|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Honestly, from my perspective, Trump seems to want to have as much power and control of the government as possible, and he's challenging things and pushing boundaries everywhere. It's not always working, but he's definitely securing more control as the leader of the executive branch than he previously had.
Based on all of the crazy shit going on, especially with funding (which in the constitution is supposed to be up to Congress, and not the executive branch), I can see a bit of a strategic play here.
He's spoken about a soverign wealth fund. This type of thing has been successfully been used in other countries. It's a useful tool for the government to use to generate long-term wealth growth. There's a variety of ways to fund this. Nationalization of key industries would do it, but I suspect this would piss off enough people where it's off the table. This is kinda what some oil-rich nations have done. Another way that's been mentioned is selling off of public assets, including land. This money could go into that soverign wealth fund to kick-start it. I believe he is trying to ensure that the executive branch of the government is in control of this fund.
I suspect that the plan is to get these new tariffs in place, while simultaneously start this new soverign wealth fund, then find a way to send the money directly to this new soverign wealth fund, which would be under his control. This way a large chunk of money would directly bypass congress and be under the control of the executive. If I'm right, this is really quite a brilliant way to boost the power and reach of the executive branch. And it's fucking terrifying to see one person with that kind of power.
Given that Trump just turned the White House into a private showroom for Musk/Tesla, I don't see how anyone can think it's a good idea for him to have access to this amount of money and power. He's clearly willing to use the power he has as President to enrich his family, his friends, and his allies. He's shown us who he is already.
The entire purpose of the government split powers is to allow the different branches to fight against each other, to prevent any one branch from doing something destructive. They are all meant to hold some kind of power over the other branches. As a Canadian, I can see exactly why you would want your government to have split powers like this, and your founding fathers were quite brilliant with their execution of splitting up the power of the federal government. They saw how destructive a monarchy could become before the country was founded, and took steps to ensure it couldn't happen again in the USA.
Except now we seem to have the rest of the government bending over backwards to enable a new authoritarian. He may not be a monarch, but he's doing what looks like irreparable damage to the country..... Those that have the power to stop him are enabling him instead.
|
United States42673 Posts
On March 17 2025 02:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 16 2025 22:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Welp, it appears my theory about the USA using tariffs as a massive driver of new government revenue now has some proof behind it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-global-tariffs-canada-1.7484790The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year.
There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added.
The first is a major budget resolution that calls for trillions of dollars in spending and tax cuts, which is "something that must not increase that deficit further while keeping tax levels and competitiveness low," Paterson said.
The other two are measures to help make the spending and tax cuts happen without growing the deficit, including slashing government spending through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and tariffs, which are meant to be a new revenue source and attract investment into the United States.
Paterson said the American plan is to impose tariffs by sector across countries all around the world on April 2. From there, the countries that get along with the U.S. the best will be "first in line" to adjust or mitigate the tariffs. U.S. plans tariffs for April 2, and will then adjust for nations that play nice I think Canada's best move is to become the USA's "best pal" again. That includes listening carefully to what Republicans prioritize. Should Canada try something else the standard of living in the country will drop precipitously. It is already declining pretty hard right now. Canadians have been making bad decisions at the ballot box the last 10 years... so some of this is on them. It literally doesn’t say what you’re saying it says. It says they want to do tax cuts without increasing the deficit which means cutting spending or increasing revenues through things such as tariffs. It does not say that tariffs are a massive new driver of government revenues. Trump stated the new revenues from tariffs will be massive. If there are tax cuts and big deficit reductions then huge revenues from tariffs are necessary. It does not say word for word exactly what I stated. It is pretty easy to see it though. again, what do you think this means? Show nested quote +The focus of the U.S. government is dealing with its yearly deficit in federal spending, Paterson said. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the federal government ran a $1.83 trillion US deficit in the 2024 fiscal year. when you combine it with tax cuts and a reduction in government deficits? How do you get deficits down while at the same time offering massive tax cuts? Show nested quote +There are three things the U.S. government is doing that affect the deficit, Paterson added. One of those 3 things are tariffs.
Trump literally doesn't know what a tariff is so I don't know why you're taking his word for it.
|
United States42673 Posts
On March 17 2025 02:42 Impervious wrote:
Honestly, from my perspective, Trump seems to want to have as much power and control of the government as possible, and he's challenging things and pushing boundaries everywhere. It's not always working, but he's definitely securing more control as the leader of the executive branch than he previously had.
