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.
I’m genuinely unsure on how I feel about playing the shutdown card in the current epoch, for the record. Anyway
However, having read a bunch of different perspectives on this, one bit of commonality does somewhat stick out, which is that Schumer kinda blindsided folks here.
It’s one thing to crack the whip, it’s quite another to pull the rug out late doors.
If you’re not gonna do it, let it be known, even if it’s just internally. Instead you end up with a bunch of Dems laying their cards on the table and just undermine that at the last.
Baffling politics really
MAGAHorizons: The adults had to pass bipartisan legislation to keep the government open and move Trump's agenda forward. Schumer did the right thing, even if he pretended he wouldn't.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
On March 15 2025 07:12 BlackJack wrote:
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.
Well I think we're a long way from that, I'm not sure it would take WWII rearmament to at least keep the Russians from being bad neighbors? Atm the US isn't even asking too much from Europe in other theaters (maybe I'm wrong). While I hope beefing up military strength doesn't bring is back to ye olden days of more European land wars it seems like we can risk going a little further. IMO it's a lack of American naivete that brings this situation about. The days of being hopeful about China are over, so choices have to be made. I do get the concern tho. Maybe Europe could directly pay for a stronger America military presence! Somehow I doubt that would have gone over well ever lol.
The only way to stay completely safe is to have nukes -- look what happened to Ukraine when they got rid of theirs. This just means that there are going to be a lot more nukes around.
Safe from whom? Presumably the only real threat to Europe, the extent it's a threat at all, is Russia. American nukes aren't going anywhere. So far we are zero for zero on the usage of nuclear weapons. Would Ukraine have used them if they had them? Would Russia have stayed out if they did? These are genuine questions, I don't know. It still seems difficult to believe that any nation would use them defensively first. All that said I still acknowledge they shouldn't have given up their weapons and the countries who agreed to help perhaps should have been a little more worried about Ukraine's security before the invasion.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
As I have stated multiple times. I am ok, not happy but ok with the US pulling out of Europe. They are still our friend and ally in that scenario. Nato security guarantees both ways is still there so we don't need more nukes in Europe at least. In a long war the US would slowly amble its fleet and army over to support but they are not there for the start. All ok.
The problem is that the way it is being done craters trust. A security alliance is built on the trust that members will act if it is needed. As the US acts now the assumption has to be that when there is a Republican president that isn't a hawk they will not honor alliances. That is where the method and soft factors such as relations come into it. If there is no trust we have to assume the US is an opponent every 4 years and thus make no long term agreements. Which means any large investment has to be scrapped and holes in EU legislation favoring the US should probably be closed.
I disagree, given the state Europe currently finds itself in I think it would behoove them, if they are actually worried, to cozy up *more*. So take for example the post below yours which says that the US is basically on Team Russia (lol). There is worry about support for American weapons and the like. buying more, integrating more, taking on more of the costs of their own defense more would actually make people like Trump, and Americans generally, more supportive of Europe.
A lot of people seem to be treating this as a Trump-in-particular problem, and it isn't. As I said about a week ago even when I was an adolescent my peers and I "knew" that Europe was basically useless on the world stage. The "pivot to Asia" started in the Obama administration. And how did the West react to the invasion of Crimea? No one wants to feel like they are being taken advantage of by their "friends" and rightly or wrongly more and more Americans feel that way, and it's not new.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
On March 15 2025 07:12 BlackJack wrote:
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.
Well I think we're a long way from that, I'm not sure it would take WWII rearmament to at least keep the Russians from being bad neighbors? Atm the US isn't even asking too much from Europe in other theaters (maybe I'm wrong). While I hope beefing up military strength doesn't bring is back to ye olden days of more European land wars it seems like we can risk going a little further. IMO it's a lack of American naivete that brings this situation about. The days of being hopeful about China are over, so choices have to be made. I do get the concern tho. Maybe Europe could directly pay for a stronger America military presence! Somehow I doubt that would have gone over well ever lol.
