Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court martial in wake of illegal orders video.

Posted on November 24, 2025 by Becky Romero

How about a special draft for Donald Trump into the Army for evading the draft during the Vietnam War with fake bonespurs?

Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5450363-Pentagon-threatens-to-recall-Sen-Mark-Kelly-to-military

Posted in Donald Trump - Bonespurs | Comments Off on Pentagon threatens to recall Sen. Mark Kelly to military service for court martial in wake of illegal orders video.

If a war is worth waging, it must be worth winning.

Posted on July 30, 2025 by Becky Romero

History is not just a ledger of events or bullet points in a text book—it’s a series of choices, each branching to possibilities realized or squandered.

In 1991, we stood at such a crossroads. We had Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army shattered, his air force a shadow of itself, and his regime teetering. But we chose to stop, to declare victory without securing it.

Instead of pushing to Baghdad, removing Saddam, and forcing an unconditional surrender—broadcast to the Iraqi people as unmistakable proof of their tyrant’s defeat—we let the dictator remain. Worse, we left his power structure and brutal apparatus largely intact.

What followed was entirely predictable. Saddam crushed internal revolts by the Shia and Kurds, using helicopter gunships we had naively exempted from the ceasefire restrictions. He rebuilt his military, defied U.N. inspectors, plotted assassination attempts against former President George H. W. Bush, and continued to destabilize the region. We were left policing Iraq from the air, enforcing no-fly zones, while stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia—a presence that Osama bin Laden cited as a principal grievance and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

What if we had finished the job in 1991? Imagine, instead, an unconditional Iraqi surrender, broadcast across the nation, with Saddam Hussein and his military generals escorted onto the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf to sign his humiliation into history—much as the Japanese government did on board the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945. Iraq’s mechanized divisions obliterated. Its air force annihilated. Hussein’s Republican Guard destroyed. Saddam and his top brass hauled before an international tribunal for war crimes, including the gassing of Kurds and Iranians alike. That is how you end a war and deliver justice to war criminals — at the end of a rope. That is how you punctuate “Mission Accomplished.”

And then, as we did with Japan, the U.S. and its allies could have overseen Iraq’s political reconstruction. Instead of leaving a broken country to fester under tyranny, we could have drafted a new Iraqi Constitution that enshrined secular governance, robust human rights, and equality for women—much as we compelled post-war Japan to do.

Instead, the Iraqis got a constitution steeped in sectarianism and religious authority. Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution declares Islam the official religion and a fundamental source of legislation, stating, “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” And in Article 29, the family is framed in terms of religious and moral values, preserving a framework that limits women’s rights under the guise of protecting tradition.

By contrast, under U.S. guidance, Japan’s post-war constitution revolutionized civil rights. Women gained the right to vote within months of surrender. Article 14 of Japan’s constitution declares that “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.” Marriage was redefined based on mutual consent and equality between sexes. The constitution even entrenched a separation of religion from the state—something inconceivable in the Iraqi document.

In Japan, a devastated nation emerged as a democratic, pacifist ally. Iraq could have been the same, if only we had the foresight and resolve to see the mission through in 1991.

Instead, we imposed sanctions that starved civilians, enforced no-fly zones for a decade, and left a festering wound that Osama bin Laden exploited to recruit jihadists, citing the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia—a presence that need not have existed if Saddam had been toppled in 1991.

Our half-measure in 1991 led to the full catastrophe of 2003. Instead of just repeating mistakes we made brand new mistakes, such as disbanding the Iraqi army entirely instead of restructuring it, ensuring chaos filled the vacuum.

History isn’t kind to hesitation in the face of tyranny. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was right when she said that aggressors must be not just stopped, but crushed so thoroughly that they can never rise again.

In 1991, we had that chance. Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) was in position to decimate the Republican Guard as they fled toward Basra. But after news footage of the so-called “Highway of Death” aired—showing the remnants of a retreating Iraqi army—Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin Powell urged President George H.W. Bush to halt the offensive because Washington feared the optics of winning too decisively.

And the world has been paying for that decision ever since.

We must learn the right lesson: never fight a war with the goal of returning to the status quo ante. If a war is worth waging, it must be worth winning—completely.

As Gen. Douglas MacArthur said prophetically during another war: “War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.”

Posted in Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Douglas MacArthur, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Gulf War, Iraq, Margaret Thatcher, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, U.S. Military | Comments Off on If a war is worth waging, it must be worth winning.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Posted on July 30, 2025 by Becky Romero

Unchecked surveillance is not safety—it’s soft tyranny.

There’s a dangerous lie circulating in our political bloodstream: that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Let me be absolutely clear—privacy is not a privilege granted by the state. It is a right, intrinsic and unalienable, grounded in the Fourth Amendment and the very principle of liberty. Yet we are witnessing, again and again, the erosion of that right—by surveillance systems that grow ever more sophisticated, by legal loopholes that politicians eagerly exploit, and by a government increasingly comfortable outsourcing its dirty work to private corporations.

This didn’t begin with the Patriot Act, but it certainly accelerated there. After 9/11, many in Congress panicked and signed away constitutional safeguards in the name of security. Secret courts rubber-stamped blanket surveillance warrants. Metadata from millions of Americans was hoovered up indiscriminately. The Constitution was not consulted. The people were not informed. And even today, many Americans remain unaware that the Patriot Act allows the government to seize records—including those held by banks, libraries, and even doctors—without requiring probable cause.

History shows us the cost of looking the other way.

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI spied on civil rights leaders, journalists, and political dissidents using illegal wiretaps and blackmail. He compiled secret files on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and tried to destroy him. No one elected Hoover. No one could stop him. He operated above the law, weaponizing surveillance as a tool of coercion and control.

Then came President Richard Nixon, whose “enemies list” targeted anyone he deemed disloyal—from reporters to sitting members of Congress. He deployed the machinery of the federal government to surveil and punish political opponents. Sound familiar? It’s what happens when surveillance is no longer about security—but about power.

And today, the playbook has simply become more digitized.

Rather than go through the trouble of obtaining a warrant, government agencies now buy your personal data from third-party data brokers—companies that track your phone, your apps, your searches, your purchases, your location. That’s how authorities have tracked women who travel across state lines seeking abortions. Even when the government doesn’t violate state laws outright, it sure as hell finds ways to sidestep them.

This isn’t hypothetical. This is happening.

In some states, women have been interrogated and criminalized after seeking reproductive care. In one case, a teen and her mother were prosecuted after Meta (Facebook) handed over their private messages to Nebraska law enforcement. Imagine thinking your DMs are private only to find them weaponized against you in court.

We’ve seen women illegally strip-searched, sometimes forcibly. It happened when Michael Bloomberg was mayor of New York City, and it continues to happen today. This was more than Bloomberg just wanting to see if McDonald’s was giving you a free refill of your pop. Young girls. Elderly women. Suspects who hadn’t been convicted of anything. Strip-searched and dehumanized. It’s not a stretch to say we are criminalizing the female body under the guise of security and “order.”

And then there’s the Mount Vernon Police Department, a city just north of the Bronx. It not only had a policy to strip-search every person put under arrest, they also strip-searched people they did not place under arrest, as well as detaining and interrogating people without formally arresting them. Citizens were even arrested simply for verbally criticizing officers.

But government overreach isn’t always as obvious as a wiretap, a scandal or a no-knock raid. It’s often quieter—and just as much or even more insidious.

And private surveillance isn’t any safer. Companies are using license plate readers at malls and shopping centers, storing where you go and when, and then selling that data. People have been stalked or harmed using Apple AirTags, which were intended to help find lost items—but have become another tool of control and harassment. Police departments have used Amazon Ring’s doorbell footage from neighbors to build informal surveillance networks—sometimes without warrants, and often without real oversight. And does it really need to be said what law enforcement has planned for drone usage?

