Daniel Kane

I mean I support the broader goals of the war. I just didn't think war is a necessary or effective way to achieve these goals.

I think that they are not making sense because you are not actually reading what they wrote.

I am not sure why you think that this is a relevant way to reply to this comment. Nor am I clear on why you seem to think I lack morality.

Ah. That clarifies things.

Why is it bad faith to argue that people should only be held morally accountable for things that they actually support? Does this seem like a position that no reasonable person would take for some reason?

Huh? You think that there are literally zero American citizens who would rather their government didn't exist?

And what exactly do you think an individual American who didn't want to continue allowing the government to continue existing should do? It's not like every individual citizen has veto power over the whole of society.

People who supported it deserve it.

So should legislatures also be silent on whether biology teachers cover evolution or creation? Should math teachers be allowed to just make up their own addition tables?

Whether you feel differently is up to you. But if you make a confident prediction about how the Democrats will behave and it turns out to be wrong you might want to at least reevaluate your model of them.

So if they don't vote for it you will use this as evidence to reevaluate your world view?

Not that our spending priorities are great, but $1B/day doesn't go that far for paying for national healthcare, particularly if this was doesn't last forever.

Not arming Ukraine?

Nothing more than that? Zero effect on fighting piracy or having tools that end up assisting Ukraine or discouraging China from invading Taiwan?

I'm pretty skeptical that increases in defense spending will lead to any noticeable increase in the tools that Trump has to use only several months later.

What if I wanted to purchase alcohol for decorative purposes?

The degree of the current military involvement with Iran was not reliably predictable a month ago.

So you DO understand my point that supporting defense spending should only count as support for specific conflicts to the extent that those conflicts were predictable outcomes of the spending.

So everyone who supports defense spending also supports us nuking Canada?

Increasingly warming to strikes is not the same as definitely going to do them. And strokes against Iran is not the same thing as carrying out an extended campaign for regime change.

My statement still stands.

Supporting defense spending in general and supporting a particular war that had not even started at the time are not remotely the same thing.

I feel like this includes the complaint about it being generally a bad idea. These procedural requirements exist in part to make it less likely that we will end up in bad wars.

Do you want to impose lower bounds on my speed or reading comprehension? If not, I can do that today.

Oh. It's definitely as bad as it's ever been with the potential to get much much worse. But further descent is not inevitable.

Putin has the main opposition leader killed. China censors the Internet. It's not the same.

No different from Russia or China is an exaggeration. It's not great, but nowhere near that bad.

It means a weapon that has a style similar to that of a military weapon.

Ideally, this would refer to having features in common with military weapons.

In practice, I think it often refers to aesthetics.

Maybe. But the Democratic president in this scenario could just avoid declaring any emergencies except in cases so obviously valid that they'd be approved.

And if Congress does not confirm the emergency, the President cannot declare any new emergencies until they allow him to again.