Based on all of the crazy shit going on, especially with funding (which in the constitution is supposed to be up to Congress, and not the executive branch), I can see a bit of a strategic play here.
He's spoken about a soverign wealth fund. This type of thing has been successfully been used in other countries. It's a useful tool for the government to use to generate long-term wealth growth. There's a variety of ways to fund this. Nationalization of key industries would do it, but I suspect this would piss off enough people where it's off the table. This is kinda what some oil-rich nations have done. Another way that's been mentioned is selling off of public assets, including land. This money could go into that soverign wealth fund to kick-start it. I believe he is trying to ensure that the executive branch of the government is in control of this fund.
I suspect that the plan is to get these new tariffs in place, while simultaneously start this new soverign wealth fund, then find a way to send the money directly to this new soverign wealth fund, which would be under his control. This way a large chunk of money would directly bypass congress and be under the control of the executive. If I'm right, this is really quite a brilliant way to boost the power and reach of the executive branch. And it's fucking terrifying to see one person with that kind of power.
Given that Trump just turned the White House into a private showroom for Musk/Tesla, I don't see how anyone can think it's a good idea for him to have access to this amount of money and power. He's clearly willing to use the power he has as President to enrich his family, his friends, and his allies. He's shown us who he is already.
The entire purpose of the government split powers is to allow the different branches to fight against each other, to prevent any one branch from doing something destructive. They are all meant to hold some kind of power over the other branches. As a Canadian, I can see exactly why you would want your government to have split powers like this, and your founding fathers were quite brilliant with their execution of splitting up the power of the federal government. They saw how destructive a monarchy could become before the country was founded, and took steps to ensure it couldn't happen again in the USA.
Except now we seem to have the rest of the government bending over backwards to enable a new authoritarian. He may not be a monarch, but he's doing what looks like irreparable damage to the country..... Those that have the power to stop him are enabling him instead.
A sovereign wealth fund is created when more money is pulled in from tax revenues than is spent on government operations and the difference is accumulated as a balance from which interest is generated. If I put my accountant hat on for a second it doesn't actually make a difference whether it's a positive or negative balance, it's still functionally the same animal. So the idea that the US should have an interest bearing balance from the accumulated gap between revenues and expenses is kind of silly, it already has one of those. In absolute terms there's almost $37,000,000,000,000 in it. And Trump has done more than almost any other president to make that number as high as it is.
Sure, technically it's a negative number but it still functions the same way.
What Trump is suggesting is that despite being massively underwater in credit card debt which is spiraling out of control irreversibly perhaps they could open a savings account. I mean sure, perhaps they could, but they're quite a long way from having $0 to put in the savings account. About $37,000,000,000,000 from $0.
Also his plan for getting back out of the hole seems to involve giving government a pretty drop in revenues.
Basically the sovereign wealth fund idea is nonsense, what he's actually proposing is to create a deficit funded slush fund under his control.
|
You're never going .....
"Law ________ won't work because I pull loophole/edgecase out of arse, better do nothing and do away with law that actively taxes wealth because it's not even working as you say!"
|
On March 16 2025 22:01 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 19:00 KT_Elwood wrote:On March 16 2025 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2025 02:52 WombaT wrote:On March 16 2025 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2025 01:34 WombaT wrote:On March 15 2025 06:21 Husyelt wrote:schumer you pig f*ck just voted against your own leverage and power. co equal branches of gov is woke now. www.wsj.com 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? This is really getting confusing. Next step is multiple of them in same post talking to each other.
LibHorizons: Seems it may be the only way for there to be any serious discussion from different Dem voting/supporting perspectives on what can/should be done to oppose Trump, Musk and the rising tide of fascism. As opposed to whatever deliberate right wing distraction everyone falls for every time because both sides get an ego boost from playing "pwn the lib/MAGA" and pointing out how stupid the other is.
None of the people (besides myself) that will be insisting on everyone supporting Democrats for the midterms/2028 has demonstrated any intention or desire to do/discuss the work to make sure those Democrats they support are any better than the ones collaborating with Trump on moving his agenda forward. Most, if not all, have demonstrated plenty of desire to discuss the most asinine things bad faith right wingers put in front of you.
Democrats/their supporters are delusional if they don't understand how harmful that is for our chances to win anything meaningfully positive in the midterms or 2028.
|
On March 17 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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? First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem. Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious.
