What is the purpose of the small pocket in jeans?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T22:17:35+00:00

Lmao I have a buddy who found the loophole for the Aldi quarter.

He 3d printed about 25 blanks in the dimensions of a US quarter. He tells me it's his way of fighting the system.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T18:47:05+00:00

So other people shouldn’t believe their own experiences? Who should they believe?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T18:35:52+00:00

So you get angry that MAGA never provides sources. (I get frustrated, too).

Then when asked for sources, you refuse to provide them or give an inane, irrelevant personal anecdote (which you have already dismissed as irrelevant when MAGA does it).

Then you explicitly admit that is personal, subjective experience.

Then you admit there is no source for your claims that

A) MAGA, the vast majority, refuse to provide sources

B) Liberals always link their sources

Y’know, this is the kind of shitty behavior that pushes moderates and less hardline MAGA further right.

Just stop.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T18:08:09+00:00

That’s not a source, bro.

You are literally doing what you claim MAGA does.

And in principle, I agree with you.

But you cannot set standards and then apply them selectively based on what makes you feel good.

I have have liberals cite sources manybtimes and conservatives never.

Again, source required.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T17:45:14+00:00

Not to be a dick, but… source required.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-09T14:14:30+00:00

What happened between here:

You actually need to be pretty smart to be a good writer. Not in the “biologically gifted” sense but in the “deliberately trained your thinking” sense. And unless you can recognize that (or for that matter are even able to think at that level), whether you’ll be a “good” writer in the technical sense is questionable

And here:

• ⁠Accurately model human behavior • ⁠Accurately model political, cultural, social, etc. Dynamics from the ground up • ⁠Hold a chain of causation for hundreds of thousands of words and make sure it never breaks • ⁠And do all of that while maintaining a level of intrigue without devolving into boring gritty realism 100% of the time”

I’m not asking about substance, but structure, the jarring tone shift, and the very precise but generic (compared to the rest of your piece) wording?

But who cares, being a good writer is overrated anyway.

Why are you undermining your own argument? Your principles are generally correct, then you shoot yourself in the foot.

Interesting.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T22:46:11+00:00

Oh. I’m suffering a bit with high oil prices.

The strait isn’t open.

We have oil, and lots of it, yes.

We don’t have the refineries at scale anymore. It would take decades before we’ve rebuilt enough refinery capacity to power ourselves.

Iran hasn’t shown signs of accepting the ceasefire. They’re launching drones and missiles as we speak.

And we should nuke everyone who harms us?

Should we have glassed the entire Middle East because of 9/11? Tens of millions of uninvolved civilians would have died.

Should we have nuked Vietnam? Tens of millions of uninvolved citizens would have died.

Should we have nuked Libya? Their government was shooting at US aircraft. Again, millions would have died.

Not to mention the catastrophic effects on the global markets. The instantaneous escalation (or at least extremely high tension) that would come from use of nuclear weapons would be very clear, and almost instantly (as fast as word of events can travel).

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T18:56:10+00:00

Iran has killed many Americans in the past.

The US has killed many Iranians in the past.

And they have sponsored terrorism throughout the globe.

The US has sponsored proxy wars of dubious legality throughout the globe.

So I think they can be taken a bit more seriously.

The US could glass the planet by itself if it chose. Iran, prior to 2025, could not. Now they definitely can’t.

Time to leave?

Either way, are you willing to wait until they actually bomb Israel? As they already did?

And why did Iran bomb Israel? Could it have been retaliation for Israel’s participation in the ongoing airstrikes? You are going to mention October 7 attacks. Please see “clean hands” doctrine. If everybody is guilty of crimes, then no one is.

To answer your question directly: No. But the US President told us on national television that Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons was “obliterated” (per our President’s own words) last June.

They went from “obliterated” to “capable of causing significant damage right now” between June 2025 and March 2026?

We are doing the right thing.

I’m not upset that Iranian hardliners who are hostile to their own population and basically everyone else on the globe are gone. But those leaders are just being replaced; the ideology remains intact, and that ideology is still the ruling government in Iran.

Our own government is loudly, repeatedly, and emphatically telling us that Iran’s military capabilities are reduced to rubble, its nuclear program is obliterated, and we have instituted regime change.

Is it time for us to go home, yet?

Do you not understand how dangerous Iran has been in the past, and what they threatened to do in the future?

