I'm amazed that people see America as different from any other country in terms of who should be allowed in and what constitutes bad behavior.

Being in America is a privilege that can easily be taken away. Guests of America should walk a narrow path.

Same as being in any other country.

I also completely fail to understand logic of this position.

Deny a visa from the very beginning and ban somebody from entering the country with no reason whatsoever? There's nothing remarkable about that, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing to see here.

But if you grant the same person a visa, let them into the country, then revoke their visa and deport them (for whatever reason)? Terrible lawlessness, a violation of rights, freedom of speech, and tyranny.

What must be wrong with all these people that they see no contradiction in this position? Why are there so many of them? What do they do for a living? I mean, this is a level of social dysfunction, these aren't difficult things to understand, but it seems like they're the majority here.

How is this insane?

The US isn't some global free zone where everyone has a right to come and go - do as they please.

If you came to the US legally with a visa. Great. When you signed your visa documents there were some questions they asked you and some fine print that basically made you liable for "bad behavior."

I'm an American living in the UK and I'm under no illusion that if I start doing dumb stuff here it's possible they tell me to leave. (Tho apparently the UK government has a pretty lax attitude with who they ask to leave.)

If someone wants to come to my country and behave in any way outside their best - then yes I support the government kicking them out.

I don't think protests in general are "behaving outside your best". Now what those protests contain is an entirely different matter. I read an article about the arrest of a foreign student recently who attended numerous "death to America" protests. I can support deportation in a case like that (even if only for the complete lack of self awareness), but not for all protests.

If this person was on a visa, this is enough of an excuse to start looking at the fine print to see how I can get this person's visa revoked.

But that is not what is happening, and they have stated that they were at the event for a short period of time, quite possibly at the portion that didn’t occur inside the event.

The willingness to assume one version of events, and then go down that path to award consequences, is premature.

Yes, a visa can be revoked just that easily.

It's a guest pass.

When getting a visa you're basically asked to agree to America's terms of service. Violations can be found pretty easily in the fine print if someone is really looking.

From there it's the same administrative work to revoke and deport as it is to say ban someone from Twitch for saying the wrong thing.

They can revoke your visa for supporting terrorist organizations. And they make the list of terrorist organizations, so...

And you have a problem with that? Why?

Because adding an organization to that list is (effectively) entirely at the whim of the current administration. They could add your Scrabble club if they wanted to.

Women can help the front line fighters but if I was running a country I would not want to put a large number of women on the front, especially young women.

Sure they can fight and kill.

But a country that loses its ability to make more people won't last longer than a generation.

Two things a country needs from which all other needs derive: people and a border that can be defended.

Men historically get sacrificed to protect the border. And women "sacrificed" to make more people.

Food, entertainment, religion, government, taxes, education, etc... it's all to serve those two fundamental requirements.

> And women "sacrificed" to make more people.

By and large, women stopped "sacrificing" a while ago, globally - or at least reduced it by large numbers.

Which is completely fine.

But it makes the original point moot.

It's fine for now. Fast forward even 100 years and tell me what population numbers look like.

Then another 100 years.

And men did the same, no?

I hate to call out the obvious, but sacrificing is mandated by laws only in one case.

“By law“ is funny, as if it was all a legal case. I’m sure Putin respects all international laws.

Come visit us, we got Germans of every race and color.

Why make more people? Just import more immigrants to make up for the losses, it's the neo liberal way.

This but unironically. Immigration is good, actually.

Who would realistically not want to cash out?

1. Someone so purely interested in the tech and not money they'd give up the wealth 2. Governments, specifically the ones that don't consider a few billion to be a lot 3. Someone who's dead

4. Someone who wants to keep all their fingers, and not meet some kind of horrifying death.

I have no idea about any of this stuff - but if I were trying to hide my identity I would go out of my way to misalign my real self with my hidden identity.

e.g. Pick a name that puts people on a false trail.

David Horowitz doesn't seem radical at all. His positions as far as I can google in five minutes seem very reasonable.

I think you seeing him as radical is more a reflection of how radically left you are.

So this is more like an art than science - and Claude Code happens to be the best at this messy art (imo).

Money isn't the only factor of why the single fathers produce better outcomes for their children.

Show your work, provide a source.

you bring an interesting perspective

Thanks, appreciate it.

Ah yes other factors of misogynistics like potential men seeing a single mother as an issue why potential woman might not.

Btw. its also a lot harder for man to get the sole custody which means that only the most motivated and well suited men even achieve this probably also with an expensive lawyer.