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.
On January 22 2025 02:55 Magic Powers wrote: Historians aren't sure why exactly Stalin misread Hitler, but they're in agreement that he expected an invasion. They were not "friends" or "allies", it was entirely temporary and circumstantial. Stalin hated the fact that he had to share Poland with Hitler. He had planned a full invasion to claim everything.
He was surprised because he believed Hitler's invasion would happen later rather than sooner, even though his advisors kept warning him of an imminent threat and asking for a quick defensive military build-up. Operation Barbarossa was right around the corner while Stalin was still in denial, and he was caught off-guard.
Both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack each other the whole time, they just didn't have a precise date in mind. Stalin couldn't attack first because his military was poor. Hitler's Wehrmacht was ready.
They weren't allies except in the sense that they wrote a treaty detailing their shared territorial ambitions and how they would assist each other militarily to achieve those territorial ambitions and then they signed that treaty and then they provided each other material military assistance and then they went to war together in alliance against their common enemies that were detailed in the treaty that they'd agreed.
But if you set that to one side then sure, they were not allies.
It's like how Italy was also not allied with Hitler, only they provided fewer troops in support of the German war effort in North Africa than Stalin did in support of the invasion of Poland, so I guess they were even less allied.
Not been on TL for ages. Not read the thread. Can only pray that when we get 10% of what Trump has got done in one day over the course of our next parliament. Extremely jealous of all of the US right now.
The end of birthright citizenship just seems like a nightmare to me. Will it be only from this moment going forward or will they try to go after people retroactively? This is of course assuming the supreme court sides with Trump.
What concerns me is I had heard that some people were targeted for lying or providing incorrect info on their immigration forms and then citizenship revoked retroactively during the last Trump administration. Not sure how true this is bit it can be extremely scary for children of immigrants. Edit2: looks like this happened with denaturalizaton squads. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-creates-section-dedicated-denaturalization-cases.
I mean if we go back far enough, say 100 years, i am sure the record keeping is a shit show. Since there are so many immigrants or decendents of immigrants in this country it would seem like they could go after a huge portion of the population.
Edit: looks like this EO is not retroactive but the thought still stands, if they can do this whats to stop Trump from retroactively implementing this to target people?
On January 22 2025 08:30 sixfour wrote: Not been on TL for ages. Not read the thread. Can only pray that when we get 10% of what Trump has got done in one day over the course of our next parliament. Extremely jealous of all of the US right now.
Incidentally were all of those involved in Jan 6th pardoned, or just a large number/the vast majority? Cheers, just not sure if it’s a blanket thing or there were some individuals who it was like ‘ok fair enough that individual should be prosecuted.’
Elsewhere I mean I’m not one of life’s optimists, but I still think you need a hell of a lot of things to happen to plunge the US into some semi-permanent Fascist state. It’ll probably look more like a game of tug-o-war where the Fash side gains ascendancy for a bit, then there’s an equal and opposite reaction after a while, then rinse and repeat.
Cold comfort to certain folks, if you’re trans you will, and indeed have been facing pretty clear demonisation and political scapegoating and persecution. For them, and others absolutely ‘suck it up for 4 years and it might get better’ is not remotely good enough, just to stress that.
Equally I think there are certain roadblocks to stop the train getting much further down the track. Indeed, these are the same roadblocks that frequently stymie progression in areas I’d feel positive about.
Money still talks, and many people aren’t hugely politically informed or engaged beyond putting a ticket in their ballot box. It’s hard to see a US that goes absolutely full fash being good for some very big company’s bottom lines? It’s still a very politically polarised country for a start, and even those who’ll tolerate a degree of Fascism, many of those just want to be able to say nigger on Twitter and may balk at people being sent to death camps.
Will it be shit? I mean almost invariably yes. But I’m not sure we get into apocalyptic territory.
We’re in what I like to call ‘decaf politics’ in all sorts of areas. I think it characterises Trumpism and its global variants somewhat more neatly than other labels. Folks love the free market, the benefits of international trade, but they don’t want the possibility of losing to be there. They want the US to have influence and bestride the world like a colossus, but want to dismantle systems that give it that influence in the first place. It’s like demanding the ability to eat all the ice cream you want and not become a fat fuck.
Half of the shit people want, you can’t do as it’s just not possible, a lot of other stuff it’s bad politics. The whole Trump phenomenon is predicated on appeasing quite a broad church and throwing them the odd bone and making them think he’s in their corner, that’s how it works despite how incoherent it is. But I think that whole house of cards comes falling down if you deviate too much from that strategy.
