Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes.
They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists.
Oh that a super easy question. No there is no option involving war that doesn't mean Ukraine becomes a part of Russia.
That option passed more then 3 years ago (or way back in 2014).
And no I promise you Russia will not accept a cease fire now that they once again have an ally in the WH, at best its a short stay that lets Russia regroup, gives Trump an excuse to lift all sanctions and comes with the stipulation Ukraine is not allowed to be given security guarantees. Basically 100% in the advantage of Russia or they have no reason to even entertain it. From their perspective they are now going to be winning this war (Because Trump)
Lifting sanctions would be insane. But I guess if he‘s gone that far then it‘s just another step in the same direction.
If hypothetically all of NATO without the US went to war over this, I wonder how he‘d react.
I am by far not an expert on this whole thing obviously. Interested yes. Please don‘t be so hard on me if I get something wrong.
On March 03 2025 03:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: After some wrangling with OPM and their internal HR and command leadership the people I know in the US Navy and FDIC will be answering Elon's emails about what they did at work for the week.
Some lazy employees who never were afraid of losing their jobs are now working harder. Funny how that works.
The fur is flyin'
Musk did not invent the performance review. He just added a second performance review that requires the subject to do additional busywork that won’t be read by anyone. That’s not efficiency. Elon’s weird coding bros are not better equipped to evaluate the value of work done than their existing supervisors who are familiar with the agency and its mission.
This is how you get people saying they’ll close the department of energy because they don’t know that it’s a euphemism for nukes.
Musk is breaking one of the cardinal rules of change management. That you need to understand how something works and why it works that way before you change it. Blind changes almost never work out.
On March 03 2025 10:19 Billyboy wrote: Musk is breaking one of the cardinal rules of change management. That you need to understand how something works and why it works that way before you change it. Blind changes almost never work out.
Indeed. Chesterton’s Fence is the name of that cardinal rule.
The US cannot and will not recover from this administration. They are burning down decades of work for the simple pleasure of destroying something that the other side thinks is important. They’re not putting departments and skilled career analysts on ice, they’re firing them, firing the junior analysts, locking the doors, and burning down the building. There’s not going to be anything to reopen if the US comes to its senses, everything will need to be rebuilt from scratch.
It’s the same story with trade. You can’t break your word a few times and then promise not to do it again. If, in a few years, the US is sane again and stops trying to sanction Canada for complying with the trade agreement that the US literally just wrote then it won’t matter. You can’t make long term plans with an unreliable partner. When a US processing plant makes the lowest bid to a Canadian resource company they’re still not getting the contract because you’d have to be nuts to be reliant on the US. They’ll spend more to partner with anyone else because you have to because you can’t put your livelihood in the hands of a madman. They’ve created a rival out of their own team and you can’t uncreate that.
It’s the same with the military. You can’t unkill NATO. For decades the US was able to strongarm the rest of NATO into using US kit, US parts, US compatibility, US suppliers etc. That benefited both parties, the US costs were lower and the kit was good while the US defence industrial base prospered and American global hegemony was unchallenged. Let’s say in 4 years our first female president, Taylor Swift, returns the US to the fold. Nobody is buying fucking F-35 from her, they may love her but they can’t be sure it’ll be a stable foundation for national security.
It’s the same with intelligence. Gabbard is literally a foreign agent. The US isn’t getting intelligence sharing again ever.
It’s the same with military bases. Previously the US could ask for a base pretty much anywhere in the world and an ally would give it to them. After threatening to use those bases that the host countries kindly offered you to literally invade the hosts the leases aren’t getting renewed.
They have killed the US empire and the world will learn why having a hegemon was better than not.
On March 03 2025 10:29 KwarK wrote: The US cannot and will not recover from this administration.
They have killed the US empire and the world will learn why having a hegemon was better than not.
Yeah the republican senators just gave up on the USA project. You can't confirm someone as unqualfied like Gabbard, Hegseth and RFK and not do lasting damage. Like I know Trump is the lord and saviour now for MAGA but you are still a state representative, your state will still suffer when the federal government implodes, the systems break down and you go back 50 years in time for medicine. You have to block morons and compromised people from taking office. And yeah there's some Tommy Tubervilles who themselves are in that category but there is also 'serious' senators who still fell in line and confirmed them. I cannot understand it.
Perhaps the US can switch to the metric system half way through the year as well. In the late 70s when Canada cranked up the taxes on gasoline; Canada switched to the metric system so Gas Stations went from selling in Gallons to selling in Litres. A big motivating factor was obfuscating the tax increase.
I recall seeing "Counting Theory" courses in my first year university course catalog while I was in high school. I thought "how complex can counting be?".
On March 03 2025 10:29 KwarK wrote: It’s the same story with trade. You can’t break your word a few times and then promise not to do it again. If, in a few years, the US is sane again and stops trying to sanction Canada for complying with the trade agreement that the US literally just wrote then it won’t matter.
nah, the USA has been breaking trade agreements with Canada since the FTA in 1988. I've already posted here the quote from 1992 when Mulroney said the US Prez was acting like a tin pot dictator. Canada has taken the USA to that bilateral trade adjudicator panel thing so many times i've lost count. It has been going on so long the name of the resolution panel has changed about 6 times.