As Zelensky accurately pointed out, Trump is in a misinformation bubble. These talking points:
- the US is spending massive amounts of money on its military because it is subsidizing the defense of allies out of the kindness of its heart
- healthcare/drugs are expensive for Americans because the US is subsidizing medical research for the world
- the US has a trade deficit because its allies take advantage of its generosity
They have been popular smoke shows for the Fox News-type audience for decades to lie to average Americans about why they can't have good services and social safety. Trump genuinely believed all of that, he didn't get the memo that he wasn't the target demographic for those smoke shows.
I don't know whether you missed it, or intentionally only respond to the short quips where you can find some avenue to argue - but Nezgar explained the first one to you in detail a couple of pages back.
But even in the ones you did respond to, you completely ignored the meat of it - which is that before the negotiations even started, Trump asked Ukraine to give Russia territories that Russia doesn't even have military control over.
Or what Wombat (I think) pointed out - that Trump says both that Europe needs to handle its own issues while at the same time barging in to lead negotiations.
Truth is you've always been nothing more than a polite oBlade, there's no internally consistent worldview to debate. It's all just finding some weird angle to defend Trump/conservative myths by shoving the incoherent aspects of their policy under the rug to pounce on some irrelevant detail that someone misspoke on.
|
On March 17 2025 04:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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. On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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? First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem. Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious. As Zelensky accurately pointed out, Trump is in a misinformation bubble. These talking points: - the US is spending massive amounts of money on its military because it is subsidizing the defense of allies out of the kindness of its heart - healthcare/drugs are expensive for Americans because the US is subsidizing medical research for the world - the US has a trade deficit because its allies take advantage of its generosity They have been popular smoke shows for the Fox News-type audience for decades to lie to average Americans about why they can't have good services and social safety. Trump genuinely believed all of that, he didn't get the memo that he wasn't the target demographic for those smoke shows. I don't know whether you missed it, or intentionally only respond to the short quips where you can find some avenue to argue - but Nezgar explained the first one to you in detail a couple of pages back. But even in the ones you did respond to, you completely ignored the meat of it - which is that before the negotiations even started, Trump asked Ukraine to give Russia territories that Russia doesn't even have military control over. Or what Wombat (I think) pointed out - that Trump says both that Europe needs to handle its own issues while at the same time barging in to lead negotiations. Truth is you've always been nothing more than a polite oBlade, there's no internally consistent worldview to debate. It's all just finding some weird angle to defend Trump/conservative myths by shoving the incoherent aspects of their policy under the rug to pounce on some irrelevant detail that someone misspoke on.
Given the general tenor of the thread I have generally decided to ignore people, when possible, who say things like Trump is a Russian agent. That's why I ignored that post. Also I'm sticking to responding to people who are able maintain a civil discourse, for the most part. And I think it's unfair to call the posts I responded to as "short quips" but maybe that's less dismissive a phrase to you.
Meanwhile, as i have said repeatedly now, the souring American view of Europe is not new and Americans changing their priorities started over a decade ago. What's happening now is a consequence of that.
I guess I have to ask this way... What is it that Eurpoeans want from the US? Even what Biden was doing was only enabling a stalemate. Presumably no one would be insane enough to advocate for Ameican troops in combat. Americans have taken the lead in negotiation because at the moment they are the only ones with leverage on the allied side. The war had been going on for years and it's still true, just like it was when everything started. But again, that's not America's fault.
Secondly, oBlade has repeatedly said he isn't a conservative. I might actually be the only one here. As a conservative, I favor a lot of what Trump has done and don't a decent chunk too. That's always been true. As I explained to WombaT some months back, it's perfectly natural, given thread dynamics, for me to be defending Trump here more often than attacking him. I didn't vote for him in the primary or the general. If anything that makes me more unusual than most others who could be here defending him more than criticizing. I feel this has gotten very meta but I had to say something about because apparently you feel it's important.
Listen, I want Ukraine to "win" whatever that means at this point. But I also want to deal in reality. The west was too slow and thought Ukraine would lose too easily. Meanwhile, the US has other issues. It needs to look east, work on its military, in particular rebuilding the Navy.
I guess I ask again, what is it that you want the US to actually do? And why didn't it get done before Jan 20 2025?
|
United States42673 Posts
Ukraine is incredibly relevant to the east. China views Taiwan as Russia views Ukraine, territory that broke away from the empire during a time of weakness but which must be reconquered to restore the empire. A firm line on Ukrainian sovereignty is how America shows China it is serious about Taiwanese self governance. A weak line on Ukraine is how America invites China to test American resolve in the east.
