Dale Young

Champion of critical thought, open dialogue, empathy, and broad-mindedness, pushing for informed discussions on complex issues.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

@RockyAtotheK If and when we pull out, we need to make those bases unusable. They should not benefit from our tax money that built and maintained those bases.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Hypocrisy Unmasked: Condemning South Africa’s New Apartheid While Ignoring Historical Injustices!

Those who cheer South Africa’s anti-white laws, who shrug at the slaughter and dispossession of white farmers, have no standing to lecture on historical injustices. Their hypocrisy is stark. They forfeit any claim to moral victimhood when they endorse a new apartheid, black against white, built on vengeance for sins most of today’s victims never committed. 

The original apartheid, a brutal system of racial segregation enforced by the National Party from 1948 to 1994, was a crime against humanity. It crushed black South Africans under legalized oppression. That history is undeniable. But using it to justify today’s land seizures, discriminatory laws, and targeted violence against white farmers is not justice, it’s retribution dressed in righteous garb. These policies, like the Expropriation Bill passed in 2021, often strip land without compensation, echoing the very theft they claim to redress. 

Leftists and Democrats who stay silent, or worse, applaud, as farms are taken, lives are lost, and laws codify racial bias, are complicit. Their outrage is selective, their principles hollow. If they wail about past wrongs against minorities but ignore this deliberate persecution, their moral compass is broken. Evil isn’t too strong a word for those who see injustice and call it progress.

This isn’t about denying history’s scars. It’s about refusing to let them excuse fresh ones. No one alive today authored apartheid’s laws, just as no farmer bleeding in the veldt oppressed Nelson Mandela. Collective guilt by skin color is a lazy shortcut to chaos. It breeds division, not healing. Those who demand accountability for the past must demand it for the present, or their words are dust.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

No, that’s not democracy working. That’s the judiciary overstepping its bounds.

Let’s clarify something first: we don’t live in a direct democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. That matters. The Constitution separates powers for a reason. Judges don’t run the executive branch, and they don't command it. They interpret law, not enforce it. And they certainly don’t override the president’s authority to execute laws as written.

A judge cannot force the executive to act. If the courts lack power to compel enforcement of the law, then they also lack the power to block its execution. That’s basic logic. You can’t have one without the other.

What we’re seeing isn’t balance. It’s overreach. Courts claiming violations that have existed under multiple administrations, Reagan, Bush, Obama, Trump, but only suddenly become judicial emergencies now? That’s not justice. That’s politics in a robe.

The idea that non-citizens are entitled to the full scope of constitutional protections designed for citizens is both a legal stretch and a dangerous precedent. Judges don’t get to expand rights by fiat. They don’t write law. They don’t execute it. And they don’t govern immigration policy from the bench.

When justices step into policy decisions, into enforcement tactics, into border control, into executive discretion, they aren’t defending democracy. They’re distorting it. They’re turning the judiciary into a political weapon.

This isn’t about protecting rights. It’s about asserting control. And that’s not how our system is supposed to work.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

@Fernand46357857 BS!

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

@OopsGuess And you are an addict!

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Breaking the Supply Chain Illusion: Why Tariff Visibility Backfires

Showing tariff impact isn’t transparency, it’s a tactical mistake. It gives away too much. Once you reveal the tariff, you reveal the import cost. And once the public sees the import cost, they start making assumptions they’re not qualified to make.

Take a simple case: a product retails for $100, but it costs only $10 to import. A 25% tariff on that $10 is $2.50. That’s the truth. But the anti-tariff crowd spins it. They claim the tariff adds $25, as if it’s levied on the final price. That lie spreads fast. And once it sticks, it becomes political ammunition.

This is the danger. The push to expose tariffs isn’t about clarity, it’s about distortion. It gives consumers a false sense of understanding. They see a number and think it tells the whole story. It doesn’t.

They don’t see the layers: the freight costs, warehousing, insurance, sales commissions, inbound and outbound logistics, packaging, handling, labor, taxes, compliance, overhead, both fixed and variable. They don’t factor in returns, marketing, or the cost of simply keeping inventory alive in a warehouse.

They also don’t see the risk. They don’t see what it takes to keep a supply chain functioning. They don’t see that a $10 product isn’t really $10 once everything else piles on. They just see the import line and think the rest is profit.

Add to that sales taxes, use taxes, environmental fees, and other regulatory costs that hit long before a product reaches a shelf. It’s more than tariffs. It’s death by a thousand cuts. But that never makes it into the headline.

If Amazon, or any major retailer, starts breaking out tariffs for public display, it invites confusion. Worse, it invites backlash. Consumers will walk away with a distorted view of how pricing works. They’ll think they’re being gouged when they’re not. They’ll see a system they don’t understand and assume it’s broken.

This isn't just bad policy. It’s bad business. It compromises strategy, erodes trust, and rewards ignorance. And in the end, it punishes the very people it claims to protect.

