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.
Round 2 of demanding bullet points from federal employees started Friday night, exactly when you'd expect Musk to pull the trigger if his goal is to terrorize federal employees:
Federal workers start to get a new email demanding their accomplishments
Federal employees are starting to receive another email requiring them to explain their recent accomplishments, a renewed attempt by President Donald Trump and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk to demand answers from the government workforce...
<snip>
“Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets describing what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” the message read, adding that going forward, employees would be expected to submit a response each week by the following Monday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern... <rest of article in link>
The key difference between this request and last week's is that Musk (or whoever) already teed up many of the heads of departments to provide guidance to their workforce to actually comply. The e-mails are supposed to come from within the department/agency rather than straight from hr@opm.gov. Most of the issues brought up last week still apply:
Musk and his allies are lying about why these e-mails are going out. If this was a pulse check to see if we're "alive" and exist with the turnover to a new administration, they wouldn't ask for a weekly update. Knowing how these bullets will be used would help to craft them properly.
This effort is a waste of time that reduces government efficiency by duplicating other performance system efforts and bypassing the chain of command.
Providing no guidance for how to handle situations where the worker is not working on Monday and thus can't meet the weekly Monday deadline is ineffective.
Aggregating information from so many employees (work responsibilities, chain of command, etc) using simple e-mail is an extreme information security risk, considering there are much better ways to do this that would actually legitimately work.
The rollout isn't working correctly. For example, I didn't get the first e-mail last week and probably won't get one this weekend, putting me in limbo because I can't "reply" even if I choose to.
That said, putting together 5 bullets for your boss, and incorporating this type of thinking into your weekly work planning isn't necessarily a bad idea. But let's not pretend Trump or Musk actually are trying to help government employees do their job better.
On March 01 2025 21:55 micronesia wrote: Round 2 of demanding bullet points from federal employees started Friday night, exactly when you'd expect Musk to pull the trigger if his goal is to terrorize federal employees:
Federal workers start to get a new email demanding their accomplishments
Federal employees are starting to receive another email requiring them to explain their recent accomplishments, a renewed attempt by President Donald Trump and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk to demand answers from the government workforce...
<snip>
“Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets describing what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” the message read, adding that going forward, employees would be expected to submit a response each week by the following Monday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern... <rest of article in link>
The key difference between this request and last week's is that Musk (or whoever) already teed up many of the heads of departments to provide guidance to their workforce to actually comply. The e-mails are supposed to come from within the department/agency rather than straight from hr@opm.gov. Most of the issues brought up last week still apply:
Musk and his allies are lying about why these e-mails are going out. If this was a pulse check to see if we're "alive" and exist with the turnover to a new administration, they wouldn't ask for a weekly update. Knowing how these bullets will be used would help to craft them properly.
This effort is a waste of time that reduces government efficiency by duplicating other performance system efforts and bypassing the chain of command.
Providing no guidance for how to handle situations where the worker is not working on Monday and thus can't meet the weekly Monday deadline is ineffective.
Aggregating information from so many employees (work responsibilities, chain of command, etc) using simple e-mail is an extreme information security risk, considering there are much better ways to do this that would actually legitimately work.
The rollout isn't working correctly. For example, I didn't get the first e-mail last week and probably won't get one this weekend, putting me in limbo because I can't "reply" even if I choose to.
That said, putting together 5 bullets for your boss, and incorporating this type of thinking into your weekly work planning isn't necessarily a bad idea. But let's not pretend Trump or Musk actually are trying to help government employees do their job better.
Musk obviously knows nothing about the public sector. Reporting what you do takes a lot of time, and that time is not spent doing your job. Then, there is the time spent by managers reading those redundant reports, it will be a huge waste of time=money.
Even if you get the responses you want, you won't catch any slackers if they are good at bullshitting.
If you want an effective system, trust people to do their job, and demand as few reports as possible.
Leaked code from imbecile doge staffers shows/implies doge is planning to use AI to somehow rate all employees from 1-5 and then use that rating for firing/downsizing decisions moving forward.
On March 01 2025 22:36 micronesia wrote: Leaked code from imbecile doge staffers shows/implies doge is planning to use AI to somehow rate all employees from 1-5 and then use that rating for firing/downsizing decisions moving forward.