We’ve seen this same dehumanizing pattern play out in fiction—but make no mistake, fiction warns us because reality is never far behind.

In 2002, NASA proposed using brainwave and body scanning technology at airports to detect passengers’ “intent” to commit a terrorist act—literally trying to read travelers’ minds. Yes, really. The idea reads like dystopian science fiction. In fact, it mirrors the Psi Corps from Babylon 5—a government agency of telepaths used to scan the thoughts of citizens and root out disloyalty. In the show, privacy is obliterated, dissent is punishable, and even dreams aren’t safe.

In Babylon 5, Earth President Morgan Clark came to power not through democratic succession, but through a conspiracy that resulted in the assassination of his predecessor, President Luis Santiago (a plot Clark himself was complicit in). Once in office, Clark exploited fear and nationalism to consolidate his grip on power. He dismissed or replaced key military leaders, installing loyalists who would not question his increasingly autocratic orders. He weaponized the Psi Corps to monitor citizens’ thoughts and root out dissent before it could even be spoken. Anti-alien hysteria was fanned into public paranoia, providing a pretext for censorship, propaganda, mass arrests, and purges. Citizens were encouraged to report one another. What began as rhetoric about protecting Earth and preserving order quickly devolved into a full-blown descent into authoritarianism. Sound familiar? Under Clark, the Earth Alliance was transformed into a surveillance state where civil liberties were crushed under the weight of state security—and the line between loyalty and fear disappeared entirely.

The same cautionary themes echo in Continuum, where the dystopian threat isn’t just about government—it’s about privatized power run amok. Set partly in 2012 Vancouver and partly in a corporate-dominated future, the show reveals how even well-meaning institutions can slide into tyranny when fear, profit, and control converge.

Inspector Jack Dillon, head of the Vancouver Police Department in the present day, begins as a conventional law enforcement figure. But as terrorist attacks and unrest escalate, he adopts increasingly draconian tactics—targeting protestors, deploying invasive surveillance technologies, and working closely with corporate backers under the pretense of maintaining order. He even uses fear of violence to justify detentions and crowd control that bypass legal due process. The blueprint for this shift? The future that protagonist Kiera Cameron comes from: a society ruled not by elected governments, but by the Global Corporate Congress—a merger of economic and political power in which City Protective Services (CPS) replaced traditional law enforcement.

In 2077, the CPS isn’t accountable to the public. It answers to shareholders. Citizens are monitored constantly through biometric implants, ubiquitous surveillance, and predictive algorithms. Individual rights are subordinate to corporate interests, and anyone who questions the system is labeled a terrorist. Kiera, herself a CPS officer, believes she’s enforcing peace—but slowly realizes she’s a tool of repression. Her orders are not about justice. They’re about control. Protest is criminalized. Dissent is crushed. And the façade of safety is maintained through a society where privacy is nonexistent and obedience is mandatory.

What makes Continuum chilling is that its dystopia doesn’t rise from a dramatic coup or violent revolution—it evolves incrementally through “reasonable” compromises in the name of security, commerce, and efficiency. The show asks: What if law enforcement, the courts, and democracy itself were bought, branded, and privatized?

It’s not hard to see reflections of that world in our own: when police departments enter surveillance-sharing agreements with corporations, when private data firms track citizens without their consent, or when fear becomes a political currency used to pass laws that make us less free. Continuum doesn’t just imagine the future—it warns us of a path we’re already on.

We’re also heading down the road of turning citizens into surveillance tools themselves. That’s exactly what happened in Communist Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu. The regime enlisted hundreds of thousands of informants to spy on their neighbors, coworkers—even members of their own family. People were imprisoned or disappeared not because of hard evidence, but because someone reported a “suspicious conversation” or a joke told in the wrong company. Surveillance metastasizes when fear becomes currency and when the neighbor next door becomes an unofficial agent of the state.

And once surveillance begins, innocent people always get caught in the net.

In North Carolina, a man was wrongfully implicated in a crime because of the misuse of cell tower location data—a method that’s wildly imprecise and often misinterpreted. The North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services has documented such cases, and courts are now scrutinizing “tower dumps,” where police collect data from everyone connected to a nearby tower—whether they’re suspects or not. The Washington Post reported that such practices have quietly swept up millions of Americans’ private data without their knowledge.

The most terrifying dystopias are the ones we willingly walk into with our eyes wide open. If we continue to trade liberty for convenience, or safety, or partisan gain, we will wake up in a country we no longer recognize. One where privacy is obsolete, where dissent is criminal, and where power justifies anything.

We must say no.
No to mass surveillance without warrants.
No to governments buying data from companies to skirt the law.
No to strip-searching women and girls like they’re property.
No to mind-reading technology and bulk cell data grabs.
No to neighbors spying on neighbors in the name of security.
No to secret courts, secret files, and secret deals.
No to politicians who believe they’re entitled to our lives, our bodies, our thoughts.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Privacy is not a privilege. It’s a right. And if we don’t fight for it, we won’t lose it all at once—we’ll lose it piece by piece, click by click, silence by silence.

Let’s not wait until the last alarm has sounded.

———-
(c) 2025. Becky Romero
Permission is granted to republish in full online or in print so long as a link is provided back to BeckyRomero.com

Posted in Airport Security & the TSA, Babylon 5, Continuum, Government Surveillance, Patriot Act, Privacy, Strip-searches, Tyranny | Comments Off on Who Watches the Watchers?

Privacy is Not a Privilege — It’s a Right

Posted on July 22, 2025 by Becky Romero

When exactly did we agree that privacy was just a nice-to-have? Was there a public vote I missed, where we all decided that it’s totally fine for corporations, creeps, and the government to treat our bodies and identities like public property?

Because based on what I’m seeing, it sure feels like the answer is yes. Every time a mother drags her school-aged son into the women’s locker room, we’re told to smile politely and just deal with it. Apparently, the feelings of a grown boy and his mother matter more than the comfort and privacy of every woman and girl in the room. Sorry, but no — locker rooms aren’t co-ed just because someone can’t find a babysitter.

And then there’s the never-ending horror show in Starbucks bathrooms. How many hidden cameras do we need to find before coffee shops start handing out training manuals titled, “Don’t Record Customers Peeing — And Other Workplace Etiquette”? Seriously, how is this even a question?

Meanwhile, in the digital world, we’ve apparently decided that anonymity is an outdated concept — especially if you work in the adult industry. Facial recognition algorithms are now deployed like some dystopian snitch, digging through the internet to unmask legal, consenting adults. Because nothing says “technological advancement” like weaponizing AI to harass women out of their livelihoods.

And let’s not forget the TSA’s favorite party trick: full-body scanners. Can you imagine if those existed 75 years ago? Somehow I don’t think the Greatest Generation would’ve queued up for the privilege of being digitally strip-searched. But today? We call that “security” and pretend it’s normal. I’m just waiting for the TSA to roll out a Frequent Flier Punch Card — 10 scans and you win a free strip-search, body-cavity search included.

Of course, there have been all sorts of reports about TSA employees huddled in hidden rooms, oogling the breasts of female travelers on their scanners. The TSA — or as some of us have called it — “The Titty Surveillance Agency.”

But if you thought that was invasive, buckle up — because this society seems positively obsessed with strip-searching women and girls under the flimsiest of pretenses.

We’ve got schools strip-searching sixth-grade girls because some cop thought someone might be hiding $50 in their underwear. Fifty bucks. A sum so insignificant that it barely buys you dinner — yet somehow justifies the complete degradation of children.

