J.C.MacSwell

You can disagree, but you need to go some to make the claim that eliminating your nuclear weapons is letting your guard down is "statistically false". It didn't work out for Ukraine, and the jury's still out on any of very few the others that eliminated them. (or for that matter curtailed any nuclear weapons program, for which your argument would at least make some sense)

Trump thought he had Pecker in his hand... (he's a one ball man, he's off to the rodeo)

The limitations on Ukraines use of supplied conventional weapons would disappear. Why would the West continue to tell Ukraine not to use them on Russia proper when they are being attacked from there? The West's concern with Russia's nuclear threats are the only thing stopping them from allowing that and likely more. Russia can't match the West economically, even if they saved the costs of nuclear weapons maintenance and improvements. Their war factories would suffer from conventional means. How would anyone justify allowing them to continue to produce weapons considering how they use them, if they had ready means to stop them? China might take a liking to Putin's current way of thinking and view the eastern parts of Russia that are closer to Beijing than Moscow as "historically" their own, or at least decide they better "save" them from the West.

Obviously Russia doing that and confirming it would end the war in Ukraine pretty quickly and leave them vulnerable to China in their East. China (are they even big three nuclear?) doing it might not change overly vs threats (so Chinese in defense) from the US and Russia but would change their posture with India.(their "nothing more than sticks and rocks" agreement might break down). Their offensiveness in the South Pacific would certainly need rethinking, as would any hope of ultimately claiming Taiwan. US doing it would be throwing the dice.

Nuclear weapons are the deterrent to nuclear weapons. Eliminating your nuclear weapons is putting your guard down. Russia would not be in Ukraine if Ukraine had them.

Ukraine did the right thing...and now has to beg for support it would not have needed. That support is in a large part limited by the fact Russia has a lot of them (nuclear weapons). With states like Russia, who would be foolish enough to put their guard down?

Choosing the lesser of two evils doesn't always lend itself to a good night's sleep.

True. But if you destroy $100 worth of my fence, and I destroy $100 worth of yours, you have to make a judgement as to whether you got $100 worth of entertainment, if you are rationalizing it in economic terms when deciding to do it again.

I would expect regardless of how good the source was, first exposure, assuming the recipient considered it a valid source, would tend to be believed at that point and make counter exposures more difficult to believe. My first exposure would have included the "saving American/Allied lives version" though I do remember thinking "why was the second bomb necessary, why so soon after the second, and was it not in part revenge?". But that version, "saving more lives" isn't set aside in my mind by knowing Emperor Hirohito was in favour of, or considering, capitulation prior. It's just sad to think that the bombs were used, regardless if they were better used that not. I find it extremely hard drawing lines with regard to civilians and war in most cases. Sometimes it's easier than others. Sometimes I agree with what, say, the UN or international community might find acceptable and sometimes I find it bizarre.

Hopefully, at least he'll never get in a position to pardon himself. Are the funds raised a tax right off? If so, unless Trump is a registered charity how is this possible?

Here folks, is an opportunity to agree with something that comes out of Mike Johnson's mouth!

Trump of course would somehow claim it's just fake pews...

I refuse to answer on the grounds I....😇

Not true. And even if it was a Yeti told me Bigfoots are excellent swimmers, often making ocean passages well over 40 days without food or water. Need more proof? How do you think they got to both sides of the Atlantic?

Obvious fake...there's only one turtle... LOL. (quietly...yeah no...I won't go there!) In his defence I also would photoshop in some extra...ah...fingers, if my ah...hands were that small... Hard to make any future claim you're "just a patsy" after that post! 😄 ...and I'll see myself out!

Nice that he lived to see the Higgs boson discovered. RIP.

If Musk (or Swansont) had nothing to give in return, he probably wouldn't have seen much government money.

I don't think Swansont used any capitalist leverage to pry his salary out of the government, but just as there are differences there are similarities. If that's what he was getting at...he's still right.

Of course, only one perfect man ever lived, mathematically as per the golden spiral...not to mention every other way...

The problem with the term "self made" is that it's often used well outside typical use with the context being that no social obligation should be felt by those "self made" and that such things as taxes are considered something ranging from "generous donations" to outright theft All the while with the expection that the managed economy by the government and wealth security from police institutions etc should be more directed at maintaining and "opportunizing" that and other established wealth than for benefiting everyone more or less equally.

He comes over as a little cross...

It's just a flesh wound!

Yes and no, depending on how you view it. Generally speaking, corruption aside, governments use subsidies and tax breaks as incentives toward something they seek to encourage for the benefit of "The People". Generally speaking, corruption aside, governments use contracts to obtain something for the benefit of "The People". They can be different, they can be essentially the same, and both can be good or corrupt.

That vaccinations can be detrimental is also factual, and can be proven. I realize the two statements are not on equal footing, scientifically speaking.

That's a pretty long time, and I'm assuming it's correct for the sake of argument and that your suggestion to extend is based on technologically creating new replacement stars also...but stars are a pretty inefficient way to go, even if corralling bits of previous stars to create new ones was possible. How long could some idealized society potentially last tucked but protected inside some mostly dead gas giant? Probably nothing remotely approaching a small fraction of a percentage of any round off errors in that number?