Trump Fake News

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 61
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Snoopy
Oh god I love that movie. 

Trump came in as a Thornton Melon, the rich guy that isn’t accepted by the club. But since he has been in the office he’s slowly more and more been following establishment lines. It’s like that old stand up comedy segment about how the newly elected president is shown a film of JFK in Dallas from an entirely differently angle and quickly drop all their ideas of reforming the place and then go along to get along.

Also his real estate developer experience with government shows itself from time to time. Like the scene from “Back to School” where Thornton Melon talks about needing to pay off building inspectors and such, Trump’s idea of how to behave in government office seems shaped by his experiences with it.

#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Snoopy
The instructor reminds me of every CNN panelist on that fake news venue...opinions masquerading as actual news. Most economists as tenured academia have never created a single job for the economy, and have zero clue of all the hidden costs and risks associated with creating jobs.

This is why we need to elect entrepreneurs and other real world risk takers. Not soft handed academia like lawyers and economists.
#33
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
your words don't actually no real meaning to me.



At llesst you admit you have comprehension issues. You should now adapt an attitude of humility that is consistent with the knowledge that you have comprehension issues. 

That would of course be the best way for you to work on overcoming these comprehension issues that you have.

I know that you hate Christians for no good reason, but what does that have to di with the subject?


The reason Donald Trump is threatening my avocado addiction is because politicians that you probably like don't want to do anything about the illegal immigration problem. 

Donald Trump said build a wall, which of course would stop an awful lot of illegal crossings, and then reform the immigration process so thst people can get here legally.


Topic's author
#34
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
At llesst you admit you have comprehension issues. You should now adapt an attitude of humility that is consistent with the knowledge that you have comprehension issues. 
A mistake due to me not trying to submit a post as quickly as possible. I'll apologize for that.
I know that you hate Christians for no good reason, but what does that have to di with the subject?
Christians have irrational beliefs like you have clearly shown where you state God is objective reality when we have no observable evidence of this. Don't waste my time with your preaching it is actually boring how much you parrot off other Christians. Who was the one who removed from the subject first? Not me it was you with this comment:
This is about illegal immigration.
This is what happens when you don't let Trump build the wall.
Please build the wall, I like a avocados.
I wanted to someone to say I was right or say how I was wrong not what you actually think is going on.
The reason Donald Trump is threatening my avocado addiction is because politicians that you probably like don't want to do anything about the illegal immigration problem. 

Donald Trump said build a wall, which of course would stop an awful lot of illegal crossings, and then reform the immigration process so thst people can get here legally.
Not supported by evidence and I expect no less from an irrational person like yourself. 
#35
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
For all your talk of "rationality" I don't see in your approach to converse with me a single shred of it. It seems to me that you are simply insulting my character and declaring your own ignorance to be a lack of evidence.

Way to shut the conversation down.


Jesus Christ loves you.

Topic's author
#36
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
For all your talk of "rationality" I don't see in your approach to converse with me a single shred of it. It seems to me that you are simply insulting my character and declaring your own ignorance to be a lack of evidence.
You haven't sufficiently rebutted my claims with evidence and gave useless conjecture. I am sorry if you feel offended but that is the truth. You have yet to rebut my claims and just respond to waste my time. If you don't think I have provided evidence have you seen my original post or can you not read? Do you also see your response where you didn't give any evidence? Your a clear hypocrite when you claim I don't do something but you don't do it but I do. Kind of like projection.
Way to shut the conversation down.
The conversation was shut down the moment you responded at the start. You didn't rebut my claims. You left out evidence then decided to pivot to something else. Instead of addressing my claims you talk about avocados and illegal immigration. 
Jesus Christ loves you.
Jesus Christ died a while ago so his love means nothing like another random dead person loving me even though they don't know who I am. 
#37
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nah, you aren't going to listen anyway. You are obviously very passionate.

Topic's author
#38
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Nah, you aren't going to listen anyway. You are obviously very passionate.
Failure to provide evidence for initial claims. Blames me which is a sign of projection. Then concede giving the other person the assumption you don't have evidence for what you say and resort to ad-hominems and/or name-calling.