Then there are the college students forced to strip because a tampon was mistaken for contraband. You’d think we were living in the Dark Ages.

And corporate America? No better. A Target male security guard took it upon himself to strip-search a female customer. In Kentucky, a McDonald’s manager forced a teenage female employee to strip totally naked and then took all her clothes. Why? Because some guy calling on the phone claiming to be a cop told her to do so. To top it off, she even called male employees into the back office to gawk at the exposed employee — before having her boyfriend come to the restaurant to watch her until the supposed cop would arrive. The manager’s boyfriend then took instructions by the caller to spank — yes, spank — the naked young woman and forced her to perform a sexual act on him.

This isn’t just a U.S. problem either. In Russia, a teenage girl was ordered by a male cop to remove her bra — all in the name of security. I’m sure she felt very secure afterward.

Where is the outrage? Why are we tolerating a culture where a woman, a girl, or a student can be ordered to undress on command — by a stranger, a guard, a cop, or any fool with a badge and a warped sense of authority?

This isn’t about prudishness or paranoia. Privacy is not just about surveillance cameras and digital footprints. It’s about ownership of your body. It’s about the right to not be treated like a suspect by default, or a piece of property someone else gets to inspect.

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a broader, dangerous trend that says our bodies, our images, and our private moments are fair game for exploitation — as long as it’s done in the name of convenience, safety, or curiosity.

Well, I don’t buy it. And I’m not apologizing for saying so.

Privacy is not a luxury item for the privileged few. It is a fundamental right — whether you’re an adult worker safeguarding your identity, a woman expecting dignity in a locker room, or just someone who’d prefer not to be filmed mid-squat in a coffee shop restroom.

For those who still think these concerns are “overblown,” I have news for you: you’re either not paying attention, or you’ve accepted the role of background extra in your own surveillance nightmare.

We deserve better. And we damn well ought to demand it.

Posted in Airport Security & the TSA, Education, Privacy, Starbuck's, Strip-searches | Comments Off on Privacy is Not a Privilege — It’s a Right

The Relationship Between Canada and the United States: A Debate Between “President Trump” and Becky Romero

Posted on April 13, 2025 by Becky Romero
With the help of ChatGPT, a public policy debate was held between myself and “President Trump.”

AI crafted the moderator’s questions based on inputs for suggested topics and I answered or responded to Trump’s response or rebuttals. AI was instructed to look for Trump’s past public comments and statements for assistance in crafting his responses. The moderator was given leedway without specifics to ask follow-ups based on our responses. It got quite heated at some points during the debate, but he didn’t call me any names. But he lashed out with his typical insults at former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. For my comments, I gave AI certain parameters, links to my own past statements and policy proposals and I conservatively edited them as warranted.

Moderator: Welcome to tonight’s debate. Our participants are President Donald Trump and Democrat policy analyst Becky Romero. Tonight we will cover various topics concerning the relationship between Canada and the United States, including healthcare, trade and national security. Each debater will have two minutes to answer a question on a given topic, followed by a one minute rebuttal, with further discussion on the topic at my discretion. Let’s get started.

Moderator: President Trump, in recent comments, you suggested that Canada should become our 51st state. Can you explain why you believe Canada, a country with its own sovereignty and identity, should become part of the United States?

President Trump: Look, I’ve always said Canada is a great country, but the U.S.-Canada border is really just an artificial line. We share such a strong relationship—economically, militarily, and socially. We’ve got so much in common. Canada has great resources that could help America grow even more, and the people are fantastic. I’ve spoken with Governor Trudeau and I told him, if we really want to be strong together, why not combine forces? It’s a natural fit. They already trade with us, they already cooperate with us. So why not make it official and be one, unified country? That would make us even stronger as a global power. Canada as the 51st state—that’s the way forward.

Becky Romero: President Trump, you want Canada to be the 51st state, but you oppose statehood for Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory with over 3 million American citizens? Why? Is it because the people in Puerto Rico don’t have the “right skin color” to be fully included in our democracy? Or is it because most Puerto Ricans speak Spanish? No, what’s ridiculous is pretending to be a nationalist and then suggesting we absorb another country while ignoring people who’ve already sworn allegiance to our flag. Many Puerto Rican-Americans have fought for this country in uniform. Many of them died for it. The people of Puerto Rico deserve full rights as Americans, but Canada, with its sovereignty, doesn’t need to be a part of us.

I’m also curious, if Canada refuses your demand to revise the border or accept statehood, what then? Do you plan to ask Congress for a declaration of war on Canada? You already threatened Greenland and you’ve been going after Panama. What’s the matter, Mr. President? Do you feel you need to upstage Vladimir Putin on invasions of sovereign nations?

President Trump: No, that’s not what I’m saying at all, Becky. Canada is an ally, a friend, and a partner. What I’m talking about is finding ways to strengthen our relationship, not tear it down. And by the way, Canada is already deeply tied to us through trade and defense. The idea of making that even stronger is just about building an even more prosperous future. It’s about strength. It’s about the American people, and how we can take the next step to become the world’s leading power.

Becky Romero: With all due respect, this idea is absurd. What’s next, are you going to propose that we annex Mexico next because the border is also an “artificial line”? This kind of thinking undermines the very concept of sovereignty and national identity, and it disrespects the people of both countries. You want to solve real issues, like trade, not create new ones by trying to turn neighboring countries into something they’re not. We need to respect national boundaries, cooperate, and find ways to strengthen relationships in a manner that respects the dignity of both nations. Your push for this is dangerous, and it’s not in the best interests of the American people.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, you’ve been outspoken in favor of formally recognizing the Northwest Passage as Canadian territorial waters, but President Trump wants to keep them designated international waters. In the past, the designation mattered little since the Passage was ice-bound nearly all-year long. But due to the melting of Arctic sea ice, the Passage may become fully navigable in the summer months.

Becky Romero: Thank you. This is a critical issue for both Canada and the United States. We should recognize the Northwest Passage as Canadian territory waters, and denying that not only sets a dangerous precedent for territorial disputes, but also jeopardizes our national security. The future significance of the Northwest Passage is undeniable. While it’s not a major shipping lane right now, it will be, and as Arctic Ocean ice continues to melt to the point where it might ice-free in the summer months, it could become a key passage for trade and military activity.

By refusing to acknowledge Canadian sovereignty, President Trump is opening the door for adversaries like China and Russia to extend their influence in the Arctic. We don’t need to give China and Russia a shortcut to our East Coast through the Northwest Passage, especially when Russia is already increasing its military presence in the Arctic and China calls itself a near-Arctic nation. Canada’s control of the Northwest Passage is in our national interest because it prevents these countries from taking a shortcut to the U.S. eastern seaboard.

That’s why I propose an ANKUS-style treaty for the Arctic. Canada would gain the technology in partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom to build nuclear-powered submarines that would defend Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. We should be ready to help defend Canada’s territorial waters, just like we defend our own. Defending the Arctic together is an absolute national security necessity. We should stand with Canada, not against them.

And let’s not forget about Greenland. We’ve heard a lot this year about President Trump’s fascination with Greenland, but if we recognize Canada’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, we essentially make Greenland a moot point. Why? Because Canada’s control over the Arctic waters lessens the importance of Greenland as a strategic asset. We don’t need to be fixated on Greenland when we’re helping secure the Northwest Passage. The U.S. and Canada are natural allies. Working together to secure the Arctic is in the best interest of both our nations.

President Trump: You know, I’m all for protecting America’s interests, but handing over nuclear-armed subs to Canada? That’s a bridge too far. I don’t trust Trudeau with that kind of power—imagine if Canada became our 51st state, he’d just be a governor. He’s weak, and this kind of technology should not be in his hands. If we let Canada control the Northwest Passage, who’s next? It could open the door for military activity we don’t want on our doorstep.

