whiskybravo

Exactly. Daniel Penny acted to protect others on that train. Tragically it ended in death, but his intent was defense. This other case? A Ukrainian refugee was slaughtered by someone with zero regard for human life, a man with 13 prior arrests. Come on. There’s a clear moral difference here. It’s not hard to see why one gets outrage and the other silence.

Your reply is clearly dismissive and avoids the core issue I raised by trying to discredit my source rather than engaging with the content of my argument. It’s a classic ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of the message. If you think the source is the only issue go ahead and ignore the NY Post. The facts of the case remain the same. A woman who fled a war was murdered on U.S. soil. The suspect had 13 prior arrests and was still free. It received barely any national coverage for weeks. You don’t need to like the source to recognize a systemic failure, or to care about a life needlessly lost. If this were the other way around politically, you and I both know the coverage and reaction would be very different.

You’re misunderstanding the core of my point. This isn’t about “pearl clutching” or right-wing blogs; it’s about a refugee who fled war and was brutally killed in a supposedly safe U.S. city, with no meaningful national coverage, no outrage from media or political leaders, and a known repeat offender left free despite 13 prior arrests. It shouldn’t matter whether the victim was attractive or not. That take is cynical and diminishes the value of a human life. The outrage is not performative. It’s about the failure of a justice system that let a violent person roam free, and a media environment that seems to filter stories based on narrative fit rather than human cost. If someone you knew had taken that same train every day and ended up dead at the hands of a repeat offender, would your tone be the same?

https://nypost.com/2025/09/07/us-news/horror-video-of-ukrainian-refugee-iryna-zarutskas-slaughter-on-charlotte-train-is-met-with-deafening-silence/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app Even when it happens in red states democrats own this problem. Democrat politician and media indifference. This Ukrainian refugee should have been safe in America. Instead she was senselessly slaughtered from behind on a train. 13 previous arrests. Charlotte mayor: “We can’t arrest are way out of this problem.” Happened August 22. Im just hearing about it today. No national media coverage. Really? A refugee flees a war zone and is randomly murdered here.

A book that has always stuck with me is Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987). Hegemony follows economic strength. Now China is on the rise. Over time hegemonic powers like Spain, France, and Britain didn’t collapse because they turned inward, but because of imperial overreach, when global military and political commitments outpaced their underlying economic strength. That’s not an argument for isolationism. It’s a case for strategic prioritization. We shouldn’t conflate stepping back from global overextension with disengagement or weakness. The U.S. might be approaching a point where recalibrating toward a more consolidated Western Hemisphere, in energy, supply chains, defense, and trade represents not retreat, but prudence. In an era of shifting global power and eroding institutions, strategic consolidation could be a foundation for long-term resilience.

Fair points, and I absolutely agree. The average Chinese citizen is not an enemy, and in many ways wants the same things as anyone else. My concern is not with individuals, but with the strategic posture of the Chinese government and how the U.S. should respond to that in the long term. Also, I’m not in any political cult. Anyway Trump won’t be here forever (nor should he define the entirety of U.S. strategic thinking). What I’m trying to get at is whether recent global trends suggest a shift toward more hemispheric alignment is wise, not out of fear or isolationism, but out of realism. How do we adapt in a world where global institutions are weakening, and great powers are reasserting themselves in more competitive, even coercive, ways?

Appreciate the sarcasm and fair enough, plenty of recent actions haven’t exactly built hemispheric trust. But I’m not proposing isolationism or muscle-flexing nationalism. I’m genuinely wondering if, given global shifts (China’s rise, fractured alliances, supply chain fragility), there’s a case for a hemisphere-first approach, economic, security, infrastructure, etc. Not as a walling-off from the world, but as a pivot to more regional resilience. I agree that outright isolationism has rarely ended well. History is full of examples where walling off a country economically or diplomatically has led to stagnation or decline. I’m not advocating for a return to isolationism in the 1930s sense. What I’m exploring is whether the post-WWII model of deep global integration, open markets, expansive security guarantees, trust-based trade, is still viable in a world where key actors no longer play by those same rules. The idea behind a “Fortress North America” approach isn’t to cut off trade or cooperation, but to prioritize strategic self-sufficiency, regional resilience, and defensive depth not because global engagement is inherently bad, but because the terms of engagement have shifted. It may not be about retreating from the world, but about engaging it from a more secure, consolidated position.

The post-WWII global order built on free trade, mutual security, and good will between Western-aligned nations. That system depended on certain shared norms: openness, reciprocity, and stable rules of engagement. Today, that framework feels increasingly outdated. China, for example, has pursued a strategy of allowing foreign firms into its markets only with local partners, absorbing their operating models and technologies, and then sidelining or replacing them. Perhaps this behavior calls for a significant strategic shift.

Yes, I m not talking about full isolation or abandoning the world stage. The U.S. would still trade, cooperate, and exert influence, but with a much tighter focus on defending the continent, stabilizing our near abroad, and avoiding unnecessary entanglements.

Just floating an idea here. Please read this as a mental exercise. In light of the recent China-Russia meeting in Tianjin and the U.S.’s increasingly confrontational posture globally, are we whether by design or drift, moving toward a Fortress North America model? We are seeing attempts at reindustrialization and reshoring, strained alliances, tougher borders, inward-focused energy policy, and pullbacks from global security guarantees and international institutions At the same time, the rise of China now appears inevitable, and global influence is becoming more diffuse and multipolar. Could a Fortress North America strategy actually be the most rational response? Maybe it’s less about isolationism and more about strategic consolidation; defending the continent, securing critical resources, and avoiding overextension in an increasingly unstable world. If so, what might that look like in practice? A hardened continental defense perimeter? A North American economic bloc with tighter controls? An exit from global policing? Not saying it’s good or bad, just wondering if the path we’re already on might be the least bad option in a world where primacy is no longer sustainable.