On January 22 2025 08:30 sixfour wrote: Not been on TL for ages. Not read the thread. Can only pray that when we get 10% of what Trump has got done in one day over the course of our next parliament. Extremely jealous of all of the US right now.
...What? lmao. Which 10% are you talking about, the renaming of a body of water or the pardoning of a thousand criminals who tried to overthrow democracy? Or do you want 10% of the American Nazis?
On January 22 2025 08:30 sixfour wrote: Not been on TL for ages. Not read the thread. Can only pray that when we get 10% of what Trump has got done in one day over the course of our next parliament. Extremely jealous of all of the US right now.
‘I don’t engage in this community, not have I bothered to read any of this thread but don’t worry, I’m here to give my opinion. Crucially I also will give zero detail about what my opinions actually are
On January 22 2025 02:55 Magic Powers wrote: Historians aren't sure why exactly Stalin misread Hitler, but they're in agreement that he expected an invasion. They were not "friends" or "allies", it was entirely temporary and circumstantial. Stalin hated the fact that he had to share Poland with Hitler. He had planned a full invasion to claim everything.
He was surprised because he believed Hitler's invasion would happen later rather than sooner, even though his advisors kept warning him of an imminent threat and asking for a quick defensive military build-up. Operation Barbarossa was right around the corner while Stalin was still in denial, and he was caught off-guard.
Both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack each other the whole time, they just didn't have a precise date in mind. Stalin couldn't attack first because his military was poor. Hitler's Wehrmacht was ready.
They weren't allies except in the sense that they wrote a treaty detailing their shared territorial ambitions and how they would assist each other militarily to achieve those territorial ambitions and then they signed that treaty and then they provided each other material military assistance and then they went to war together in alliance against their common enemies that were detailed in the treaty that they'd agreed.
But if you set that to one side then sure, they were not allies.
It's like how Italy was also not allied with Hitler, only they provided fewer troops in support of the German war effort in North Africa than Stalin did in support of the invasion of Poland, so I guess they were even less allied.
The Soviets had promised a lot of things, including Poland that it would not be attacked - and then they invaded it and took the other half. They ran the same deception that Hitler did. Stalin was a snake.
"The USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1932, but that would turn out to be a useless bit of paper, too."
Furthermore:
"Even though France and the USSR had signed a treaty in 1935 promising to protect Czechoslovakia from outside aggression, neither was willing to go to war when it came to the crunch."
Stalin's words demonstrably meant nothing. The USSR's promises were empty. Stalin was a ruthless liar and constantly scheming to grab more land and discarding allies on a whim. But he lacked the military strength for grander plans, unlike Nazi Germany. He also saw Germany's army diversifying across his own border, but he refused to believe Hitler would be mad enough to invade. His advisors, as well as British informants, kept warning him it would happen. And then it did happen.
The pact between Hitler and Stalin didn't mean that they were allies. They were circumstantial allies in name only - as was later proven more concretley when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviets. A plan that Hitler had formulated at least a year prior.
Actions speak louder than words. Hitler was a liar, and so was Stalin. They were snakes hoping (and often succeeding) to conquer large swaths of land. This was known long before Hitler's invasion of Poland. Churchill - all the way back to at least 1930 - said that Hitler can't be trusted, and he was proven right over and over again in the years before WW2. He was reading Hitler like a book from the start.
To argue that Hitler and Stalin were allies is to misunderstand who these individuals were and how they operated. They were never allies, they were just hoping to keep up pretenses in front of each other to later gain strategic advantages. They were playing their usual games. In the case of Hitler this led to various invasions and annexations starting already in 1935. He was well-known for this kind of scheming, which is why the invasion of Poland should've come to nobody's surprise. Churchill certainly wasn't surprised. Stalin underestimated Hitler's capacity to pull crazy stunts. It wasn't because he thought Hitler was actually peaceful towards the Soviets, it's because he thought Hitler wouldn't take such a huge gamble. Or it's because Stalin thought Churchill was trying to mess with him and hoping to provoke a military response by Hitler (because Britain was in a big mess of a war with Germany at the time). Churchill tried to warn Stalin in 1940 but he fell on deaf ears probably for those reasons. Stalin forgot to consider that, while Hitler had a long history of lying, Churchill did not. But he also ignored the German military build-up on the border. Does that perhaps remind you of a modern liar who then invaded a neighboring country? Does the breaking of the Minsk agreement ring a bell?
