the right to have one (Just like the Theocracy in The Handmaid's Tale legitimizes rape by means of The Ceremony).
isn't the appropriate way to evaluate such issues is to NOT START with a belief and create a rationale behind it, but to think your way into a belief?

Please try again, Counselor.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

bearister said:

CIn all seriousness, if you believe in God, the most honest answer is that only God knows when life begins. Thus, the most honest position to hold if you support the right to abortion is that an abortion may be the termination of a human life but under certain circumstances it is a justifiable killing. I have never heard a Pro Choice advocate put it that way. They uniformily deny the fetus is a being with a right to life. It is a debate I pretty much never venture into. I will close with: if men were the ones that had babies, abortion would have always been legal because that is how men roll. They would have drafted a religious principle along the way to memorialize and certify the right to have one (Just like the Theocracy in The Handmaid's Tale legitimizes rape by means of The Ceremony).
isn't the appropriate way to evaluate such issues is to NOT START with a belief and create a rationale behind it, but to think your way into a belief?

Please try again, Counselor.
My rationale is that it is a woman's body and her right to choose whether she will have a baby. The idea of a forced pregnancy is inhumane and repugnant to me.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

bearister said:

CIn all seriousness, if you believe in God, the most honest answer is that only God knows when life begins. Thus, the most honest position to hold if you support the right to abortion is that an abortion may be the termination of a human life but under certain circumstances it is a justifiable killing. I have never heard a Pro Choice advocate put it that way. They uniformily deny the fetus is a being with a right to life. It is a debate I pretty much never venture into. I will close with: if men were the ones that had babies, abortion would have always been legal because that is how men roll. They would have drafted a religious principle along the way to memorialize and certify the right to have one (Just like the Theocracy in The Handmaid's Tale legitimizes rape by means of The Ceremony).
isn't the appropriate way to evaluate such issues is to NOT START with a belief and create a rationale behind it, but to think your way into a belief?
Please try again, Counselor.




Larry: [to Jennings, while high] Okay. That means that our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being. [Jennings nods] This is too much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

Jennings: Could be one little tiny universe.

Larry: Could I buy some pot from you?

Larry: I won't go schizo, will I?

Jennings: It's a distinct possibility.




Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your prior answer was "in all seriousness".
This one is:



Current grade: F
Rewrites accepted.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This seems correct. I will also add, this would be worse for the GOP than a redux of Prop 187 on a national level. This would mobilize women like nothing else, and would pull in even moderate GOP women who are pro-choice. Totally agree if choice effected men directly, it would be changed yesterday.

Justice Stevens: Roe Will Be Overturned if Kennedy Retires

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

This seems correct. I will also add, this would be worse for the GOP than a redux of Prop 187 on a national level. This would mobilize women like nothing else, and would pull in even moderate GOP women who are pro-choice. Totally agree if choice effected men directly, it would be changed yesterday.

Justice Stevens: Roe Will Be Overturned if Kennedy Retires

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?

The only thing Trump cares about is appeasing his small but loyal base. They're the ones giving him his leverage. This is his only "strategy".
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?
To create instability, consolidate power and be like his allies of Putin and Kim Jung-Un (which are not America's allies).
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

golden sloth said:

Civility was tossed out of politics a decade ago stop pretending this is a competition of ideas and acknowledge it for the bar fight it is.


Which is why Obama's reach across the aisle bulls$it was so stupid and destructive.
I liked him, but he was WAY too slow to recognize how scorched-earth the Republicans were going to be.
That's why I voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries. She knew who the Republicans were. Obama did not and that was his biggest failing.
He's an idealist who thinks people are inherently good.
Who wouldn't want to raise their kids that way? Great job, mom!

Barack missed the school of hard knocks to learn it's not always so.
Or needed to get his butt kicked once or twice.
Not that he didn't experience his share of misfortune, but it was a good life, after all.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

This seems correct. I will also add, this would be worse for the GOP than a redux of Prop 187 on a national level. This would mobilize women like nothing else, and would pull in even moderate GOP women who are pro-choice. Totally agree if choice effected men directly, it would be changed yesterday.

Justice Stevens: Roe Will Be Overturned if Kennedy Retires

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?
This is why I'm a bit doubtful the Court will want to do a straight repeal of Roe. I suspect Roberts is more cautious than that (his decision on Obamacare suggests a desire to avoid creating chaos).

I think the more likely approach will be to do the "death by a thousand cuts" thing. They will allow a lot more restrictions on abortion access to stand, case-by-case. This also means that the battle for pro-choicers really moves to the state level. Much more incentive to vote for Dem governors and state-house reps now.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

Another Bear said:

This seems correct. I will also add, this would be worse for the GOP than a redux of Prop 187 on a national level. This would mobilize women like nothing else, and would pull in even moderate GOP women who are pro-choice. Totally agree if choice effected men directly, it would be changed yesterday.

Justice Stevens: Roe Will Be Overturned if Kennedy Retires

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?

The only thing Trump cares about is appeasing his small but loyal base. They're the ones giving him his leverage. This is his only "strategy".
He likes fighting. He creates enemies and wants to take them on and screw them. He does not want to sing cumbaya in disneyland's Small World ride.
Evil mindset stems from his upbringing.
Trump, selfish hater.
Obama, idealist unifier.

Why? Trump lives for conflict. It's a game. Create conflict, and win.
He doesn't care which side he's on, as long as he perceives himself as winning.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The evangelicals got what they wanted...abortion ban, which is really about no sex.

Once again, "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Another Bear said:

The question really is, what is Trump trying to accomplish with this and the trade war and general chaos? It's not nation building or even economy building. It looks like destruction, so the question is WHY?
To create instability, consolidate power and be like his allies of Putin and Kim Jung-Un (which are not America's allies).
Agree, it's part of a chaos strategy. Destabilized nations are vulnerable to stuff like Russkie propaganda, and aggression. After all, trade wars are usually precursors to a real war.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.