The US has barely touched the arms it could supply to Ukraine. A lot of the restraint has been due to pork spending strategies (Ukrainian aid in the form of coupons for specific defence contractors) or giving them a limited budget which doesn’t reflect the real value of things. The US has boneyards filled with tanks they’ll never use but they’re valued at replacement cost and Ukraine has to pick between them and other needs. There’s also been the general inability to work with congress due to the republicans stonewalling aid. Biden could have, and should have, done more of course. The fact that not all the approved aid was even sent is ridiculous. But if McCain had been the leader of the Republicans, rather than Trump, we’d have seen the required consensus. It’s crazy that the equipment given to the Taliban dwarfs the equipment totals for Ukraine.
|
On March 17 2025 04:43 Introvert wrote:
Given the general tenor of the thread I have generally decided to ignore people, when possible, who say things like Trump is a Russian agent. That's why I ignored that post. Also I'm sticking to responding to people who are able maintain a civil discourse, for the most part.
That was no more or less civil than the average post here. The conclusion that the only scenario in which Trump's actions make sense is if he were working for Russia leaves room for him merely not making sense rather than being a Russian agent. I'm also leaning towards that explanation.
On March 17 2025 04:43 Introvert wrote:
I guess I have to ask this way... What is it that Eurpoeans want from the US? Even what Biden was doing was only enabling a stalemate. Presumably no one would be insane enough to advocate for Ameican troops in combat. Americans have taken the lead in negotiation because at the moment they are the only ones with leverage on the allied side. The war had been going on for years and it's still true, just like it was when everything started. But again, that's not America's fault.
I can only speak for myself, what I wanted from the US pre-January wasn't any special role compared to European countries, merely doing its part as an ally of Ukraine to help keep Russia's invasion at bay until Russia could no longer sustain it. Which I believe would have taken a couple of years more.
What I want from the US now is to simply not make things worse. This includes:
- not taking military action in Panama or Greenland
- either leave NATO or stay in it without further eroding its credibility
- if the US cannot get Putin to make an acceptable comprimise in the current negotiations just focus on America first as they said they would and leave that up to Ukraine, Russia and their allies to sort out. And if things go worse, not forming an axis with Russia and North Korea would be great
|
Norway28665 Posts
Tbh if the US wants to withdraw from NATO and become an isolated island that's her prerogative. It's not a course of action I favor as I believe the world faces some global challenges that we'd greatly benefit from the US participating in solving, but still, I'm not gonna sit here demanding anything.
But there's a big difference in being isolationist and being a mafia-like entity exploiting that alliances and reliances have been developed over the past many decades and then demanding protection money, or threatening to use military might to annex regions that are not currently part of the US (whether you believe it's bluster or not, it's still certainly a dangerous path to thread), or encouraging Russia to 'do whatever the hell it wants'. I'm fine with the US wanting to withdraw from the world, I'm not fine with the US trying to change the capitalistic internationalist liberal democratic world order into an ultra-capitalistic nationalist reactionary autocratic world order.
|
On March 17 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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. Show nested quote +On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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? First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem. Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious. Thanks for the response.
I get that Trump wants more defence spending by the EU, and that is entirely fair. But it has been increasing since 2014, and increasing rather sharply since the invasion.
in 2023 EU spending went up 16% compared to '22. 62% compared to '14
If there needs to be more the US can push for that but statements like "Maybe the US won't defend NATO allies that are attacked if we don't like how they spend" are extremely dangerous to a defensive organisation based on mutual defence.
Trump can push for more spending without directly telling Russia maybe they should consider invading some more countries.
And this unreliability from Trump also directly hurts the US when Europe spends more on military because there is now a bigger push for more domestic production investment rather then simply buying from the US.
Trumps unreliability will cost US military industries 10's/100s of billions.
You say they have resumed arms and intel sharing, but that itself is the issue. They stopped it. Trump, and/or Vance, decided Zelensky didn't grovel enough so he stops support. He stopped intelligence operations against Russia.
Has he ever denounced the actual invasion? he has certainly been repeating Russian disinformation like claiming Zelensky wasn't elected.
