huppakee

You really are a genius, i wasn't sure before.

Every child knows a rule only counts if a) you're caught breaking them and b) you're punished for breaking them.b

Well, running for president isn't really running if the result is already fixed. So you have that going for you.

Please don't, I would buy them and finance Trump :(

Officer breaks up 2 people fighting, asks "What's going on here?"

"This is my house and this man came into my garden and doesn't want to leave," one man says.

"Well, you don't understand sir, I have been living in this neighborhood all my live and everybody agrees this is a nice place to be." the other man says.

The officer thinks long and hard about the situation until he looks to the homeowner and says "Mister, you have a very nice house and he only took the garden so I think it would be fair if we could find some middle ground after all the fighting you two have been doing. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if you could do something better with all your resources? I propose you just go back inside and enjoy your nice house. You can just choose to not be upset about some man who took over your garden. I mean, I can't force you to accept my proposal but it's either that, or I leave and you two go back to fighting.
It's easy, just go inside and watch some TV.
Why are you making this so complicated?
You're not even in the garden all the time.
Imagine yourself in my position, wouldn't you too want to go home to your wife instead of dealing with someone who didn't even thank me for showing up?
If it wasn't for me you would still be fighting this man.
Just be cool okay, no need to be ungrateful about this. Think about me for a second here, jeez."

Trump was so upset with The Onion he decided to get back in office, only way to bankrupt them was by getting reelected and hiring clowns like Hegseth

The source they link to is more fun to read and also just better written if you ask me, also not paywalled. I'd downvote 404media for this, if i could. https://www.regenerator1.com/p/building-our-native-ai-newsroom?ref=404media.co

He is doing an experiment with an ai chatbot, the whole point is to write about his experience, he is a journalist first of all.

You are just plain wrong, you would see that if you would actually read what's in the source you provide. To be honest I think you just Googled for something that fits your narrative so trying to get a point across might not be worth my time, but to explain what is in the information you provided:

First of all, this data covers bilateral aid to Ukraine between January 24, 2022 and December 31, 2024. In other words, the data covers nearly 3 years while the article writes about 2024 only. Since the data you provide isn't about the same time period as the article I posted, it is not relevant to your argument.

Second of all, you can see in the graph this is about 3 kinds of aid. Of that $114 bn, 64 is in militairy aid and 64 is financial aid. Both of those are not included, as i explained to you in my previous post. The actual humanitarian aid the US provided over the time period in your graph only 3.4 Bn is actually humanitarian aid.

I don't disagree that the headline would be more precise if it specifically said humanitarian aid instead of international aid when the article would be about aid from the us (or any other country) to another specific country, as it would be about bilateral aid. International aid in this case can also mean the aid that is given internationally, as in, multiple nations giving aid to multiple nations. But I don't care about your argument about the preciseness of the headline.

You're point is that the article is wrong and so poorly written it is basically misinformation and I do not agree at all. But I'm not going to explain why that is bullshit, I've wasted enough time. If you want to believe your own truth, be my guest.

Instead of aid to developing countries, the headline says international aid. Aid to Ukraine is international aid, but Ukraine is not a developing country.

Yes, the headline says international aid because it is not only aid to developing countries.

The article explicitly mentions it is because governments choose to spend their money internally, have you even read it??

What do you mean?

Official development assistance (ODA) is government aid that promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries.

DAC member countries’ bilateral ODA to Ukraine fell by 16.7% in 2024 compared to 2023 and amounted to USD 15.5 billion, representing 7.4% of total net ODA (a decline from 8.0% in 2023). Contributions from EU Institutions outpaced those from DAC member countries combined.

The part that is not given in the form of weapons is counted, but looking at the data I don't think the aid offered to Ukraine is a factor in the overall decline.

Edit: I quoted this from https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/official-development-assistance-oda.html not from the article