Let’s be clear: showing tariff impact is not a neutral act. It’s a weapon. And once it's turned against the system, it won’t stop at tariffs. It will burn through the whole model.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Disclosing the tariff impact is a mistake. It doesn’t inform, it exposes. Revealing the tariff amount reveals the import cost, and by extension, the supplier’s margins. That’s not transparency. That’s surrendering critical pricing intelligence.

Take a product that sells for $100. If it costs $10 to import, a 25% tariff adds $2.50. But critics twist this. They claim the consumer pays 25% on the retail price, that the tariff adds $25. That’s not just wrong, it’s deliberate misrepresentation.

This push to highlight tariff impact pretends to serve the consumer, but its true effect is distortion. It’s a smokescreen that fuels anti-tariff rhetoric and undermines private cost structures. It invites scrutiny where it doesn't belong and misleads the public into believing tariffs are more punishing than they are.

Showing the tariff doesn’t clarify anything. It confuses, misleads, and compromises competitive information. The real aim of this effort isn't transparency, it's manipulation.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

False equivalence. MS-13 operates as a transnational criminal syndicate, with deep ties to foreign cartels and a record of illegal entry and brutal violence. The Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, while dangerous, is a domestic gang under constant surveillance by local and federal law enforcement.

You're not asking a serious question, you’re just lashing out. If this administration were ignoring white supremacist gangs, you might have a point. But they're not. Federal agencies are pursuing domestic gangs, including the Aryan Brotherhood, with indictments, arrests, and long sentences. That’s on record.

Trump is dealing with both threats, foreign and domestic. The difference is he isn’t pretending they’re the same. You are.

Based on your post, you don’t care about crime. You care about scoring points. This isn’t about justice for you, it’s about grievance. That’s why you’re blind to the distinction between internal law enforcement and national border policy. One is policing. The other is sovereignty.

If you expect people to take your critique seriously, start with facts. Not “X” outrage.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Who said it was “fine”? The problem isn’t which way the Court rules, it's that they're in it at all. That’s the point you keep missing. You’re throwing around words like “fascism” without understanding them, while blindly defending a system that shouldn't be making these calls in the first place.

You're not making arguments. You're reciting slogans. A 5–4 decision here, a 9–0 decision there, it’s not about the numbers. It’s about how deep the rot goes when the judiciary is used as a political shield. You call out corruption when it suits you, then turn around and cheer it when it favors your side.

This isn’t about loyalty to a man. It’s about the collapse of the guardrails. The Court was never meant to be the last word on every political crisis or election dispute. If you’re okay with that now, don’t pretend to be outraged later when the power swings the other way.

Wake up. You’ve been sold a lie dressed up as principle. I’m not buying it.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Is he even a citizen? Answer that first. And if he’s not, do you really believe the 5th and 14th Amendments were ever intended to shield non-citizens? If your answer is yes, then let’s be honest, our sovereignty, our Republic, everything we stand for, is already gone. The foundation crumbles from within, not from some distant battlefield.

As a veteran, and the son of one, I’ve seen enough to know that foreign threats are nothing compared to the damage caused by enemies in our own ranks, those who twist the Constitution to suit agendas it was never meant to serve. It’s a betrayal of everything generations fought for. This isn’t just a sad state of affairs; it’s a deliberate unraveling of what made us strong.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

I do have a grip on reality, this ruling proves exactly why I’m concerned.

A 9-0 decision doesn’t mean the system is working. It means the system has consolidated power behind the bench. When even the judges appointed by the president rule against him, it doesn’t automatically validate the decision, it raises deeper questions about the judiciary’s reach and uniformity of thought in politically charged cases.

This isn’t about Trump. It’s about precedent.

What happens when a future president faces a crisis, war, terrorism, foreign interference, and a federal judge decides that our enemies are entitled to constitutional protections? What happens when the courts strip the Commander-in-Chief of the ability to act decisively because of some twisted interpretation of “due process”?

The republic doesn’t survive that!

We’ve allowed the judiciary to balloon into an unelected superpower. If we don’t draw clear lines between branches, if we don’t restore the executive’s ability to act in moments of urgency, then the next constitutional crisis won't be a headline. It’ll be a catastrophe.

That’s reality. And we’d better face it now, before it’s too late!

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

But not for voting?

That’s the tell right there. You want federal ID mandates for gun ownership, fine. But the moment someone suggests “voter ID”, suddenly it’s “voter suppression.” Why the double standard?

You say a birth certificate and passport are reasonable to buy a firearm. Okay, so why not to cast a ballot, which decides who controls the firearms? “Democracy, wielded recklessly, has done far more damage than any trigger ever pulled.” Corrupt leaders, bad policy, foreign influence, ballots can kill nations.

So let’s be clear: if ID is required to exercise one constitutional right, it damn well better be required to exercise another.

Otherwise, this isn’t about safety. It’s about control.