Look, I don’t trust the Canadian government to secure the passage. It’s like the South China Sea—an area that should remain free for all nations. We cannot let Canada assert control over the Passage. It must remain open for international shipping. Just like China’s claims in the South China Sea, Canada shouldn’t be allowed to claim this as sovereign territory.

Becky Romero: (smiling) With all due respect, the President is simply misinformed. First of all, we’re not talking about nuclear-armed submarines here. The subs would be nuclear-powered, meaning they run on nuclear energy, but they would not be carrying nuclear weapons. There’s a significant difference, and I think we need to be clear on that.

And secondly, Trudeau is no longer prime minister. He resigned, and the new leader of Canada is Prime Minister Mark Carney. Perhaps, President Trump, you might have missed that news, as it seems like that was one of the 25% of days during your presidency when you were too busy on the golf course to stay updated on global events. Even Fox News covered his election.

Now, as for your South China Sea analogy—Canada is not militarizing the Arctic like China is militarizing the South China Sea. They’re not building artificial islands or expanding military presence in the region. The Northwest Passage is very different. It’s not an “open water” issue; it’s about sovereign control over a vital strategic waterway that cuts through Canada’s national territory. If the U.S. or anyone else were in Canada’s position, they would never accept unfettered international access to one-third of their national territory.

This isn’t just a minor disagreement between our countries. The Northwest Passage spans roughly 900 miles and cuts through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, making it unique. No “international strait” in the world runs through a country’s sovereign territory to this extent. Would the United States allow free passage through a strait that cuts across one-third of its national landmass? Of course not. And Canada shouldn’t be expected to do the same.

President Trump: (interrupting) I’m not saying we don’t want good relations with Canada, but we can’t just let them take control of such a critical passage. This could turn into a real problem if we’re not careful. The U.S. has to ensure that international trade routes remain open to all nations—no one should control such a vital route alone.

Becky Romero: (assertively) That’s the problem. You’re not understanding the stakes. What’s at risk isn’t just trade—it’s national security. If Canada, a NATO ally, doesn’t control the Northwest Passage, then what’s to stop other countries, like China and Russia, from asserting their influence there? We’ve already seen Russia’s growing military presence in the Arctic. If Canada cannot defend this critical waterway, we’ll be at risk. And the U.S. needs to work with Canada—not against them.

The idea that this is similar to the South China Sea is misguided. In the South China Sea, China is literally building islands to establish control. Canada isn’t doing that. Canada is asserting sovereignty over waters that have been part of its territory for centuries. And if we don’t stand by our ally in this, we risk emboldening other nations who may try to expand their reach into our backyard.

President Trump: (getting heated) You just don’t get it! I’m looking at the big picture—this is about security. You can’t just let Canada call the shots. This is a slippery slope!

Becky Romero: (calmly) No. What we can’t afford is to ignore our allies and leave a vacuum in the Arctic for others to exploit. Canada has as much a right to defend its territory as we do. And the U.S. and Canada should be working together, not creating friction where none is needed. We should stand united, because the future of the Arctic is in both of our hands.

Moderator: (cutting in) Let’s bring this back to the issue at hand. President Trump, you’ve had a chance to present your argument. Ms. Romero, any final thoughts?

President Trump: (grumbling) I’ll stand by what I said—this isn’t about Canada or Trudeau or Carney or whoever’s in charge. This is about keeping America safe.

Becky Romero: (smiling) Exactly. That’s why we need to secure the Arctic with our allies, and that starts by recognizing Canada’s sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Working together is the best way to protect both of our nations.

Moderator: Let’s turn now to national security. President Trump, what role should Canada play in joint defense, especially in light of threats from Russia and China over the Arctic and missile technology?

President Trump: Look, NORAD is fine. It’s good. But we shouldn’t be paying for everything. We have the best military in the world, and everyone wants us to foot the bill. Canada included. Becky wants to throw technology and money at them—but they need to pay their share. Their military spending is way too low. If they want missile defense, subs, all that—they need to pony up. And I don’t trust that they’ll follow through. Too much red tape. Too much Trudeau—uh, Carney nonsense. We lead. They follow. That’s how it works.

Becky Romero: (calmly) It’s not about who leads or follows—it’s about who’s prepared. If a hypersonic missile is headed for Seattle or Chicago from over the North Pole, it’s going to be a Canadian radar station—or a Canadian officer in a joint control room—that helps us shoot it down in time.

This isn’t a favor we’re doing for them. This is North American security. And you don’t strengthen that by whining about pennies. You strengthen it by investing in the partnership that’s kept this continent safe for over 70 years.

President Trump: (interrupting) That’s your problem—you trust everybody. And that’s why they take advantage of you. Of us. We do the heavy lifting, and Canada gets the benefit.

Becky Romero: (leaning in) And your problem is you confuse leadership with bullying. Leadership means building alliances, not wrecking them for a photo op and a soundbite. You can’t just throw money at the problem—you have to trust your allies to do their part. If we’re talking about defense, we have to be working together—equally. If Canada is vulnerable in the Arctic, we’re all vulnerable.

Moderator: President Trump, do you believe that Canada is doing enough to contribute to its own defense, particularly in light of these evolving threats in the Arctic?

President Trump: Look, Canada does the bare minimum, and it’s not enough. I’m all for helping our allies, but we’ve been carrying the load for too long. It’s time for them to step up. What we need is action, not more promises. I’m all for defense, but it has to be a fair partnership.

Becky Romero: That’s the problem—you keep focusing on the wrong things. It’s not just about how much money someone spends. It’s about the shared responsibility. If Canada is properly equipped to defend its Arctic borders, it strengthens the whole continent. This isn’t about one country doing more than the other; it’s about the U.S. and Canada working side by side to maintain security in the face of global threats.

President Trump: (interrupting) And how do you propose we make them pay for all this? You just keep adding costs without a plan for how to make them pull their weight!

Becky Romero: (responding quickly) It’s not about making them pay—it’s about sharing the load. If we don’t work together on missile defense, on Arctic security, we’re leaving ourselves vulnerable to countries like Russia and China. That’s a risk we can’t afford. We need to invest in our alliances and modernize our shared capabilities.

Moderator: It seems like we have a disagreement on burden-sharing here. But, Ms. Romero, you’ve also mentioned the importance of joint military operations. If we are to ensure effective defense in the Arctic, don’t we need a clear framework for cooperation and investment from both sides?

Becky Romero: Exactly. It’s not just about military resources; it’s about building systems that work together. We need integration, where both countries are equal players in the security of this continent. That means enhancing our missile defense, modernizing our equipment, and ensuring that we can respond swiftly and efficiently to any threats, particularly in the Arctic.

President Trump: (interrupting) Yeah, but they need to start paying for it. You can’t expect us to keep writing the check!

Becky Romero: (smiling) Leadership is about building those partnerships. It’s not just about who writes the biggest check; it’s about ensuring we are all capable of defending what’s ours. Working together—that’s the real strength.

Moderator: A fiery exchange on national security here. It’s clear both of you have strong views on the role Canada should play. Before we move on, President Trump, how do you respond to Ms. Romero’s point that working together is the key to strengthening defense, particularly in the Arctic?

President Trump: (grumbling) I just don’t trust Canada to keep up with their end of the deal. We’ve been doing too much for too long, and that’s not going to change under her plan.

Becky Romero: (responding firmly) That’s where you’re wrong. Trusting our allies—building that mutual respect—that’s how we win, how we protect this continent.

Moderator: Let’s move on to health care. Ms. Romero, you’ve been vocal about supporting a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. Why do you believe that’s the best option for the United States?