"way to shut the conversation down"

I don't love you nor does a dead guy because he is dead. 
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please, tell me more about how reasonable you are.

Topic's author
#40
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
Please, tell me more about how reasonable you are.
Guess you want attention. This is the last I give. You have provided nothing of importance to this discussion and I am blocking you. Don't get triggered. Just understand how bad you are at actually making arguments. 

#41
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Look, the kid who isn't yet 20 is going around calling everyone he doesn't understand or agree with irrational while he foams at the mouth, and warns people to not get triggered, and thinks he is an expert on politics and religion.


Just remember, if you out of principle refuse to argue with someone who is showing you no respect, that means you are conceding to their point.


No one could see this coming.


Ah, the "rationality" of the immature. Makes me remember how much of a dipshit I was when I was that age. Of course, I too was smarter than everyone around me.



#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Maybe op would rather Trump just institute these tariffs until Mexico actually passes the legislation.

I dunno, I'm kind of glad he is giving them time to fulfill their end of the bargain. 
#43
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
No matter what the president does, people will complain. It has been like that forever. Not to the level of fanaticism that we have with the Don though. 

Seriously, how many 24/7 Trump news networks do we need?


And yeah, most of it is fake news.
#44
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
A post full of insults, typical of you but don't worry yourself you are still a dipshit and omar2345 has put you through the wringer, give up while you are well behind. Your indoctrinated dogma can't answer questions posed by intelligent people
#45
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@pollywanna
Trump lost most of his wealth in the last 2 years because he stopped focusing on his business and traded in his equity on his name recognition to run the country.
Owning a casino is a license to print money and the absurd combeover sent two of them broke. What a business man. LOL.
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
My religion is not relevant to this topic. 





#47
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
The OP gives no proof of why economists think imposing tariffs are not a good idea, but 1. how was this question asked, is it in general?  The article just says all economists agree that Tarifs are not a good idea... but they would all be right, because the do hurt the economy, but this is why Economists are not presidents, and are not in charge of anything, pretty much ever..... This situation is a very tough decision, and it would go agains their beliefs... but to tell you the truth, they never predict the right outcome, otherwise they would not call themselves economists, they would just be rich.    The market takes a big hit every once in a while, then it comes back up. 

On another note, The OP had to look up Chuck Schumer to find out who he was.  Anyone that has to do that shouldn't really have an opinion on anything political.

I admit imposing tarifs on anyone that stands to lose less than we do would be stupid... but the fact is China will hurt more than we would on both ends of the spectrum.  They did start imposing tariff's, which ... big deal, we will buy elsewhere, and the people that can't  will just have to raise the price to the consumer a bit... the fact is China can't afford to lose the US.  How many things do you pick up a day that says "Made in China" on them?  Probably 50% of everything you use.... and most are things that we can definitely find elsewhere, usually little pieces of crap.  There would be a few businesses hurt, the technology world would be hurt pretty bad (in my opinion, needs to slow down a bit anyway), and there may be fewer fireworks in the sky come July.  It sucks for these businesses in the short run, but once China realizes the importance of the need to trade with us, they will fold, and all will not only go back to normal, but it will be better than the past.   
Topic's author
#48
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
The OP gives no proof of why economists think imposing tariffs are not a good idea
An economist consensus is proof that economists agree that it is bad. 
The OP had to look up Chuck Schumer to find out who he was.  Anyone that has to do that shouldn't really have an opinion on anything political.
I was looking at his credentials. Don't know them by heart doesn't mean my opinion isn't valid and you haven't shown it to be the case.
but the fact is China will hurt more than we would on both ends of the spectrum.
Evidence? Calling me out for alleged no proof yet you don't even give proof.
Probably 50% of everything you use.... and most are things that we can definitely find elsewhere, usually little pieces of crap. 
Are you an economist now or were you always an economist? Just wondering since why should we care about your opinion if you are not?
There would be a few businesses hurt, the technology world would be hurt pretty bad (in my opinion, needs to slow down a bit anyway), and there may be fewer fireworks in the sky come July.  It sucks for these businesses in the short run, but once China realizes the importance of the need to trade with us, they will fold, and all will not only go back to normal, but it will be better than the past.   
"they will fold" Nothing here has been proven nor you have even tried.

