Newt has it researched as usual, some minor points:
- Ukraine is in the UN
- Ukraine in its pre war state could not get into the EU, there are economic criteria for that to have a chance to work. What was proposed was a free trade zone and economic help. The EU was slow as fuck. The Ukrainian political situation was volatile.
- Ukraine could not be admitted into NATO after 2014 as it was already in a proxy war against Russia.

What a US president with a brain could have done in Trumps term was broker a deal with Putin that would make land concessions to Russia (russian speaking regions based on referendums maybe?) in exchange for future EU and NATO affiliation for the rest of Ukraine with vague promises of weapon and troop movement limitations. Nearly impossible but it could be tried if one stayed a step ahead of Putin.

Trump patted him on the back instead and took selfies.

Trump was right about the pipeline. There.

Except Trump being right about something has zero information value because he was wrong about so many things. Cherry picking and whataboutism only gets you so far.

Even Germany is now somewhat reluctantly coming around.

How exactly would Trump stop Putin I wonder? Any ideas beyond wild guesses?

There is no excuse for what is happening in the Ukraine now, there is no propaganda that can put this on the shoulders of anyone but Putin.

The danger in this situation is powerful people in the west are being friendly to rich russians and apologetic about the Russian regime. Business deals are less important than national safety. Being best buddy with Putin does not give Trump the power to stop him.

I don't understand the point that's being made here. She's objecting to him describing it as the "latest" invasion rather than the more generic "an invasion"?

Bob, can you explain what we're supposed to find upsetting about this? It seems like incredibly nitpicky fluff, but perhaps there's some subtlety I'm missing that would have a real impact in some way...?

Russia clearly has invaded Ukraine at this point. And that's bad, I hope you'd agree, as Ukraine is a sovereign democracy and has done nothing to warrant a hostile invasion of this sort. The Biden admin has correctly recognized it as a hostile and unwarranted invasion, and appears to be responding in a manner which is reasonable for the situation, given our relationship with Ukraine.

Where's the beef?

I think the proper thing to do in this situation would be to push the penguin back into the water.

Everything he said could have been summarized in one sentence.

Hipaa stops medical professionals who have your private health information already from sharing it without your consent (except in specific situations).

Why is that so hard? I think this kind of explanatory video does more harm than good by taking a ten second explanation and making it into a >15 minute video.

Ends in a *commercial

some of these are hollow wall anchors meant for 1/2" drywall. their design doesn't work for this situation.

Damn, that's the kind of evacuation we had to do at home in October of last year. Very frightening situation.

😱 🔥

Biden is a Joke.
He is a once was and now a has been.
HE is not presidential,

There is no way he got those votes in a legitimate way. I'm not saying he ran the steal but it was fraudulent .

Funny that when Trump won in 2016 the left were the whiners.

Cheating goes on by both sides, All know this. The question is how to limit / stop it.
'

China gave the world the pandemic. Trump stopped flights and Sleepy joe cried like a bitch. Now as he is Pouts and the latest variant, omicron he was thinking or has shut down flight from 7 African countries. Same situation as Trump but no bitching from the left. Funny how piss ants like you behave.

As long as he wears "our" jersey all is fine.

whining, Joe just blames everything but his administration.
Trump whining - sure to an extent. Fought back Absolutely.

Bottom line Biden administration is a disaster and his pole numbers reflect it.

Trump for all his grandstanding was a success. Not so for Biden.


Yet yo stand up for this failed administration. Guess you part of the fooled 39% who thinks he is going a good job. while 60% think otherwise.

Fascinating and informative.

I grew up hearing about the ozone hole, and upon seeing this video title, it occurred to me I never knew what happened with that whole situation (or that hole situation).

If only it was always so easy to get the world to agree to save the world.

Nah I dont see a bait and switch. I see people thinking electricity goes down wires while the underlying real world is fields propagating through space.

It really is a difference if you have the lightbulb 1 meter away or 1 light second away. We have a tendency to think abstractly of these situations, freely giving things ideal properties that they dont have and taking away the properties we dont like to use in our petty examples.

If you had enough voltage to overcome the drop in "ideal" 1 light second long cables they sure as hell would induce enough current in parallel cables 1 m away to light a bulb :-)

All that said people do under-appreciate how fast the speed of light is, just as they under appreciate how much a billion of anything, especially money, is.