I mean, as daft as that sounds, it was the only way they'd be able to get through millions of emails a week without hiring thousands of new employees to check over the responses. But, if employees know that no human is ever going to read the emails, there is nothing literally stopping them from using AI themselves to craft the perfect accomplishments email every week, rendering the process a proper circular wank. Efficiency at its maximum I would say.
They will do it like the 'fraud' they uncovered where they point out to approved and legal funding and say 'this is woke' or just have no idea what the database is they are looking at and make false claims.
They will publicly shame some peoples 5 points without having knowledge of the work field or how difficult some things are to do, probably doxx them and harass them, and then fire everyone who does regulations on Musks companies or on Trumps financial scammer friends that had 'their lives destroyed by the consumer financial protection agency'.
On March 01 2025 07:39 EnDeR_ wrote: I'm curious, how is this playing in the conservative sphere? Anyone have any insights?
Conservative voices, or even devil’s advocates seem to have gone inactive here since Trump got confirmed and actually started doing various things.
Why? Who could possibly guess?
I would be interested too to get some insight here though for sure
I've been very busy the past few weeks.
But also, as I said in the feedback thread, you guys here have truly gone further off the deep end. There's hardly a measured opinion by a calm, rational person to be found.
I am generally a supporter of Ukraine, but Zelensky seems to be something of a stubborn ass and this would not be the first time a leader has gotten angry with him, although maybe the first time in public. He appears to believe that he is owed everything he wants.
Meanwhile, where are the Europeans? For decades, whining and bitching about the US with memes about the world's police man from their own snug position of easy, useless moral superiority. Cry me a river. The EU is bigger than Russia but they continue to do almost nothing. American leaders have now been begging Europe for almost two decades to take their own defense more seriously. Robert Gates, an Obama sec def, made a speech to an EU group (maybe it ess Munich idk) years ago saying Americans would get tired of bankrolling their security. Obama of course made noise about other NATO countries failing to meet their commitments. Say what you want about Trump, but Russia can no longer be dislodged and this, and previous, administrations recognized that America has things to worry about in the Pacific. If Europe is so great, let them defend themselves. They claim they have all this potential. Let's see it. Maybe they can do it without starting another world War.
And while I'm not a fan of Trump's approach here, people acting like he's some traitor are probably the same people who think the bureaucracy has a God given right to be an opposition party whenever there is a Republican president. Trump won on this, public sentiment is no longer so lopsided. "The right side of history" people making fools of themselves yet again.
Hey some of us are busier than others!
The thing is, Europeans are broadly doing that. The UK just this week announced another defence spending bump, while cutting foreign aid. Of course, there’s a lag period from a spending bump and it being impactful practically, but it is there. If the game was to play hardball to move that needle, that was broadly successful.
If you subsequently pull the rug out anyway, as at least seems to be the case thus far, you may as well just disband NATO.
I agree that Trump has a mandate, it’s not popular in many quarters, correctly so IMO, but it is there. Just blocking everything, one can reasonably say is somewhat anti-democratic, I think that’s fair.
On the flip side you’ve got something like DOGE. It’s a completely unaccountable, nepotistic mess. It’s as ‘deep state’ as you can get.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
Here was Zelensky's scheduled interview after the WH summit:
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Have you ever counted how much territory Russia/USSR has gobbled up over the centuries? The big difference is that this is a very real and recent threat in Europe. The US used to resist this from happening, and have fought multiple bloody wars to resist communism and USSR/Russia's sphere of influence.
This behavior marks a completely new direction, and I can't believe conservatives have flipped so quickly to defend their commander.
We knew Russia could not be trusted, but we now know the US can't be trusted either. The US is now a country without direction nor values, just some bullies using the stage of World politics as their own reality show.
Congratulations to the WH, they certainly got the "views" for this one.
What surprises me is republicans used to be tough on Russia during Reagan, they're mere puppets of Russia now.
Even more recently, there was a Republican in 2012 who thought the US's primary political foe was Russia. He lost to a guy who specifically made it a point to explain Russia was a weak regional bully, who then supported regime change in Ukraine, during the unrest of which Putin took the opportunity to steal Crimea barely firing a shot.