Basically your critiques are bad and you haven't shown evidence for the claims you made. It is hypocritical to be telling me about alleged no proof yet you don't have proof to begin with. 

#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
On another note, The OP had to look up Chuck Schumer to find out who he was.  Anyone that has to do that shouldn't really have an opinion on anything political.

Yeah, that was stunning to say the least. Reminds me of those contrived "man on the street" skits with the random dummy tropes. Except I think this one could have been accurate.
#50
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
In the OP, you claimed that every Economist on Earth agree's that tariffs are not good, which I agree with, and they would be right.  But you made the connection to that article as if they were asked regarding this specific incident, and Trumps decision to impose them.  Do you see the way the article reads?  They say whether or not they agree with tarifs in general, but they also imply that the questions asked is specifically about Trumps plan.  A misinterpretation of the facts to give people like you ammunition.  This is kind of fake news, that is what you are falling for when reading these articles.

It is misleading to the core, from the title, in the subject, it does mention in general, but you are supposed to look over that, and they expect you to.  Read it again and get back to me.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
On tariffs, people who have zero understanding how economic markets work will always see wealth as a zero sum game...For example.. if they see a 25% tariff on a Chinese good, they assume it will mean that Chinese good will show up on Walmart's shelves with a 25% hike in the price, having no clue about the difference between wholesale and retail price, price elasticity, or the extent China will most likely subsidize that industry in order to artificially lower the price of chinese goods to prevent Chinese goods from being priced out of the market... a concept I am sure Trump understands all too well and media wonks clearly do not with the continual mantra saying "Americans are paying these tariffs..."

When you are on top, that is the time to squeeze your competition. And China is our competition on the global trade arena, and will be for the foreseeable next century, regardless how anti-nationalist you might feel about America.
#52
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@Greyparrot
On another note, The OP had to look up Chuck Schumer to find out who he was.  Anyone that has to do that shouldn't really have an opinion on anything political.

Yeah, that was stunning to say the least. Reminds me of those contrived "man on the street" skits with the random dummy tropes. Except I think this one could have been accurate.

It does, we didn't have to even set it up, or ask 1000 people, then pick and choose the ones we wanted to show to "prove" our point.

Topic's author
#53
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
They say whether or not they agree with tarifs in general, but they also imply that the questions asked is specifically about Trumps plan.
So you don't disagree with what I said but simply state they are biased? Okay. Do you have an actual contention to bring or is that all you got?
A misinterpretation of the facts to give people like you ammunition.
Do you even know what that is? I have yet to see you use one of those. Calling me out for using facts without properly critiquing me is what you can do but what you can't do is use facts.
This is kind of fake news, that is what you are falling for when reading these articles.
Fake News: Fake news, also known as junk news or pseudo-news, is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media or online social media.
You have yet to show how spread disinformation while also showing how it was deliberate. I am waiting.
It is misleading to the core, from the title, in the subject, it does mention in general, but you are supposed to look over that, and they expect you to.  Read it again and get back to me.
Oh so you dropped all the other arguments you made that I wanted you to provide evidence or clarify on. Gotcha. 

#54
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What are you going on about Mr. Omar?  I'm merely pointing out the fact that the article you cited is misleading.  It is not proof of anything.

Yes, tariffs can hurt the economy, all economists will agree on that, that is established.  But do they agree with what Trump is doing, and do they have all the facts, is the question?   We don't need an article written about a generalized statement, which the article that you attached says it is right in the body of it.  Articles like these are the reason people don't like Trump, because they mislead the public into thinking what he is doing is detriment to the country.  And they call Trump voters uneducated, and drinking the kool aid.  

You cited this article to say that Trump is wrong on imposing taxes, yet, someone else cited an article where Trump's arch nemises, who has opposed him in every possible policy, actually agrees with him, and then you ask... Who is he?

I don't need evidence to prove that this article is misleading, just read it again.

That is like writing an article about how 100% of people believe that killing people is wrong.  Then taking that article as proof that 100% of people  think Capital Punishment is wrong.  Do you see the comparison?