Becky Romero: Thank you. First and foremost, our current system leaves too many Americans without the care they need, and it’s unsustainable. In Canada, everyone is covered, no one is left behind, and it’s cost-efficient. While I know there are concerns about wait times, the truth is, Canada’s system is more efficient in terms of overall outcomes, and people aren’t bankrupting themselves over medical bills. We spend more per capita than most countries with universal care, and yet we don’t have the same outcomes.

And if we don’t act soon, we’ll face even more problems, especially with figures like Elon Musk and his DOGE operation targeting Medicaid and Medicare for destruction. They want to cut these programs. What we need is a system that guarantees healthcare for everyone, and that’s what single-payer does. It’s time to move forward, not backwards.

President Trump: (laughs) Single-payer health care is socialism, plain and simple. You want to throw billions at a government-run system that can’t even run the DMV without chaos? You’re talking about waiting months for procedures, longer lines, and worse care. Have you seen the horror stories from Canada? People literally come to the U.S. for care because they can’t get what they need at home. And the cost—good luck with that. It’ll cost taxpayers an arm and a leg, and it won’t even work. You’re dreaming if you think we can just “copy” Canada.

Becky Romero: (calmly) Well, it’s funny you bring that up. Because in your own book, The America We Deserve, you actually talked about Canada’s health care system as a model for the U.S. You wrote that “Canada’s system works better than ours, and they provide better outcomes at a fraction of the cost.” You said it yourself—maybe you’ve forgotten. So I guess now, when it’s politically convenient, you suddenly don’t trust the system you once praised.

President Trump: (flustered) That’s not—(pauses) That’s not what I meant! I was just making a point, okay? I said that years ago, but you can’t compare Canada’s system to what we’d do here. America is different. We can’t just—just copy it. We’re not Canada!

Becky Romero: (smiling) Oh, so now it’s “different”? You didn’t seem to think it was different when you were talking about it as a model. The truth is, Canada’s system is working. People live longer, they spend less on health care, and everyone is covered. Meanwhile, we’re stuck with a system that leaves millions behind, especially as Elon Musk’s DOGE is working overtime to gut Medicaid and Medicare. You want to talk about bad outcomes? Look at the millions of people on Medicaid and Medicare who depend on these programs.

President Trump: (interrupting) That’s—this is crazy! What’s your plan, just give everybody free health care? That’s going to bankrupt the country!

Becky Romero: Actually, what I’m advocating for is a system that controls costs by eliminating the waste and bureaucracy of private insurers. Right now, we have a bloated system where insurance companies drive up costs, and people go bankrupt when they get sick. I’d rather have a system where health care is a right for everyone, not a privilege for the rich. The only ones benefiting from our current system are the insurance companies.

President Trump: (getting heated) And you think the government is going to fix that? They can’t even run the post office. You want to put the government in charge of everything, and that’s not going to work!

Becky Romero: (firmly) You know what does work, Mr. President? When we invest in the well-being of all our citizens. You’re focused on the politics of this, while people are out there struggling to get care. And don’t even get me started on your buddy Elon Musk and his DOGE team. Did you know that 25% of the 80,000 jobs Musk’s “chainsaw brigade” has targeted for destruction are held by veterans? That’s right—veterans, the very people who have served our country, are getting hit hardest by these cuts.

President Trump: (visibly angered) Don’t bring Musk into this. He’s doing great things for the economy, creating jobs, making America great again!

Becky Romero: (sternly) Great for who? Not for the veterans who are losing their jobs, and not for the people who can’t afford their insulin or cancer treatment because of your profit-driven health care system. This isn’t about creating jobs for billionaires; this is about protecting the people who need it most. If we continue to ignore their needs, we’ll only make this country sicker, not stronger.

Moderator: (attempting to regain control) Alright, we’re getting into some strong points here. President Trump, what do you say to Ms. Romero’s point that the current system is making billionaires richer at the expense of regular Americans, particularly when it comes to health care?

President Trump: (defensively) I never said I was against helping people. I’m for helping people, but not for bankrupting this country in the process. We need to make sure our system is sustainable. Single-payer? It’s not sustainable. It’s a pipe dream.

Becky Romero: (calmly) You’re wrong. It’s not a pipe dream. It’s already working in other countries, and it can work here, too. We just need the political will to make it happen. We need to put people first, not profits.

Moderator: (turning to the audience) It seems we’ve reached a major divide on health care. We’ll have to leave it there for now, but thank you both for the lively exchange. Let’s move on to our final topic: trade and tariffs.

Moderator: President Trump, your administration recently implemented a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, with additional tariffs targeting specific countries and industries. Critics argue that these measures have led to significant economic disruptions, including a $9 trillion loss in stock market value and increased costs for American consumers. How do you respond to these concerns?

President Trump: Look, these tariffs are about one thing: putting America first. For too long, other nations have taken advantage of us with unfair trade practices, and it’s time we stand up for ourselves. Yes, there have been market fluctuations, but that’s just the market adjusting. In the long run, these tariffs will bring back manufacturing jobs, strengthen our economy, and make America richer. Countries like China will no longer be able to exploit our workers and our industries.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, your response?

Becky Romero: With all due respect, Mr. President, your tariffs have been nothing short of disastrous for the American people. The stock market didn’t just experience a ‘fluctuation’; it suffered a $9 trillion loss in value in a matter of days. That’s not just numbers on a screen—that’s retirement savings, college funds, and livelihoods wiped out.

Moreover, these tariffs are essentially a tax on American consumers. When you impose tariffs, it’s the U.S. importers who pay them, and those costs are inevitably passed down to everyday Americans. This has resulted in the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Families are now paying more for essential goods, and industries that rely on imports are facing skyrocketing costs.

Let’s talk about specific impacts:

The Auto Industry in Michigan: The tariffs on imported auto parts have raised production costs, leading to higher car prices and threatening jobs in a state that relies heavily on the automotive sector.

Home Heating Oil in Maine: With energy facing a 10% tariff, residents are bracing for even higher heating costs, exacerbating an already expensive necessity.

Electricity Costs in New York: Tariffs on imported energy components have led to increased costs for utility companies, which are being passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Lumber Prices for Rebuilding Efforts: Tariffs on Canadian lumber have driven up construction costs, making it more expensive to rebuild homes destroyed by floods in Georgia and North Carolina, as well as those lost to wildfires in Southern California.

Mr. President, these tariffs are not making America great again; they’re making life harder for everyday Americans.

President Trump: That’s just more fear-mongering from the left. Yes, there are some short-term pains, but you have to look at the bigger picture. These tariffs are bringing jobs back to America. Companies are reconsidering their supply chains and investing in American workers. And as for the stock market, it’s always volatile. But the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and we’re seeing tremendous growth.

Becky Romero: Mr. President, the fundamentals are only strong for those at the very top. Working-class Americans are bearing the brunt of these policies. And let’s not forget, your tariffs have prompted retaliatory measures from other countries, further harming our farmers and exporters. This isn’t putting America first; it’s isolating us from our allies and partners.

Moderator: Mr. President, how do you address the concerns about retaliatory tariffs and their impact on American exporters?

President Trump: We’re negotiating from a position of strength. Other countries know that the U.S. market is vital, and they’ll come to the table. We’ve already seen some progress, and I believe we’ll secure better deals that benefit American workers and businesses.

Becky Romero: Your idea of negotiation has led us into trade wars on multiple fronts. Our farmers are losing international markets they’ve spent decades building. Manufacturers are facing increased costs and uncertainty. This isn’t the art of the deal; it’s the art of destruction.