Trump demanding that Europe spend more on defense wasn't motivated by his concern about Europe's readiness to defend itself. It was motivated by greed. "Spending more on defense" was a euphemism for buying more American equipment. That has backfired. With the US being openly hostile to its allies and coddling Europe's greatest enemy, nobody trusts that your country will help us in case of a Russian attack. You're delusional if you think Europe would pay for stronger American military presence. In the next 10-15 years we won't be buying any American equipment and there won't be any American military presence in Europe to speak of.
See my note to Yurie or the posts I made a week or so ago. It's not greed and it's not new. And I think the current administration likes Poland more than other NATO allies because it appears to be taking it's commitment seriously (for understandable reasons).
I know I am going to make almost zero progress on this with people across the water, but your diet of "Trump is a Russian asset" is absurd and it's causing issues. At any rate, for now Europe still need America help because it seems to be mostly talk and less action from people like Macron at the moment. It's why a bunch of people behind the scenes were telling Zelensky to get it together.
All I see so far are reasons why nothing should change (even though the state of the world demands they do) and an appeal to American power and influence. Less concrete. But as I said yesterday, those things are already under strain, which is why the US is reacting the way it is in the first place. This was not the only way things could change, but it was more likely than stasis.
late edit: btw I would give/sell/loan Ukraine basically all the weapons it wants, just to reiterate. And I think that's consistent with what I've written so far. But there is a larger problem here that needs addressing.
I’m genuinely unsure on how I feel about playing the shutdown card in the current epoch, for the record. Anyway
However, having read a bunch of different perspectives on this, one bit of commonality does somewhat stick out, which is that Schumer kinda blindsided folks here.
It’s one thing to crack the whip, it’s quite another to pull the rug out late doors.
If you’re not gonna do it, let it be known, even if it’s just internally. Instead you end up with a bunch of Dems laying their cards on the table and just undermine that at the last.
Baffling politics really
MAGAHorizons: The adults had to pass bipartisan legislation to keep the government open and move Trump's agenda forward. Schumer did the right thing, even if he pretended he wouldn't.
I’m genuinely unsure on how I feel about playing the shutdown card in the current epoch, for the record. Anyway
However, having read a bunch of different perspectives on this, one bit of commonality does somewhat stick out, which is that Schumer kinda blindsided folks here.
It’s one thing to crack the whip, it’s quite another to pull the rug out late doors.
If you’re not gonna do it, let it be known, even if it’s just internally. Instead you end up with a bunch of Dems laying their cards on the table and just undermine that at the last.
Baffling politics really
MAGAHorizons: The adults had to pass bipartisan legislation to keep the government open and move Trump's agenda forward. Schumer did the right thing, even if he pretended he wouldn't.
I think Magahorizons is too much even for me haha
MAGAHorizons: Because I'm right and any MAGA supporter being right about anything is too much for libs to handle?
On March 16 2025 01:06 Legan wrote: The methods used to boycott Tesla and protest Musk are interesting as they seem quite widely accepted and supported while being clearly disruptive and causing property damage to private individuals. If these tactics were used by climate activists, etc., they sure would have been publicly disparaged. It is more likely that people are making exceptions for protesting Musk than changing their view of what constitutes an acceptable protest.
Are you new here? People here have expressed tepid support to outright enthusiasm for assassination, throwing grenades in the scotus chambers, shooting CEOs in the back, banishing the unvaccinated from society, banning opposition candidates from ballots, using seal team six to kill your political rivals and the list goes on. Keying a Tesla is the most tame thing on the list.
You guys over the pond font seem to understand one thing. Europe was not using the US to defend them for free, Europe was following their populace, which believed the era of armed conflict with state actors was over. We feared the Muslim terrorist groups your moronic W had created but apart from that, we believed we had ended Eurasian conflict. It's not trump that changed that, but Putin. I still doubt we can go back. Our society, fringe rightwing nur jobs not counted, is peaceful, lazy and craven. We would have to create the most bloodless army of all time. Besides spending money, and even that is a bit too much because money alone can't buy an army, no one will want to bleed for this. Pensioners in Germany want to bring back the draft. I think this will cause a rebellion more quickly the the pension injustice or the climate discussion.