Lies are the foundation of fascism and other oppressive ideologies. They always create a fantasy world in people's heads until they have everything. That's how they win. The more we believe their words, and the less we look at their concrete actions, the faster we lose the race against them. Even Stalin fell for Hitler's lies. And Poland fell for Stalin's lies (not saying they could've done much about that).
Sure, you can choose to believe Hitler. You can choose to believe Stalin. It'll only mean that you'll be again and again surprised by their present versions. The next Hitler, the next Stalin, they all do the same thing. They all lie and make people's heads spin. And then people are surprised that they fell for these snakes.
On January 22 2025 02:55 Magic Powers wrote: Historians aren't sure why exactly Stalin misread Hitler, but they're in agreement that he expected an invasion. They were not "friends" or "allies", it was entirely temporary and circumstantial. Stalin hated the fact that he had to share Poland with Hitler. He had planned a full invasion to claim everything.
He was surprised because he believed Hitler's invasion would happen later rather than sooner, even though his advisors kept warning him of an imminent threat and asking for a quick defensive military build-up. Operation Barbarossa was right around the corner while Stalin was still in denial, and he was caught off-guard.
Both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack each other the whole time, they just didn't have a precise date in mind. Stalin couldn't attack first because his military was poor. Hitler's Wehrmacht was ready.
They weren't allies except in the sense that they wrote a treaty detailing their shared territorial ambitions and how they would assist each other militarily to achieve those territorial ambitions and then they signed that treaty and then they provided each other material military assistance and then they went to war together in alliance against their common enemies that were detailed in the treaty that they'd agreed.
But if you set that to one side then sure, they were not allies.
It's like how Italy was also not allied with Hitler, only they provided fewer troops in support of the German war effort in North Africa than Stalin did in support of the invasion of Poland, so I guess they were even less allied.
The Soviets had promised a lot of things, including Poland that it would not be attacked - and then they invaded it and took the other half. They ran the same deception that Hitler did. Stalin was a snake.
"The USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1932, but that would turn out to be a useless bit of paper, too."
Furthermore:
"Even though France and the USSR had signed a treaty in 1935 promising to protect Czechoslovakia from outside aggression, neither was willing to go to war when it came to the crunch."
Stalin's words demonstrably meant nothing. The USSR's promises were empty. Stalin was a ruthless liar and constantly scheming to grab more land and discarding allies on a whim. But he lacked the military strength for grander plans, unlike Nazi Germany. He also saw Germany's army diversifying across his own border, but he refused to believe Hitler would be mad enough to invade. His advisors, as well as British informants, kept warning him it would happen. And then it did happen.
The pact between Hitler and Stalin didn't mean that they were allies. They were circumstantial allies in name only - as was later proven more concretley when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviets. A plan that Hitler had formulated at least a year prior.
Actions speak louder than words. Hitler was a liar, and so was Stalin. They were snakes hoping (and often succeeding) to conquer large swaths of land. This was known long before Hitler's invasion of Poland. Churchill - all the way back to at least 1930 - said that Hitler can't be trusted, and he was proven right over and over again in the years before WW2. He was reading Hitler like a book from the start.
To argue that Hitler and Stalin were allies is to misunderstand who these individuals were and how they operated. They were never allies, they were just hoping to keep up pretenses in front of each other to later gain strategic advantages. They were playing their usual games. In the case of Hitler this led to various invasions and annexations starting already in 1935. He was well-known for this kind of scheming, which is why the invasion of Poland should've come to nobody's surprise. Churchill certainly wasn't surprised. Stalin underestimated Hitler's capacity to pull crazy stunts. It wasn't because he thought Hitler was actually peaceful towards the Soviets, it's because he thought Hitler wouldn't take such a huge gamble. Or it's because Stalin thought Churchill was trying to mess with him and hoping to provoke a military response by Hitler (because Britain was in a big mess of a war with Germany at the time). Churchill tried to warn Stalin in 1940 but he fell on deaf ears probably for those reasons. Stalin forgot to consider that, while Hitler had a long history of lying, Churchill did not. But he also ignored the German military build-up on the border. Does that perhaps remind you of a modern liar who then invaded a neighboring country? Does the breaking of the Minsk agreement ring a bell?