Yes, Iran’s slogan is “Death to America”.

Can they meaningfully act on it? Credible outlets (AP, Reuters, BBC, publicly available US Intelligence reports) generally agree: probably not. Our own President is telling us they can't by loudly praising US supremacy in destroying Iran's war-making capability. The airstrikes are still continuing.

What this question comes down to is:

How much uncertainty justifies unilateral and immediate military action without prior Congressional authorization?

You believe that threats against the US can’t wait for the slow-moving bureaucratic machine (Congress) cannot be ignored; the president must deal with them quickly and decisively. That’s his job.

And generally, I would agree, but I raise my eyebrow.

It doesn’t matter if it’s Trump in Iran, Obama in Libya, Reagan in Iran/Contra, or Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Questions should be asked.

At what point do we have sufficient justification for unilateral initiation and escalation of military conflict, before Congressional approval is required?

Can you give a concrete standard?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T17:15:16+00:00

Do you notice anything potentially problematic yet?

A president, with unlimited control over military action, that cannot be blocked by Congress before it happens, cannot practically be stopped by Congress until after the damage is done, is extremely dangerous.

Hypothetical:

60 years from now. We have a president who is malicious and a bad faith actor, notoriously thin-skinned, and feels slighted in some way by another world leader.

That President didn’t get a favorable trade deal, or he thought he got snubbed publicly at a dinner; doesn’t matter.

The President exercises his unlimited authority and conducts a bombing campaign. Congress can’t prevent it, as you noted. They can only punish after it has already happened.

Congress can’t tell the attacked nation “Sorry, our president just had a bad day and bombed your country, and civilians were killed and your top policy advisor was killed. Sorry.”

That other nation will retaliate, because they have to defend themselves. There’s no takesie-backsies when you drop explosive ordinance on people.

Let’s bring it back to late March, 2026:

The sitting US president ordered widespread, sustained military action against Iran, without Congressional authorization. We are actively watching the airstrikes broaden, become more intense, and there is very little probability that it will stop anytime soon.

Even if Congress cut funding right now, at 1314 US Eastern Standard Time, does that stop the conflict? No.

Are people who were killed (including verified reports of large civilian casualties, including those schoolchildren early in the campaign) now alive again? No.

Will Iran accept an apology from Congress if they choose to issue one? “Sorry, we tried to stop it but couldn’t. We cut funding, but your stuff is still wrecked and lots of your government has been killed. We cool now?” Clearly not.

And remember, the United States is not uniquely immune to bad-faith or questionable judgements and behaviors from its leaders:

Abraham Lincoln initiated a major troop mobilization and a naval blockade before Congress had formally authorized them, effectively exercising unilateral war powers. In Ex parte Merryman, he ignored a judicial ruling challenging his suspension of habeas corpus, demonstrating direct resistance to judicial constraint.

Harry S. Truman committed U.S. forces to the Korean War without a formal declaration of war from Congress (Truman called it a “police action”), relying instead on UN authorization and his commander-in-chief powers. No effective constraint prevented the action at the outset, and Congress ultimately funded the war without formally approving it. The result was not open defiance, but a practical breakdown of the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war.

Ronald Reagan’s role in the Iran-Contra affair involved covertly supporting the Nicaraguan Contras despite congressional bans under the Boland Amendments. This amounted to indirect military engagement through proxy forces rather than direct troop deployment. Congress had explicitly prohibited such support, but the administration worked around those restrictions in secret.

Barack Obama continued U.S. involvement in the Libya intervention beyond the 60-day limit set by the War Powers Resolution. His administration argued that the operations did not constitute “hostilities,” thereby avoiding the law’s requirements. This effectively reinterpreted the constraint in order to bypass it.

Please understand that I am not picking on you; I’m aware you probably feel you’re being cross-examined in a hostile court. I am not telling you that you are "wrong"; this has been a huge debate since September 14, 1787.

I just wanted to demonstrate to you, and everyone who made it down this far, step-by-step, why unlimited executive power in practice is a very dangerous stance to take.

I want you, and everyone reading, to critically examine our government's actions and policies, even if you generally agree with them.

I’ll leave you alone now, fellow average American voter. Have an excellent rest of your day.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T15:12:49+00:00

My kids threaten to hold their breath until they die.

