EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4687
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Legan
Finland365 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11396 Posts
On January 08 2025 05:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't think it's implied that Europe would react more strongly - just that it's unknown territory so we don't know what would happen then. Exactly. It being "uncharted territory" isn't about the strength of the reaction. The US randomly invading Greenland is such a random WTF that i have no clue what would happen. I am also pretty sure that with Trump talking about it, a bunch of strategists suddenly looked at some very, very dusty plans to update. Meanwhile, Russia invading it's neighbours is something that pretty much everyone is at least roughly prepared for. | ||
micronesia
United States24615 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 08 2025 06:26 blomsterjohn wrote: Tthe "everything", in this case, would primarily pertain to the actual pact NATO countries are bound by And with the US also being in NATO, it would make it a very much unchartered territory-case The NATO treaty has meaning when it comes to Russian aggression because the Russians have some reason to believe that the US would nuke them out of principle if they did something to a NATO country. The US has no reason at all, none, to believe that anyone would do anything at all to them if they invade Greenland. To me 'uncharted territory' implies uncertainty of the outcome, which I find silly. The outcome is not uncertain. Also the US invades countries all the time, that part wouldnt even be surprising. The fact that Denmark is an ally is chocking/new but Trumps foreign policy philosophy from the very beginning has been that all non-US countries are equivalent and deserve the same fundamentally hostile treatment. If Greenland was populated by arabs or latin americans the US invading wouldnt surprise anyone in the least, so in that sense Trump is just threatening to level the playing field. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11396 Posts
On January 08 2025 07:45 KlaCkoN wrote: The NATO treaty has meaning when it comes to Russian aggression because the Russians have some reason to believe that the US would nuke them out of principle if they did something to a NATO country. The US has no reason at all, none, to believe that anyone would do anything at all to them if they invade Greenland. To me 'uncharted territory' implies uncertainty of the outcome, which I find silly. The outcome is not uncertain. Also the US invades countries all the time, that part wouldnt even be surprising. The fact that Denmark is an ally is chocking/new but Trumps foreign policy philosophy from the very beginning has been that all non-US countries are equivalent and deserve the same fundamentally hostile treatment. If Greenland was populated by arabs or latin americans the US invading wouldnt surprise anyone in the least, so in that sense Trump is just threatening to level the playing field. I'd say the outcomes are very uncertain. Sure, the US could not be stopped from invading Greenland, that is clear. But what happens afterwards? Do the Greenlanders manage to turn it into another Iraq? What happens to Nato? Surely no one trusts the US as an ally after such an action. So there would be huge basically incalculable consequences. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 08 2025 07:51 Simberto wrote: I'd say the outcomes are very uncertain. Sure, the US could not be stopped from invading Greenland, that is clear. But what happens afterwards? Do the Greenlanders manage to turn it into another Iraq? What happens to Nato? Surely no one trusts the US as an ally after such an action. So there would be huge basically incalculable consequences. There is less than 100k people on Greenland. What about NATO? If Germany and Poland et al are faced with the choice of hoping that the thing with Greenland was a one-off or preparing to fight Russia sans the USA my bet is that they will pick the former every time. There would probably be further increases in military spending, but I certainly dont think there would be any consequences big enough that you or I would notice them if it werent for international newspapers. What is the spectrum of incalculable consequences you are envisioning? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5486 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28584 Posts
I guess id still prefer the US to Russia but Id much prefer a nordic benelux gerfraukspainportugalbaltic no US alliance over being allied to a US that annexes Greenland. Again this is entirely hypothetical because I honestly think the idea is not a plausible option, even if Trump is no NATO fan. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22933 Posts
On January 08 2025 08:22 maybenexttime wrote: One of the possible consequences could be Europe completely ditching US military equipment. E.g. Poland is planning to purchase a lot of gear. I can imagine our government cancelling those deals. It would also probably result in a massive build-up of nuclear weapons by the EU. At least I hope so. Replacing the lack of US military equipment with...? | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16055 Posts
On January 08 2025 04:46 blomsterjohn wrote: The US annexing Greenland by military force is completely unchartered territory, and imo not comparable to Russia/Ukraine at all. What is this Trump fixation on Greenland about anyhow? ed: And while im not really familiar with the culture of the people on Greenland, I'd assume they'd be somewhat in the same boat as Scandinavians. And if that's the case I highly doubt that "joining" the US would be something anyone would want I can see why the US would want Greenland. It's a massive untapped landmass rich in natural resources and fresh water. Its territory would also expand US airspace and maritime economic control well into the Arctic even more than we already have, and combined with Canada, which Trump also wants to take, would give the US basically claim to the entirety of the Arctic ocean except where it borders Russia. All of that could be incredibly valuable to American mining and fossil fuel interests. I have no idea why Trump is threatening to dissolve NATO over it, but if you're asking why Trump would want it, it's not as silly of an idea as you might think. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22933 Posts
I think it'll be painted as "independence", but the US is going to basically turn Greenland into a vassal resource depot and military base for Arctic operations. Other than the eventual environmental devastation, it'll be a pretty attractive and lucrative deal for Greenlanders. I doubt they'll be able to resist. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5486 Posts