Thanks for sharing all that. Your commitment to U.S.-based sourcing despite the cost pressures really does embody the kind of values we need more of. And I completely see your point about the burden falling hardest on the people the policy is supposed to help. I hope your machinist sees a pickup soon. He sounds like the kind of craftsman we can’t afford to lose. I’ll be honest. I initially reacted to the snark in your first post and probably let that set the tone for how I engaged. But after seeing how thoughtfully and humbly you’ve expressed yourself since, I’m honestly floored. You’ve articulated your experience with clarity, humility, and a lot of heart and it’s changed how I view your position entirely. Thanks for sticking with the conversation. I really appreciate it.

LC, you dirty dog

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I didn’t know you were in manufacturing directly. That definitely adds perspective I hadn’t accounted for, and I respect that you’re speaking from firsthand experience. That context does shift how I read your original post. My initial response probably came off more combative than I intended. I wasn’t trying to do a gotcha, just pointing out that the article included a more mixed view than your headline suggested. But I see now how that might have felt like I was dismissing the whole point. I wasn’t trying to invalidate your broader argument. For context, I’m not in manufacturing myself. I’m a retired physician, so I don’t have skin in the game the way you do. That’s probably why I approach some of these issues more analytically or cautiously, especially around tariffs. I’ve traditionally leaned free-trade, but I’m increasingly open to the idea that, used strategically, tariffs might help bring back parts of the industrial base. I also don’t like it when I find myself talking past someone on a message board. It’s too easy to misread tone or assume the worst. I appreciate that we were able to move past that and get to a more substantive exchange. Even when perspectives differ, it’s always better to land on mutual understanding than endless back and forth.

You jumped in with both feet without appreciating the overall context. Over the past three years manufacturing in the West (US, Europe, Canada, UK) has been contracting save a quarter here or there. Between flawed trade and energy policies, the West is facing serious challenges that the current leadership is arguably not properly addressing and that included the prior U.S. administration. Like Trump or not, and I can see that you’re emotional about it, he recognizes the issue and is seeking to bring back important areas of manufacturing. If, a big if, that is successful it will take time. I’m just trying to stay grounded and objective. Can you show me that you’re interested in a constructive conversation?

Half way back to all those things you listed? Yikes!

I easily invalidated the whole message, because you didn’t read the article (that you posted) and therefore didn’t realize that manufacturing has been negative for all but two months since November 2022. The two months that were positive themselves invalidated your headline. Easy peasy

Wait, the chart in the article showed manufacturing went into contraction in late 2022. So I looked deeper. Yep below 50 for every month since November 2022, except for February and March 2025. Your article went on to say: “Data from S&P Global published Tuesday morning, however, painted a more positive picture of the sector, with the firm's US manufacturing PMI showing the strongest monthly increase since May 2022.” Oh Buckeye, you’re such a kidder!

In addition to crime, poor city governance has had a negative effect on quality of life. Take Columbus Circle. Once a majestic, serene threshold into Central Park and a symbol of civic grandeur, it has increasingly become cluttered, noisy, and commercialized in recent years. There’s a big difference between vibrant city life and unmanaged clutter. The latter erodes civic dignity. Since the pandemic, NYC has allowed more permissive public spaces with expanded street vending, looser enforcement of noise and trash. There’s a kind of “let it ride” attitude toward informal economy in public space. Street vendors are often framed as vulnerable workers, immigrants, or low-income entrepreneurs and cracking down can appear cruel or anti-poor. However loosely regulated street vending undercuts nearby small brick and mortar businesses, especially diners, bodegas, and cafes that are already fighting for survival. These traditional businesses pay rent, property taxes, and utilities. They comply with health codes and fire safety regulations. They employ staff with payroll taxes, insurance, and often union wages. It’s all ass backwards.

Yeah, but specifically what he did in contesting the 2020 election which was dishonest and undermined democracy . Guys like Chris Wright you might say are tying themselves to Trump, but what he is doing is very beneficial to the country.

Agree on the question of constitutionality. On the issue of who governs the cities with the most crime. I sampled your link by choosing cities with greater than 1000 per 100,000 for total violent crime and gave up after the first ten were all democratically run cities (no matter whether red state or blue). Maybe when they see positive results in DC citizens of these blue cities will demand more from their elected officials.

Rudy has indeed gone loopy, particularly after the 2020 election. Disgraceful. However as a New Yorker, I will always remember his presence after 9/11. Sad As far as these things mentioned above in the interests of fairness he thought he was headed for a Monica Lewinsky special. He was led into a private bedroom for drinks with a flirtatious, admiring young woman who the put her hand in his shirt to remove a microphone. He and his driver were signaled by a distressed woman on the side of the highway. Upon learning that she had been a victim of domestic abuse, he waited with her until authorities came. He was rear ended and significantly injured when his driver pulled back out into the highway.

Correction: blue cities in red states. Literally specks of blue in a sea of red on a political map.

Pedo? What in the world are you referring to? The actress in the staged Borat scene was 24 years old.

Biden: Poor kids are just as bright as white kids. We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by the… you know, the thing. Referred to the war in Ukraine as the Iraq War multiple times. Said he met with François Mitterrand of France, who died in 1996. Obama: I’ve now been in 57 states, I think one left to go. Referred to Nazi concentration camps in Poland as Polish death camps. Bush: They misunderestimated me. Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? And so on back to Washington.

That’s easy. Say you take a medication that costs $100. If it’s price is cut by 1500%, then you are paid $1400 every time you take it.