5upplied_demand

> even they are limited by what Americans will allow and we see it as they fret and adjust when there’s strong pushback.

But that doesn't change their goal. They have openly stated what they want, the fact that courts have sometimes intervened or that fig leaves have been given doesn't change the long-term goal.

Were they retreating on ICE when they said they want them at polling stations? It seems like an escalation to me.

The source is World Population Review. The US was used as an example of a country with higher crime that needed more CCTV to be safer. The US and India are almost identical in this ranking of crime.

[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rat...

Yea, it sure seems like we are talking about different things. I've re-read the exchange and can't find the disconnect or where the hostility came from. Maybe you thought I was another poster from a different exchange?

You clearly stated your opinion that "SUV-drivers looking at pedestrians with disdain" isn't widely held. I then provided actual data and studies that disagrees with that opinion. I'm not sure why that was so upsetting.

> This is because they have strict laws against crime and these laws are actually enforced

Just before this, you said it was because of CCTV. Is it the CCTV or the strict laws and enforcement?

India and South Africa are democratic countries with large CCTV programs and high crime rates.

You seem to have completely dismissed the factual data I provided that vehicle deaths of pedestrians have increased 48% in the past 10 years. This certainly implies that something has changed in how Americans drive and interact with pedestrians. It also perfectly correlates with a time period where SUVs went from 30% to 60% of vehicles on the road.

There is research on how car cost (with SUVs being the most expensive vehicle type) impacts driver yielding behavior [0]. There is also research on how being in a car changes your perspective of pedestrians and others not in the car [1][2][3].

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8758047/

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816....

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233520099_Acoustic_...

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227874062_Territori...

The majority of the SUVs I see driving have exactly 1 person in them. It's ok to admit that.

We can also look at the facts, which do imply a more recent disregard (if not disdain) for pedestrians:

> Drivers hit and killed 3,304 people walking in the United States in the first half of 2024, down 2.6% from the year before but a staggering 48% above a decade ago, according to a new analysis from GHSA. [0]

[0] https://www.ghsa.org/news/early-2024-us-pedestrian-fatalitie...

Everything depends on actual implementation. In healthcare, for example, we already had a system where state money was sent to private healthcare and pharmaceutical companies corporations. The problem was that the poorest people still had trouble getting covered. This proposal would have broadened the scope of who can afford that by providing poorer folks with direct government subsidies for coverage. Nobody is calling subsidize childcare in Scandinavian countries a "right-wing policy" because private providers exist.

Lowering military spending by aggressively shrinking active duty troop levels and eliminating weapons programs is certainly left-wing. Raising income taxes on the highest earners and raising the corporate tax rate have always been associated with left-wing policies in the US.

> Even at the time Bill Clinton was already very much right-wing.

He raised taxes, lowered military spending, and pursued universal healthcare. Those are not, and have never been, right-wing stances in the US.

> We're really near the point of no return and a lot of people don't seem to notice.

A lot of people are cheering it (some on this very site).

The subtitle of the article tells us this is happening.

> Wisconsin has now joined several states with legislative proposals to make the process more transparent.

But it is a reactive measure. It has taken years for the impacts of these data centers to trickle down enough for citizens to understand what they are losing in the deal. Partially because so many of the deals were done under cover of NDAs. If anything, this gives NIMBYs more assurance that they are right to be skeptical of any development. The way these companies act will only increase NIMBYism.

> Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.

Trusting large corporations to provide a full and accurate analysis of downside risks is also damaging.

> did they "default" on their side of the treaty?

I'm pretty sure they all answered the call when the US invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, no?

> The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025.

Are you suggesting that the US has paid over $1 trillion into NATO each year? That would be difficult because the US military budget has never crossed $1 trillion. The DoD budget is going to be $900.6 billion in FY2026. [0]

[0] https://www.meritalk.com/articles/senate-passes-fy26-defense...

You clearly did, others seem to agree, hence the light gray color. Looks like I touched a nerve by calling it out.

> Put your clothes back on.

Pretty lame response (but totally not an insult), you can do better.

If you keep reading to point #9 on Constitutional Issues, they say "Limiting Overreaching State Government: We recognize that the sovereignty of this State and its citizenry has been imperiled and threatened by the ongoing overreach of state elected officials and agencies."

It's pretty clear that they only mean "overreach" where they don't politically agree. They are perfectly fine when the Governor overrides local rules and ordinances [0] [1] [2], because it furthers their political goals of consolidating power with the Executive rather than the stated goal of limiting government. This action expands the scope and role of government in Texan's lives, that is a fact.

> There’s no enumerated powers problem with the Texas Supreme Court Court deciding what law schools qualify to be admitted to its own bar.

No, it's a political powers problem, which is one of the main things they claim to be against increasing.

[0] https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/07/texas-republicans-ci...

[1] https://www.allensworthlaw.com/legal-updates/governor-overru...

[2] https://fedsoc.org/scdw/supreme-court-of-texas-holds-governo...

Its fascinating to watch you twist yourself into knots justifying all types of contradictory actions after they have happened. You are certainly committed to the bit. This is another case where you failed to do any research and are provably false. The Republican Party of Texas wrote an actual party platform in 2024 and limited government is an explicitly stated part of that platform. [0]

Since you brought up Trump, even though he isn't involved in this action. Here is a video of him from February 2025 stating that he is making government smaller. [1]

I'm sure you will come back with some new red herring, but the evidence is here for others to view.

[0] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Pla...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ucen_wGy2mY

As the article clearly explains, the ABA had the formal status that the Texas Supreme Curt granted them in 1983. What we have now is a change of that policy, giving that power to a political body (an elected Supreme Court) without providing a reason. Doesn't feel like "small government" to me.

