|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 14 2025 15:35 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2025 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid. Chuck Schumer in particular is capitulating. Need to remember who these guys are, and they are always senior members of the party that should have been primaried out ages ago. LibHorizons: Even the centrists are ready to primary him I guess Privately, House Democrats are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running at the caucus’ policy retreat. Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement, this member said.
The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were “so mad” that even centrist Democrats were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,” adding that they have “never seen people so mad.” www.cnn.comAOC should do it and it should be part of The Progressive Plan imo Yea too little too late. Democrats needed to clean house after 2016. If they had we might not be in this position in the first place. I guess the house actually HAS to burn down for them to get out of their corrupt comfort zones and do what needs to be done.
On March 14 2025 17:07 Zambrah wrote:
Democrats have had myriad opportunities to change and move in a new direction and they spat in the faces of the people who wanted to go in that direction and kept their right wing blow job strategy instead, they’re not gonna change now, they’re not gonna change until every Democrat who was and is in leadership through the Clinton years through now is dead and gone.
They’re too lazy/stupid/bought to change.
LibHorizons: Is it them or their supporters that are too late/lazy/stupid/bought to make them change?
|
I saw a news post about a recent survey in Sweden. It was about how much they trust that the US would actually respond to a NATO article 5 trigger if it happened in the next 2 years. 70% responded that they have very little or little trust in that the US would honor the article 5 call.
This is from a nation that joined NATO due to the specific thing very recently. I think that is yet another expression of cratering US foreign relations and trust. If people don't trust you, why would they give you good long term agreements?
USAID shutdown is probably causing similar things in African nations, havn't seen anything about it though. From having soft power to suddenly breaking agreements. So going from good past neutral and into poor relations. Will likely impact US companies possibilities to do business there, a direct negative when the US wants to compete with China.
|
On March 15 2025 01:03 Yurie wrote:
I saw a news post about a recent survey in Sweden. It was about how much they trust that the US would actually respond to a NATO article 5 trigger if it happened in the next 2 years. 70% responded that they have very little or little trust in that the US would honor the article 5 call.
This is from a nation that joined NATO due to the specific thing very recently. I think that is yet another expression of cratering US foreign relations and trust. If people don't trust you, why would they give you good long term agreements?
Article 5 = If one NATO country gets attacked militarily, then all NATO countries consider it as an attack against all of them, and respond with a united front?
Yeah, there's definitely no reason to believe that Trump is going to suddenly start caring about our allies. Hell, Trump is already attacking Canada (economically, not militarily, thank god), which is part of NATO. If anything, Trump is going to make the other NATO countries unite against the United States.
|
Canada is not fulfilling its military obligations. The country is freeloading off of the US military and many of its citizens do so with a sneer of superiority. There is some truth to Trump's insight that Canada only works as a state and not a country. Its last PM said Canada wasn't really a country in the standard sense. So, Trudeau and Trump really... are not that far apart in their views of Canada.
Trump will exchange zero% tariffs for partial ownership of the oil rights in Alberta and the mineral rights in Ontario.
|
Like I said, it's going to get to the point where Trump will unite the rest of the world against the United States.
|
On March 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Canada is not fulfilling its military obligations. The country is freeloading off of the US military and many of its citizens do so with a sneer of superiority. There is some truth to Trump's insight that Canada only works as a state and not a country. Its last PM said Canada wasn't really a country in the standard sense. So, Trudeau and Trump really... are not that far apart in their views of Canada.
Trump will exchange zero% tariffs for partial ownership of the oil rights in Alberta and the mineral rights in Ontario.
His main priority should be to reduce the fossil usage in his country.
Grabbing more oil with threats just feeds the oil addiction.
The space programs of various billionaires are a waste of resources. Satellites I can see for their usefulness or missions for research purposes. Rocket rides for rich people are peak decadence.
Googling energy consumption by country might tell you why he doesn‘t like China.
I think a lot of what he does aims at stopping the US consumer from being replaced by the Chinese one.
But how do tariffs on your main partners help with that ?
|
Northern Ireland25261 Posts
On March 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Canada is not fulfilling its military obligations. The country is freeloading off of the US military and many of its citizens do so with a sneer of superiority. There is some truth to Trump's insight that Canada only works as a state and not a country. Its last PM said Canada wasn't really a country in the standard sense. So, Trudeau and Trump really... are not that far apart in their views of Canada.
