Plans are not an act of war. China has plans to take Taiwan. The US has made detailed plans to attack everyone, even Canada, if necessary.

If Russia fired actual rockets at Lithuania, that’s an act of war and Lithuania would have a right to defend itself.

Let’s try an actual historical example.

Russia historically colonized Lithuania in the past, until the dissolution of the Soviet Union forced Russians to withdraw, but Russia continued to occupy and ethnically cleanse Kaliningrad (formerly the German city of Konigsberg).

What do you suppose would happen to Lithuania if it started launching rockets at Russia in an effort to decolonize Kaliningrad? Same as Hezbollah: FAFO

And if Canada agreed with you and started launching rockets at the US on that basis, it would suffer the consequences. Much like Hezbollah.

Notice that the US didn’t enter WW2 until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

And since then it hasn’t launched rockets at military peers, even to stop a genocide. Just ask the families of tens of thousands of Chechens killed by Russians ~20 years ago.

If Hezbollah wanted to follow the modern American example, it would only start wars against weaker countries. Israel isn’t one of them. Instead, Hezbollah is using the FAFO strategy.

I’ve been told Biden is guilty of genocide, is that no longer true?

Canada has a longstanding border dispute too, with the US.

Imagine if Canada launched rockets at the US, because of the border dispute and also because Canada believed US arms shipments to Israel violated international law. It would not end well for Canada.

His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself.

Any prediction is based on history. Even pollsters believe the history of polling results before an election can predict how people will actually vote on election day.

What people usually don’t realize about the “keys” is that they aren’t advocating some political position, like “incumbency is good”. It is more like a retrospective clinical study, where you look at a bunch of factors (smoking, exercise, TV watching, eye color) and see which ones best predict some outcome of interest (lifespan). If smoking has an association with lifespan and eye color doesn’t, then smoking is a predictor and eye color isn’t.

It doesn’t matter if people don’t understand why smoking would affect lifespan. It doesn’t matter if people think eye color should be more predictive than smoking. It doesn’t matter if people think cigarettes today are not the same as they used to be, so smoking should no longer be a predictor for lifespan. Predictors are predictors until they actually fail to predict.

deleted by creator

What does that have to do with Lebanon?

Imagine if Mexico launched rockets at the US in 2003 to protest our pointless invasion of Iraq. It would not end well for Mexico.

He is similar to popular non-Americans like Berlusconi, Meloni, Le Pen, and Kickl. Americans aren’t unique in that regard.

arbitrary interpretation

They aren’t as arbitrary as they seem, it’s just that the media don’t go into the full detail.

For example, key 2 is actually “The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes”, which is clearly true

Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether scandals have “lost meaning”.

Why should they be forced to allow other retailers to sell Steam keys at whatever price they want

Because those other retailers already paid Steam for those keys.

If Steam doesn’t want to compete against third party key retailers then the solution is not to sell keys to third party retailers. Once Steam takes their money, they have to accept the competition.

Why is that reasonable? Storefronts don’t get free keys from Steam, they have to buy them. After they pay Steam, they should be allowed to sell them at any price they want.

Imagine if Ford said you couldn’t sell your car for less than what Ford dealers charge for used cars.

all media

Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.

And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.

The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.

No, that’s not what I said.

Having more money provides an advantage, but so do many other things like media endorsements, union endorsements, incumbency, etc.

Plenty of candidates who outspent their opponents went on to lose their elections.

That’s not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.

One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren’t neutral.

Money is a necessary part of politics. Which means that if you want to win, you need donors. And if your opponent wins over more donors than you do, that’s on you. Do you think it’s unfair that people are way more willing to donate to Harris than Trump?

No, they are trying to reach people who are not sure if they are going to vote.

They are not trying to reach people like you, who have decided not to vote.

The circular part is where you wonder why nobody is doing anything to help Palestinians.

I’ll give you a hint: after the election, pollsters will ask people who voted what the most important issues are to them. Since people like you aren’t voting, very few voters will answer “helping Palestinians”. Politicians will look at those polls and simply maintain the status quo regarding Palestine, since voters have little appetite for change. And the status quo is sending arms to Israel.

Again and again, the left shoots itself in the foot.