The speed of light is getting to your destination instantly from your own point of view.

Yes, that is what I meant, as soon as he was approaching with an openly carried gun, wild west rules as I understand them say the moment he attempts to aim at anyone he is open game for anyone who can draw faster.

If you desperately want to live in the wild west that is.

I am totally lost on whether I should be using the sarcasm button on these posts. I am being sarcastic. I believe some form of gun limiting federal law is the only way out of this mess. But then the sarcasm does not make my claim invalid.

I knew an american who came to Prague (turns out he is still here and is still a film producer) who would carry his gun around all the time and randomly pull it out and show it to people at business meetings and in pubs. I thought at the time (early 90s) dude this is SO embarassing. Regular manners in a civilized society since roman times dictate that people do not carry weapons unless danger is imminent. You only carry weapons if you are directly employed to be in dangerous situations, otherwise you are putting yourself and others in danger and appear to be a reckless fool.

So if the USofA consider themselves the wild west to this day, then it is understandable that Kyle was let go, and I say disarm him or shoot him before he shoots you.

Hit him with that skateboard, only harder!

Sounds like just over a week earlier he went without his gun, and told people he was upset he didn’t have it to shoot them with. Next trip he brought it and shot 3. That’s not self defense, it’s a planned human hunt.

No one threatened to beat him before he pointed his gun at them.
No one threatened to beat him in his home state that he left, illegally armed and looking for trouble.
He says the unarmed guy he shot in the head threatened to beat him up if he caught him alone, so clearly being scared of that threat and taking it seriously, he left his friends and followed his victim for blocks, alone, I can only guess hoping to get beaten up….or hunting the guy who disrespected him. You choose, either way, shooting was a choice based on a situation he intentionally put himself in. That’s murder 1.

Nice, way to not answer the question, as usual. Instead you pretend Rosenbalm followed and menaced Rittenhouse, even though every shred of evidence including the location of the shooting and statement from Rittenhouse say the opposite. It’s ok, we know you think it’s ok to hunt certain groups of people. You don’t have to say it publicly.

Rittenhouse first chased/followed him for blocks from the parking lot he “guarded”, armed, brandishing his weapon and pointing it at Rosenbaum. When Rosenbaum stopped retreating, Rittenhouse shot him in the head.

In his testimony, McGinniss said that as Rosenbaum lunged, Rittenhouse “kind of dodged around” with his weapon and then leveled the gun and fired.

Binger repeatedly tried to get McGinniss to say Rosenbaum was not “lunging” but “falling” when he was shot, as McGinniss said in a media interview days after the shooting,
McGinniss said: “He was lunging, falling. I would use those as synonymous terms in this situation because basically, you know, he threw his momentum towards the weapon.”
So, his unbiased testimony is the unarmed victim was lunging for the weapon after being shot in the head….not falling….or they’re the same thing.

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

I don't know, but there's a few things that concern me:

1. Underestimating your advisory. We did this with Japan in the lead up to WW2. Great powers always fight the last war they won. In our case, that's WW2. China learned from the war they lost as well: WW2, and they're not going to make the same mistakes twice.

2. Ambiguous defense posture. This is how England got dragged into WW1 due to an uncertain position if Germany invaded France. Germany gambled that England wouldn't get involved because it had no spoken mutual defense agreement with France. Had the defense pact been made readily clear, it's possible Germany wouldn't have invaded.

2. Use it or lose it weapons. In WW1, one of the main issues with the initial invasion was train schedules. Things had to go perfectly to get men and material to the front line and any hiccup could delay a military victory. Once the very first German troop train left the station, there was no way to stop the invasion. Now we've got a situation where a war over Taiwan would be won or lost in about an hour of the first shot. China knows that should the US get involved, China's military assets are going to be blown up and fast. This puts China in a situation where they might choose the launch everything in a maximum impact first strike. Faced with overwhelming damage, the US would be forced to make some hard choices about how to respond. Would it go nuclear? It's according to how much Taiwan means to us.

"It won't happen". Go to Europe and see how many tombstones bear that inscription.

I'd say 50/50.