Michael Hardner

Weirdly, you answered another thing I didn't say.

Stop making sense.

I think we're better off with a pact against invasions. I think that a Canadian Nationalist would likely agree with me, my guess.

More like four years ...

1. People say that, but I don't know if there are examples that either support it or refute it. 2. When it comes to people there's always change. Texas and Alberta were once solidly left wing. 3. We'd need to look at inside information to make a decision. 4. I'd welcome something like a true public forum for such discussions. 5. Lots of institutions die for good reasons too. Like the great telegraph companies, Honest Eds, the Catholic Church. ...

It was the whole UN that time. And because it's an international pact.

I was talking about Kuwait not the second war. The US funded Iraq in the 1980s in their war against Iran.

The populists hate bankers and anything representing order and stability. They're revolutionaries.

Old school... Iraq won its war against Kuwait, then we liberated Kuwait. That was a precedent set by conservative leaders that we wouldn't stand for adventures from rogue states.

I think I was working at their headquarters at Brampton for a while. There was a lot of old Canadian Legacy at play, clearly, in the stiff bureaucracy and the plodding slowness of their decisions. They were doomed anyway. I want to add, pointing fingers such as trying to examine philosophy of causality and free choice is kind of a waste of energy. HBCs management failed. Musk kills children. Some things just are. You can scratch your chin and contemplate the universe all you want but it's not helpful, any more than over-moralizing does.

Pretty sure there is a recession coming.

Yeah maybe? I've all missed the obvious part....

Trusting any politician, especially with something that can't be verified, is a naive activity.

I mean it's a matter of numbers. As I said lots of people did better with freer trade and now when it's at risk of pulling back we see a recession so....

Excuse me? My premise? I don't think I posted a premise on this topic here in the thread. Maybe you intended to reply to someone else like eyeball.

1. More pedantic nonsense. I'm going to move on now.

1. Removing funding for programs that save lives. 2. It's wordplay. I think we know what I mean. One factor in a set of events leading to death. 3. That's a straw man isn't it? Sorry I don't have time to engage in days long pedantic arguments, such as what does "what" mean? These changes have trade offs, and that's obvious. So if you are preparing for a later argument by nitpicking, then just start that argument now and save us time...

No, that it's a crisis 🤣

1. You already stated that and I already responded. 2. Not killing people but causing deaths... 3. ... he is part of the causal change that leads to their deaths but not responsible in all senses. 4. The devil is in the details. If there is a single death that comes as the result of USAID cuts, then my point is true. Then we can talk about how much care should be taken when reviewing operations on this scale. Suffice it to say, as a caveat, that nobody will have the answers on these things, either here or in the room where the decision is made, either before or after the decision.

I guess that's what the architect is happy about then.

Because it takes a lot of training and skill to understand it? This is part of the problem, in our current epistemic crisis, is that people think that opinions are knowledge. Evolution will eliminate people who drink bleach because a big man tells them to. Just FYI.

People will die because of indiscriminate cuts to programs. People will die because Musk record will proceed recklessly. Maybe not as many Americans as foreigners though. But I believe it's going to happen.

Theoretically I agree. I think DOGE is a stupid hammer, but if it sheds light on complex issues like procurement, depreciation and efficiency then it could be worth ... something. I do believe people will die though.

How so ? Doesn't the plan, as it's being executed, at least resemble Project 2025 ? At least more than the 2016 plan ?

Of course not. If this was accepted science we would have heard about it.