That's perfectly fine, I just think it's important to treat claims critically, and to understand what it actually means to say that someone has "disappeared" in this context - it doesn't mean that their friends or family have reported them missing, it doesn't mean that a reporter has checked their house and found it abandoned, it just means that they haven't been on TV, and it requires a lot of assumptions on the part of the audience to conclude from that that they've been kidnapped or extrajudicially detained.

Why not? You're saying that market signals don't matter, it's individual choice all the way down. You're paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn't have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn't make you complicit?

You don't seem to understand how analogies work. You don't get to just say "Nuh uh" when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That's just a basic form of logical argumentation.

"But what if we accidentally help too many people?"

Lol! Three quarters of poverty reduction since the 80's was in China. "American hegemony" my ass.

Again, I hope the "defense" industry does to you what you want it to do to others. And I hope you have enough time to really appreciate it too.

Absolutely not. You deserve to be treated the way you want for others. If you support a system that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a decades-long occupation following an unprovoked war of aggression, then, well, you do the math on what you deserve.

Anyway I would think you'd be thanking me for what I said. You just told me I should be "thanking Lockheed Martin," so surely to be on the receiving end of what they do is something you should be grateful for.

Why do you see being on the receiving end of "a strong national defense with private enterprises" as a death threat? Were you advocating for killing people?

I literally only advocated for you to get what you're advocating for. Your conclusion that that means I was calling for your death only makes sense if you were advocating for death yourself.

I only wished for you to receive the consequences of what you support. If that's death, then I'll turn the question back to you: why do you feel the need to wish people death?

POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.

False

I'm shocked that you can't answer. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.

The $2 per day is a figure used by the World Bank. According to this page:

The welfare of people living in different countries can be compared by adjusting for differences in the purchasing power of their currencies.

I don't know the exact details of the World Bank's methodology, but I believe the $2 figure is adjusted based on purchasing power.