On March 16 2025 01:06 Legan wrote: The methods used to boycott Tesla and protest Musk are interesting as they seem quite widely accepted and supported while being clearly disruptive and causing property damage to private individuals. If these tactics were used by climate activists, etc., they sure would have been publicly disparaged. It is more likely that people are making exceptions for protesting Musk than changing their view of what constitutes an acceptable protest.
Are you new here? People here have expressed tepid support to outright enthusiasm for assassination, throwing grenades in the scotus chambers, shooting CEOs in the back, banishing the unvaccinated from society, banning opposition candidates from ballots, using seal team six to kill your political rivals and the list goes on. Keying a Tesla is the most tame thing on the list.
You’re taking the grenade thing out of context. I, tongue in cheek, expressed that politicizing lifetime appointments made a strategy of tossing a grenade into the chambers at the start of your term optimal. I didn’t advocate for it.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
On March 15 2025 07:12 BlackJack wrote:
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.
Well I think we're a long way from that, I'm not sure it would take WWII rearmament to at least keep the Russians from being bad neighbors? Atm the US isn't even asking too much from Europe in other theaters (maybe I'm wrong). While I hope beefing up military strength doesn't bring is back to ye olden days of more European land wars it seems like we can risk going a little further. IMO it's a lack of American naivete that brings this situation about. The days of being hopeful about China are over, so choices have to be made. I do get the concern tho. Maybe Europe could directly pay for a stronger America military presence! Somehow I doubt that would have gone over well ever lol.
The only way to stay completely safe is to have nukes -- look what happened to Ukraine when they got rid of theirs. This just means that there are going to be a lot more nukes around.
Safe from whom? Presumably the only real threat to Europe, the extent it's a threat at all, is Russia. American nukes aren't going anywhere. So far we are zero for zero on the usage of nuclear weapons. Would Ukraine have used them if they had them? Would Russia have stayed out if they did? These are genuine questions, I don't know. It still seems difficult to believe that any nation would use them defensively first. All that said I still acknowledge they shouldn't have given up their weapons and the countries who agreed to help perhaps should have been a little more worried about Ukraine's security before the invasion.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
As I have stated multiple times. I am ok, not happy but ok with the US pulling out of Europe. They are still our friend and ally in that scenario. Nato security guarantees both ways is still there so we don't need more nukes in Europe at least. In a long war the US would slowly amble its fleet and army over to support but they are not there for the start. All ok.
The problem is that the way it is being done craters trust. A security alliance is built on the trust that members will act if it is needed. As the US acts now the assumption has to be that when there is a Republican president that isn't a hawk they will not honor alliances. That is where the method and soft factors such as relations come into it. If there is no trust we have to assume the US is an opponent every 4 years and thus make no long term agreements. Which means any large investment has to be scrapped and holes in EU legislation favoring the US should probably be closed.
I disagree, given the state Europe currently finds itself in I think it would behoove them, if they are actually worried, to cozy up *more*. So take for example the post below yours which says that the US is basically on Team Russia (lol). There is worry about support for American weapons and the like. buying more, integrating more, taking on more of the costs of their own defense more would actually make people like Trump, and Americans generally, more supportive of Europe.
A lot of people seem to be treating this as a Trump-in-particular problem, and it isn't. As I said about a week ago even when I was an adolescent my peers and I "knew" that Europe was basically useless on the world stage. The "pivot to Asia" started in the Obama administration. And how did the West react to the invasion of Crimea? No one wants to feel like they are being taken advantage of by their "friends" and rightly or wrongly more and more Americans feel that way, and it's not new.
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.
Like I said the other day I really don't think the US will have any objection to selling things if Europeans want to buy them lol. Maybe there is worry about support for those weapons? I don't know, you can't just freeze everything in amber because change is uncomfortable. Again, America has a different priority and think it's understandable. So I get the concern, about "relations" in general but that can't be a reason to keep doing what we're doing. What is the best argument for not having Europe do more?
Maybe it's...
On March 15 2025 07:12 BlackJack wrote:
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.
