Seems like this is talking about not allowing the US to own the deposits or processing - as opposed to not selling the output to the US?

Anyone know if that is correct?

You should not be posting here if you think that is a serious suggestion. Go play Civ or something

It's because the US clearly is the main supporter of Israel who is the Goliath in that conflict.

In Sudan the US is not clearly propping up one side.

People are reasonably more mad in the US about Gaza since their taxes directly fund it and the US seemingly could exert influence on Israel if there was political will.

It is not clear how the US would improve Sudan without wading into some massive peacekeeping / reconstruction mission - which no one has the appetite for.

You seem to think your experience is universal.

Scratch the surface, and people are the same.

There's a short story about a man who dies and goes to heaven. A person appears, and says the man can have whatever he wants. The man asks for this, and that, and voila! He gets it. Whatever he wants. His slightest wish gets fulfilled immediately.

But after a while, he gets bored. He asks the person, he didn't think heaven would be so boring. The person replies, you aren't in heaven, you're in hell.

Be careful what you wish for.

I wish at least to be protected by the army in some disastrous circumstances, I think. Pathetic or not.

My dad told me that during WW2, if a young man was walking down the street in street clothes (rather than in uniform) he'd be spat on.

I simply believe he'd be too stupid to execute any sort of Manchurian candidate plot. Letting him follow his capricious, ruinous whims is more advantageous for adversaries anyway.

To add, the idea that there tariffs in any way reflect neoliberal orthodoxy is bizarre as well. They are the antithesis for neoliberal free trade economics.

And where was that said?

> America is a one-party state. That party is neoliberalism. On economics and foreign policy there's almost no daylight between the major parties in the US and really foreign policy is economics.

There.

So you actually just ignored the rest of the comment talking about how the tariffs were a departure from the economic order?

It says following:

> Why tariffs have crossed a line is because the Republicans seem to have forgotten that protecting the economic order is the point of culture war issues.

It does not say it is not neoliberalism. Just that it is tactical mistake related to culture war.

What's the purpose of posting AI slop here? If anyone is interested we can all generate this sort of useless output ourselves

The point is that anyone here can ask the same question to the bot. You're not adding value. If you want to use a bot answer as source material, distill it down to its valuable essence in respect of our time.

Build the refiners next to your house then.

There's a happy medium where we scaled back regulations to allow enough production, but don't pretend there won't be losers from that.

Even more confusingly, in casual speech I'd probably respond to that question in English like, "yeah, no I didn't go" or conversely "no, yeah I did end up going"

I'd say it is more because "Orange man says we are bad at X, but only he can make X great again™".

People start believing we can't do anything at all.