Canada factors the USA bullshitting into their negotiations and have been doing so since WW2.
It is just another day of dealing with loud-mouthed, blow hard Americans. My great grandfather said ... "we only have small mouth bass in the Credit River... to catch a large mouth bass you have to go to New York". "i don't need your war machines ... i don't need your ghetto scenes..." ... i think this is early 70s. Same shit.. .different decade. Great song BTW.
Canada has had the best access to the US Consumer of any country in the world for decades. Canada will work to keep that access.
I'd say your comment indicates you are a prisoner of the moment.
On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes.
They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists.
Well, then you are just regurgitating Russian propaganda. The reason why we have war is not the US, it's Russia. In case you haven't fucking paid attention, the US/West have tried diplomacy for several months before Russia invaded.
Are you aware of Russia's minimum demands for "peace"? Russia gets the control of all four regions they formally annexed (including lands they never controlled and lands they already lost), Ukraine is barred from NATO, has its army reduced to 50k personnel, is barred from developing nuclear weapons, establishes a demilitarized zone along its border with Russia on the Ukrainian side, and, finally, has a regime change (i.e. a Kremlin-appointed puppet). Does that seem reasonable to you?
On March 03 2025 10:29 KwarK wrote: The US cannot and will not recover from this administration. They are burning down decades of work for the simple pleasure of destroying something that the other side thinks is important. They’re not putting departments and skilled career analysts on ice, they’re firing them, firing the junior analysts, locking the doors, and burning down the building. There’s not going to be anything to reopen if the US comes to its senses, everything will need to be rebuilt from scratch.
It’s the same story with trade. You can’t break your word a few times and then promise not to do it again. If, in a few years, the US is sane again and stops trying to sanction Canada for complying with the trade agreement that the US literally just wrote then it won’t matter. You can’t make long term plans with an unreliable partner. When a US processing plant makes the lowest bid to a Canadian resource company they’re still not getting the contract because you’d have to be nuts to be reliant on the US. They’ll spend more to partner with anyone else because you have to because you can’t put your livelihood in the hands of a madman. They’ve created a rival out of their own team and you can’t uncreate that.
It’s the same with the military. You can’t unkill NATO. For decades the US was able to strongarm the rest of NATO into using US kit, US parts, US compatibility, US suppliers etc. That benefited both parties, the US costs were lower and the kit was good while the US defence industrial base prospered and American global hegemony was unchallenged. Let’s say in 4 years our first female president, Taylor Swift, returns the US to the fold. Nobody is buying fucking F-35 from her, they may love her but they can’t be sure it’ll be a stable foundation for national security.
It’s the same with intelligence. Gabbard is literally a foreign agent. The US isn’t getting intelligence sharing again ever.
It’s the same with military bases. Previously the US could ask for a base pretty much anywhere in the world and an ally would give it to them. After threatening to use those bases that the host countries kindly offered you to literally invade the hosts the leases aren’t getting renewed.
They have killed the US empire and the world will learn why having a hegemon was better than not.
The worst thing is, they do it for budget savings to balance out the tax cuts for the 0.1%
But in a system where the 0.1% can threaten to run another candidate against you with "FU money" in primaries.. that's what you get.
You know it's serious when even Warren Buffett comments on Trump even if his political comments are usually restrained and rare. In this case, he just compares tariffs to a declaration of war.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department said on Sunday it would not enforce an anti-money laundering law that obliges millions of business entities to disclose the identities of their real beneficial owners.
The Trump administration has opposed the Biden-era Corporate Transparency Act on the grounds that it is a burden on low-risk entities. The act has faced repeated legal challenges.
In a statement, the Treasury Department said it would not enforce any penalties under the act against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies.
We've had "SCOTUS has made their ruling, now let them enforce it", but Trump has one upped it here.
It's somewhat weird given how conservatives whine about Chevron deference and allowing enforcement agencies to set their own scope within the legislation that Congress passes. They previously seemed to argue that the executive could only enforce the strict text of legislation and that if legislation was found to be ambiguous or insufficiently specific then the hands of the government were tied and Congress would need to go back and try again. But now it seems that if legislation is understood and is specific then the government is free to ignore it if they just don't like it.
Trump is about to impose 25% tariffs, ignoring the USMCA, under the guise of a "fentanyl emergency". Last month 19 grams of fentanyl was seized at the US//Canada border.
As the basis for this "emergency" the metric Trump uses is the # of domestic deaths due to fentanyl overdose.
Again, Trump does not want to raise income taxes that he substantially lowered in 2017. Trump plans of raising money via tariffs. None of this has anything to do with fentanyl. Soon, a loaf of bread in Canada will be more than $20
On March 04 2025 01:29 Sadist wrote: Jimmy i dont understand. Do you support this? Do you agree with this? The rest of us understand the rationale is bullshit.