#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DBlaze
Were that we lived in a bubble, then sure tariffs would be bad 100% of the time, but we don't live in a bubble, and other countries impose their tariffs and steal our patents regardless of whether we trade tariff free or not. I'm sure economists would also say 100% of the time that the military is a drain on the economy, but we don't disband the military for obvious reasons.
Topic's author
#56
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
What are you going on about Mr. Omar?  I'm merely pointing out the fact that the article you cited is misleading.  It is not proof of anything.

You didn't prove it was misleading or your original claim it was biased. I await an argument.
Yes, tariffs can hurt the economy, all economists will agree on that, that is established.  But do they agree with what Trump is doing, and do they have all the facts, is the question?   We don't need an article written about a generalized statement, which the article that you attached says it is right in the body of it.  Articles like these are the reason people don't like Trump, because they mislead the public into thinking what he is doing is detriment to the country.  And they call Trump voters uneducated, and drinking the kool aid.  
Yes you are uneducated when you don't know how to make a coherent argument. Don't know about kool aid. The problem here is that yet again you are claiming something as in it is misleading even though you haven't explained how it is the case. You have basically made the same argument twice. I await that argument.
You cited this article to say that Trump is wrong on imposing taxes, yet, someone else cited an article where Trump's arch nemises, who has opposed him in every possible policy, actually agrees with him, and then you ask... Who is he?
I stated this:
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? 

Snoopy said after:
Um, he's a guy who voiced his view on President Trump's policy, and you disagree with it?

I replied back:
I just searched him up. The Wiki has him as a senator and has a degree in law. So how does he know what an economist would know if he is a professional when it comes to law not when it comes to the economy?

So basically you are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "who is he?" I said "What does this have to do with the topic at hand?". I furthered justified my point by saying "So how does he know what an economist would know if he is a professional when it comes to law not when it comes to the economy?". If you don't understand how Chuck Schumer giving economic advice is not helpful. I can't help you. 
I don't need evidence to prove that this article is misleading, just read it again.
You made the claim it was misleading yet you can't demonstrate it. I wonder why. If you did quote yourself.
That is like writing an article about how 100% of people believe that killing people is wrong.  Then taking that article as proof that 100% of people  think Capital Punishment is wrong.  Do you see the comparison?
False equivalency. Murder is an unlawful act of killing whereas capital punishment is the government issuing death penalty for certain unlawful acts. These two things are different whereas I was speaking about tariffs that was it. Trump is also issuing tariffs. Trump is not doing something different if he did it wouldn't be called tariffs. If you think there are different kind of tariffs do tell and show me proof Trump is using this different kind of tariff. 
#57
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Trump is using tariffs in a different way than past Tariffs are used.  He used it on Mexico as a threat, which is the first time any President has used them to negotiate an immigration problem.  And he is using it on China to end the intellectual property theft, as well as evening out the playing field in other aspects.  

You explained the difference between murdering people and the death penalty, which I moved it around and called it killing someone, which is the whole misleading aspect of my comparison, they don't mean the same thing, yet you think that they do, which is why you have fallen for the article, and why you believe Trump is an evil person because you don't see the way the article is misleading.  I can't explain it any more than I already have.  You are a lost cause.

Let me give you another example of a misleading article that I read.  

There was an article that blamed Trump for the interest rates hiking, which at 19 years old, you would know nothing about.  Anyway, they implied that the interest rates going up is a bad thing, when in actuality, it is not.  It is a sign of a very strong economy and things are going well for the time being, so the Fed decides to hike the rates up in order to balance multiple things out.  The editor made it seem to people that do not understand this, which would be people like you, that Americans will now have to spend more money on interest, all because Trump doesn't know what he is doing, which couldn't be further from the truth.

