US President Donald Trump signed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law Thursday, completing the passage of the largest military spending bill in US history—$901 billion, or over $1 trillion when combined with supplemental funding passed earlier this year.
The Senate voted 77-20 on Wednesday to pass the bill. The Democratic leadership, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, voted for the bill. They were joined by Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, both of whom released a video last month calling on military personnel to disobey illegal orders—as Trump was sending the US military on a murder spree off the coast of Latin America.
Citing Trump’s statements about using troops to shoot protesters in America, Slotkin invoked the legacy of the Nuremberg tribunals, which convicted Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against peace. But when it came time to vote, this invocation was revealed to be completely meaningless. Slotkin voted to hand Trump the resources to pursue his military adventure against Venezuela…
A logical fallacy can be true yes but when it’s things like red herrings and ignoratio elenchis that don’t contribute to the discussion, they don’t need to be brought up. If you actually looked at that link that I provided instead of just outright dismissing it because it’s ‘edgy’ or what not, you’d see examples there of how certain arguments don’t contribute to the discussion, only muddying conversation.
Right, so you’re you’re doing the very thing you were questioning that commenter of doing: Disregarding the source instead of the content.
Fwiw, I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that, I’m only showing you the contradiction in your claims.