STL_Aldine

Network Security Collaboration Engineer | I.T Small Business Consulting Specializing In 🏆Network Design 🏆Cloud Services & Backups 🏆Virtual CIO etc.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@SpeakerJohnson @HouseGOP If these ideas are so popular, vote on them separately. Stop packaging election policy, defense, and agriculture into one bill, then claiming anyone who votes no is against all three. That’s legislative gamesmanship, not leadership.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@ruggiere_l Whenever someone says, ‘Everyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed,’ they’ve usually stopped making an argument and started preaching. Facts don’t require blind loyalty.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

What a fucking pussy.

Nice spin. They didn’t just vote on banning congressional stock trading they stapled the SAVE Act onto it. That’s called loading a bill with unrelated provisions, then pretending everyone who votes “no” opposes the original idea. If Republicans were confident in the stock trading ban, they should’ve let it stand on its own.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@Acyn Republicans are asking everyone to suspend basic common sense. Contracts are literally made up of the terms. Saying you’ll negotiate them after signing is like saying you’ll decide the recipe after the cake is baked.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The media lied” has become the catch all excuse whenever people don’t like how others interpreted Trump’s own words and actions. We all had access to the same rallies, interviews, press conferences, court proceedings, and public statements. People didn’t need the media to tell them what they watched happen in real time. Acting like millions of Americans are incapable of independent thought is far less believable than accepting that people simply reached different conclusions.

[Wayne Dunlap @wdunlap]

@TheOfficerTatum

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The Strait of Hormuz was already open before this whole conflict. Commercial shipping moved through it every day. The disruption came from escalating tensions with Iran not because the U.S. “opened” it. And what exactly does “the U.S. will be reimbursed 20% on all cargo” even mean? Did Congress vote on that? Did every nation using the Strait agree to pay America a toll? International shipping lanes don’t suddenly become U.S. toll roads because of a Truth Social post. This reads like someone confused a game of Civilization with international maritime law. The Strait is an international waterway governed by international law not a privately owned highway where the U.S. gets to install an E-ZPass. 😂

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The Strait of Hormuz was already open before this whole conflict. Commercial shipping moved through it every day. The disruption came from escalating tensions with Iran not because the U.S. “opened” it. And what exactly does “the U.S. will be reimbursed 20% on all cargo” even mean? Did Congress vote on that? Did every nation using the Strait agree to pay America a toll? International shipping lanes don’t suddenly become U.S. toll roads because of a Truth Social post. This reads like someone confused a game of Civilization with international maritime law. The Strait is an international waterway governed by international law not a privately owned highway where the U.S. gets to install an E-ZPass. 😂

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@SaraHermanw0

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The Strait of Hormuz was already open before this whole conflict. Commercial shipping moved through it every day. The disruption came from escalating tensions with Iran not because the U.S. “opened” it. And what exactly does “the U.S. will be reimbursed 20% on all cargo” even mean? Did Congress vote on that? Did every nation using the Strait agree to pay America a toll? International shipping lanes don’t suddenly become U.S. toll roads because of a Truth Social post. This reads like someone confused a game of Civilization with international maritime law. The Strait is an international waterway governed by international law not a privately owned highway where the U.S. gets to install an E-ZPass. 😂

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

So let me get this straight you think holding a bipartisan housing bill hostage over an unrelated election bill is ‘playing hardball’? That’s not leadership, that’s using millions of Americans who can’t afford housing as political leverage.

And let’s talk about the SAVE America Act. It doesn’t just require a photo ID like people keep pretending. It also requires documentary proof of citizenship to register, expands federal oversight of voter rolls, and includes major restrictions on mail-in voting in the version Trump is demanding. Those are very different policies than the simple ‘show an ID to vote’ talking point being sold online. Non-citizen voting is already illegal and documented cases are exceedingly rare. If the goal is election security, enforce the laws already on the books. If the goal is making it harder for eligible Americans who don’t have easy access to birth certificates, passports, or other qualifying documents to register, then at least be honest about it.

Meanwhile, the housing bill has broad bipartisan support because it addresses housing supply, cuts red tape, and includes measures to curb institutional investors from buying up single-family homes. Holding that hostage doesn’t magically make elections more secure it just delays housing reforms over an unrelated political fight.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@DanielSprarc See you

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@Lina_rays1ya Where can I buy five of them?

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The U.S. doesn’t “pay for NATO.” NATO doesn’t have one giant checking account that America funds while everyone else freeloads. Each member pays for its own military, and the common NATO budget is only a tiny fraction of overall defense spending. The U.S. spends more because we choose to in order to maintain global military dominance and protect our own interests not because Europe sends us a bill. As for Greenland, advocating that America should “take it now” is advocating military aggression against the territory of a NATO ally. So your solution to disagreements inside a defensive alliance is… invading one of its members? That’s not strength that’s a great way to destroy U.S. credibility, fracture NATO, and hand Russia and China exactly what they want.

Maybe spend less time yelling and more time learning how NATO actually works before pretending everyone else is the “stupid”..

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

I think it’s negotiating through the media. We’ve seen this approach repeatedly announce the most aggressive position possible, dominate the news cycle, create leverage, then negotiate. That’s very different from actually believing cutting off billions in trade with an ally is good economic policy. If the goal is NATO spending, negotiate NATO spending. If the goal is fair trade, target the specific trade issue. ‘Cut off all trade’ makes for a great headline, but it’s an incredibly blunt policy tool with real costs for American exporters, businesses, and consumers.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@america1stkevin @FoxNews That’s not how interdependent economies work. Europe buys billions in American goods and services, supports American jobs, and hosts U.S. investment. They may need access to our market, but American exporters also need access to theirs. Trade isn’t a charity it’s mutual benefit.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

NATO spending and trade are two separate issues. If Spain isn’t meeting defense commitments, hold them accountable through NATO. But threatening to cut off trade hurts American exporters, manufacturers, and consumers too. Allies can disagree on defense spending without turning every disagreement into an economic weapon. That’s how you weaken your own leverage.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

@Scarletkoito333

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

The naive part is thinking leverage means you’re immune from consequences. The U.S. is Europe’s biggest market, but Europe is also one of America’s biggest trading partners. If you think you can torch billions in trade and only the other side gets burned, that’s not economics that’s wishful thinking.

[STL_Aldine @sredus7343]

You’re changing the argument. Fair trade disputes are addressed with targeted tariffs, quotas, WTO cases, and negotiations not blanket threats to ‘cut off all trade’ with an ally. Those are two completely different policies. If Spain is violating a specific trade agreement, cite it. But if the dispute is over NATO spending, then you’re using trade as a punishment for an unrelated issue. That’s not free-market economics; it’s using economic leverage for geopolitical pressure. Those decisions have real costs for American exporters, businesses, and consumers too.