Trump will exchange zero% tariffs for partial ownership of the oil rights in Alberta and the mineral rights in Ontario.
What does that even mean?
As I’ve said approximately 86 times now, Canada ceases to have military obligations to the US, if the US doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain. The US is absolutely entitled to demand NATO members up per capita defence spend, but they can’t make that demand and show themselves to be unreliable and capricious.
What is it about this you disagree with?
|
United States42663 Posts
On March 15 2025 01:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Canada is not fulfilling its military obligations. The country is freeloading off of the US military and many of its citizens do so with a sneer of superiority. There is some truth to Trump's insight that Canada only works as a state and not a country. Its last PM said Canada wasn't really a country in the standard sense. So, Trudeau and Trump really... are not that far apart in their views of Canada.
Trump will exchange zero% tariffs for partial ownership of the oil rights in Alberta and the mineral rights in Ontario.
Freeloading in what sense? Canada doesn't make a habit of going around the world making enemies. The US spends a lot of money being able to win fights because the US gets a lot of benefits from fighting such as being the nexus of global trade/finance and being the global reserve currency. Canada doesn't get those benefits. Canada is perfectly capable of fighting its own battles with its own enemies, it just doesn't have many enemies. And it has a lot of friends.
If all Canada needed was to be able to defend its own local interests then the biggest threat would be the expansionist superpower to its south and a nuclear deterrent would be sufficient. If you want to make the case that Canada should invest in defending the American empire then Canada needs to be a stakeholder in that empire. And yet you seem to also argue that Canada is a rival to be destroyed.
Regarding oil, the US already had all of it. There was one pipeline and it went to Texas. America paid well below market rates for the oil, they had a special negotiated floating rate which was essentially market price less a modifier. Conquering Alberta will make tar oil less available to the US, not more available.
|
On March 15 2025 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 15:35 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 14 2025 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2025 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid. Chuck Schumer in particular is capitulating. Need to remember who these guys are, and they are always senior members of the party that should have been primaried out ages ago. LibHorizons: Even the centrists are ready to primary him I guess Privately, House Democrats are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running at the caucus’ policy retreat. Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement, this member said.
The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were “so mad” that even centrist Democrats were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,” adding that they have “never seen people so mad.” www.cnn.comAOC should do it and it should be part of The Progressive Plan imo Yea too little too late. Democrats needed to clean house after 2016. If they had we might not be in this position in the first place. I guess the house actually HAS to burn down for them to get out of their corrupt comfort zones and do what needs to be done. Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 17:07 Zambrah wrote:
Democrats have had myriad opportunities to change and move in a new direction and they spat in the faces of the people who wanted to go in that direction and kept their right wing blow job strategy instead, they’re not gonna change now, they’re not gonna change until every Democrat who was and is in leadership through the Clinton years through now is dead and gone.
They’re too lazy/stupid/bought to change. LibHorizons: Is it them or their supporters that are too late/lazy/stupid/bought to make them change?
Oh, Mr LibHorizons I truly wish that the Democrats supporters were bought, sadly all of that money is tied up in rich fucks
|
Canada11350 Posts
Trump has talked about our NATO obligations, but very rarely in the context of his tariffs, so Jimmy saying 'Trump is right' using an argument Trump hardly if ever makes.
Trump's argument in order of priority seems to be:
1a) Canada is ripping off US due to the trade deficit
b) Trade deficits = US subsidizing Canada (which is what makes Canada 'not a real country')
2a) Autarky (Canada doesn't make anything that US, but at the same time it is illegal for Canada to add surcharges to electricity that US does need)
3) Annexation through crashing the Canadian economy: in the same breath of saying Canada has nothing that US needs, Canada should join the United States and this is the only way to end the tariffs
4) Fentanyl- 0.4% of Fentatyl that enters US comes through the Canadian border and this is unacceptable. Sometimes this pops to #1 as Canadian-Fentanyl crisis is the critical lie that allows Trump to bypass Congress.
5) Trump is appalled at the USMCA and can't believe anyone could've signed it (he did.)
.
.
.
10) NATO as a reason for tariffs is down with all ones thrown in for padding: 'US banks can't operate in Canada'...they have for a century and Canada could tariff our milk... if we ever sold double the current amount but currently we are not so it doesn't really matter.