Well I think we're a long way from that, I'm not sure it would take WWII rearmament to at least keep the Russians from being bad neighbors? Atm the US isn't even asking too much from Europe in other theaters (maybe I'm wrong). While I hope beefing up military strength doesn't bring is back to ye olden days of more European land wars it seems like we can risk going a little further. IMO it's a lack of American naivete that brings this situation about. The days of being hopeful about China are over, so choices have to be made. I do get the concern tho. Maybe Europe could directly pay for a stronger America military presence! Somehow I doubt that would have gone over well ever lol.
Trump demanding that Europe spend more on defense wasn't motivated by his concern about Europe's readiness to defend itself. It was motivated by greed. "Spending more on defense" was a euphemism for buying more American equipment. That has backfired. With the US being openly hostile to its allies and coddling Europe's greatest enemy, nobody trusts that your country will help us in case of a Russian attack. You're delusional if you think Europe would pay for stronger American military presence. In the next 10-15 years we won't be buying any American equipment and there won't be any American military presence in Europe to speak of.
See my note to Yurie or the posts I made a week or so ago. It's not greed and it's not new. And I think the current administration likes Poland more than other NATO allies because it appears to be taking it's commitment seriously (for understandable reasons).
It's pure greed. You'll see how he's gonna whine when Europe stops buying military equipment from the US and buys European instead. Nobody in Europe trusts the US anymore. I don't give a shit if he said some nice words about Poland. He's known to stab his allies in the back.
I know I am going to make almost zero progress on this with people across the water, but your diet of "Trump is a Russian asset" is absurd and it's causing issues. At any rate, for now Europe still need America help because it seems to be mostly talk and less action from people like Macron at the moment. It's why a bunch of people behind the scenes were telling Zelensky to get it together.
He is a Russian asset. He's given a number of concessions to Russia regarding Ukraine and NATO before the "negotiations" even started, while actively and consistently undermining Ukraine in a number of ways. He's destroying NATO from within and refuses to honor Article 5 of the treaty, and he's threatening NATO allies with annexation of their territory, while waging a trade war against them. I could go on but it's pointless. You're delusional.
All I see so far are reasons why nothing should change (even though the state of the world demands they do) and an appeal to American power and influence. Less concrete. But as I said yesterday, those things are already under strain, which is why the US is reacting the way it is in the first place. This was not the only way things could change, but it was more likely than stasis.
What are you even on about. Europe is done with America. The trust is completely gone.
late edit: btw I would give/sell/loan Ukraine basically all the weapons it wants, just to reiterate. And I think that's consistent with what I've written so far. But there is a larger problem here that needs addressing.
The larger problem is America taking a fascist turn and openly siding with Russia.
On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote: American nukes aren't going anywhere.
The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia?
On March 16 2025 01:06 Legan wrote: The methods used to boycott Tesla and protest Musk are interesting as they seem quite widely accepted and supported while being clearly disruptive and causing property damage to private individuals. If these tactics were used by climate activists, etc., they sure would have been publicly disparaged. It is more likely that people are making exceptions for protesting Musk than changing their view of what constitutes an acceptable protest.
Are you new here? People here have expressed tepid support to outright enthusiasm for assassination, throwing grenades in the scotus chambers, shooting CEOs in the back, banishing the unvaccinated from society, banning opposition candidates from ballots, using seal team six to kill your political rivals and the list goes on. Keying a Tesla is the most tame thing on the list.
You’re taking the grenade thing out of context. I, tongue in cheek, expressed that politicizing lifetime appointments made a strategy of tossing a grenade into the chambers at the start of your term optimal. I didn’t advocate for it.
On September 05 2023 14:02 KwarK wrote: No good options. Personally I favour discretely tossing a grenade into the Supreme Court chambers in a video game. Then lame duck Biden can stack it on the way out.