I have no opinion on whether it is good or bad. Generally, I am against incomes taxes and favour broad based consumption taxes like Canada's GST because it forces the upper middle class to pay more tax. I am not sure about these tariffs. Thankfully, I'm a dual Canada/US citizen so this prolly won't impact me. I might be smuggling loafs of bread across the border though. Soon, a loaf of bread in Canada will be more than $20
It'll be interesting to see how much smuggling goes on. It is impossible to regulate the border. It is too long. Back in the 70s and early 80s people smuggled video games systems and carts across the border.
When I was a teenie-bopper, 2003-2007, we entered the US with a bad t-shirt and an old pair of shorts and a 1 year old pair of sneakers. We'd cross back with 2 layers of Polo Ralph Lauren and the best pair of Nikes would could find. We did not scuff them up though.
Trump is about to impose 25% tariffs, ignoring the USMCA, under the guise of a "fentanyl emergency". Last month 19 grams of fentanyl was seized at the US//Canada border.
As the basis for this "emergency" the metric Trump uses is the # of domestic deaths due to fentanyl overdose.
Again, Trump does not want to raise income taxes that he substantially lowered in 2017. Trump plans of raising money via tariffs. None of this has anything to do with fentanyl. Soon, a loaf of bread in Canada will be more than $20
Trump did not lower income taxes, it was a temporary lowering that turned into a tax increase to pay for the permanent tax cut for corporations.
On March 04 2025 01:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Soon, a loaf of bread in Canada will be more than $20
Ew, you call that "bread"? I'm starting to warm up to these tarrifs. Tarrifs for both US and Canada (1000% everything bread related) for selling these human rights violating monstrosities as bread.
Using tariffs to offset income taxes makes no sense to me. Its a tax on everyone now and will hit the poor the hardest.
Also it doesnt make sense because if your tariffs stimulate someone to localize production to avoid them, then as soon as this happens you have a hole in your tax base again. This all is really dumb.
On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes.
They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists.
Well, then you are just regurgitating Russian propaganda. The reason why we have war is not the US, it's Russia. In case you haven't fucking paid attention, the US/West have tried diplomacy for several months before Russia invaded.
Are you aware of Russia's minimum demands for "peace"? Russia gets the control of all four regions they formally annexed (including lands they never controlled and lands they already lost), Ukraine is barred from NATO, has its army reduced to 50k personnel, is barred from developing nuclear weapons, establishes a demilitarized zone along its border with Russia on the Ukrainian side, and, finally, has a regime change (i.e. a Kremlin-appointed puppet). Does that seem reasonable to you?
If I were Russian, it would be. But since I live on the western side of the conflict and benefit from NATO, it‘s in my interest that Russia doesn‘t get what it wants.
From a logical point of view without moral implications.
I don‘t see why I have to be so emotionally loaded about it to accuse someone of regurgitating propaganda. It‘s a conflict between hemispheres. Doesn‘t mean I have to automatically abhor a pragmatic approach if it means less damage and casualties. I‘m not in the chain of command to have the authority to decide anything anyway.
I can just hope they know how to do their job well, and watch what happens. If you think I have a shitty opinion, maybe you‘re right. It‘s not me who voted in the US, so I‘d say your anger is misplaced.
On March 03 2025 06:58 maybenexttime wrote: I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you saying Europe should be able to throw Ukraine to the wolves but Trump made it harder? What are you saying?
If by throwing to the wolves you mean finding an option that doesn‘t involve war, if it exists and doesn’t mean they become part of Russia, then yes.
They‘re attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Maybe the option exists.
Well, then you are just regurgitating Russian propaganda. The reason why we have war is not the US, it's Russia. In case you haven't fucking paid attention, the US/West have tried diplomacy for several months before Russia invaded.
Are you aware of Russia's minimum demands for "peace"? Russia gets the control of all four regions they formally annexed (including lands they never controlled and lands they already lost), Ukraine is barred from NATO, has its army reduced to 50k personnel, is barred from developing nuclear weapons, establishes a demilitarized zone along its border with Russia on the Ukrainian side, and, finally, has a regime change (i.e. a Kremlin-appointed puppet). Does that seem reasonable to you?
If I were Russian, it would be. But since I live on the western side of the conflict and benefit from NATO, it‘s in my interest that Russia doesn‘t get what it wants.
From a logical point of view without moral implications.
I don‘t see why I have to be so emotionally loaded about it to accuse someone of regurgitating propaganda. It‘s a conflict between hemispheres. Doesn‘t mean I have to automatically abhor a pragmatic approach if it means less damage and casualties. I‘m not in the chain of command to have the authority to decide anything anyway.
I can just hope they know how to do their job well, and watch what happens. If you think I have a shitty opinion, maybe you‘re right. It‘s not me who voted in the US, so I‘d say your anger is misplaced.
Poland is awfully close to Ukraine and it wouldn't be the first time Russia had a go at running half of it. If Putin is as keen as he seems to be in realising the soviet union V2.0, Poland would be in the cross hairs.
If we don't have a strong showing in Ukraine, we would just be signalling to Putin that all of these territories are up for grabs.
EPT
