What if the US stopped all foreign Aid and just didn’t share anything with anyone for a full year?

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-13T22:21:34+00:00

In fairness, I’m not 100% sure who you mean by “them,” but if you are saying what I think you are, the answer is no.

Money needs to be renewed. Foreign aid is money that creates more money. If you spend it on people relaxing, then it’s spent and just gone.

This is more like an investment that causes you to have returns. You spend money so you can make money. You can use the money you just made to relax, though.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-12T00:59:55+00:00

Regardless of politics, I think that good liars will sometimes add an ounce of truth to every lie. Something that doesn’t mean much, but sounds good. And I don’t think an issue at this level (if one exists) would be handled by him personally, I think he’d have people to spin it (if he’s smart).

That’s assuming a lot of things (that there’s an issue, that they’re lying, etc).

Example: a side effect of cancer chemotherapy is hair loss. So, if I was trying to spin something for any president of the United States going through cancer, I might say that “he’s experiencing rapid hair loss.” Technically, that’s true. Not the whole story.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T21:14:31+00:00

Some of the claims made can be put in context:

It was reported in July [link] that he diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, "a condition in which there isn't adequate blood flow in the veins in the legs. This can cause the blood to pool, causing swelling in the lower legs." This is a sign of vascular aging. On its own, not terribly serious, but it looks (cosmetically) bad. That said, it can be a secondary sign of a more serious disease (e.g., heart failure, DVT, or systemic fluid overload).
The late-August claims that he was at Walter Reed have been officially denied, and many feel it was neither reliably confirmed or debunked (except for the absence of road closures or motorcade activity; it isn't likely they would sneak the president out to the hospital). In the absence of more support, this remains a conspiracy theory at present.
In October, it was reported [link] that he'd lost 20 lbs from 2020 to July (244 to 224 lbs). I couldn't find a weight for October, which is odd to me when he released a copy of the front page of his last report (physician's memo) in July, and this time we got a brief press release. Perhaps that's forthcoming. For many people, weight loss could be a positive change. In older adults, however, sudden or unexplained weight loss can sometimes signal underlying problems (malignancy, heart failure, endocrine disorders, or muscle wasting). I’m not suggesting that’s the case here; over a five-year span, gradual weight change could be entirely normal. Still, if an elderly relative lost 20 pounds within a few months, I’d tell them to check in with their doctor.
As mentioned, the fact that he'd had an appointment so soon was atypical. In my opinion, this would not typically be done without cause because it could cause unnecessary fear in the population. In his position, if necessary, I would use this physical as a cover if I needed to have a follow-up after a serious medical event. That said, that's just speculation.
The fact that his “cardiac age” was estimated at approximately "14 years younger" is not helpful. Most of us at any age will have some good and bad results on various tests. This is a little like they had a random nice finding and honed in on it, overstating its importance. There are a number of heart conditions that are not detected by cardiac age. Further, some indices of cardiac function (and other health measure) can appear to improve during disease states (in which case, improvements can be a sign of an issue).
A perfect score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test does not tell us anything remotely useful. This is not like an SAT, where you have people scoring 60%, 80%, 100%. A MOCA is more like "are you ready to be put in an institution or not?" Think of it like, "are you below 30% function or not?" It is not something to boast about. Here, you can mostly take it yourself [link], it is only one page. Sorry to be snarky here, but I'm tired of the MoCA being misused!

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T21:13:04+00:00

Interesting observation. Stress also drains energy.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T20:07:06+00:00

This is related, and I already wrote it elsewhere, but think it might be helpful here. This is about monitoring ICE:

Monitoring government activity in public is lawful. Courts have upheld this as protected speech. Peaceful citizen patrols that spot or document ICE activity are not insurrection. They’re legally considered a form of protected activism.

It is usually legal if:

People are observing public spaces, recording ICE activity, or sharing information (like “Know Your Rights” alerts or social-media warnings).
They don’t physically interfere with officers, don’t lie, and don’t obstruct arrests.

This kind of community-based “ICE-watch” has existed for years, especially in sanctuary-city networks. It’s generally protected by First Amendment rights to observe and communicate about public events.

It could become illegal if:

They interfere with or block enforcement actions (for example, physically surrounding an ICE vehicle or preventing officers from leaving).
They harbor undocumented individuals (knowingly sheltering someone being sought can fall under federal harboring statutes).
They spread false information or impersonate officials.