The NATO reason is just Jimmy's world and that's all.
I came acrosss an interesting paper written in 2005 about anti-Canadianism in the USA that's always been there. It notes how there's always been a very small segment within the US, usually restricted to Pat Buchanan and Fox News, which the Iraq war brought out even more. All the rhetoric of 'Canada is not a real country' and 'Canada had better watch it or we'll take them over' was coming from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and the like back then. They were big mad we didn't follow them into Iraq. In that media space, we've always been portrayed as the boogeyman on the doorstep with 'Socialism' and all that nonsense. The anti-Canadianism has always been there but relegated to the insane takes on Fox News. But they've had their viewers for all those years since.
Angus Reid found 60% of Americans don't want annexation under any circumstance (compared to 90% of Canadians) 32% were intrigued by the idea, but only if Canada wanted it (we don't). But 6% wanted annexation through political and economic pressure and 2% by military means. The problem is one the 8% is in the White House and is the president and current conservatism in the States has no principles except whatever Trump woke up to that day and so whatever he says, followers will twist their belief system into knots to defend their Dear Leader.
|
On March 14 2025 23:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed. Is your assessment then that we are not living through a bit of a horror story? Maybe I'm looking at all of this with European eyes; things look pretty grim now that the US is no longer considered a good ally around the world. Does the fact that now Europe is going to spend so much money arming themselves give you any pause? It is only a matter of months that new nuclear weapons programmes will come online, in my opinion. In your view, is the Trump presidency delivering on the things you wanted (and what were those things?)?
Horror story? No. It's not exactly how I would do things, as I think just a tad bit slower would do wonders both for doing things competently and with less public outcry (which for now is mainly on one side, but still).
With the above proviso, I am OK with much of what is happening domestically. The administrative state had violated its part of the pact to be neutral, and therefore deserves to learn a lesson in ways the laws allow. Conservatives have long argued that much of the bureaucracy should be more accountable to the executive. I think it's unfortunate the power of the presidency continues to grow, but no party wants to undo it. I think compared to Biden's...testing of limits Trump is tame (Biden had the lawless eviction moratorium, student loan bailout attempt, and a dereliction of duty at the border, for example). That being said, I disagree with much of it, as i always have. Tariffs and ignoring the debt, for example.
I agree with trying to heavily turn our defense policy towards Asia and the Pacific, something that Obama really started.
As for our allies, I would direct you to the speech given by Robert Gates in 2011 that i posted recently (The last half or so specifically). What's happening in Europe was a long time coming. As an American do I wish we could be everywhere at once? I suppose it's a nice thought. But honestly at this point Europe should be more than capable of defending itself. Unless you think they are risk of going to war amongst themselves again. I leave thst to people who know better. But what's happening now is just one of the several ways America and the world could have come around to reality. America can't do everything. For those lamenting the loss of American influence and prestige (often the same people who would have mocked the very idea a decade ago) I would say that it's far more dangerous for American power and world stability for this country to try to do more than it is able.
|
On March 15 2025 03:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 23:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed. Is your assessment then that we are not living through a bit of a horror story? Maybe I'm looking at all of this with European eyes; things look pretty grim now that the US is no longer considered a good ally around the world. Does the fact that now Europe is going to spend so much money arming themselves give you any pause? It is only a matter of months that new nuclear weapons programmes will come online, in my opinion. In your view, is the Trump presidency delivering on the things you wanted (and what were those things?)? Horror story? No. It's not exactly how I would do things, as I think just a tad bit slower would do wonders both for doing things competently and with less public outcry (which for now is mainly on one side, but still). With the above proviso, I am OK with much of what is happening domestically. The administrative state had violated its part of the pact to be neutral, and therefore deserves to learn a lesson in ways the laws allow. Conservatives have long argued that much of the bureaucracy should be more accountable to the executive. I think it's unfortunate the power of the presidency continues to grow, but no party wants to undo it. I think compared to Biden's...testing of limits Trump is tame (Biden had the lawless eviction moratorium, student loan bailout attempt, and a dereliction of duty at the border, for example). That being said, I disagree with much of it, as i always have. Tariffs and ignoring the debt, for example. I agree with trying to heavily turn our defense policy towards Asia and the Pacific, something that Obama really started. As for our allies, I would direct you to the speech given by Robert Gates in 2011 that i posted recently (The last half or so specifically). What's happening in Europe was a long time coming. As an American do I wish we could be everywhere at once? I suppose it's a nice thought. But honestly at this point Europe should be more than capable of defending itself. Unless you think they are risk of going to war amongst themselves again. I leave thst to people who know better. But what's happening now is just one of the several ways America and the world could have come around to reality. America can't do everything. For those lamenting the loss of American influence and prestige (often the same people who would have mocked the very idea a decade ago) I would say that it's far more dangerous for American power and world stability for this country to try to do more than it is able.
