Sami

Sure, framing it as mandatory wholesale support for x,y,z is disengenuous the same way it would be to call someone who is not vehemently against the United States as a concept in its entirety a bigot due to their current persecution of racial and LGBT minorities. Multiple things can be true at once but when you zero in on specific injustices that nearly the entire world exhibited just 2 decades ago and apply the same standard to people experiencing very different conditions (for example, people who have only known conflict for their entire lives and have not had the same opportunities that rich, safe countries have had) then it comes off as dishonest or at the very least just very myopic and ill informed. Should those injustices be criticized: yes. Are the people pointing out the perceived hypocracy doing it because they genuinely care about LGBT people impacted in those countries: no. I don't agree with all perspectives expressed in the other direction but I understand why they exist when we exist in a space where certain people are painted with broad strokes while others are afforded infinite nuance in their positions.

You're engaging in bad faith just like the post itself is doing.

Would suggest you skip paying for the DLC here because it's not as good or as fleshed out as other borderlands DLC

Very reminiscent of the Beirut port explosion of 2020

2 things to note: They want to deport him to Syria or Algeria and not to El Salvador so hopefully he remains free at least.

The judge making this assessment is part of the executive branch and not a federal judge and made it on very literal terms (spineless and ethically bankrupt but not the final decision). Secretary of state said hes is a threat to US foreign policy in writing therefore he can be deported as the law states that he can be deported if the secretary of state says he is a threat to US foreign policy.

Roughly the same as the percentage of people who said they wouldn't mind becoming a US state. We have elected officials who are open to the idea because they are ideologically aligned with the Trump admin.

Yeah, it is a fight but I think you're misunderstanding the sides involved. A small company with like 5-15 employees (just an example) also has mouths to feed. Larger multinational corporations can and have passed American tariffs costs along to buyers from other countries to "soften the blow" for American buyers and are usually better equipped to weather the storm by taking a hit to profits over the medium term than small businesses. At the end of the day, only business logic applies because the unfortunate reality is that no one cares if you can't afford food or housing in most countries so benevolence is not an option for most.

I don't love exploitative companies either (this one seems to be on the smaller side and exploring all avenues) but why would they willingly lose income that they probably rely on to live for some sort of greater good when they can just advertise in different markets especially when they've already done the legwork of setting up production in China. Even the most ideologically comitted business owners wouldn't willingly lose money unless they were doing it for PR (We're not just talking about losing out on profit at a 104% tariff rate)

If Americans didn't make their problems everyone else's we wouldn't care about or comment on your politics.

Why would they when they can just sell to literally every other country on earth instead

Claimed. Thank you