Moderator: O.K. Thank you. We will now have the closing statements. Each of you will have two minutes. President Trump, you may begin.

President Trump: I’ve made history already. Twice. They said it couldn’t be done—but I proved them wrong. The greatest comeback maybe ever. We rebuilt the military, brought back jobs, cut taxes, stood up to China, and we didn’t apologize for putting America first. Because I will always put America first. Always.

Now, this time around—we’re going even bigger. It’s time to finish the job. You’ve seen what four years of chaos from the left looks like. Weakness, inflation, open borders, woke nonsense. You name it. I came back to fix it all again. And we will.

Now, about Canada—look, I love Canada. Tremendous people. Beautiful place. But it’s a mess right now. And if we’re going to defend the Arctic, if we’re going to protect our northern border, maybe it’s time we stop pretending and start talking seriously about bringing them in. Make Canada the 51st state. I’d do it. But you don’t put Trudeau in charge—you make him Governor Trudeau. That’s what he’d be. Just like a governor. And we make sure they never get nuclear weapons. Not on my watch.

People say it’s crazy. I say it’s bold. And America needs bold leadership. Not weakness, not waiting around for permission from globalists or panels or woke generals. We need strength.

We’re going to win so much, you might get tired of winning again. We’re going to secure our borders, dominate the energy markets, crush inflation, and yes—Make America Great Again—Again. Bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, your closing statement please.

Becky Romero: America’s greatness can’t be reduced to a slogan—especially not one stamped on a red hat made in China and sold for $29.99. It’s defined by the opportunities we create for each other, the care we show for our people, and the promise we keep to the generations that come after us.

In President Trump’s first term, we had four years of chaos—where the rich got richer and the rest of us were left behind. And now in his second term, in less than three months, his trade policies have sent the stock market into a downward spiral, wiping out over 9 trillion dollars in value in just a matter of days. And that includes funds in retirement accounts, or for those close to retirement, that everyday Americans were counting on.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been likened to a bull in a china shop, and his economic policies—well, they’ve been the bear on Wall Street. We can’t afford to continue down this path of recklessness.

The truth is, America deserves better. We need a leader who will prioritize the well-being of the people—a leader who will build on healthcare reform, expand opportunities, and strengthen our alliances, including with Canada. We need leadership that focuses on the future, not slogans.

Let’s put people first. Let’s work together to build a future that reflects our values, not the failures of the past.

Moderator: Thank you both. That concludes tonight’s debate.
Posted in Canada, Donald Trump - Second Term, U.S. Foreign Policy - Canada | Comments Off on The Relationship Between Canada and the United States: A Debate Between “President Trump” and Becky Romero

Washington Post Kowtows to Donald Trump, Declines to Run Ad Asking That He Fire Elon Musk

Posted on February 17, 2025 by Becky Romero
The Washington Post this week backed out of a “Fire Elon Musk” advertising order that was to run as a wrap on some of its Tuesday editions, according to the advocacy group Common Cause.

The group said it signed a $115,000 agreement with The Post to run the ad that would have covered the front and back page of the Tuesday paper as well as a full-page ad with the same theme inside the paper. It said it planned to purchase the ad in collaboration with the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund.

The ad’s design features a large picture of Musk with his head tilted back, laughing, along with a cutout image of the White House and large white text: “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?”

https://thehill.com/media/5148497-washington-post-backs-out-of-fire-elon-musk-ad-order/
Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5229533-Washington-Post-Kowtows-to-Donald-Trump-Declines-to-Run-Ad

Posted in Donald Trump - Second Term, Elon Musk, News Media | Comments Off on Washington Post Kowtows to Donald Trump, Declines to Run Ad Asking That He Fire Elon Musk

Trump Praises the Russian Army. Doesn’t Mention the U.S. in Defeating Nazism.

Posted on February 17, 2025 by Becky Romero
“They have a big, powerful machine.” Trump said of the Russians. “And they defeated Hitler and they defeated Napoleon. You know, they’ve been fighting a long time. They’ve done it before … but I think he would like to stop fighting.”

Russians at Waterloo. What an interesting concept. Sort of like British airports in the American colonies in 1776.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5148484-trump-says-putin-wants-to-stop-fighting-in-ukraine/
Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5229529-Trump-Praises-the-Russian-Army-Doesnt-Mention-the-U-S-in

Posted in Donald Trump - Second Term, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, Nazism, Russia, Russian Invasion of Ukraine, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, World War II | Comments Off on Trump Praises the Russian Army. Doesn’t Mention the U.S. in Defeating Nazism.

What’s with the constant re-decorating in the Oval? What’s next? A portrait of the Kaiser?

Posted on February 17, 2025 by Becky Romero
Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5229455-Whats-with-the-constant-re-decorating-in-the-Oval-Whats-next

Posted in Donald Trump - Second Term, Vladimir Putin | Comments Off on What’s with the constant re-decorating in the Oval? What’s next? A portrait of the Kaiser?

The Debate That Never Was. Becky v. Trump on China.

Posted on February 16, 2025 by Becky Romero
I asked ChatGPT to conduct a debate between myself and Donald Trump on what should U.S. policy be towards China, based on our known policy positions, previous statements, writings and debate style.

Fall 2024

Moderator: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonight’s debate on U.S. policy toward China. Our two debaters are former President Donald Trump and defense policy analyst Becky Romero. The format will consist of questions posed by me, with each candidate having two minutes to respond, with follow-ups allowed at my discretion. We will alternate who answers first. And each debater will be allowed a two minute closing statement. Let’s begin. The first question goes to Ms. Romero.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, China has been expanding its economic and military influence across the globe. What should the United States do to counter China’s growing power?

Becky Romero: China’s economic and military expansion poses a long-term strategic threat to the United States and our allies. The first step is strengthening our own military, particularly our naval presence in the Pacific. We need to expand our carrier battlegroups back to fifteen and ensure that our allies in the region, like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, have the military capabilities necessary to deter Chinese aggression. Economically, we need to be smart. We must reduce our dependency on Chinese manufacturing by incentivizing American companies to bring jobs home and diversifying our supply chains. But we should also work closely with the European Union, India, and other economies to create a united front against unfair Chinese trade practices.

Donald Trump: Let me tell you something: China has been ripping us off for decades. I stood up to them when nobody else would. We had the strongest economy, and we were bringing jobs back from China—factories were coming home! We need to keep hitting them with tariffs, because they cheat on trade, they steal our intellectual property, and they manipulate their currency. Biden came in and let them walk all over us again. I’d bring back my policies, make America energy independent, and get tough on China again. Our military is strong, but we have to be smart—we shouldn’t get into unnecessary conflicts, but we have to be respected. And under my administration, we were respected. China was scared of me, believe me.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, you mentioned working with allies to counter China’s influence. How do you plan to strengthen those alliances?

Becky Romero: The best way to counter China’s influence is to reinforce our global partnerships. That means deepening economic and military ties with NATO, Japan, South Korea, India, and the Philippines. We should also engage more with countries in Africa and Southeast Asia, where China has been aggressively expanding its Belt and Road Initiative. If we offer better trade deals and economic incentives, we can counter their influence and prevent nations from becoming financially dependent on Beijing.

But let’s not forget: countering China also means restoring America’s industrial base. Imagine if many U.S.-led transnational companies were encouraged to pull out of China and set up manufacturing facilities in Mexico and Central and South America. That would boost our hemisphere’s economies, reduce our reliance on China, and—here’s a bonus—it would decrease undocumented immigration as economic opportunities grow south of our border.

Donald Trump: (interrupting) Illegal immigration is out of control! Thanks to O’Biden, we’ve got an open border, crime, and drugs flooding in! People are pouring in from everywhere, and it’s a disaster. We had the safest border under my administration, and now it’s the worst it’s ever been.