I personally don't care if you do a structured withdrawal of bases and other cost drivers in Europe. The real problem is that we aren't even sure you respect alliances and good relations any longer. Basically, it is no longer certain you are an ally that we should support when you start your next inevitable war since we aren't certain you would support us if a war is forced on us.
This also means it is a big risk to buy US military equipment since we aren't certain about long term support and updates. Basically breaking down the military specialization that has been going on to reduce duplicate programs. The next F35 program will not be bought into by Europe as things are trending. Making it cost 3-4x as much for the US.
I personally think it would have been a great idea to let Italy make small naval ships. US doing carriers and selling to allies. Swedes making short distance and shallow water subs. Basically increasing volume for each program. But any cooperation like that assumes good and stable long term relations, else it is an unacceptable risk. Right now the US is trending towards where this type of cooperation isn't something another nation will accept in a new military product.
Edit on the relations topic. Consider your best friend for the last 20 years is also your room mate. Due to changing priorities and economics they decide they have to move out. When doing this they start befriending your neighbor that scrapes your car when she thinks nobody is looking. They also are unclear on when they moving so you can't start finding somebody else to share the rent, they instead claim they will undercut you at work to take your position. This is basically how I see the US acting towards the EU recently.
|
Northern Ireland25261 Posts
I’m unsure if slowing down a bit would see much more competence in some of these domains. It’s less that the speed of movement is naturally precluding getting the microscope and the scalpel out, with all the time in the world they’d likely remain on the shelf anyway.
Outside of being a bulwark against outright illegality or giving input on practical implications of policy, sure the administration of state should be somewhat neutral. Reasonable enough an expectation, I can’t help but wonder if this is somewhat exaggerated, and also that the cure may be worse than the poison.
But hey, fundamentally Trump and the GOP do have a certain mandate, not a state of affairs I’m fond of, equally bureaucrats taking it upon themselves to impede the agenda, not necessarily a good state of affairs.
So I am sympathetic to aspects there, but I think it’s a reasonable worry that that pendulum can swing too far in the other direction. The problem, as is oft the case is not a demand that an electoral mandate be respected, but a demand that Trump as an individual be obeyed no matter what he’s suggesting.
Read the Gates speech excerpt you posted, seems pretty reasonable to me. I think more broadly, there’s some appetite for a more European-lead/centric approach to European security problems. In some cases, perhaps belatedly but Ukraine did give various nations a kick up the arse as per allowing military capabilities to atrophy.
The problem here, for me, is that this administration seemingly wants its cake, and to eat it too, so to speak. If you want Europe to take the wheel, why run your own negotiations almost in parallel for example.
I don’t have a deep problem with reshaping and reframing alliances and security arrangements to better fit the context. Makes sense, indeed not doing from time to time is what would be daft.
To put it lightly, there are better and worse ways to go about such things. Even on the odd issue I think the Trump admin might have a point on, they routinely go about it in as bad a way as possible.
I’ll note this isn’t just annoyance from a European vantage point, that absolutely does exist right now, in spades. I’m not sure these are ultimately great moves for the US either. Very dependent on things yet to happen. There’s a world where Europe collectively decides that if this is the lay of the land, Europe should build up its defence manufacturing further and Europeans should buy European, for example.
|
schumer you pig f*ck just voted against your own leverage and power. co equal branches of gov is woke now.