Maybe Trump isn't supportive of Russia but he has a fucked up with of showing it. And yes sometimes he threatens Russia with some action but that just circles back to the absolute garbage messaging coming out of the administration. It changes from day to day seemingly on a whim.
|
He has never denounced the invasion. What's more, he praised Putin and called it a genius move.
|
On March 17 2025 04:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 04:22 Dan HH wrote:On March 17 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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. On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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? First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem. Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious. As Zelensky accurately pointed out, Trump is in a misinformation bubble. These talking points: - the US is spending massive amounts of money on its military because it is subsidizing the defense of allies out of the kindness of its heart - healthcare/drugs are expensive for Americans because the US is subsidizing medical research for the world - the US has a trade deficit because its allies take advantage of its generosity They have been popular smoke shows for the Fox News-type audience for decades to lie to average Americans about why they can't have good services and social safety. Trump genuinely believed all of that, he didn't get the memo that he wasn't the target demographic for those smoke shows. I don't know whether you missed it, or intentionally only respond to the short quips where you can find some avenue to argue - but Nezgar explained the first one to you in detail a couple of pages back. But even in the ones you did respond to, you completely ignored the meat of it - which is that before the negotiations even started, Trump asked Ukraine to give Russia territories that Russia doesn't even have military control over. Or what Wombat (I think) pointed out - that Trump says both that Europe needs to handle its own issues while at the same time barging in to lead negotiations. Truth is you've always been nothing more than a polite oBlade, there's no internally consistent worldview to debate. It's all just finding some weird angle to defend Trump/conservative myths by shoving the incoherent aspects of their policy under the rug to pounce on some irrelevant detail that someone misspoke on. Given the general tenor of the thread I have generally decided to ignore people, when possible, who say things like Trump is a Russian agent.
Why? Trump is clearly a useful idiot for Putin, wants to be like Putin, and uses his political power to actively help Putin. Is there some minor technicality that makes him not a Russian agent? Trump wasn't originally trained by Putin and Trump isn't originally from Russia, but Trump is obviously influenced by Putin.
|
United States42673 Posts
On March 17 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 04:43 Introvert wrote:On March 17 2025 04:22 Dan HH wrote:On March 17 2025 02:35 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 18:51 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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. On March 16 2025 20:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 16 2025 12:26 Introvert wrote:On March 16 2025 05:41 KwarK wrote: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? First, I think the forest being missed here is that the administration is asking, and had been asking since his first term, for the Europeans to spend more on their own defense. How can that be seen as being pro-Russian? I contend the only way that myopic view could make sense is that the Europeans think they don't have to do anything (and won't). Indeed, their relative inaction but constant whining might back up this view. But make no mistake, if they had taken this seriously there would less of a problem. Which leads to the second problem. Trump's rhetoric, which let's be real is mostly the problem at the moment. This administration has already resumed arms shipments and intel sharing, threatened more sanctions on Russia, not fewer (though those seem less and less effective), and is proposing a deal where America will have a very keen interest in continued Ukrainian security. You could say that's "giving stuff away" but at least for my part I have read almost no one saying Ukraine will get all its territory back. Again, I'd have given them everything from the beginning. But as previously discussed, asking America to take European security more seriously than the Europeans is not actually serious. As Zelensky accurately pointed out, Trump is in a misinformation bubble. These talking points: - the US is spending massive amounts of money on its military because it is subsidizing the defense of allies out of the kindness of its heart - healthcare/drugs are expensive for Americans because the US is subsidizing medical research for the world - the US has a trade deficit because its allies take advantage of its generosity They have been popular smoke shows for the Fox News-type audience for decades to lie to average Americans about why they can't have good services and social safety. Trump genuinely believed all of that, he didn't get the memo that he wasn't the target demographic for those smoke shows. I don't know whether you missed it, or intentionally only respond to the short quips where you can find some avenue to argue - but Nezgar explained the first one to you in detail a couple of pages back. But even in the ones you did respond to, you completely ignored the meat of it - which is that before the negotiations even started, Trump asked Ukraine to give Russia territories that Russia doesn't even have military control over. Or what Wombat (I think) pointed out - that Trump says both that Europe needs to handle its own issues while at the same time barging in to lead negotiations. Truth is you've always been nothing more than a polite oBlade, there's no internally consistent worldview to debate. It's all just finding some weird angle to defend Trump/conservative myths by shoving the incoherent aspects of their policy under the rug to pounce on some irrelevant detail that someone misspoke on. Given the general tenor of the thread I have generally decided to ignore people, when possible, who say things like Trump is a Russian agent. Why? Trump is clearly a useful idiot for Putin, wants to be like Putin, and uses his political power to actively help Putin. Is there some minor technicality that makes him not a Russian agent? Trump wasn't originally trained by Putin and Trump isn't originally from Russia, but Trump is obviously influenced by Putin.