In Obama's own words:
"The facts on the ground are that the Russian military controls Crimea. There are a number of individuals inside of Crimea that are supportive of that process. There's no expectation that they will be dislodged by force," he said. "What we can bring to bear are the legal arguments, the diplomatic arguments, the political pressure, the economic sanctions that are already in place, to try to make sure that there's a cost to that process."
What is "tough" here? What do you want Republicans to do?
For about 60 years the visible left was predominantly anti-war. You do not see a lot of flower children around nowadays because for some reason despite all the idealism of history, the current war is always becoming an exception. It turns out it may not have been anti-war as much as it was masked anti-anti-communism. Overthrowing Assad, or Israel, or Putin - these propositions drive leftist thirst for war.
As soon as you take away the specter of communism, the anti-fascist urges take over the anti-war ones. This is why you still see Uighur denialism as regards China, a communist state which couldn't do bad things. But instead of make love not war with Ukraine, you see naive people (and to be fair some traditionally brave people) thinking they have a chance to actually go there LARP in a historic struggle against authoritarianism which often quickly went south when reality set in. The Ukraine flag in bio is the new flower, but now it has to be read as pro war.
Many of the wars were not successes, and they were applications of domino theory as regards communism. There's a South Korea today, so that's not bad. There's no South Vietnam, so that didn't really work. Saudi and Kuwait are independent and progressing. Iraq is doing okay. Talibanstan is a theocracy. There's no dominos in this case - if Ukraine has peace from tomorrow, it's not going to cause Poland's accession to Russia. Everybody else is in NATO. There's no more dominos to fall. Attacking the Baltics would trigger a NATO war. Putin is otherwise boxed in and if he wants to take another chance somewhere it would have to be central Asia.
There's no clear goal that abstract Republican toughness would have a clear path to bring about as regards Ukraine. So instead let's look at why each expansion happened: Why did Putin go into Georgia, and why Crimea, and why Ukraine. And why when he did. Opportunity. You can't un-give the opportunities that already happened when people were asleep at the wheel. But you can deny the future ones. Otherwise please don't expect Republicans to sacrifice their domestic political situation again by sacrificing US lives and money in a war nobody wants. They've tried that and never get any credit.
On March 01 2025 22:36 micronesia wrote: Leaked code from imbecile doge staffers shows/implies doge is planning to use AI to somehow rate all employees from 1-5 and then use that rating for firing/downsizing decisions moving forward.
Imagine being this idiotic. Fucking hell.
You know what this is going to do, depending on how it’s assessed.
Department A has a load of people busting their ass all the time because it’s inefficient as fuck organisationally
Department B has people doing much less, because it’s efficiently organised.
Through the DOGE filter, you just know that department A’s workforce is going to be assessed more favourably than department B. You just know that’s going to happen, I’m calling it now.
If it was a serious department run by serious people who actually wanted to find efficiencies and root out waste and reform accordingly, maybe not. But it isn’t so it won’t.
The goal isn’t efficiency, the goal is cutting government from the outset, and ‘efficiency’ is the justification l.
Hey AI tools can be very useful, in my experience they get less and less useful the more bespoke or complex a problem is. I wanna piss out a basic shell script for something, great. If I have a code problem that’s specific to my organisation and its idiosyncrasies, much less so. It doesn’t have sufficient exposure to those idiosyncrasies and struggles a lot.
And those are programming problems, purely technical things. Its levels of magnitudes more complex if you start introducing human whims and politics into the mix.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
On March 01 2025 22:36 micronesia wrote: Leaked code from imbecile doge staffers shows/implies doge is planning to use AI to somehow rate all employees from 1-5 and then use that rating for firing/downsizing decisions moving forward.
I mean, as daft as that sounds, it was the only way they'd be able to get through millions of emails a week without hiring thousands of new employees to check over the responses.
This is why departments and agencies are responsible for assessing the performance of their own people. My immediate chain of command is able to assess how I am performing without getting overwhelmed by the task and resorting to automation. If they are assessing me and my colleges as "exemplary" even though we don't actually do any work or don't "exist", then they will be assessed accordingly by the people above them.
DoGe or other outsiders could certainly audit this process if they went through the proper channels.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
It’s well-established that the EU and states within that benefit from subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy do end up with big surpluses, and some of that is dumped into places like Africa in a manner which does suppress local producers and markets.