www.wsj.com
|
On March 15 2025 03:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 23:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed. Is your assessment then that we are not living through a bit of a horror story? Maybe I'm looking at all of this with European eyes; things look pretty grim now that the US is no longer considered a good ally around the world. Does the fact that now Europe is going to spend so much money arming themselves give you any pause? It is only a matter of months that new nuclear weapons programmes will come online, in my opinion. In your view, is the Trump presidency delivering on the things you wanted (and what were those things?)? As for our allies, I would direct you to the speech given by Robert Gates in 2011 that i posted recently (The last half or so specifically). What's happening in Europe was a long time coming. As an American do I wish we could be everywhere at once? I suppose it's a nice thought. But honestly at this point Europe should be more than capable of defending itself. Unless you think they are risk of going to war amongst themselves again. I leave thst to people who know better. But what's happening now is just one of the several ways America and the world could have come around to reality. America can't do everything. For those lamenting the loss of American influence and prestige (often the same people who would have mocked the very idea a decade ago) I would say that it's far more dangerous for American power and world stability for this country to try to do more than it is able.
I saw an internet comment from a german that said "Just to be clear, you want us to build the strongest army in Europe capable of marching east through Poland? We don't want any misunderstandings." It's great if Europe contributes more to our collective defense but it's terrible if we have an every-man-for-himself arms race across the globe because our allies can no longer rely on us. Perhaps you can't have the former without the latter considering how long its been with Europe failing to meet NATO benchmarks. I also agree wholeheartedly that it's often the same people that would have mocked American hegemony and military spending a decade ago that are now complaining they can no longer rely on the US. I think we had enjoyed an era of relative peace for so long that they naively assumed we were beyond the era of large countries invading one another on a global scale.
|
Yeah no the people who had problems with American hegemony and military spending are being vindicated since it confirms their claim that America isn’t really a shining beacon of light in the world and is an Empire with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy.
|
United States24678 Posts
On March 15 2025 09:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
Yeah no the people who had problems with American hegemony and military spending are being vindicated since it confirms their claim that America isn’t really a shining beacon of light in the world and is an Empire with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy.
Now that you are back I want to remind you about this post that got lost in all the other discussion: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4847#96930
|
On March 15 2025 09:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2025 09:01 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
Yeah no the people who had problems with American hegemony and military spending are being vindicated since it confirms their claim that America isn’t really a shining beacon of light in the world and is an Empire with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. Now that you are back I want to remind you about this post that got lost in all the other discussion: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4847#96930
Yeah I caught that, I’ll get back to you about this when it come back after work tomorrow.
The gist of what I would say is that a lot of it hedges on Australia’s myopic foreign policy that does not emphasise positive cooperation with its regional neighbours like Indonesia and instead hinges a lot of it around American interests. Despite America being a million miles away.
Scott Morrison’s huge hard on for America resulted in Australia to cut the French contract for suitable submarines out of the blue to presumably enter this AUKUS arrangement. Part of the deal was America potentially pawning off Virginia-class submarines that Australia don’t fit Australia’s actual security needs, doesn’t maintain Australia’s shipbuilding capability, requires new infrastructure to operate, don’t have the crew to properly operate and was just part of a 30 year fraud case regarding materials fraud.
All of this always a problem but people looked the other way because of Australians would accept anything for America’s security blanket and their residual fear of their most immediate neighbours/China. Now that America is purposely kicking the groin of Australia, who is in a trade deficit with the US and basically follows whatever the country does, without any provocation, AUKUS is coming right back into the limelight as a real stupid idea that doesn’t even guarantee Australia’s security.
|
Northern Ireland25261 Posts
On March 15 2025 07:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2025 03:39 Introvert wrote:On March 14 2025 23:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed. Is your assessment then that we are not living through a bit of a horror story? Maybe I'm looking at all of this with European eyes; things look pretty grim now that the US is no longer considered a good ally around the world. Does the fact that now Europe is going to spend so much money arming themselves give you any pause? It is only a matter of months that new nuclear weapons programmes will come online, in my opinion. In your view, is the Trump presidency delivering on the things you wanted (and what were those things?)? As for our allies, I would direct you to the speech given by Robert Gates in 2011 that i posted recently (The last half or so specifically). What's happening in Europe was a long time coming. As an American do I wish we could be everywhere at once? I suppose it's a nice thought. But honestly at this point Europe should be more than capable of defending itself. Unless you think they are risk of going to war amongst themselves again. I leave thst to people who know better. But what's happening now is just one of the several ways America and the world could have come around to reality. America can't do everything. For those lamenting the loss of American influence and prestige (often the same people who would have mocked the very idea a decade ago) I would say that it's far more dangerous for American power and world stability for this country to try to do more than it is able. I saw an internet comment from a german that said "Just to be clear, you want us to build the strongest army in Europe capable of marching east through Poland? We don't want any misunderstandings." It's great if Europe contributes more to our collective defense but it's terrible if we have an every-man-for-himself arms race across the globe because our allies can no longer rely on us. Perhaps you can't have the former without the latter considering how long its been with Europe failing to meet NATO benchmarks. I also agree wholeheartedly that it's often the same people that would have mocked American hegemony and military spending a decade ago that are now complaining they can no longer rely on the US. I think we had enjoyed an era of relative peace for so long that they naively assumed we were beyond the era of large countries invading one another on a global scale.