Sure, you didn't advocate for it. You just favoured it. Maybe there is a difference there. Or maybe, like the u in favour, it's a britishism that I don't fully appreciate. A bit a of dry humo[u]r not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as is often the case with this list, whether it's Trump getting shot or a MAGA getting his car keyed, people will say they don't support it but if they see it happen their response will be best described as restrained jubilation.*
On March 16 2025 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Sure, you didn't advocate for it. You just favoured it. Maybe there is a difference there. Or maybe, like the u in favour, it's a britishism that I don't fully appreciate. A bit a of dry humo[u]r not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as is often the case with this list, whether it's Trump getting shot or a MAGA getting his car keyed, people will say they don't support it but if they see it happen their response will be best described as restrained jubilation.*
I don't think many lefties wanted him to be shot at, im personally not in favor of political violence when we have a functioning democracy. The problem that we have is that this current American First movement is attempting an administrative coup. I'd say they are 50% of the way there, and its basically down to republicans to stop them, the left and dems cant do anything democratically anymore.
Republican politicians don't even want town halls anymore due to vets and constituents yelling at them. It's going to take much more than that to get America First to backtrack.
Someone like Musk however is sort of a wild card weve never had before in domestic politics. He represents the infinite money it takes to primary any republican who wont go along with the overthrow of our democracy. And his power and capital required to do that is directly tied to Tesla as a brand, so its very appealing to get creative to make that stock nose dive.
When republicans didnt impeach Trump the first time, you could probably say that was the death of the GOP as we knew it. Post that impeachment no vote, we are dealing with an anti democratic and theocratic movement. The second impeachment no vote is the ultimate confirmation. Now in 2025, we move to actual soft fascism and an authoritarian rule. This isn't democrats and crazy lefties causing an escalation in political protest and perhaps violence. It's Trump and the GOP who are setting fire to our countries institutions and constitution, as the one Project 2025 guy said
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote: American nukes aren't going anywhere.
The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia?
It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong.
another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago.
On March 16 2025 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Sure, you didn't advocate for it. You just favoured it. Maybe there is a difference there. Or maybe, like the u in favour, it's a britishism that I don't fully appreciate. A bit a of dry humo[u]r not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as is often the case with this list, whether it's Trump getting shot or a MAGA getting his car keyed, people will say they don't support it but if they see it happen their response will be best described as restrained jubilation.*
I don't think many lefties wanted him to be shot at, im personally not in favor of political violence when we have a functioning democracy. The problem that we have is that this current American First movement is attempting an administrative coup. I'd say they are 50% of the way there, and its basically down to republicans to stop them, the left and dems cant do anything democratically anymore.
Republican politicians don't even want town halls anymore due to vets and constituents yelling at them. It's going to take much more than that to get America First to backtrack.
Someone like Musk however is sort of a wild card weve never had before in domestic politics. He represents the infinite money it takes to primary any republican who wont go along with the overthrow of our democracy. And his power and capital required to do that is directly tied to Tesla as a brand, so its very appealing to get creative to make that stock nose dive.
When republicans didnt impeach Trump the first time, you could probably say that was the death of the GOP as we knew it. Post that impeachment no vote, we are dealing with an anti democratic and theocratic movement. The second impeachment no vote is the ultimate confirmation. Now in 2025, we move to actual soft fascism and an authoritarian rule. This isn't democrats and crazy lefties causing an escalation in political protest and perhaps violence. It's Trump and the GOP who are setting fire to our countries institutions and constitution, as the one Project 2025 guy said
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
I’ll add the caveat that, yes our current toxic political environment does flow from multiple sources. Ain’t all sweetness and light from lefties either
The thing I would add that’s especially problematic to me is, it’s not just these folks. The GOP, Trump, Musk etc.
It’s the perception that no matter what they do, a significant proportion of the population will say it’s a good thing. There are seemingly no red lines there across the aisle.
If the mechanisms of state aren’t cutting it, but also the safety valve of your support base moderating you seemingly may as well not exist either, what are you left with?
I’m not seeing any good outcome from this. I’ll never understand why such deficient men are so completely indulged, but hey they are. Realistic best case is looking like this shite is all going to go through, relatively peacefully, and can be reversed when the political winds change. Worst cases, good luck reversing them lad! Or, perhaps things get so fucked we start to see widespread political violence. I’m not predicting it, so as to be clear and not charged with hyperbole, but neither do I think it’s off the table. Incidentally I think it will come from the left at first, from a ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ kinda angle.