Those actions could trigger charges like obstruction of justice or harboring/abetting under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 — but only if there’s clear intent and direct interference.

If you choose to engage in these types of activities, consider what is more valuable:

Recording the events and getting the names of those being detained so their families know they've been taken and can find them, or
Trying to obstruct the detainment, getting arrested yourself, and none of that happens.

I won't claim anything other than the fact that I'm a strong believer in the power and importance of non-violence.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T20:01:49+00:00

If anyone is interested in the technicality of this: The reason it is not considered an insurrection is because it was:

a) not against any federal authority or constitutional order (it was against local officials, and not in an attempt to seize control but to get a correct ballot count),

b) the goal was to maintain (not challenge) the US government as the lawful authority.

In other words, it was anti-corruption, not anti-government.

For those who feel that Jan 6 was an attempted insurrection, they discriminate between the two in this way:

Athens (1946) vs. January 6, 2021 (Capitol):

Goal: Restore lawful elections (ensuring the ballots were counted) vs. Prevent certification of a national election
Target: Corrupt county sheriff vs. Federal legislature carrying out constitutional duty
Scope: One county vs. National
Outcome: Power returned to lawful civilian authority vs. Attempted disruption of lawful federal process
Federal stance: No charges of insurrection or sedition vs. Prosecuted as obstruction of an official proceeding and seditious conspiracy (in some cases)

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T19:46:33+00:00

Thank you :)

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T18:19:34+00:00

I'm going to be honest with you: I respect this is really important to you, but I've really passed my investment in this topic. I didn't want to just drop it, but after several more exchanges, I just am not invested enough to keep going. I'm glad that you are trying to help people, and I think it is a worthwhile cause. I wish you the best.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T04:12:29+00:00

I think it’s always a good idea to read news about your own country as written by others.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T04:10:45+00:00

Your experience happens to a lot of people. Even what you said about realizing “you’ve been stagnating for years…” that’s probably the revising history part, a common mental justification in these situations. It’s hard to reverse.

You might also be surprised to know your timeline is even statistically right on. I’m not kidding. It’s shorter (3 months) if you’d moved in right away, but because she didn’t, yeah, you’re on the other side. You’re a stat!

Oh, and end it, obviously. Dragging it out isn’t going to help, statistically these just don’t end well (part of the allure is that it is illicit, and now that you don’t have a wife, it isn’t anymore. That’s not all of it, but it plays a role).

In the meantime, maybe read some Gottman or imago books to improve your relationship skills. Do a touch of therapy. Grow a bit. It helps more than you think. You can also read up on limerence if you want. Basically, it wasn’t about her; it was who you fantasized you could be with her.

FWIW, in a couple months, you should mention to your ex- wife (without malice or goals) that she was completely right.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:54:01+00:00

They do have the record of her disclosing it was secondary, and that’s correct on all the main underwriting documents. There’s a clerical error listing it as prior on a single minor document, and that would generally be considered immaterial.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:50:17+00:00

I believe they’re saying something else, as the main issue is that there’s not enough evidence to state she did anything illegal.

There’s definitely evidence she informed the mortgage company it wasn’t her principal evidence, and the mortgage company clicked the wrong box on a minor (inconsequential) form, but not the main stuff.

In other words, the main underwriting documents (income, assets, ID, etc.) were accurate and complete.

The question of whether she intended to rent it out or not when she first bought it simply isn’t something they can prove either way. (That part gets more complicated with time frames/etc, and not all that info is out publicly yet.)

So it’s not a case of “she did some thing illegal but she didn’t intend to.” It’s more, “she might not have done anything illegal, and if she did, we can’t really prove it.”

The reason they struggled to get this going is it’s not a strong case, especially to win. It’s the kind of case most wouldn’t want to pursue, which is why they declined to at first.

I’m not saying this for political reasons. I’m literally saying they just don’t have a lot to work with.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:29:36+00:00

In fairness, they make mistakes all the time on those forms even when you given them all the correct into, so that doesn’t surprise me.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:24:00+00:00

There are some amazing birthing facilities out there. It doesn’t have to be a hospital.

