DamnYuppie

The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!

Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.

No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.

The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.

Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.

Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.

If I understand your argument it is that the rich should want to crater the market because even if they lose money, their purchasing power increases?

That would only work if they have large cash reserves, we have data that shows most billionaires/millionaires don't their wealth is tied up in assets.

Because of that if the market does crater their businesses/assets may in fact get wiped out.

The rich don't want volatility or crashes, it rarely benefits them.

Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure.

I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.

The fear indexes for Stocks and Crypto are near highs, which historically signals buying opportunities rather than reasons to panic.

The old adage "be greedy when others are fearful" holds true, backed by market history.

More money has been lost trying to time the market than simply staying invested. If this is long-term savings/investing, staying in the market is almost always the best move.

If it’s short-term money, it shouldn’t be in stocks anyway. For short-term capital, treasuries and cash-equivalents are safer plays.

The Paris Climate Agreement is not a treaty, hence it is also called the "Paris Accord".

We announced our withdrawal from the agreement in 2017, there is a 3 year waiting period built in so we didn't actually leave until 2020.

Joe Biden rejoined on his first day. I am not sure what Trump will do as different administrations have different goals.

We didn't break any part of that Accord, you can actually leave it with proper notice, which we did.

> Alliances with the USA aren't reliable

Can you please provide insight into this? As far as I can tell the U.S. has never failed to honor a treaty obligation, so the idea that it would suddenly abandon all commitments lacks historical precedent.

Ukraine is not now nor has ever been an ally To America. The Budapest Memorandum was not a defense treaty. It didn’t commit the U.S. to military intervention, it only committed the U.S. to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and take diplomatic action if it was threatened. We have done that with sanctions and aid.

It doesn't obligate us to do that into perpetuity nor does it keep us from being compensated for that aid. For perspective the price Britain paid for its survival in WW2 was its empire.

I would think our biggest obstacle is large corporations trying to wring every dollar out of farmers. John Deere, Archer Midland Daniels, and Monsanto come to mind. Oh looks like Monsanto is part of Bayer now.

An update on this it looks to be 200,000 acres at the moment. Which is 80,937 hectares or 809 square kilometers.

The USSR didn’t "come back"—it collapsed, shattered, and never recovered. What remains is a weakened, demographically dying, economically struggling Russia.

Territory lost by the USSR/Russia since the Cold War began: The entire Soviet Union dissolved—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all gone. The entire Warsaw Pact flipped to NATO—Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Germany, the biggest Cold War prize, reunited under the West.

Territory lost by the U.S. and its allies? Zero.

Russia isn’t a rising empire—it’s a wounded animal lashing out, terrified of its own irrelevance. They’re afraid, backed into a corner, and desperately trying to hold onto power. They don’t dictate world affairs.

And as for negotiating with Russia? The U.S. has been doing that for 80 years—and it never made us weak before. Why should it now?

America dictates terms not Russia, and certainly not Europe. If Europe wants to keep playing games, let them but America chooses when, where, and how we engage.

Define "giving up world power." Because last I checked, being a world power means taking care of your own nation first, ensuring its security, economy, and people are strong. If America can’t even secure its own borders, prevent foreign influence on its soil, or manage its own spending, then what exactly are we protecting?

Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad.

Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.