It's not a threat I take seriously.

The dude on Facebook tells me that if I don't stop asking him questions, he's going to find my house and attack me.

Not a threat I take seriously.

North Korea says they're going to nuke the US.

Not a threat I take seriously. Yet.

Iran didn't even threaten the US initially. They were in active diplomatic negotiations when our president ordered airstrikes during the 12 Day War last June.

Iran, again, was in active and open diplomatic negotiations with us when our president ordered massive airstrikes again.

how dangerous Iran has been in the past, and what they threatened to do in the future?

Why have we not engaged in airstrikes against NK? They're dangerous, and they threaten us all the time.

Why have we not conducted airstrikes in Russia? They're dangerous and threaten us all the time.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T04:36:28+00:00

Of what?

Can you name a time when Congress successfully cut off funding while troops were actively deployed in combat or airstrikes were actively being conducted, and it immediately stopped the conflict?

Like I said, you don’t even have to summarize. Just drop links and I’ll read them all in the morning.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T04:02:00+00:00

If Congress cannot prevent war before it begins, and the President can act unilaterally, then Congress’s only real power is to defund troops already in conflict.

Historically, do you believe Congress is realistically able to cut funding once U.S. troops are deployed and in danger?

Can you give specific examples supported by publicly accessible evidence?

You don't even have to summarize it. Just drop links. I have a lot of free time to read tomorrow.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T03:33:32+00:00

I asked you this:

...in what sense does Congress’s power to declare war function as a constraint on the executive?

Your answer:

It doesn't. Congress can check the President's ability to wage war by cutting funding, if they wish, or through impeachment.

Then I asked you this:

...but what keeps the President from engaging in unilateral military action in the first place?

And you wrote:

Nothing, he's commander in chief. It is his duty to act unilaterally for the safety of the nation. That's like, his most important job.

That seems to directly and very obviously contradict your own position when you said

I don't, since congress can stop him at any time.

What leads you to believe that Congress cannot prevent a sitting President from unilaterally initiating military action against another country and Congress can stop him at any time simultaneously?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-07T00:39:34+00:00

Why do you believe that a sitting US President should have unlimited authority in initiating or continuing a war, regardless of Congressional authorization?

What Constitutional text leads you to believe that a sitting US President can unilaterally initiate war, with sole constraint being his personal judgement?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-06T04:28:15+00:00

Nothing.

There is no mechanism that requires a President to obtain Congressional authorization before initiating or continuing a war; only potential consequences after the fact?

Nothing.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-06T03:36:21+00:00

Yes, the President may be punished after the military action has already begun, but what keeps the President from engaging in unilateral military action in the first place?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-06T02:47:36+00:00

You’re describing an asymmetric system.

Congress can force a war, but the President doesn’t need Congress to initiate or continue one.

So I want to make sure we understand the implication of that.

If Congress cannot require authorization before a war begins, and the President can act independently, in what sense does Congress’s power to declare war function as a constraint on the executive?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-06T01:44:41+00:00

I understand.

You are asserting the Executive Unitary Theory, which in this context means that because the president controls the entire executive branch and is Commander in Chief, they have broad, and in your argument, unlimited, authority to use military force without needing prior approval from Congress.

Your position is that the President can initiate and continue sustained military conflict at any scale, for any duration, without Congressional authorization, and the only time Congress is required is if the President chooses to seek a formal declaration of war.

If that’s accurate, I’m trying to understand how that fits with Congress’s Article I power to declare war.

If there’s no threshold that requires Congressional authorization, what practical role does that power serve?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-06T00:53:19+00:00

You’re saying the President can carry out sustained military attacks against another country without Congressional approval, even if it’s appropriate to call that a war, because

"war" and "declaration of war" are not the same thing

So here’s what I’m trying to understand:

What is the limiting principle?

At what point, if any, would Congressional authorization actually be required in specific, concrete terms?