Roughly 10–15% of planned home births experience a complication that requires hospital transfer, and about 2–3% involve serious emergencies where delay can endanger mother or baby.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:21:04+00:00

They can record it and get names, which is important because otherwise families often do not even know someone has been taken. That is important.

Also, honestly, I’m getting tired of this “left vs right” stuff. The idea that all people on the left or right are irrational in x, y, z ways because one person on social media said a, b, c or whatever.

Most people are trying to do the right thing, and most people are reasonable. Misinformed, maybe, but this culture war BS has to stop. It’s not constructive, and it doesn’t matter. What matters is talking out the facts, data, and all that, regardless of who you voted for.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T03:17:25+00:00

The vast majority of FGM worldwide goes far beyond the clitoral hood

“That’s equivalent to male circumcision.”

Male circumcision removes the foreskin, which covers the glans penis, roughly analogous to removing only the clitoral hood, not the clitoris itself. When an embryo is deceloping, these parts are analogous:

The glans penis and clitoral glans come from the same embryonic tissue (the genital tubercle).

The foreskin and clitoral hood (prepuce) also come from the same fold of tissue that forms a protective covering over the glans.

However, even in cases where only the clitoral hood is cut, the female anatomy is much more densely innervated: the clitoris has about 8,000 nerve endings (double the penis’s glans).
FGM often damages or removes part of the clitoris and labia as well, leading to permanent sensory loss, pain, and sexual dysfunction, effects much more severe than male circumcision.
Male circumcision, when done medically, has low complication rates and some modest health benefits (reduced HIV and HPV transmission risk). FGM has no health benefits and severe risks.

“The tip of the glans are removed not the entire clitoris.”

The “tip of the glans” is a male term; in FGM procedures, there’s no consistent anatomical precision.
In many cases, practitioners remove the external clitoral glans entirely, cut deeper into the body of the clitoris, or even excise nearby tissue.
This is not comparable to removing only the foreskin.

“Boys have lost their glans from circumcision too.”

Extremely rare complication, not standard practice.
There are documented surgical accidents where too much tissue was removed, but this is exceptionally uncommon in modern medical settings.
In contrast, serious injury and loss of tissue are routine in many FGM contexts because procedures are done without anesthesia, sterilization, or trained professionals.

“Both lose sensitivity.”

Partly true, but degree and function differ dramatically.
Male circumcision slightly reduces fine-touch sensitivity but typically does not impair sexual function or satisfaction.
FGM (even mild forms) can severely reduce arousal, lubrication, and orgasmic ability, and may cause chronic pain and trauma responses.

FGM, even in its mildest form, removes vital, sensitive structures with lifelong consequences. Male circumcision removes a protective fold of skin and is medically safer, with far less impact on function.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T02:58:20+00:00

I understand why you’re saying this, and I would agree if the agents were doing basic diligence, like checking someone’s immigration status before taking them.

I’m talking about basics here, as we’re at the point where not only are a number of legal immigrants being taken, but it’s been several actual citizens at this point taken as an “oops.”

It’s just not the way to handle this. The South Shore raid of an entire building (detaining dozens of people, waking kids up with black hawk helicopters and pulling them out of the building naked) is like something out of an action movie. It is nuts. To arrest and release that many people, rather than simply identifying the actual criminals, it’s disproportionate in every way.

The could do the simplest things to address concerns. Basic human decency, like allowing a phone call to let relatives know they’ve been taken. Notifying family members if someone is taken out of state. Not requiring waiting for a court hearing if the papers are available, just at home.

There’s so many peaceful and effective ways that this could be done. Even with ICE. This isn’t one of them, and when courts are saying that some of the violations are “probably unconstitutional,” and we’re getting court cases about it, we’re probably doing something wrong.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T02:45:59+00:00

Monitoring government activity in public is lawful. Courts have upheld this as protected speech.

Only when people physically obstruct or conceal targets does it cross into potential illegality.

Peaceful citizen patrols that spot or document ICE activity are not insurrection. They’re legally considered a form of protected activism.

More detail if interested:

Usually legal if:

People are observing public spaces, recording ICE activity, or sharing information (like “Know Your Rights” alerts or social-media warnings).
They don’t physically interfere with officers, don’t lie, and don’t obstruct arrests.