Becky Romero: (chuckling) “O’Biden”, huh? Mr. Trump, if you were so tough, why didn’t Mexico pay for that wall like you promised? I mean, you had four years, and last I checked, Mexico didn’t send a check.

Donald Trump: (mocking) Oh, here we go, Becky. You sound like CNN. We built hundreds of miles of wall! But Sleepy Joe came in and stopped construction. If I were in office, it’d be finished! And Mexico—yes, Mexico paid indirectly, through trade and other agreements. They knew they couldn’t take advantage of us anymore!

Moderator: Mr. Trump, while we’re discussing China’s economic influence, critics say tariffs often end up hurting American consumers more than China. What do you say to those concerns?

Donald Trump: That’s fake news. Tariffs were working! We were bringing back billions from China. They had to pay, and they knew I meant business. The problem is Biden reversed everything, and now we’re weak again. China is laughing at us. When I was president, they weren’t laughing.

Becky Romero: Let’s be real here. While tariffs can be a tool, they’re not a strategy. And it’s the importer, American businesses – who pay the tariff, not the country where the imported goods are coming in from. You slapped tariffs on China, but did that stop them from manipulating their currency? No. Did it stop them from stealing our technology? No. Tariffs are only effective if they’re part of a broader, long-term approach. We need to combine trade policies with investment in domestic manufacturing and alliances with partners who share our concerns.

Donald Trump: (pointing) I don’t just talk—I act. I actually stood up to China, while you and the Democrats just talk about it. I took action.

Becky Romero: (smirking) Yeah, you acted tough, but the results? Not so much. (holds up a red MAGA cap) If you were so tough on China, why do your MAGA caps still say “Made in China”? It’s hypocritical for you to claim to be tough on China when your own campaign gear supports them.

Donald Trump: (huffs) Oh, come on, Becky! That’s a cheap shot.

Moderator: Alright, moving on—next question.

Moderator: China has been increasing military pressure on Taiwan. How should the U.S. respond if China moves to invade Taiwan?

Donald Trump: Look, under my administration, China never would have even thought about invading Taiwan. They respected us, they feared us. But now? Biden is weak, and they see it. Afghanistan? A disaster. China is watching, and they think they can do whatever they want.

The answer isn’t some long-winded strategy—it’s simple: strength. Taiwan should be armed to the teeth. They should have the best weapons, the best defense systems, and they should know America has their back. But we also need to be smart—we can’t rush into another endless war. China has a lot to lose, and if I were still in office, I’d make it clear that any move on Taiwan would cripple them economically and militarily. They wouldn’t dare.

Becky Romero: Strength isn’t just about talking tough. It’s about actually building the military force to deter China before they act. That means expanding our naval presence, strengthening alliances, and making it crystal clear that we will defend Taiwan if necessary. Right now, our Pacific fleet isn’t as strong as it should be, and that’s dangerous. You promised a 350-ship Navy but left office with fewer than 300 ships. Our naval presence in the Pacific remains insufficient to deter China effectively.

I support the AUKUS alliance because it bolsters our capabilities alongside Australia and the UK. We need to end strategic ambiguity and clearly state that we’ll defend Taiwan militarily. This requires real investment in our Navy and consistent policies that reassure our allies and deter our adversaries.

Donald Trump: (smirking) Oh, Becky, you act like I didn’t do anything! I made Japan and Australia step up their defense spending. We got tough on China economically. You think Biden has done that? No! He’s begging China for cooperation while they laugh at him.

And AUKUS? Listen, it’s fine, but let’s be honest—it was my administration that set the stage for all of this. Biden just slapped a new name on what I started. The world was stable when I was in charge. Now it’s chaos. You think that’s a coincidence?

Becky Romero: (leaning forward) If you had really been as tough on China as you claim, they wouldn’t have spent your entire presidency ramping up their navy and building military bases in the South China Sea. You talk about deterrence, but deterrence means actual action, not just slogans. If we don’t expand our own naval capabilities and reinforce our commitments to Taiwan, China will test us. We can’t afford to just hope they’re too scared to move—we have to make sure of it.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, you’ve advocated for granting statehood to Guam, primarily for national security reasons. Could you elaborate on how this move would enhance U.S. security in the Pacific region?

Becky Romero: Certainly. Guam’s strategic position in the Pacific makes it a linchpin for U.S. military operations. By elevating Guam to statehood, we send a clear message to potential adversaries, particularly China, that any aggression toward Guam would be considered an attack on the United States itself. This heightened status would serve as a significant deterrent, complicating any plans China might have regarding Guam and reinforcing our commitment to defending our territories.

Donald Trump: Oh, come on! This isn’t about national security. Becky just wants more Democrats in the Senate! That’s what this is really about. You make Guam a state, and boom—two more Democrat senators voting for all the crazy liberal policies. And don’t think I don’t see the bigger picture—next, it’s Puerto Rico, then D.C., and before you know it, they’ll be turning every little island with a U.S. flag into a state just to rig the system.

Becky Romero: Mr. Trump, the people of U.S. territories are American citizens. Many of them have fought and died for our country. Are you saying they don’t deserve full representation?

Donald Trump: I’m saying this is a political game! It’s all about power. Look at Puerto Rico—same thing. They want statehood, but it’s all about locking in Democrat votes. That’s the only reason the left pushes this nonsense!

Becky Romero: Puerto Ricans can’t even vote for president. But you know who can? Edward Snowden—sitting over there in Moscow with your pal Vladimir Putin—he can vote absentee.

Donald Trump: Look, he’s not my ‘pal’! But I do get along great with him, and you know what? That’s a good thing! Better than Biden stumbling around and letting China and Russia run wild!

Moderator: Alright, alright. Let’s move forward.

Moderator: Should the U.S. impose tariffs on Chinese imports?

Donald Trump: Look, tariffs work. They worked when I was in office, and they’ll work again. China has been screwing us over for decades, and I was the first president to do something about it. Tariffs bring manufacturing back to America. You know how many jobs we brought back? Thousands. And I’d do it again. We need to be tough, not weak. And the thing is, China needs us more than we need them. We have all the leverage. The problem is Biden won’t use it. Under my leadership, we made it clear: if you cheat on trade, you pay the price. And China paid billions in tariffs. Those tariffs should stay, and we should increase them if necessary.

Becky Romero: Well, we certainly saw some short-term effects with tariffs, but it was never about a strategy. The trade deficit remained, and your approach didn’t stop China from manipulating their currency. You focused on punitive measures, which led to some tit-for-tat escalations, but it wasn’t a sustainable solution. My approach is about creating long-term solutions: holding China accountable for intellectual property theft, ensuring fair trade practices, and supporting the return of manufacturing—not just to the U.S., but to our neighbors like Mexico, where we can help create jobs and build stronger economic ties in the Americas.

Donald Trump: (interrupting) You want to talk about jobs? I created more jobs than anyone in history before O’Biden ruined everything! And I made sure China knew they couldn’t mess with us anymore. And your plan? What’s that going to do? Mexico? Central America? They can’t replace China! I started to build the wall, I created jobs, and China paid the price for their actions.

Becky Romero: (laughing) “O’Biden”? And the wall that you built? How’d that work out?

Donald Trump: (mocking) You supported Sleepy Joe, and look at where we are now. China’s still stealing our intellectual property, sending us fentanyl, and flooding our markets with cheap goods. Under my administration, China knew we meant business.

Becky Romero: (with a smirk) Oh, here we go with the Sleepy Joe insults again. Let’s get something straight: I believe in holding China accountable, not just putting on a show. Intellectual property theft? Still a massive problem. Fentanyl? China is still the primary supplier. Under your watch, China was still undermining American business interests. You didn’t fix the root causes—you just tried to bandage over the symptoms.