January 6th should have closed the book on Trump as a mainstay political figure. People wanted it kept open and here we are.
On March 12 2025 16:31 Silvanel wrote: EU imposes retaliatory measures in response to Trump tariffs:www.bbc.com I wonder what will happen next, will Brazil, Australia and other steel producing countries follow suit?
Australia is not going to do anything, this is the country whose previous conservative Prime Minister got scammed by the American government for some submarines that will never be delivered. Whose current moderate Prime Minister is continuing the charade for reasons no one can comprehend.
Getting scammed is one thing but Australia was previously in a deal with France for some more sensible submarines they would be able to maintain without America’s help and also be built by local shipbuilders iirc. In order for Australia to enter this scam for submarines that will never be delivered, they infamously told France to get fucked in the process and had to pay a breach of contract penalty if I’m not misremembering the situation.
Can you state why you think the AUKUS agreement (submarines portion) is literally a scam? There definitely are concerns that the project won't complete, but that's different than it being a scam.
I’ve gotten back from work so I’ll respond to your question.
If we assume a scam to be a dishonest scheme or something designed to swindle one party, that is exactly the AUKUS arrangement for Australia.
The whole main selling point of AUKUS is to provide a free, open and secure the Indo-Pacific. Pillar 1 of the arrangement involves Australia obtaining nuclear powered submarines and to be a rotating force of UK and US nuclear powered submarines in the region. Reading between the lines at the time of the treaty, you can safely assume it’s all about China.
This is already a scam because just look at geographics. A few nuclear powered submarines does not really deter an unlikely regional conflict between Indonesia and Australia any better than more than a few conventionally powered shallow water submarines would. I say Indonesia because that has long been seen a potential immediate threat to Australian sovereignty in the eyes of the ADF if I’m not mistaken.
Such a conflict wouldn’t eventuate in the near future, as much as Australia has mismanaged their diplomatic responsibilities in the region, because there’s just no will to not attempt to smooth over relations diplomatically like it has been done in the past.
The nuclear powered submarines also do nothing to deter the region becoming more and more interlinked with China because China’s approach in the region is less through military might but through economic integration. I know about the man-made islands and 9 dotted line maritime dispute, it still does not change the fact that submarines do nothing against countries (eg the recent Solomon Islands diplomatic crisis) that are willingly accepting Chinese aid because of a vacuum produced by Australian inaction from mostly the Liberal National Party and the United States being what it is right now.
So what does Australia get out of these nuclear submarines they are purchasing? It solely exists to project American interests and doesn’t really improve Australian interests in the region. You could actually argue that it is actually antagonistic considering how the US approaches diplomacy in recent years. It’s not like Republicans and Democrats have gotten any less hawkish and self interested, in fact there’s an argument they are even more so and completely leaning into transactional diplomacy.
Then we’ve got to talk about the actual submarines in question. As a stop gap, the solution is for Australia to buy three Virginia class submarines. A product that Australia does not have the infrastructure to maintain, does not provide jobs to the domestic mob that built the fantastic Collins class submarines that are meant to be retired, does not have the manpower to properly operate, and was part of a class action lawsuit regarding materials fraud iirc.
To make things worse, the actual product is not even coming any time soon because of shipbuilding delays and backlogs from American shipbuilders. Then we’ve got the SSN-AUKUS, which is almost never going to eventuate at this rate. All the while Australia has been making AUKUS payments (eg $500 million in February this year) that are effectively investments in US and UK shipbuilding capabilities while it gets pretty much nothing in return.
I can only assume this was done by Scott Morrison to further entrench American interest in Australia. Because to enter the AUKUS arrangement involved suddenly breaking a previously signed contract for conventionally powered submarines from France, involving Australia paying both monetarily and diplomatically. A complete debacle.
After all the dust has settled, what exactly does Australia get from AUKUS that they couldn’t get from buying submarines from France, Japan or from themselves (eg a newer, smaller Collins 2.0)? Right now Australia is just buying an insurance policy from the United States at a time where one half of the country was shown from 2016 onwards to have contempt for everyone not American.