ETisME is entirely correct in pointing that out, while I think their overall framing is wrong, in areas while internally extremely free market, in others the EU is protectionist, albeit in a multi-state continent wide sense rather than state by state.
Of course rather than actually engage with aspects of that, or investigate yourself, or interrogate further, you’re just assuming they’re getting bad information and don’t know what they’re talking about it with your usual smug disdain
Plus a little dig at GH to tick off the bingo card, quel fucking surprise!
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:41 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:33 Simberto wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
It’s well-established that the EU and states within that benefit from subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy do end up with big surpluses, and some of that is dumped into places like Africa in a manner which does suppress local producers and markets.
ETisME is entirely correct in pointing that out, while I think their overall framing is wrong, in areas while internally extremely free market, in others the EU is protectionist, albeit in a multi-state continent wide sense rather than state by state.
Of course rather than actually engage with aspects of that, or investigate yourself, or interrogate further, you’re just assuming they’re getting bad information and don’t know what they’re talking about it with your usual smug disdain
Plus a little dig at GH to tick off the bingo card, quel fucking surprise!
So many big words, I like everyone else am very impressed. How could I respond to something so well articulated. Well played!
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hegseth gave the instruction to Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh, who then informed the organization's outgoing director of operations, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Ryan Heritage, of the new guidance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The order does not apply to the National Security Agency, which Haugh also leads, or its signals intelligence work targeting Russia, the sources said.
Actively aligning with Russia. Europe is now our enemy full stop. We need to bring this countries economy to a f****** halt
LibHorizons: Have you considered venting about how stupid/bad Trump and his ilk are instead? It doesn't help, but I hear it's quite cathartic for the person doing it.
Fwiw I think Europeans are going to have to do something similar to what you suggest combined with a BDS movement in opposition to the US else you'll see them slithering to not be on Trump's/the US's shitlist. This will manifest in the discussion among Europeans between those that want something like a BDS movement and those that want to be servile and remain in the good graces of/appease Trump/the US.
weve disagreed in the past but im with you here and on gaza/Harris. americans need to feel and see just how bad Trump and the GOP are and one of the ways is becoming a pariah with the rest of the free world moving on without us. i used to be against blocking streets with protesters, but im all open now to *getting creative*
LibHorizons: Presumably Europe would start with the sort of personal sanctions against Trump and his oligarchs that they used against Putin and his oligarchs.
Europeans will have to block their streets to get such sanctions placed on the US with the hopes that those sanctions will prompt people in the US to block our streets until our leadership is replaced.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:41 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:33 Simberto wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
It’s well-established that the EU and states within that benefit from subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy do end up with big surpluses, and some of that is dumped into places like Africa in a manner which does suppress local producers and markets.
ETisME is entirely correct in pointing that out, while I think their overall framing is wrong, in areas while internally extremely free market, in others the EU is protectionist, albeit in a multi-state continent wide sense rather than state by state.
Of course rather than actually engage with aspects of that, or investigate yourself, or interrogate further, you’re just assuming they’re getting bad information and don’t know what they’re talking about it with your usual smug disdain
Plus a little dig at GH to tick off the bingo card, quel fucking surprise!
So many big words, I like everyone else am very impressed. How could I respond to something so well articulated. Well played!
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hegseth gave the instruction to Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh, who then informed the organization's outgoing director of operations, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Ryan Heritage, of the new guidance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The order does not apply to the National Security Agency, which Haugh also leads, or its signals intelligence work targeting Russia, the sources said.
Actively aligning with Russia. Europe is now our enemy full stop. We need to bring this countries economy to a f****** halt
LibHorizons: Have you considered venting about how stupid/bad Trump and his ilk are instead? It doesn't help, but I hear it's quite cathartic for the person doing it.
Fwiw I think Europeans are going to have to do something similar to what you suggest combined with a BDS movement in opposition to the US else you'll see them slithering to not be on Trump's/the US's shitlist. This will manifest in the discussion among Europeans between those that want something like a BDS movement and those that want to be servile and remain in the good graces of/appease Trump/the US.
weve disagreed in the past but im with you here and on gaza/Harris. americans need to feel and see just how bad Trump and the GOP are and one of the ways is becoming a pariah with the rest of the free world moving on without us. i used to be against blocking streets with protesters, but im all open now to *getting creative*
LibHorizons: Presumably Europe would start with the sort of personal sanctions against Trump and his oligarchs that they used against Putin and his oligarchs.