You’re just saying that because Trump talks with Putin and then starts saying the things Putin wants him to. But if you set aside all the obvious influence that is undeniable when Trump literally repeats Putin’s talking points then it’s all a big nothing burger.
|
On March 17 2025 04:43 Introvert wrote:
I guess I have to ask this way... What is it that Eurpoeans want from the US? Even what Biden was doing was only enabling a stalemate. Presumably no one would be insane enough to advocate for Ameican troops in combat. Americans have taken the lead in negotiation because at the moment they are the only ones with leverage on the allied side. The war had been going on for years and it's still true, just like it was when everything started. But again, that's not America's fault.
Regarding Ukraine, I wanted the US, Europe and my country to keep pouring resources into Ukraine until it requests peace talks or Russia collapses. Yeah that's costly, but I believe it's necessary to show the whole world that no one can't act like Russia did right in front of the doors to the Western world. I wouldn't be okay with demanding American (or European) peacekeeping presence in Ukraine because that would be a political suicide in most Western countries. I would be okay with Americans leading the Western side in three-way negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the West. I think trying to start negotiations without consulting the UK and France is just insane and perhaps even more harmful to the Western world than cutting direct aid to Ukraine.
In general, although I was aware this can't last forever, I was content with America being the world police and Europe being "useless". I even thought the American elite wants Europe to remain useless because that would guarantee Europe won't participate in events like the Suez crisis without Washington's approval. America being world police was supposed to be good for the US because this gave you tools to keep your interests secure in every part of the globe. This was also supposed to be good for Europeans as weaker partners in the Western world, because everywhere American companies can operate, sooner or later European companies can show up too.
|
Northern Ireland25276 Posts
@Sent yeah pretty much. Posted this prior to reading yours, wouldn’t have bothered if I had!
Contrast the Trump administration with Israel, and said same administration with NATO members, but especially European ones. In both policy and rhetoric.
It’s incredibly illustrative. Look I don’t expect some kind of unconditional alliance in perpetuity even if NATO members aren’t meeting obligations, I don’t think most Europeans do either. Hey it’s nice to have, but it’s not a realistic expectation.
I mean does anyone here think any of Europe’s leadership was all that much more knowledgeable of what the US were putting on the table to broker when they went into various negotiations than us in here?
The whole cycle in very recent times is US does something, various European leaders hear about it, talk and figure out what the fuck to do about it until the next development. If it isn’t that. It sure as fuck looks like it.
Intelligence sharing, it’s off, it’s back on. Ok we’re sticking tariffs on some of ye now. Unreliable, unpredictable.
What’s wrong with bashing your heads together, coming up with a collective plan using your ostensible alliance and going from there?
‘Right we’ll agree a negotiation framework for Ukraine together, but we’re pulling support if we don’t see those defence spending numbers getting hit’
Trump can claim a win on something that was happening anyway. You can just picture it ‘I’ve restored an alliance, a great alliance believe me, I got them to pay their bills, they didn’t want to pay but they did’…
I mean it would be profoundly irritating to listen to that press conference but hey.
There are 100% plays where the US can squeeze various things out of their allies, including to be fair reasonable demands, without torching good relations.
|
On March 17 2025 02:42 Impervious wrote:
Honestly, from my perspective, Trump seems to want to have as much power and control of the government as possible, and he's challenging things and pushing boundaries everywhere. It's not always working, but he's definitely securing more control as the leader of the executive branch than he previously had.
Based on all of the crazy shit going on, especially with funding (which in the constitution is supposed to be up to Congress, and not the executive branch), I can see a bit of a strategic play here.
He's spoken about a soverign wealth fund. This type of thing has been successfully been used in other countries. It's a useful tool for the government to use to generate long-term wealth growth. There's a variety of ways to fund this. Nationalization of key industries would do it, but I suspect this would piss off enough people where it's off the table. This is kinda what some oil-rich nations have done. Another way that's been mentioned is selling off of public assets, including land. This money could go into that soverign wealth fund to kick-start it. I believe he is trying to ensure that the executive branch of the government is in control of this fund.