Lies are the foundation of fascism and other oppressive ideologies. They always create a fantasy world in people's heads until they have everything. That's how they win. The more we believe their words, and the less we look at their concrete actions, the faster we lose the race against them. Even Stalin fell for Hitler's lies. And Poland fell for Stalin's lies (not saying they could've done much about that).
Sure, you can choose to believe Hitler. You can choose to believe Stalin. It'll only mean that you'll be again and again surprised by their present versions. The next Hitler, the next Stalin, they all do the same thing. They all lie and make people's heads spin. And then people are surprised that they fell for these snakes.
On January 22 2025 03:03 Lmui wrote: It's going to be a really, really long four years with Trump in office. 2016-2020 was already ridiculous, and this one's starting out further off the rails.
Embarking on year 8 as a federal employee and man I feel this deep down. Wish us luck, those of you not inclined to blanketly demonize the work of government. The rest of you, well, we’ve probably already had that conversation
The silver lining is that "no remote work" also means "you don't have to work on snow days anymore" right?
Why would some one who owns a bunch of commercial property, and hangs with people who all own lots of commercial property be against people working from home?
On January 22 2025 03:03 Lmui wrote: It's going to be a really, really long four years with Trump in office. 2016-2020 was already ridiculous, and this one's starting out further off the rails.
Embarking on year 8 as a federal employee and man I feel this deep down. Wish us luck, those of you not inclined to blanketly demonize the work of government. The rest of you, well, we’ve probably already had that conversation
The silver lining is that "no remote work" also means "you don't have to work on snow days anymore" right?
On January 22 2025 08:30 sixfour wrote: Not been on TL for ages. Not read the thread. Can only pray that when we get 10% of what Trump has got done in one day over the course of our next parliament. Extremely jealous of all of the US right now.
Fuck off Tommy Robinson.
I don’t care whose politics anyone is for, you shouldn’t talk to someone that way. Please be more respectful.
On January 22 2025 03:03 Lmui wrote: It's going to be a really, really long four years with Trump in office. 2016-2020 was already ridiculous, and this one's starting out further off the rails.
Embarking on year 8 as a federal employee and man I feel this deep down. Wish us luck, those of you not inclined to blanketly demonize the work of government. The rest of you, well, we’ve probably already had that conversation
The silver lining is that "no remote work" also means "you don't have to work on snow days anymore" right?
It’s the idiocy of the current epoch at its most pronounced.
It’s so beyond fucking stupid, and encapsulates the idiocy of the current era we’re in.
Hopefully there’s some new deity that’s recently spawned that can punch people who demand everyone go into the office in the face every time they complain about traffic.
Not to mention the options it gives folks from less salubrious areas who can earn big city wages outside of big city places. Thought folks complained about the brain drain?
Oh wait no doesn’t matter, policy is driven by envy, pettiness and anger rather than anything fucking sensible.
On January 22 2025 02:55 Magic Powers wrote: Historians aren't sure why exactly Stalin misread Hitler, but they're in agreement that he expected an invasion. They were not "friends" or "allies", it was entirely temporary and circumstantial. Stalin hated the fact that he had to share Poland with Hitler. He had planned a full invasion to claim everything.
He was surprised because he believed Hitler's invasion would happen later rather than sooner, even though his advisors kept warning him of an imminent threat and asking for a quick defensive military build-up. Operation Barbarossa was right around the corner while Stalin was still in denial, and he was caught off-guard.
Both Hitler and Stalin were planning to attack each other the whole time, they just didn't have a precise date in mind. Stalin couldn't attack first because his military was poor. Hitler's Wehrmacht was ready.
They weren't allies except in the sense that they wrote a treaty detailing their shared territorial ambitions and how they would assist each other militarily to achieve those territorial ambitions and then they signed that treaty and then they provided each other material military assistance and then they went to war together in alliance against their common enemies that were detailed in the treaty that they'd agreed.
But if you set that to one side then sure, they were not allies.
It's like how Italy was also not allied with Hitler, only they provided fewer troops in support of the German war effort in North Africa than Stalin did in support of the invasion of Poland, so I guess they were even less allied.
The Soviets had promised a lot of things, including Poland that it would not be attacked - and then they invaded it and took the other half. They ran the same deception that Hitler did. Stalin was a snake.
"The USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1932, but that would turn out to be a useless bit of paper, too."
Furthermore:
"Even though France and the USSR had signed a treaty in 1935 promising to protect Czechoslovakia from outside aggression, neither was willing to go to war when it came to the crunch."