Europeans will have to block their streets to get such sanctions placed on the US with the hopes that those sanctions will prompt people in the US to block our streets until our leadership is replaced.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hegseth gave the instruction to Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh, who then informed the organization's outgoing director of operations, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Ryan Heritage, of the new guidance, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
The order does not apply to the National Security Agency, which Haugh also leads, or its signals intelligence work targeting Russia, the sources said.
Actively aligning with Russia. Europe is now our enemy full stop. We need to bring this countries economy to a f****** halt
LibHorizons: Have you considered venting about how stupid/bad Trump and his ilk are instead? It doesn't help, but I hear it's quite cathartic for the person doing it.
Fwiw I think Europeans are going to have to do something similar to what you suggest combined with a BDS movement in opposition to the US else you'll see them slithering to not be on Trump's/the US's shitlist. This will manifest in the discussion among Europeans between those that want something like a BDS movement and those that want to be servile and remain in the good graces of/appease Trump/the US.
weve disagreed in the past but im with you here and on gaza/Harris. americans need to feel and see just how bad Trump and the GOP are and one of the ways is becoming a pariah with the rest of the free world moving on without us. i used to be against blocking streets with protesters, but im all open now to *getting creative*
LibHorizons: Presumably Europe would start with the sort of personal sanctions against Trump and his oligarchs that they used against Putin and his oligarchs.
Europeans will have to block their streets to get such sanctions placed on the US with the hopes that those sanctions will prompt people in the US to block our streets until our leadership is replaced.
This has to be one of your stupidest takes.
Diplomatic pressure is the most likely response. The main weapons Europe have are weapons imports and energy. Quietly threatening to cancel some big contracts should shake up Trump land a bit, he has to respect the major industries.
Just as for Trump, tariffs and sanctions do not benefit anyone, so it is better to stay away from them.
How about we focus ourselves instead of trying to use economic weapons against them? I don't want our resources wasted on making Americans do anything. If they want to leave the Western world it's their choice. They can be another Saudi Arabia if they want. I want to buy their weapons or energy as long it's more optimal in the short term, until we develop our own weapon industry and deal with nuclear energy haters.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:41 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:33 Simberto wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
It’s well-established that the EU and states within that benefit from subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy do end up with big surpluses, and some of that is dumped into places like Africa in a manner which does suppress local producers and markets.
ETisME is entirely correct in pointing that out, while I think their overall framing is wrong, in areas while internally extremely free market, in others the EU is protectionist, albeit in a multi-state continent wide sense rather than state by state.
Of course rather than actually engage with aspects of that, or investigate yourself, or interrogate further, you’re just assuming they’re getting bad information and don’t know what they’re talking about it with your usual smug disdain
Plus a little dig at GH to tick off the bingo card, quel fucking surprise!
So many big words, I like everyone else am very impressed. How could I respond to something so well articulated. Well played!
If you find a post like this too difficult already you should probably educate yourself and in any case stop shitposting in response to it. As someone whose first language is not English I found it quite clear.
On March 01 2025 16:15 oBlade wrote: The key dispute seems to be: -Zelensky says he wants to ensure security -The administration says Zelensky doesn't have a sincere interest in negotiated peace, which is a problem since the administration isn't interested in a forever war
Zelensky may see himself as being in an analogous position as the UK/USSR during the lend-lease period staving off Nazi Germany (in this case modern Russia) but the current administration doesn't seem to share that view, doesn't want escalation, and even Lindsey Graham has turned on Zelensky.
According to Rubio, going to the White House to make the mineral deal official was the Ukrainians' idea. Flipping the script was Zelensky challenging the concept of cease-fires because they can be broken, and demanding security guarantees up front while not committing to ending the war. Trump's opinion appears to be getting a cease-fire ASAP and then negotiating a full peace is preferable to waiting for an ideal peace - by Zelensky's unrealistic standards - that is never going to happen. Rubio correctly identified that the previous administration was using Ukraine as a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, Russia has more meat.
