> but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is fac

> but doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, I think you're missing the point. The very specific, non relevant way you interpreted the claim is factually wrong. To me, the claim read as: > the military spending is never cut in a significant way Which again, at an absolute level, is generally true when looking at inflation adjusted spending. Within context, absolute is relevant here though as this is about government process. The whole context makes this claim incredibly tangential to the whole point, which more or less boils down to "government has a lot of inertia". > doesn't change the fact the poster is wrong Again, did it ever really matter how the cold war affected spending here? What's the point of calling this super nuance out? My point is not to argue about 1990-2000 military spending and the measures of it. I'm calling this out to say "arguing over small irrelevant details to an argument is not very productive if you care about the real topic at hand". Are you trying to make this case because you believe that the government does not have a lot of inertia when it comes to these things? Great, then make that case instead of this rabbit hole. Or is this rabbit hole just about the non relevant fact itself?