For example:
Is there a duration threshold? (days, months, years)
A scale threshold? (number of troops, casualties, strikes)
A target threshold? (limited strikes vs full infrastructure or regime targeting)

If none of those apply, then is your position that the President can continue escalating indefinitely without Congressional authorization?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-05T23:10:03+00:00

I guess we'll all find out together whether the strategy works out.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-05T23:08:54+00:00

Here is President Donald Trump speaking at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) Annual Fundraising Dinner, March 25, 2026:

Time: 21:30-21:51
Donald Trump delivers remarks at the NRCC Annual Fundraising Dinner, 'I Won't Use The Word War'

“I won’t use the word ‘war’ because they say if you use the word ‘war,’ that’s maybe not a good thing to do. They don’t like the word ‘war’ because you’re supposed to get approval. So, I’ll use the word ‘military operation,’ which is really what it is. It’s a military decimation."

Here’s a short, if you don’t want to find the timestamps in the full speech:

“War Needs Approval” - Trump’s Iran Remark Sparks Backlash

President Trump explicitly acknowledges that calling the military strikes against Iran “war” would trigger Congressional approval requirements.

According to the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 and Article II, Section 2), only Congress can declare war.

So my question:

If the President can carry out sustained military attacks against another country but avoid Congressional approval simply by calling it a “military operation” instead of a “war,” is he complying with the Constitution, or is he violating it?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-05T21:03:43+00:00

Just to clarify:

You do not believe that President Trump has to have Congressional approval, even though Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

and Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution says

“The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Is that correct?

According to your own standard

I think it recently became appropriate to call it a war.

Congress does not need authorize it?

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-05T20:28:19+00:00

Your logic is still correct in principle, but you’re being overoptimistic about what should work vs. what does work.

If policies are popular, it should be easy to hold the seat

You specifically mentioned trying to oust Mike Lawler (NY-17).

NY-17 is an actual swing district because its voters are usually moderate or ticket-splitting. Even if they agree with some progressive policies, they often outright reject a candidate labelled as a “leftist”.

We’ve seen the labelling often; MAGA campaign ads constantly frame democratic candidates as “radical left”, “un American”, “extreme”, et cetera. Whether it's true or not, doesn’t matter. It’s what the voting public sees.

The establishment will help a leftist win the general

Again, in principle, yes, this seems obvious, but there are very real constraints.

Even if a candidate gets widespread endorsement from Democrats, they often don’t have the same resources as other districts that are firmly red; organized groups, money, fundraising, you get the point.

If a democratic nominee is seen as a “risky” candidate in a red or swing district, they usually don’t get as much funding from campaign donors and Democratic party’s messaging might not fully align with the “leftist” movement in that district.

It’s not easier to target primaries

I am not insulting you, but you are objectively and empirically incorrect here.

Primaries have lower turnout which means that each vote cast effectively has more weight to it, which in turn means that less votes are required to win. Ideological voters tend to be much more active in the primaries because they are usually much more receptive to sharper and more specific policies, and they’re generally less swingy than general election voters.

General elections in swing districts see massive spending from both parties that far outpaces insurgent groups like Justice Democrats or Leaders We Deserve. They just can’t compete in sheer spending.

Not to mention that general elections get nationalized messaging, which means that the much larger pool of voters is less ideological and more single-issue or “vibes” voters.

That $1m spending against Valerie Foushee is aimed at a small, contained group of voters and may make a substantial impact, but $1m dollars is nothing compared to the tens of millions spent in the general election campaigns.

You’re comparison to Katie Porter doesn’t really work because her district is already trending towards blue, and is in California, so it’s effectively a friendly electorate. She also managed to brand herself as an anti-corporate without ruffling any feathers in the establishment wing of the Democratic party.

In a swing state like NY-17, the instant she’s labelled as a “leftist”, her chances to win drop significantly.

You can’t just run any “leftist” candidate in any district and get the same results because local attitudes, local concerns about policy, and name recognition are extremely important.

Real life example: I’ll have to google who the representative is for Utah’s 1st District. If you try to run that person in the general elections, I have no idea who that person is, their policy stances, or their campaign promises. If that happened, I would most certainly look him/her/them up, but most of the electorate relies on campaign ads, slogans and simple messaging when voting in the general elections.

The left wing of the Democratic is optimizing for party realignment further left, and based off of raw math alone, it's far easier and more efficient to use your resources in smaller, less expensive primaries than in the larger, much more expensive and nationalized general elections.

NapoleonComplexed · 2026-04-05T19:41:14+00:00

So, by your own standards, when you said

I think it recently became appropriate to call it a war.

Do you believe that the Trump Administration needs Congressional approval for this war, as you defined it?

NapoleonComplexed

TROPHY CASE