Basically it looks like once the US are on board, Trump thinks Zelensky will be emboldened to continue indefinitely without peace. And it's not clear publicly what Zelensky's long-term endgame is, and there's no evidence that it's privately clear either. He seems to think he can get Russia to pay for all or part of the war, or that he can get some or all of the territory back. These goals are not necessarily consistent with reality. So if he's holding out for that forever, if he was to use the mineral deal just to drag the US deeper into the quagmire - he messed up because now he's flying back home with nothing, having overplayed his hand.
He should be feeling the pressure both domestically and internationally. Putin was trolling the other day saying he would welcome foreign cooperation in the "new territories" re:rare earth minerals, even from US partners. He is not in an enviable position, through no fault of his own Russia is a stronger country. But Trump used the word "embolden" multiple times meaning they're not trusting Zelensky's interest in peace while Zelensky got himself art of the dealed right out of the Oval Office, that's on him.
EU and Biden using Ukraine as a proxy war and as a meatgrinder against Russia is so correct.
This has been a huge talking point in Asia for a while already. The fact that EU is just letting this happen, while saying "peace through strength" is just brutally inhumane. Even North Korea sent men to help Russia.
it takes something drastic to nudge the EU. Hopefully with European nation's troops deployed at Ukraine even as non combat role, the reality of things will hit.
Russia is completely free to stop throwing men into the meat grinder at any point. They are invading Ukraine and if they pack up and go home tomorrow, the war stops. Ukraine is NOT free to stop the war. If they surrender tomorrow (can't "go" home because they are fighting in their home), Russia rampages all over Ukraine committing atrocities as they go (see any town they occupied, such as Bucha).
North Korea isn't "sympathising" with Russia and sending troops to stop the poor Russians being thrown into the meat grinder. That was purely transactional, although it's doubtful we'll ever 100% know what NK got in exchange, it'll almost certainly include ICBM technology. Such altruism.
But who am I kidding, you're balls deep in the RT koolaid.
Precisely, even North Korea got a deal to send troops. That's how uncommitted EU is, they can't even send arms reliably on time. Or it's unreliable because it's not a deal?
And no, I don't read RT. EU hypocrisy in many policies and fall off in global politics like disastrous africa policy are well covered in Asia. Crying about tariff when EU is established precisely for protectionism.
I don't see how extending the war means less atrocities than a ceasefire.
Yeah and I wish China would stop funding Russia. How do you think Russia would just stop attacking? Again, once Europe sent their troops and recapture lands, then it is committed.
Would you be able to share where you get your news from? Social media maybe? Your take is very similar to RT, just because you are not reading it directly does not mean it does not influence the places you are taking your news from.
On March 01 2025 05:41 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:33 Simberto wrote:
On March 01 2025 05:11 Uldridge wrote: Zelensky's blood must be boiling there holy shit. His facial expressions said it all when Trump & Vance were talking.
Who can look at this shit and think "Yeah, this is what i want out of a leader for my country". Zelensky is 50 times the president that Trump could ever hope to be.
Because they’re not actually looking for actual leadership. Look at Asmongold, who is currently the biggest political influencer on social media. He approaches politics like it’s Keeping Up With The Kardashians. It’s solely about the drama and nothing else.
Look at the type of people who would reference Asmongold in a forum debate and read how they casually and jovially they talk about Trump’s desire to annex Canada. None of this is serious to them because it isn’t.
You know how 90% of NBA fans don’t even watch the games and just talk about streamable lowlights, trade rumours, wild comments from players, and off-field drama? Change ‘NBA’ with ‘politic’ and that’s your typical viewer base of your typical new age right wing influencer. Its like a huge chunk of the world is gripped by some sort of sociopathic nihilism.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
LibHorizons: There really isn't much engagement or disagreement that isn't in some capacity about how bad and stupid Republicans/their supporters are. My point wasn't that though. It was that people claiming to want Democrats to do/be better and/or to oppose Trump aren't actually doing the bare minimum work required in a democracy for that to happen. Therefore, they can't be taken as being sincere in that expression.
2. Trump taking office required decades of bipartisan collaboration in empowering people like Trump. How to avoid it in Europe and what we can all do about it now is what I think we should be discussing. That it'll be hard is a given.