I always say “if you can’t trust the people to exercise their rights, including bearing arms, then how can you trust them with a vote?”

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

@its_The_Dr Ford 1000%

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Let me flip the question: Would Rand Paul support this if a Democrat Congress tried to strip a Republican president of executive trade authority? Of course not. He’d call it overreach, and he’d be right.

Handing Congress veto power over tariffs sounds noble until you remember how these people operate. Partisan gridlock. Political spite. Deliberate sabotage. Do we really want foreign policy and economic leverage held hostage by whichever party hates the president more that week?

Tariffs are a tool, sometimes a blunt one, but necessary. Speed, leverage, and uncertainty are part of the strategy. You don’t win trade wars by committee.

If we’re going to rewrite how the executive branch defends national interests, let’s be consistent. Switch the party labels, then ask the question again. Still sound like a good idea?

Didn’t think so.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Yes, she should be relieved. Full stop.

Insubordination isn’t a political statement, it’s a breakdown of the military chain of command. She doesn’t get to pick and choose which civilian leaders to recognize. That’s not how this works. Military officers swear an oath to the Constitution, not to their personal opinions.

We’ve had presidents and defense secretaries from both parties. Not every officer loved Obama. Not every commander agreed with Biden. But they saluted the flag, followed lawful orders, and upheld the system that holds this country together. That’s duty.

If Colonel Baez Ramirez can’t perform this basic obligation, displaying official portraits of civilian leadership, how can she be trusted to carry out complex orders under pressure? What happens when personal bias clashes with mission-critical decisions? This isn’t about framed photographs. It’s about discipline, loyalty, and order.

This isn’t a gray area. It’s black and white. Either you follow the chain of command, or you don’t belong in uniform and definitely should not hold a command.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

My hair. No seriously, it’s gone. Vanished like Blockbuster on a Friday night. But more importantly, respect for the elderly. I get it, there’s always been some eye-rolling from the younger generation. But over the past 20 years, it feels like the shift went from “Okay, Boomer” to “Get off the internet, Grandpa, and stop breathing my Wi-Fi. We've gone from revering our elders to treating them like they’re just slightly more outdated than Internet Explorer.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

You call someone a sociopath because his public tone doesn’t match your idea of polite? Meanwhile, you spew contempt, mock half the country, and smear anyone wearing a red hat. But that’s fine, because it’s your side doing it?

Let’s be honest. If cruelty in speech is the mark of a sociopath, you’ve just diagnosed yourself. You don’t get to preach empathy while dehumanizing political opponents. You don’t get to claim moral high ground while dragging people through the mud for voting differently.

Policy isn’t a personality contest. You hate the man, so you twist everything he does into proof of evil. That’s not analysis. It’s obsession.

Maybe the problem isn’t him. Maybe it’s you.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

Nobody is perfect but the MAGA platform is exponentially closer to Christ’s teaching then the acknowledged Democrat Party platform values. If you want to talk about contradictions? You can’t claim to follow Christ and then align yourself with a party that champions abortion without limits, mocks Christian values, pushes gender confusion on children, and attacks the very foundation of Western civilization. The modern Democratic Party has become hostile to faith, hostile to truth, and openly embraces ideologies that undermine the moral compass this country was built on.

They celebrate drag shows in churches but sneer at nativity scenes in public squares. They call it progress when they erase “Merry Christmas” and replace it with sterile slogans. They preach tolerance but target Christian beliefs as hate speech. They talk about racism while dividing people by skin color and rewriting history to fit their narrative.

No, supporting that isn’t “Christian compassion.” It’s moral surrender disguised as virtue. If you’re looking for hypocrisy, don’t look at those defending their faith and country, you’ll find it in the party that cloaks its hostility to Christianity in empty language about rights and inclusion.

Jesus flipped tables over corruption in the temple. What do you think He’d say about a party that cheers for abortion clinics?

You can’t serve two masters. Choose wisely.

[Dale Young @DaleRYoung2]

You want to talk about contradictions? You can’t claim to follow Christ and then align yourself with a party that champions abortion without limits, mocks Christian values, pushes gender confusion on children, and attacks the very foundation of Western civilization. The modern Democratic Party has become hostile to faith, hostile to truth, and openly embraces ideologies that undermine the moral compass this country was built on.

They celebrate drag shows in churches but sneer at nativity scenes in public squares. They call it progress when they erase “Merry Christmas” and replace it with sterile slogans. They preach tolerance but target Christian beliefs as hate speech. They talk about racism while dividing people by skin color and rewriting history to fit their narrative.

No, supporting that isn’t “Christian compassion.” It’s moral surrender disguised as virtue. If you’re looking for hypocrisy, don’t look at those defending their faith and country, you’ll find it in the party that cloaks its hostility to Christianity in empty language about rights and inclusion.

Jesus flipped tables over corruption in the temple. What do you think He’d say about a party that cheers for abortion clinics?

You can’t serve two masters. Choose wisely.