Moderator: Ms. Romero, to clarify. Are you accusing former President Trump of exacerbating the fentanyl crisis in the United States? What concrete actions would you take to stop China’s involvement in the fentanyl trade that you say Mr. Trump didn’t take?

Becky Romero: Fentanyl is killing thousands of Americans every year. The majority of it is coming from China, and they’re complicit in allowing these drugs to flood our streets. I would work with global partners to enforce strict sanctions on Chinese entities involved in fentanyl production and distribution. We need to increase penalties for those caught trafficking these dangerous substances. And I’d put the pressure on China directly—make them pay for their role in this crisis. This is a matter of national security, and we can’t afford to let China continue poisoning our people.

Donald Trump: (pointing) The real problem is the border. Under my watch, we made sure that drugs like fentanyl weren’t coming across. What’s going on now? Under Sleepy Joe the border’s open, and fentanyl is flooding in from all over, not just China. We need to close the border and stop illegal immigration before we can really get a handle on this. China’s part of it, but the open border is the real issue.

Becky Romero: (sighing) I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, the border is important, but China is the primary source of fentanyl. If you had been as tough on China as you claimed, maybe the drug shipments wouldn’t be coming in so freely. The fact is, China’s involvement in fentanyl production needs to be addressed directly, not deflected to other issues.

Moderator: Let’s stay on this topic for a bit and talk about human rights and trade. Ms. Romero, you’ve proposed revoking China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations if they continue with their human rights abuses. What does this mean for the future of U.S.-China relations?

Becky Romero: That’s right. If China’s behavior doesn’t improve, the U.S. should no longer grant them PNTR status, especially when they continue to oppress their own people. It’s about holding China accountable for violating human rights and undermining global stability. While tariffs can help, the fundamental issue here is China’s disregard for basic freedoms. By cutting trade privileges, we signal that there are consequences for mistreating people, including the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and the persecution of minorities like the Uighurs.

Moderator: Mr. Trump, what about that? What should the U.S. do about China’s human rights abuses, such as the treatment of Uyghurs and the crackdown on Hong Kong? Should the U.S. revoke China’s PNTR status?

Donald Trump: Look, I was very tough on China. I sanctioned them, I called them out, but at the same time, we have to be smart. We can’t be the world’s policeman. We need to focus on making America great again. I supported Hong Kong, but Biden let them fall to China. The Uyghurs? What’s happening there is terrible. We should continue sanctions, but let’s not forget, China is a major power. We have to be strong, but we also have to focus on America first.

Becky Romero: Let’s be clear: the United Kingdom turned Hong Kong over to China in 1997, and Joe Biden was still in the Senate at the time. It is absurd to blame him for something that was decided decades ago.

Donald Trump (interrupting): Wrong! Biden let them fall, everyone knows it! But Becky’s out here defending Sleepy Joe again! You supported him in the 2000 rigged election, too! What a disaster!

Becky Romero: Excuse me, Mr. Trump, it is my turn to speak. You had your time, now let me finish.

Moderator: Mr. Trump, please allow Ms. Romero to continue.

Becky Romero: Hong Kong was a tragedy, and we should have done more to support its pro-democracy movement. If we don’t stand for human rights, we lose moral authority in the world. That weakens us in every other negotiation with China.

Moderator: Let’s wrap up with a final question. If you had a chance to change U.S. policy toward China, what would it be?

Becky Romero: I would immediately end China’s PNTR status if their human rights violations continue. I would also strengthen our enforcement on intellectual property rights, especially tech and innovation. Finally, I’d push for the return of manufacturing to North America—setting up in Mexico and Central America—to create jobs and bring vital supply chains closer to home. We can’t just be reactive; we need a long-term strategy for American workers and businesses.

Donald Trump: (grinning) I’d get tough again. China’s been stealing from us for too long. I’d reimpose tariffs, renegotiate trade deals that protect American jobs, and stand up to China like I did before. We’d make sure China knows they can’t mess with us, and I’d hold them accountable for everything they’ve done—intellectual property theft, fentanyl, and trade imbalances. I’m the one who made them pay.

Moderator: That concludes our question section. Each of you now has two minutes for closing statements. President Trump, you go first.

Donald Trump: Thank you. When I was in office, we had the greatest economy in history—everyone was doing well. Wages were up, unemployment was down, and our stock market was breaking records. China was paying billions in tariffs to us, and jobs were coming back. We were making America great again.

Then came Joe Biden. He sold us out—just like he and his family always have. Let’s not forget, his son, Hunter, made millions in China. Millions. And you expect Biden to stand up to them? Please. He’s weak, he’s compromised, and China is laughing at us.

I stood up to China when nobody else would. I put tariffs on them, called them out for their currency manipulation, and rebuilt our military—the biggest defense budget ever. China respected us. They never would dare to move on Taiwan under my watch.

So here’s the choice: do you want weak leadership that lets China walk all over us, like Biden and, frankly, the Obama administration did? Or do you want tough, proven leadership that gets things done? I took on China before, and I’ll do it again. We will win against China, bring back jobs, stop the economic bleeding, and make America great again!

Moderator: Ms. Romero, your closing statement.

Becky Romero: Unlike Mr. Trump, I don’t and have never had a multi-million-dollar bank account in China. Unlike Mr. Trump, I’ve never collected $7 million from a Chinese state-owned bank to rent office space in Trump Tower. And unlike Mr. Trump, I’ve never paid taxes to the Chinese Communist government. That’s the reality.

If we’re serious about competing with China, we need a strategy grounded in action, not slogans. That starts with a stronger military—particularly a U.S. Navy capable of deterring Chinese aggression. To protect Taiwan, safeguard our Pacific allies, and keep global trade routes secure, we need more than rhetoric—we need ships in the water. We must restore our fleet to at least 15 carrier battlegroups and modernize our capabilities to maintain dominance in the Pacific.

But this isn’t just about military power. We must also reclaim our economic strength. That means revoking China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations status if they continue to trample human rights and violate trade agreements. It means encouraging U.S. and transnational companies to move their manufacturing operations out of China and into Mexico, Central America, and South America—strengthening our own hemisphere while reducing illegal immigration.

Finally, we need consistent leadership—one that understands that working with allies like Japan, Australia, and the European Union makes us stronger, rather than treating alliances as disposable. America must lead not just with strength, but with intelligence and conviction. That’s the kind of leadership we need to take on China—not erratic policies based on personal deals or political theater.

Moderator: Thank you to both of our debaters for this engaging discussion. That concludes tonight’s debate.
Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5228654-The-Debate-That-Never-Was-Becky-v-Trump-on-China

Posted in AUKUS, China, Human Rights, Immigration, Taiwan, Tariffs, U.S. Foreign Policy - China, U.S. Military, U.S. Navy | Comments Off on The Debate That Never Was. Becky v. Trump on China.

Survey: 83% say president is required to follow Supreme Court rulings. The other 17%? You know who you are.

Posted on February 13, 2025 by Becky Romero

The survey, released Thursday by Marquette University, found that 83 percent of respondents believe the commander in chief should follow the laws decided by the Supreme Court justices. However, 17 percent say the president has the power to disregard and overrule those decisions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5143561-83-percent-say-president-is-required-to-follow-supreme-court-rulings-survey
Join the conversation:
https://similarworlds.com/politics/5226670-Survey-83-say-president-is-required-to-follow-Supreme-Court

Posted in Donald Trump - Second Term, presidential power, U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on Survey: 83% say president is required to follow Supreme Court rulings. The other 17%? You know who you are.