The US are increasingly unreliable alas, I think the difference this time is Europe et al rode out the first term thinking it may have been an aberration. You cannot make long-term security policies if there’s going to be a 180 flip every 4 or 8 years.
I don’t think criticising American hegemony and defence spend and bemoaning them being an unreliable ally are particularly contradictory.
We do benefit from the colossus, equally it doesn’t have to be so large, the US desires it to be so for their own reasons. If the guy I car pool with decides to buys a Ferrari that’s up to him, he just can’t go ‘see the money I’m spending to give you a lift to work!’
The second problem some of us Euros have is this isn’t really just a practical policy dispute, but an ideologically-driven one as well.
Pay the 2% minimum, I think, and I especially post-Ukraine many Europeans post-Ukraine go, ‘yeah ok that’s fair’. We’ve been coasting and complacent a bit, relying on the largesse of the US.
The problem is, even if we all did that, there’s a real fear it’d be irrelevant anyway at least as per the US’ attitude here currently. It feels beyond a matter of ‘we’re sick of forking the bill, pay up’.
And it’s not baseless. It’s America First Baby! I mean it’s pretty consistent
There’s an additional problem, one I think sneaks under the radar a bit. Trump and the machine he sits atop of don’t just think transactionally when it comes to foreign relations. They can’t understand anyone else who doesn’t, or well, they disagree.
It’s not just a NATO thing, it’s multilateral organisations full stop. It’s the UN, it’s the EU as well.
In a sense there’s a feeling that Trump, or I suppose I mean primarily some of the forces that back him are quite hostile to the EU, full stop. Not for being antagonistic or rubbing up against the US, but merely for existing.
Or to put it another way. It’s one thing to go ‘OK Europe, we’ll do our thing, you do yours.’ There’s a feeling, and I think one with good basis that there’s attempts to actively undermine the ‘European project’, or multilateralism more generally. Ukraine is merely one aspect of that greater whole.
Other Euros may attest to that, or alternatively disagree! It’s certainly an impression that I get pulling various threads together.
If the US wanted to keep funding our collective defence, great! If not, not ideal but OK we’ll figure it out. I think the problem for many is it’s not really a hands-off approach at all. The US is still interjecting itself into the Ukraine process, it’s throwing tariffs at us as well. Etc etc
I’m a fan of collective security for a whole variety of reasons. Realistically, doesn’t matter what say Ireland, or Iceland proportionally spend on defence, they’ll be fucked without the shield of allies. Another indirect benefit of it being spread out, is you don’t build many monsters. I think this aspect is super underrated. There are few, if any European countries that have the ‘complete package’ militarily, because they don’t really need it. This has drawbacks as well, but it’s handy that even if Hitler 2.0 comes to power anywhere in Europe, they don’t have the capacity to do similar expansionist shit.
There’s room for friction, redrawing things etc in such an arrangement. But the one thing you can’t have is unreliability, or a question mark on ‘if shit hits the fan, will this hold?’
It’s also often the people who were hawks on Iraq and Afghanistan, who got pissy with the likes of the French and Canadians not backing the US in various wars, who are at the forefront of pulling the rug out from Europe and NATO currently. I mean it’s been a while, some folks have just changed positions, some are giant hypocrites.
But I think it’s fair enough to shift position a bit.
|
On March 15 2025 01:38 Vivax wrote:
The space programs of various billionaires are a waste of resources. Satellites I can see for their usefulness or missions for research purposes. Rocket rides for rich people are peak decadence.
enthusiasm for space programs has an inverse correlation with IQ change my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
