Why not "Gulf of Trump"?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Especially bird law.
I believe it. It accomplishes two goals for Putin. 1) Make his attempted conquests seem reasonable to Trump by framing them in a “we both win” context and 2) further alienate Europe from the Trump administration, thereby weakening NATO and making additional plays by Putin more likely to succeed.I've read repeatedly that Putin has been discussing with Trump a meeting to carve out spheres of influence in the world for Russia and the United States, and this sounds an awful lot like the kinds of actions that might come up in such discussions.
Claudia Scheinbaum has announced the USA will now be known as Estados Unidos de Putas.Why not "Gulf of Trump"?
Well I repeatedly asked ChatGPT what is the second derivative of velocity called and it repeatedly said acceleration. I tried to tell it it was wrong but it didn’t listen.My conversation with ChatGPT:
Me: can the united states tariff a single EU country, or do tariffs have to be imposed for the entire customs union?
GPT: The United States cannot generally impose tariffs on a single EU country because the European Union functions as a customs union. Within a customs union, all member states adopt a unified external trade policy, meaning tariffs imposed on goods entering the EU apply uniformly across all member states. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on products from the EU, those tariffs apply to the entire customs union and not individual member states.
Me: All right. Forget the WTO for a minute. Our president-elect is threatening to tariff Denmark unless it hands over Greenland to America. Yes, that is actually happening. Next time you get trained, you're going to learn a lot of really crazy shit. But anyway, do you know if US law would permit him to levy tariffs on Denmark without Congressional action?
GPT: Well, that's a plot twist right out of an alternate history novel! Here's the deal: under U.S. law, the president does have significant power to impose tariffs unilaterally in certain situations, but the authority to target a specific country like Denmark (outside of the EU context) is complex and legally constrained. The president could try, but targeting Denmark alone without applying the tariffs to the broader EU would be legally dubious and likely face lawsuits, pushback from Congress, and international complications. Denmark might give him a very polite nej tak, and we’d all just have to brace for the sequel to this geopolitical circus.
LOL. Even ChatGPT gets it.
BTW, ChatGPT also tried to bring the uniformity clause of Article I into the analysis, which is simply wrong (as it admitted in a follow up). So, for those of you looking to ChatGPT for sophisticated analysis, don't. It's pretty good in math and science, from my experience, but as to law it's not even at Ramrouser level.
Some of yall need to rewatch episode 1 of Tulsa King. The weed shop part.Foreign aid may be a relatively paltry sum but our defense spending is just the opposite. And a fair amount of that defense spending is needed because we are protecting those allies.
So what does that spending get us? Influence for what? Countries we have to defend right next to a large enemy? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Folks on here are ridiculing Trump's plan of cutting spending because this or that policy won't make a dent. I agree. But rolling back our defense commitments can most definitely make a dent, and its dismissed because we don't want to lose some not all that useful allies. I think the trade-offs are worth it.