On January 08 2025 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Replacing the lack of US military equipment with...? European? | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On January 08 2025 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Replacing the lack of US military equipment with...? They would need time to build up an own industry, but that is NOT in the interest of the US. Military equipment is a huge part of the US GDP, and they should want customers they know will never use the same weapons against them. I believe even NATO themselves hinges on this. If the military industry hints they want something, I believe Trump will bail out very quickly. The US also has other privileges they should not take for granted, like access to intel and military bases. America First=America poorer and irrelevant. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2254 Posts
On January 08 2025 04:46 blomsterjohn wrote: The US annexing Greenland by military force is completely unchartered territory, and imo not comparable to Russia/Ukraine at all. You are right. It's not comperable. It's much worse, because it's fucking betrayal of declared ally. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany808 Posts
Politicians replace scientists, political judges to replace regulation agencies. Independence of agencies rugpulled from under their feet. E.g. ruling that "The Internet" is no longer an FCC overseen "Telecommunication" is really stupid, but It won't end there. Kiss goodbye to net-neutrality and the option for tech-moguls to get prioritized access to users.. while smaller blogs and "unwanted" media gets shoved behind a 28kbit connection. | ||
|
wimpwimpwimp
166 Posts
On January 08 2025 19:47 KT_Elwood wrote: I do get the feeling that all that Trump&Musk bullshitting about greenland, EU-Politics,panama and canada is the circus that should distract the people from the actual politics of deregulation and tax cuts that will start right away. Politicians replace scientists, political judges to replace regulation agencies. Independence of agencies rugpulled from under their feet. E.g. ruling that "The Internet" is no longer an FTC overseen "Telecommunication" is really stupid, but It won't end there. Kiss goodbye to net-neutrality and the option for tech-moguls to get prioritized access to users.. while smaller blogs and "unwanted" media gets shoved behind a 28kbit connection. Can you tell me more about this? What changes are "team Trump" proposing? Where are these proposals discussed? | ||
|
Billyboy
605 Posts
"Were going to cut the government and spend less" - Better block a bill until we get the debt ceiling raised, because nothing says going to spend less like needing more debt. "Americans first, immigrants are the worst". - except for the ones my buddy billionaires need to leverage so they can pay their American workers less "I will solve the war in Ukraine in one day" - its going to be a lot harder than that. "I will lower grocery prices immediately." - That is not going to happen, it is a stubborn problem and turns out trade wars and tariffs makes prices go up not down, who knew. "We are the party of Law and order, hate groomers, bringing new transparency to the office". Lets make this Gaetz guy who we know from reading his ethics report is a drug using and buying, sex buying, transporting underage girls across state lines for sex, and so on our AG.. Quick lets block the ethics report, because we don't care about ethics at all just loyalty. "Transparency" Judge cannon block the report. "clear the swamp" Lets have the most possible billionaires in the cabinet and give positions to everyone who paid me. Loyalty tests over competency. He always just moves to the next craziest idea, and everyone just follows because it generates clicks and ad revenue. Hell if someone had brought up USA annexing Greenland a few months ago people wouldn't have a multipage discussion, they would have had a multipage insult fest calling the poster a troll. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On January 08 2025 22:09 Billyboy wrote: It is a 100% misdirection and it works every time. Along with his regular lying he is speed running breaking his election promises, I don't know if I've seen so many get broken before he is president. "Were going to cut the government and spend less" - Better block a bill until we get the debt ceiling raised, because nothing says going to spend less like needing more debt. "Americans first, immigrants are the worst". - except for the ones my buddy billionaires need to leverage so they can pay their American workers less "I will solve the war in Ukraine in one day" - its going to be a lot harder than that. "I will lower grocery prices immediately." - That is not going to happen, it is a stubborn problem and turns out trade wars and tariffs makes prices go up not down, who knew. "We are the party of Law and order, hate groomers, bringing new transparency to the office". Lets make this Gaetz guy who we know from reading his ethics report is a drug using and buying, sex buying, transporting underage girls across state lines for sex, and so on our AG.. Quick lets block the ethics report, because we don't care about ethics at all just loyalty. "Transparency" Judge cannon block the report. "clear the swamp" Lets have the most possible billionaires in the cabinet and give positions to everyone who paid me. Loyalty tests over competency. He always just moves to the next craziest idea, and everyone just follows because it generates clicks and ad revenue. Hell if someone had brought up USA annexing Greenland a few months ago people wouldn't have a multipage discussion, they would have had a multipage insult fest calling the poster a troll. I forgot how it was to have Trump as president. You are right. Pay attention to what he actually does, ignore everything he says. His outrageous rants serve only to: -Get attention. -Distract from his real problems and awful policies. | ||
|
vuongledang
1 Post
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 08 2025 23:15 Slydie wrote: I forgot how it was to have Trump as president. You are right. Pay attention to what he actually does, ignore everything he says. His outrageous rants serve only to: -Get attention. -Distract from his real problems and awful policies. Ignoring what Trump says seems like a bad idea to me, given that he tends to follow through. Not always successfully mind you, but when he talks specific policy and politics he tends to try and keep his promises. (in this he is surprisingly like most politicians lol). Some obvious examples of 'crazy' stuff he talked about and actually tried to do with varying success: He tried to ban muslims (including permanent residents and GC holders) from entering the USA, he tried to stay on as president even though he lost the election in 2020. He really did build (part of) a giant wall on the mexican border. He tried to staight up repeal the ACA with no replacement. The one 'crazy' promise I dont remember him even making a token gesture of fulfilling is putting Hillary in jail. So sure, sometimes its just words. Sometimes. When he just wants to drive news coverage and create 'distractions' he does things like talk about giant penises he has seen in dressing rooms and give blowjobs to microphones. | ||
| ||
