Boeing's expertise will come handy when it comes to designing kamikaze drones.

And in this case the US participation should come. Wouldn't be better to fight a Putin's Russia that was weakened in Ukraine? Perhaps weakened so much, that Putin's won't attack at all. Perhaps weaken so much, that the US can scale down its European military force deployment (saving money) and concentrate on other things (China).

So yeah, US investments in Ukraine directly benefit America. Ukrainians are fighting for Americans. So much so, that they are destroying Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities (destroying radars, strategic bombers, submarines and ships, weapons arsenal, ballistic rockets, carriers of nuclear weapons like Iskanders).

Some of the weapons sent have negative monetary value, as in they were to expire and this process of recycling would cost a lot of money. So you should be thanking Ukrainians for taking this burden on themselves without US having to pay for the rendered services. You don't sound thankful enough.

No they didn't. Militarily is was a clear and easy win. Politically it made no sense after a while and USSR decided to leave. Militarily they could have continued staying there for the eternity. The same situation as with the American/Nato forces, with the difference of Soviets controlling significantly more of the country than Nato (only major urban centers, a small part of the country).

Just read the official names of the American military operations and the pretense aspect will be impossible to miss.

A couple of examples to illustrate your comment.

1. Relationship between USA and Kurds. Kurds have been helping Americans, putting lives on the line, are a rare democratic and free side in the region, but are constantly being violated by Americans despite that.

2. Syria. No problem supporting the literal Alqaeda leader!

3. Just a history of supporting dictators. Chile and Americas, Asia, Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal).

4. Even currently, no problem supporting e.g. Saudis.

I believe it was written in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

That's the most important thing that matters, when choosing whose words to even allow to enter one's ears.

Consistency of explanations and of the underlying logic.

He wasn't though. He was simply analyzing the communication styöe of Trump, using his hypnosis knowledge, and explained why and how it was better (more efficient) than the competitors. This turned out to be true, giving him the win, just like Scott Adams predicted.

The description of reality is not at all the same as supporting it. "Is" vs. "Ought to be".

His explanation why he endorsed Hillary Clinton was pretty lunatic though.

Meat is really not that expensive compared to even simple vegetables.

Most simple salads are actually more expensive than chicken (boneless thighs, ground meat) per kg!

If you compare the price per kcal, as one really should, the difference becomes absurd.

> Most simple salads are actually more expensive than chicken (boneless thighs, ground meat) per kg!

There are more food options than meat or salads.

Citing salads and leafy greens as the alternative to meat is a common strawman, but there are more food options than those two extremes.

Maraconi and potatoes are cheaper, I grant you that.