BTW, Chuck Schumer is a United States Senator and the Senate Minority leader, and it is his job to care about these things.... He knows more about the country than any regular old economist does.  I disagree with him on most of his agenda, but this one, smart people can agree on.  You would rather us go to war on China, or impose sanctions, which also can lead to war.  Tariffs on the other hand probably won't lead to war, which is very smart for Trump to take this action to avoid lives being lost.  It also may backfire, but we shall see.
Topic's author
#58
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@DBlaze
Trump is using tariffs in a different way than past Tariffs are used.  He used it on Mexico as a threat, which is the first time any President has used them to negotiate an immigration problem.  And he is using it on China to end the intellectual property theft, as well as evening out the playing field in other aspects.  
You are making a distinction without difference. Your saying Trump tariffs are different but tariffs are still tariffs. So basically economist still take the position tariffs are bad and economist in the source I provided didn't see enough of a difference to say these are good tariffs. 
You explained the difference between murdering people and the death penalty, which I moved it around and called it killing someone, which is the whole misleading aspect of my comparison, they don't mean the same thing, yet you think that they do, which is why you have fallen for the article, and why you believe Trump is an evil person because you don't see the way the article is misleading.  I can't explain it any more than I already have.  You are a lost cause.
Where did you mention killing someone? Oh wait you didn't. You are making this up as you are going on while I am realizing what you are saying better than you are. Murder is an unlawful act of killing someone. Death penalty is the law killing someone. This is a distinction with a difference yet you are unable to show how Trump tariffs are enough of a distinction to tariffs to say their is a difference. Was the name all you can come up with as a difference? I have yet to see any evidence. Like you said "And they call Trump voters uneducated," which is true given the way you formulate an argument and you don't support it with evidence.
You state the difference is like the death penalty and murder but are unable to show how the article make a same comparison. I wonder why. Until you can actually tell me how it is the same comparison it is a false equivocation.
Let me give you another example of a misleading article that I read.  

There was an article that blamed Trump for the interest rates hiking, which at 19 years old, you would know nothing about.  Anyway, they implied that the interest rates going up is a bad thing, when in actuality, it is not.  It is a sign of a very strong economy and things are going well for the time being, so the Fed decides to hike the rates up in order to balance multiple things out.  The editor made it seem to people that do not understand this, which would be people like you, that Americans will now have to spend more money on interest, all because Trump doesn't know what he is doing, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Irrelevant and does not actually help me understand your problem. You just wasted an entire paragraph to simply not adding helpful to the discussion.
BTW, Chuck Schumer is a United States Senator and the Senate Minority leader, and it is his job to care about these things.... He knows more about the country than any regular old economist does.  I disagree with him on most of his agenda, but this one, smart people can agree on.  You would rather us go to war on China, or impose sanctions, which also can lead to war.  Tariffs on the other hand probably won't lead to war, which is very smart for Trump to take this action to avoid lives being lost.  It also may backfire, but we shall see.
A lawyer knows more about the economy than an economist does? Okay. Guess I could say I have heard it all but there is still a lot more d*mb sh*t you can say. Isn't it funny the very thing you agree with him also happens to be the thing he agrees with you? I am implying from this is that you already agreed with Trump and used Chuck as your confirmation bias. Since you are a Republican and people do say Republicans are uneducated here is a link about confirmation bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
War with China? Spoken like a true Republican. Always trying to find the next global conflict to be involved in only to for it to be based on "humanitarian" which just so happens to be profitable for also the US to be apart of. Makes me wonder why they don't invade North Korea. Oh wait because they are not profitable. This clear example shows the US don't issue war for "humanitarian" reason it is based on profit and doubtful you would disagree but if you do. I'll add another d*mb sh*t thing you have said. 
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I would not be surprised at all to see Omar to agree with an economist that we should disband the military because 100% of economists agree that the military is a drain on the economy.
Topic's author
#60
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
I would not be surprised at all to see Omar to agree with an economist that we should disband the military because 100% of economists agree that the military is a drain on the economy.
Where is this source? You are clearly not understanding my problem and you are exaggerating my point to what I am not even saying is a testament right here. Economists would not speak about the military because they do not understand how to defend a country. They can say the military cost X amount of money but the defense would be from a professional in the discussion of defense that the money is require to protect citizens. The burden will be on others to state a more effective way or they can ask for evidence that X amount is require to protect citizens. If no reasonable counter is given then the military will keep their funding. End of story. Guess you don't see the nuance in conversations. Not really going to help you understand it when you don't even attempt to understand it anyway.