Stalin's words demonstrably meant nothing. The USSR's promises were empty. Stalin was a ruthless liar and constantly scheming to grab more land and discarding allies on a whim. But he lacked the military strength for grander plans, unlike Nazi Germany. He also saw Germany's army diversifying across his own border, but he refused to believe Hitler would be mad enough to invade. His advisors, as well as British informants, kept warning him it would happen. And then it did happen.
The pact between Hitler and Stalin didn't mean that they were allies. They were circumstantial allies in name only - as was later proven more concretley when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviets. A plan that Hitler had formulated at least a year prior.
Actions speak louder than words. Hitler was a liar, and so was Stalin. They were snakes hoping (and often succeeding) to conquer large swaths of land. This was known long before Hitler's invasion of Poland. Churchill - all the way back to at least 1930 - said that Hitler can't be trusted, and he was proven right over and over again in the years before WW2. He was reading Hitler like a book from the start.
To argue that Hitler and Stalin were allies is to misunderstand who these individuals were and how they operated. They were never allies, they were just hoping to keep up pretenses in front of each other to later gain strategic advantages. They were playing their usual games. In the case of Hitler this led to various invasions and annexations starting already in 1935. He was well-known for this kind of scheming, which is why the invasion of Poland should've come to nobody's surprise. Churchill certainly wasn't surprised. Stalin underestimated Hitler's capacity to pull crazy stunts. It wasn't because he thought Hitler was actually peaceful towards the Soviets, it's because he thought Hitler wouldn't take such a huge gamble. Or it's because Stalin thought Churchill was trying to mess with him and hoping to provoke a military response by Hitler (because Britain was in a big mess of a war with Germany at the time). Churchill tried to warn Stalin in 1940 but he fell on deaf ears probably for those reasons. Stalin forgot to consider that, while Hitler had a long history of lying, Churchill did not. But he also ignored the German military build-up on the border. Does that perhaps remind you of a modern liar who then invaded a neighboring country? Does the breaking of the Minsk agreement ring a bell?
Lies are the foundation of fascism and other oppressive ideologies. They always create a fantasy world in people's heads until they have everything. That's how they win. The more we believe their words, and the less we look at their concrete actions, the faster we lose the race against them. Even Stalin fell for Hitler's lies. And Poland fell for Stalin's lies (not saying they could've done much about that).
Sure, you can choose to believe Hitler. You can choose to believe Stalin. It'll only mean that you'll be again and again surprised by their present versions. The next Hitler, the next Stalin, they all do the same thing. They all lie and make people's heads spin. And then people are surprised that they fell for these snakes.
They signed an alliance. They fought on the same side in a war per the requirements of the alliance they signed. They were allies.
Or you could just admit that I'm right and you missed my point completely, as you always do. My point is correct, you just hate not being the only person in the room who has an understanding of the subject matter. You want to claim the truth is binary - which it isn't - and you happen to be the only person who knows the truth - which you aren't.
Consider, for just a minute, that both your and my understanding are correct. Maybe I'm right that they were only allies on paper, and maybe you're right that they were, in fact, allied on paper.
Just to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly...
Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.
So this means, if I get a call on Saturday "Can you please review this urgent draft press statement real quick for accuracy?" I have to go into the office to read and provide a few edits? Even though my work laptop or even phone has that capability? Same for a call at 11pm tomorrow night? I have to go back into work with a 1-2 hour round trip, rendering me too exhaust to work at the normal time on Thursday? That is what it says, right? This is efficiency?
Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary.
So this means, if I get a call on Saturday "Can you please review this urgent draft press statement real quick for accuracy?" I have to go into the office to read and provide a few edits? Even though my work laptop or even phone has that capability? Same for a call at 11pm tomorrow night? I have to go back into work with a 1-2 hour round trip, rendering me too exhaust to work at the normal time on Thursday? That is what it says, right? This is efficiency?
On a full time basis just means you spend your normal workweek at your job. Overtime on a saturday and how that is handled should be clear in your contract, right? If you have a job that requires you to be avalible at all times for minor stuff of course you are going to be able to do things from home, and likely your scheduled hours that you have to work for it to be full time would be reduced as well.
People are so damn dramatic about work from home on the internet. Yes, it was great for workers. Some parts were also good for employees. But it had some huge issues as well. It's not strange it is being reduced. It's not the end of the world either, we survived at our work places pre covid to.
In general most of the day 1 Trump things seem way overblown.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LTezzMJ.jpeg)
