This. Trump is an extremely out of the box, unorthodox thinker. I have no doubt that when he returns to the White House, he will spank China in a way I could never imagine
if i was undisputed dictator of america i would launch nukes everywhere at once what you are really asking is what i think the proper play for america is with america trying to best advance its own interests, which again is "genociding half its own population." but you probably mean only in international politics and not immediately starting WWIII, so the only way to really prevent this is to ebb and flow. taiwan won't be defensible if china really wants to take it, not without going straight to nukes. so instead a tactical withdrawal followed by a heightened presence in other key allies (SK and japan) would be the move, essentially drawing a line of "here, and no further" of course, drawing red lines behind other red lines is itself a defeat. you need to take the schizopills and admit the nukes are coming (and that's a good thing)
if we're really going to play this cold war game of proxy wars only and i have to pretend i'm trying to preserve the liberal world order, then the US needs to go on the offensive. not only should taiwan be armed to the teeth to bleed china as much as possible, but the US should be doing CIA coups in soft allies like turkey, myanmar, OPEC nations, encouraging hard allies to do non-official expulsion of chinese interests (canada and australia being the most guilty), and trying to stir up anti-chinese revolt in hong kong, the india border, and tibet. korea and japan should be preemptively armed as well, the caucasus should be inflamed more, and poland should start aggravating the belarus border. none of this is explicitly causing WWIII, but it heightens problems for the simultaneous russian and chinese actions
The only thing Emma gives a chance is bourbon, skirts, and sitting on the bottle when he's finished.
Michael Powell
>western burger i had one of these from dennys, so did a friend. not even 30 minutes later as we'd just left we were both rushing for toilets and settled on the mall. i cannonblasted out a shitplug as soon as my ass was over the toilet and from there it was just spray. the story of my friend in the stall next to me sounded very similar. i do not recommend.
Anthony Davis
Hey everybody!
Akhil Amar, the leading scholar on constitutional law at Yale, published an article in the Wall Street Journal DEFENDING Alito's decision:
>[T]here is nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political in what Justice Alito has written. >The draft cites me and several others as constitutional scholars who oppose Roe but personally support abortion rights. >Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sharply critical of the [Roe] decision.
Among other things, Amar criticizes the dubious logic of Roe: >In Roe, the Court did not even quote the constitutional language it purported to interpret in handing down its ruling—the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. That clause holds that the government may not deprive any person of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law”—that is, without fair legal procedures, such as impartial judges and juries, defense attorneys and the like. The Texas abortion law at issue in Roe in fact provided for fair courtroom procedures, which made the decision’s “due process” argument textual gibberish. >Constitutional history also cut hard against Roe. When Americans adopted the 14th Amendment in the 1860s, almost no one thought it barred laws against abortion. Virtually every state back then prohibited abortions.
He also knocks down the scare tactic that Alito's ruling will inevitably lead to the reversal of various Supreme Court civil rights rulings: >Does Justice Alito’s draft, as many are now claiming, inflict collateral damage on other areas of constitutional case law, such as the Warren Court’s precedents on contraception and interracial marriage? >It does not. In fact, the Dobbs draft reinforces these iconic opinions.