I suspect that the plan is to get these new tariffs in place, while simultaneously start this new soverign wealth fund, then find a way to send the money directly to this new soverign wealth fund, which would be under his control. This way a large chunk of money would directly bypass congress and be under the control of the executive. If I'm right, this is really quite a brilliant way to boost the power and reach of the executive branch. And it's fucking terrifying to see one person with that kind of power.
Given that Trump just turned the White House into a private showroom for Musk/Tesla, I don't see how anyone can think it's a good idea for him to have access to this amount of money and power. He's clearly willing to use the power he has as President to enrich his family, his friends, and his allies. He's shown us who he is already.
The entire purpose of the government split powers is to allow the different branches to fight against each other, to prevent any one branch from doing something destructive. They are all meant to hold some kind of power over the other branches. As a Canadian, I can see exactly why you would want your government to have split powers like this, and your founding fathers were quite brilliant with their execution of splitting up the power of the federal government. They saw how destructive a monarchy could become before the country was founded, and took steps to ensure it couldn't happen again in the USA.
Except now we seem to have the rest of the government bending over backwards to enable a new authoritarian. He may not be a monarch, but he's doing what looks like irreparable damage to the country..... Those that have the power to stop him are enabling him instead.
Wealth fund is when a country has paid off their debt; it's the excess you have left over. If you open up a credit card and spend $100000 on hookers and blow, then open a savings account and put $100 in it, you haven't set up a wealth fund; you are still $999900 in debt.
How you go about paying off your debt is the same way you go about getting a wealth fund: You need go collect more money than you spend.
Edit: better explanation
|
On March 17 2025 08:03 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 02:42 Impervious wrote:
Honestly, from my perspective, Trump seems to want to have as much power and control of the government as possible, and he's challenging things and pushing boundaries everywhere. It's not always working, but he's definitely securing more control as the leader of the executive branch than he previously had.
Based on all of the crazy shit going on, especially with funding (which in the constitution is supposed to be up to Congress, and not the executive branch), I can see a bit of a strategic play here.
He's spoken about a soverign wealth fund. This type of thing has been successfully been used in other countries. It's a useful tool for the government to use to generate long-term wealth growth. There's a variety of ways to fund this. Nationalization of key industries would do it, but I suspect this would piss off enough people where it's off the table. This is kinda what some oil-rich nations have done. Another way that's been mentioned is selling off of public assets, including land. This money could go into that soverign wealth fund to kick-start it. I believe he is trying to ensure that the executive branch of the government is in control of this fund.
I suspect that the plan is to get these new tariffs in place, while simultaneously start this new soverign wealth fund, then find a way to send the money directly to this new soverign wealth fund, which would be under his control. This way a large chunk of money would directly bypass congress and be under the control of the executive. If I'm right, this is really quite a brilliant way to boost the power and reach of the executive branch. And it's fucking terrifying to see one person with that kind of power.
Given that Trump just turned the White House into a private showroom for Musk/Tesla, I don't see how anyone can think it's a good idea for him to have access to this amount of money and power. He's clearly willing to use the power he has as President to enrich his family, his friends, and his allies. He's shown us who he is already.
The entire purpose of the government split powers is to allow the different branches to fight against each other, to prevent any one branch from doing something destructive. They are all meant to hold some kind of power over the other branches. As a Canadian, I can see exactly why you would want your government to have split powers like this, and your founding fathers were quite brilliant with their execution of splitting up the power of the federal government. They saw how destructive a monarchy could become before the country was founded, and took steps to ensure it couldn't happen again in the USA.
Except now we seem to have the rest of the government bending over backwards to enable a new authoritarian. He may not be a monarch, but he's doing what looks like irreparable damage to the country..... Those that have the power to stop him are enabling him instead. Wealth fund is when a country has paid off their debt; it's the excess you have left over. Norway has a huge wealth fund because instead of having $37 trillion in debt, we have $1.7 trillion in our savings account. How you go about paying off your debt is the same way you go about getting a wealth fund: You need go collect more money than you spend.
And so far, there seems to be exactly one way of doing so: Having very large amounts of natural resources, and making sure that the wealth from those actually goes towards the people and not specific individuals.
