- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
Donald Trump’s bruising return to the White House has sent many longtime foreign allies scrambling to get their distance, and according to a new piece from The Atlantic, that distance will last long after Trump is gone.
Trump’s second term as president has been marked by notable and widespread disrespect toward nations once seen as close U.S. allies. Between his attempts to level massive tariffs against nearly every nation in the world and his frequent breaches of diplomatic norms, Trump has created a hostile global environment in which allies no longer feel safe trusting in the stability of the U.S.
In a new piece for The Atlantic on Tuesday, staff writer Vivian Salama argued that this new dynamic, in which the nations of the world are working to establish a safe distance from the U.S., is bound to become the new normal for years to come, even after Trump leaves office and is potentially replaced by a more traditional, dependable administration.
Your argument is that the word abortion doesn’t explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.
And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.
Incorrect, the 4th amendment states:
“Effects” mean personal property. Since computers are your personal property they are explicitly protected in the fourth amendment. There’s no such provision in the constitution that explicitly protects abortion access the way the fourth protects computers.
Because that remediation exists and has not been in any way defeated, we can confidently say that check has not failed.
Ctrl + f “abortion”. Not there
Ctrl + f “computer”. Not there
Argument falsified.
Judge Clarence is still sitting. The check has not succeeded. Therfore the check has failed.
I’m sorry, I can’t make this simpler for you to understand.
That’s a a very childlike understanding of language, but in the fourth amendment if you Ctrl + f “effects” , you’ll get a result. And a computer is an effect. The fourth amendment is explicit, all of your effects are protected. Unless you can make the argument that a computer you bought and paid for that you own is not your personal property, and therefore not an effect, your argument here has failed.
And Congress has the power to impeach and the senate has the power to convict, which we may very well see soon. Since this check has not yet failed, it hasn’t failed. Simple as.
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points
At least now that you know what you’re doing, you can take steps to do better
I’m explaining that the US allies are turning their backs because checks and balances are failing, providing examples of those failures as requested.
You are arguing about the difference between the 4th and 14th amendment.
The lurking jury can decide who is the bad faith sealion.
You’re arguing that the checks and balances are failing, but have been unable to provide any actual examples due to all of your claims being poorly reasoned, and based on information that’s verifiably false.
I didn’t argue the different between the 4th and 14th amendments. You tried to compare a right that doesn’t exist to one that explicitly does. You incorrectly stated a right to abortion was implicitly covered by the constitution by comparing it to the right to protect personal property from unreasonable searches and seizure. But the latter is explicitly covered in the constitution. The former is not. A bad faith argument that stems from you not knowing and not caring what’s actually in the constitution.
You are the bad faith sealion because you argue with the purpose of exhausting me into giving up by making a number of specious, low-effort arguments from a place of willful ignorance, where you get to make any claim without the burden evidence or reason behind it, but force me to respond from a place of knowledge and understanding.
Ok, let’s try this differently.
In your opinion, why are the allies of the US turning away, and why is this permanent (i.e. more than just Trump)?