We can and should mention all the stuff done to let Trump in, but that's decades of bipartisan empowerment of people like Trump through third way neoliberalism (and literally helping to make him the nominee). If we do that, we can actually advance our understanding of the issues at hand and develop our plans to address them effectively.
On February 28 2025 17:45 oBlade wrote: Yep right on the money, every time a Democratic Congress votes for a budget, and that budget spends more than tax revenues bring in - that was George W. Bush's fault. I learned about it on the Daily Show.
My dude. Do you really not recognize that decisions now can influence costs in the future?
Lets say Obama sets the White House on fire, and just lives in a burned out husk for the remainder of his term. Then Trump has to spend money to rebuild and renovate the burned down White House. Is that Trumps spending or Obamas spending?
I am leaning more an more towards the Colin Robinson theory.
Is your position that Congress has had no choice but to spend more federal money than revenues for 25 years in a row because of 1-2 wars that Congress never voted to stop or defund? Because my question is simply again - even if that hypothesis goes 100% your way - what about the other $25 trillion?
I do not live in the world where every Republican is a MIC-captured crooked Cheney clone and every Democrat is... an angel. Because it's not true.
Decisions do affect the future. For example, if you cut taxes, then encourage growth, then you hopefully end up with a wider base of tax revenue.
I wrote a lengthy response to this. Then i deleted it. Because i thought: "Nevermind. I should take my own advice and stop replying to you. You are simply not worth talking to."
Debatelord conservatives are fucking exhausting. If anyone else wants to talk about anything else but this constant idiotic fight with oBlade, i am open for it.
LibHorizons: I have a standing invitation to discuss how libs/Dems/Ilk like myself and others can work together towards opposing the Trump administration's agenda. Developing a deliberate and executable plan to gain power and use it. As well as something people can organize around accomplishing over the coming months and years.
It's notable that no one is doing it. Especially those that insist they want a better Democratic party but are doing nothing to bring that about besides "hoping", "wishing", and maybe voting in a primary ~year from now .
Instead everyone prefers to incessantly do the "Republicans are so stupid and bad, look at how stupid and bad they are" thing while interspersing pointless bad faith arguments with the oBlades of the world.
There’s just as much disagreement and engagement between everyone else, it’s not like people lurk and don’t contribute unless there’s some conservative for everyone to dunk on. I don’t think that’s an especially fair categorisation.
I also think more broadly, most posters here tick the following two boxes: 1. We can collectively do better, the Democratic Party sure as fuck can. 2. That aside, we should keep Trump out of office, or politics of this kind in Europe etc. If we can’t even collectively do that, pushing the status quo towards the left is a bloody tall order.
I’m not an expert political strategist, but I don’t think a ‘hey the election is done now, let’s not mention all the stuff we did to let Trump in, what are you going to do now?’ is particularly effective.
Agreed on both boxes. I must also say that i apparently missed whenever GH started doing the LibHorizons thing, so i don't really get what that is about and mostly ignored it. Is it GH roleplaying as a Democrat?
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
Wait, you think you are the best? Who could have possibly seen this turn of events.
It’s well-established that the EU and states within that benefit from subsidies via the Common Agricultural Policy do end up with big surpluses, and some of that is dumped into places like Africa in a manner which does suppress local producers and markets.
ETisME is entirely correct in pointing that out, while I think their overall framing is wrong, in areas while internally extremely free market, in others the EU is protectionist, albeit in a multi-state continent wide sense rather than state by state.
Of course rather than actually engage with aspects of that, or investigate yourself, or interrogate further, you’re just assuming they’re getting bad information and don’t know what they’re talking about it with your usual smug disdain
Plus a little dig at GH to tick off the bingo card, quel fucking surprise!
But that's not what he claimed. He claimed "when EU is established precisely for protectionism".
That statement is like saying that monarchy was established to promote equality. It just doesn't work. It's not true. It's as far from true as you can get. It's 100% false.
The explicit purpose behind the EU project, traced back through the ECSC, was the creation of a free market, the removal of international trade barriers, and the integration of national economies with each other through free trade between them. The text of the Schuman declaration is available for anyone to review. He explained exactly how it was to work.
EPT