I don't think i know of a country without debt that doesn't fit this.
|
On March 17 2025 08:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2025 08:03 Excludos wrote:On March 17 2025 02:42 Impervious wrote:
Honestly, from my perspective, Trump seems to want to have as much power and control of the government as possible, and he's challenging things and pushing boundaries everywhere. It's not always working, but he's definitely securing more control as the leader of the executive branch than he previously had.
Based on all of the crazy shit going on, especially with funding (which in the constitution is supposed to be up to Congress, and not the executive branch), I can see a bit of a strategic play here.
He's spoken about a soverign wealth fund. This type of thing has been successfully been used in other countries. It's a useful tool for the government to use to generate long-term wealth growth. There's a variety of ways to fund this. Nationalization of key industries would do it, but I suspect this would piss off enough people where it's off the table. This is kinda what some oil-rich nations have done. Another way that's been mentioned is selling off of public assets, including land. This money could go into that soverign wealth fund to kick-start it. I believe he is trying to ensure that the executive branch of the government is in control of this fund.
I suspect that the plan is to get these new tariffs in place, while simultaneously start this new soverign wealth fund, then find a way to send the money directly to this new soverign wealth fund, which would be under his control. This way a large chunk of money would directly bypass congress and be under the control of the executive. If I'm right, this is really quite a brilliant way to boost the power and reach of the executive branch. And it's fucking terrifying to see one person with that kind of power.
Given that Trump just turned the White House into a private showroom for Musk/Tesla, I don't see how anyone can think it's a good idea for him to have access to this amount of money and power. He's clearly willing to use the power he has as President to enrich his family, his friends, and his allies. He's shown us who he is already.
The entire purpose of the government split powers is to allow the different branches to fight against each other, to prevent any one branch from doing something destructive. They are all meant to hold some kind of power over the other branches. As a Canadian, I can see exactly why you would want your government to have split powers like this, and your founding fathers were quite brilliant with their execution of splitting up the power of the federal government. They saw how destructive a monarchy could become before the country was founded, and took steps to ensure it couldn't happen again in the USA.
Except now we seem to have the rest of the government bending over backwards to enable a new authoritarian. He may not be a monarch, but he's doing what looks like irreparable damage to the country..... Those that have the power to stop him are enabling him instead. Wealth fund is when a country has paid off their debt; it's the excess you have left over. Norway has a huge wealth fund because instead of having $37 trillion in debt, we have $1.7 trillion in our savings account. How you go about paying off your debt is the same way you go about getting a wealth fund: You need go collect more money than you spend. And so far, there seems to be exactly one way of doing so: Having very large amounts of natural resources, and making sure that the wealth from those actually goes towards the people and not specific individuals. I don't think i know of a country without debt that doesn't fit this.
Correct. The US could easily have made itself an incredibly wealthy country if they had actually taxed their companies and the rich properly (or taken ownership). Now their debt is spiraling out of control, and somehow no political leader are willing to do anything about the brick wall they are accelerating towards. There's a very real chance we will see the interest rates of the US debt become larger than their entire income in only a few decades, at that point you have a literal bankruptcy. If we think the world is in turmoil now, this will lit it on fire.
Edit: At the current rate, US debt interest spending will be higher than their entire military budget by 2028. By 2033, it will be 20% of the entire federal budget. Everyone knows this isn't remotely sustainable, yet no one is willing to do anything about it
|
Northern Ireland25276 Posts
On March 17 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:
Ukraine is incredibly relevant to the east. China views Taiwan as Russia views Ukraine, territory that broke away from the empire during a time of weakness but which must be reconquered to restore the empire. A firm line on Ukrainian sovereignty is how America shows China it is serious about Taiwanese self governance. A weak line on Ukraine is how America invites China to test American resolve in the east.
The US has barely touched the arms it could supply to Ukraine. A lot of the restraint has been due to pork spending strategies (Ukrainian aid in the form of coupons for specific defence contractors) or giving them a limited budget which doesn’t reflect the real value of things. The US has boneyards filled with tanks they’ll never use but they’re valued at replacement cost and Ukraine has to pick between them and other needs. There’s also been the general inability to work with congress due to the republicans stonewalling aid. Biden could have, and should have, done more of course. The fact that not all the approved aid was even sent is ridiculous. But if McCain had been the leader of the Republicans, rather than Trump, we’d have seen the required consensus. It’s crazy that the equipment given to the Taliban dwarfs the equipment totals for Ukraine.
That, does sound crazy. Although, seemingly checks out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