> The all-Republican court hasn't given a reason for initiating the change, but it came after months of conflict between President Donald Trump, the ABA and the broader legal community.

Nothing else. Enjoy arguing with and insulting strangers on the internet.

But that wasn't your point at all. You said:

> As for chicolate milk: there's probably as much added sugar in it as in a can of Cola.

Your own follow-up comment proved this to be false. No need to dig in further.

They can help educate a nation on which are the healthiest foods to eat, how to prepare them, what they taste like, etc. That may allow us to more healthily feed a nation 100%, while also using fewer resources.

Try re-reading your comment and applying the same rubric.

It sounds like you are having trouble seeing the positives in a tribe you don't belong to.

> who live in a desert with no natural resources. Quite remarkable.

Almost as remarkable as your ability to completely invent something, and then present as a fact. It is similar to how you claimed Trump has a concrete policy of abandoning unfounded foreign policy engagements 2 weeks before he invaded Venezuela on charges the DOJ now admits were fake [0].

The state itself debunks your claim, from geology.utah.gov: "Utah has abundant and diverse energy resources including conventional fossil fuels, unconventional oil shale and oil sand resources, and areas suitable for renewable resource development" [1].

Site selection magazine also disagrees [2].

Utah Business disagrees, too, specifically: "Utah is blessed with abundant natural resources, many of which have played a critical role in shaping our economy" [3].

Another one: "In 2019, Utah remained one of the top 10 U.S. states for metals and industrial minerals production, with continued active exploration" [4].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/trump-venezuela-drug-c...

[1] https://geology.utah.gov/energy-minerals/

[2] https://siteselection.com/got-minerals/

[3] https://www.utahbusiness.com/thought-leadership/2023/07/17/u...

[4] https://naturalresources.utah.gov/dnr-newsfeed/utah-one-of-t...

> Humans need to remain 100% accountable for their own actions

Humans built ChatGPT. Should they remain accountable for what it says and does? If not, at what point do they get to offload responsibility?

Charles Manson, didn't commit any murders himself, is he innocent?

> Trump stated that Project 2025 wasn't related to his campaign because it wasn't.

But it is related to the list of "Trump's Policies" that you created out of thin air, which bare a striking resemblance to many of the policies in Project 2025. This especially true with regard to military, foreign policy, and education. That's the point, he has almost no policies that he truly believes in (maybe immigration and tariffs?).

> Heritage doesn't speak for Trump--especially about abortion.

You cannot claim to know Trump's stance on abortion because he has taken literally every position on this topic. There are news articles spelling it all out [0]. Your comment is actually a perfect example what I am trying to explain:

Trump has no discernible policy on abortion, as laid out in the article below. In order to ascribe him one, you seem to have taken the one that you align with most and applied it to him.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-many-ab...

> His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them

Can you please link to when and where he said this? Because it raises a question of when someone becomes "American." Trump's grandfather was born in Germany, so when did the Trumps become American?

> all concrete policies consistent with that thesis

Those were concrete policies from Project 2025, which Trump directly said was not related to his campaign or administration. We know he was clearly and directly lying, but with someone so willing to lie about everything, I'm not sure how you can prescribe some type of unifying thesis about his policy stances or actions. It feels like you are trying to paste your ideas onto his actions.

> Parents will always need to combine education, guidance, and trust-building with any tools, rather than relying on government mandates that compromise privacy.

I agree. You haven't explained why the government can't be one of those tools, just as it is for so many other harmful activities (drugs, alcohol, gambling, firearms, etc.).

You use the phrase "relying on" to imply parents are just asking government to do everything for them. A more charitable view is that this is a tool along with other tools to support a common societal goal.

> You, a European, want to tell the US public how their resources are to be used, and when they don't agree with you then you act morally superior about it.

As an American, I can confidently say that we do the exact same thing from the other perspective.

> started trying to convince voters on their own merit

I'm not sure this is true anymore given the splitting of media and news sources. When everyone watched the same 3 news programs it was easier to speak to those people. It is very hard to penetrate the "other sides" messaging platforms.

> instead of simply trash-talking their opponents

This was the President's entire election platform (twice).

> we could actually solve real problems

If voters wanted the solve real problems, they would vote for people who present solutions to real problems. Instead, we vote for people who provide easy scapegoats and fake solutions, which ends up making things worse. Trump has the slimmest policy stance of any President ever elected.

> Parents are supposed to be parenting, without the help of the Government.

Why wouldn't we want the government to support parenting in similar ways the Government support's retirement, personal security, entrepreneurship, education, health, and other societally important activities?

> These are all straightforward solutions that don't require government-mandated age verification systems with their inevitable privacy nightmares and implementation overreach.

Yes, they are. They all also stop being effective as soon as a child is outside of your wifi network, which was my entire point.

> whether parents are willing to invest a few hours to implement it rather than demanding legislation to do their job for them.

Framing it this way doesn't really help your point. It proves that you don't understand what parents are actually dealing with. It is the same response that people on HN have when a non-developer writes a technical article in NYT.

Better stop eating all that sugar.

> You can configure parental controls or take away the phone.

Your first suggestion was silly, so now you have pivoted to telling me another way to parent. All the while have zero experience of your own. Did you know that social media is accessible on devices other than personal phones? Kids use computers and tablets at school (as early as 1st grade) with access to the internet.

> Yes, of course!

Which is my entire point. Parents, on the other hand, have to worry about people other than themselves.

> They protect me by discouraging other people from committing violence on me, obviously.

Now you are outsourcing your personal protection to the government. I have to pay extra because you can't defend yourself. You took on the responsibility of protecting yourself by being born.

> Cost/benefit for me

We get it, you don't care about anyone else. Things that help you are good, things that inconvenience you are a product of other people's errors. Nothing more really needs to be said.