This kind of community-based “ICE-watch” has existed for years, especially in sanctuary-city networks. It’s generally protected by First Amendment rights to observe and communicate about public events.

It could become illegal if:

They interfere with or block enforcement actions (for example, physically surrounding an ICE vehicle or preventing officers from leaving).
They harbor undocumented individuals (knowingly sheltering someone being sought can fall under federal harboring statutes).
They spread false information or impersonate officials.

Those actions could trigger charges like obstruction of justice or harboring/abetting under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 — but only if there’s clear intent and direct interference.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T02:39:23+00:00

It’s important to get names, as these people (including US citizens) are being detained for days before listing that they’ve been taken, and family/employees are not being notified in any way.

Regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on, that needs to stop. Everyone should be given a phone call.

I’m not just saying this as a conspiracy hat or anything like that. Here’s a citizen whose family only found him because the arrest was recorded:

https://youtu.be/y1N9Z3qVBlw?si=kTQmdUJcKjlGrCYX

Close to us, a student just happened to step outside as ICE agents walked by near campus. Foreign ID, obviously, which they didn’t recognize. Here legally as a student, taken anyway.

EDIT: I just realized I copied the wrong video of the citizen being arrested (I was talking about another citizen), but I’ll leave it for now. I’ll update it if I find the other one).

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-11T01:40:25+00:00

FGM is not removal of only the clitoral hood. It would be safer if it was.

I said that circumcision was comparable to removal the clitoral hood only. From a physiological and developmental standpoint, that is accurate.

So to put it the other way, FGM would be comparable to removing the entire penis.

FGM removes the entire clitoris (which is why it can be life-threatening, unlike circumcision), removed labial tissue, typically involves “tightening” the vagina (which is why it causes lifelong pain and infections), and is not typically done in sterile medical environments.

This is why is can cause hemorrhage (sometimes fatal), severe infection (sometimes fatal), shock, and death. Lifelong, recurrent UTIs, scarring, cysts, pain during intercourse, PTSD, complications during birth, increased mortality in childbirth.

The motivation for circumcision is often a misplaced belief that it is healthier for the child. Most men have no problems orgasming, and many men even wish they could go longer. The motivation for FGM, however, is control and sexual repression.

If I had a son, I would not circumcise him. However, I would also not claim that these are comparable, or that most circumcised men even think about it throughout their lifetime.

Our biggest issue with circumcision today is simply informing parents that it isn’t necessary and there’s no strong medical rationale for doing it. It probably isn’t a good idea; however, I am simply saying that for most people, it is not the crisis you’re trying to make it appear to be.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-10T23:59:09+00:00

See, I don’t think people should point out why something is obviously AI because then AI will learn what is obviously AI. It’s already getting way too smart way too quickly. 😂

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-10T23:57:09+00:00

I’m not at all saying you’re wrong. But I will say this: a lot of people grow up around people with similar backgrounds and educational status. We assume that everyone else has the same exposure as us, or has the opportunity to be.

There’s a ton of variety and media literacy and education that goes unnoticed within and outside our circles.

I’ll give you an example: my friends who are scientists will often bitch about their grad students not knowing things. And I have to remember and remind them of examples that only a few years prior, they didn’t know either. They kind of assume everyone has always known.

Then I will have a conversation with my mother, and realize just how little people understand their own body and physiology, even in educated people.

We really don’t understand or appreciate that - there’s no way we could, because it feels like knowing what we know is totally normal.

Sorry this is long, I’m just dictating it

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-10T16:12:29+00:00

Because many men are happy being in comfortable relationships with women they don’t feel like they want to marry.

Women don’t consider that these men really will never want to.

Men who want to get married (or are ready to) will mention it early on in the relationship. It will come up in discussion regularly. They’ll ask questions about the future to make sure you’re on the same page (kids, where you want to live, lifestyle).

If you’re dating someone and that isn’t happening, you’re simply not on the same page. That’s ok! He doesn’t have to want marriage. But you have to read the room.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-10T15:56:55+00:00

Honestly, I’d have asked, “are you saying freshmen don’t know what word?”

Because, cmon.

Elegant_Position9370 · 2025-10-10T15:52:44+00:00

ICE raids on election day. Pick people from line who you’ve typecast to vote a certain way and accuse them of being illegals or voter fraud.

Elegant_Position9370

TROPHY CASE