On March 16 2025 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Sure, you didn't advocate for it. You just favoured it. Maybe there is a difference there. Or maybe, like the u in favour, it's a britishism that I don't fully appreciate. A bit a of dry humo[u]r not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as is often the case with this list, whether it's Trump getting shot or a MAGA getting his car keyed, people will say they don't support it but if they see it happen their response will be best described as restrained jubilation.*
I don't think many lefties wanted him to be shot at, im personally not in favor of political violence when we have a functioning democracy. The problem that we have is that this current American First movement is attempting an administrative coup. I'd say they are 50% of the way there, and its basically down to republicans to stop them, the left and dems cant do anything democratically anymore.
If you think there's an "administrative coup" in progress, who has the status quo administrative power to begin with?
On March 16 2025 06:10 BlackJack wrote: Sure, you didn't advocate for it. You just favoured it. Maybe there is a difference there. Or maybe, like the u in favour, it's a britishism that I don't fully appreciate. A bit a of dry humo[u]r not meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, as is often the case with this list, whether it's Trump getting shot or a MAGA getting his car keyed, people will say they don't support it but if they see it happen their response will be best described as restrained jubilation.*
I don't think many lefties wanted him to be shot at, im personally not in favor of political violence when we have a functioning democracy. The problem that we have is that this current American First movement is attempting an administrative coup. I'd say they are 50% of the way there, and its basically down to republicans to stop them, the left and dems cant do anything democratically anymore.
If you think there's an "administrative coup" in progress, who has the status quo administrative power to begin with?
Majority of administrative power in most democracies are in the laws and the people employed to enable those. From social workers, tax accountants, police etc. The thing that is being accelerated is the removal of laws as the governing framework for government employees.
In a US setting that means power moving from congress and senate into the president and courts that no longer want to enforce the social agreement. Meaning congress and senate need to create new laws to steer the courts but that isn't happening.
On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote: American nukes aren't going anywhere.
The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia?
It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong.
another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago.
I'm interested in why you think Trump doesn't want Russia out and about when he doesn't appear to offer any real resistance to their aggressive war of expansion.
I’m genuinely unsure on how I feel about playing the shutdown card in the current epoch, for the record. Anyway
However, having read a bunch of different perspectives on this, one bit of commonality does somewhat stick out, which is that Schumer kinda blindsided folks here.
It’s one thing to crack the whip, it’s quite another to pull the rug out late doors.
If you’re not gonna do it, let it be known, even if it’s just internally. Instead you end up with a bunch of Dems laying their cards on the table and just undermine that at the last.
Baffling politics really
MAGAHorizons: The adults had to pass bipartisan legislation to keep the government open and move Trump's agenda forward. Schumer did the right thing, even if he pretended he wouldn't.
I think Magahorizons is too much even for me haha
MAGAHorizons: Because I'm right and any MAGA supporter being right about anything is too much for libs to handle?
On March 16 2025 02:38 Introvert wrote: American nukes aren't going anywhere.
The umbrella is already gone. Can you really tell us with a straight face that if Russia invaded Estonia and Putin promised a nuclear exchange of America intervened then Trump wouldn’t be there on tv saying that Estonia had always been a part of Russia?
It's hard to imagine any president of the past 30 years or more who would get into a nuclear exchange in that scenario. America isn't even the only NATO power with nukes and I don't see any of them doing it, either. People seem to believe that Trump wants the Russians out and about expanding. That's wrong.
another late edit: this is in response to your particular hypothetical btw. The point is that I don't think America is less likely to use nukes than it was say, a decade ago.
If Trump didn't want Russians out and about expanding, then why did he withdraw support from Ukraine and conceded to all of Putin's demands on the runup to the peace negotiations?
He has severely weakened Ukraine's hand and strengthened Putin's. Trump has already rolled over and conceded all of the land occupied by Putin's forces will now be Russia and even some bits he doesn't yet control. In what way is this 'not wanting' Russia to expand?
EPT
