Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 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's one side of the argument, and a good one. The alternate side is that pivoting away from Europe, even to Europe's consternation, shows the seriousness of our concern in the Pacific. Of course that depends on what the US does in that theater.
And yes, more could be sent but it's not obvious the effect? I would have given them everything but I don't know if anyone thinks they can still reclaim all their stolen land. This seems to be one area where America really does have the edge, in that I think most Europeans armies have almost nothing to give (even years later). It's also unclear, from what I understand, what use the Ukrainians could have made of those things earlier. They require training, maintenance, and the like.
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
Most of the posts here the last few months have been rather silly and often uncivil, I'd say.
Does it actually seem like Russia is going to run out of juice before Ukraine does though? it's a nice thought but I don't know how feasible that is. There will be no Russia/NK/US axis lol, although the US has a dim hope of detaching Russia from China if it can. Not an unprecedented thing, but maybe not super likely. Neither Panama nor Greenland would see any military action I really don't think. Aquring Greenland has been something previous administrations back at least to the 1870s have been interested in iirc. Not as well read on this but given that Ukraine is not in NATO, and in fact has been very consciously kept out, I don't know if how much more of it's credibility it will lose. It's not like Russia is in any sort of state to attack a NATO ally in the first place.
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.
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.
Spending has been going up, and a bunch of NATO countries are now above 2%. But is not more needed?
See I'm viewing this a different way, perhaps we are seeing actions and reactions reversed. American pullback is to reorient itself further east, yes. But the entire alliance is strengthened when the other NATO countries are taking things more seriously. The US more likely to continue cooperation, sell things, help when asked, etc, when it thinks that everyone is playing their part. I think that's true for Trump as much as any other president. Unreliability begets distrust, and distrust begets unreliability. If you say "Europe will buy less" maybe the response is "they already don't buy enough."
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.
I think sometimes we are forgetting that Ukraine is not in NATO. I do think things would be different if it were, say, Estonia as KwarK mentioned yesterday.
I have always had an issue with the way Trump talked but I've also grown to understand it. He'll play nice and hard with whomever he thinks he needs to. The other day a reporter asked him about calling Zelensky a dictator Trump said something like "Did I say that? That doesn't sound right. Next question." Again I say that having American corporations involved in Ukraine might be one of the best guarantees you could have lol. I would think if anything people on the left would go back to stories about "American imperialism" and be able to figure that out.
I know Trump is making America more unpopular around the world, but I think some of that was inevitable. Trump's rhetoric doesn't help, but things have changed. The United States doesn't have the will, the means, or the capacity to be everywhere anymore. So it makes even less sense for it to be somewhere that should be fine without it. Perhaps things will change again in the future. And again I think it's more damaging long term to both power and prestige for the US to spread itself too thin.
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
There is an important difference between a typical person's debt and the US government debt. The US Government can borrow money at low rates and it could potentially create a sovereign wealth fund that returns approximately market rate. Granted, the treasury is currently paying out 4.75% on 20 year bonds, so not exactly the heyday of low interest borrowing, but it could still borrow money at 4.75% and invest in the S&P500 which has returned 12.8% annually over the last 10 years (or 10.4% annually since 1965).
So it would make sense for the US to invest rather than pay down debt and probably even makes sense to borrow new money to invest. Granted, if you do that too much, people could lose faith in your currency and hyper-inflation could take over and destroy the value of your money. But the debt is denominated in $s, so it too would be partially inflated away. Alternatively, they could lose faith in your bonds rather than the currency and the interest rates on the bonds could start to match the market and the scheme stops working.
Granted, I don't think Trump would have any clue about what I just said. He just sees that other countries have sovereign wealth funds and that's it's a good thing for them and so thinks we should too.
On March 17 2025 09:40 Introvert wrote: Does it actually seem like Russia is going to run out of juice before Ukraine does though? it's a nice thought but I don't know how feasible that is. There will be no Russia/NK/US axis lol, although the US has a dim hope of detaching Russia from China if it can. Not an unprecedented thing, but maybe not super likely. Neither Panama nor Greenland would see any military action I really don't think. Aquring Greenland has been something previous administrations back at least to the 1870s have been interested in iirc. Not as well read on this but given that Ukraine is not in NATO, and in fact has been very consciously kept out, I don't know if how much more of it's credibility it will lose. It's not like Russia is in any sort of state to attack a NATO ally in the first place.
My expectations from the current US admin are very low, yes. Hope they can at least meet those. Some talks about Greenland 150 years ago are not remotely relevant, today Denmark is a partner and an ally of the US and this is the kind of thing I was referring to in regards to NATO's credibility. Having your largest member threaten Denmark and Canada with annexations, threaten to leave every 2 weeks but not actually do it, threaten to stay in but not actually fullfil any call to action - we don't need this. The whole point of NATO is deterrence and right now the US is not offering any credible deterrence but actively undermining it. Ideally they stay in and in 4 years there's people that understand foreign policy in charge again, but the 2nd best option is they pull out rather than erode it from within.
NATO's credibility doesn't just affect member states but also non-member partners such as Moldova or Georgia. I don't expect someone from across the ocean to care about some tiny country they've vaguely seen mentioned once every two years but this is important to us here. And then there's the Taiwan issue of course, as Kwark pointed out.
Regarding Panama, there was a story a few days ago about Trump asking the Pentagon to draw up plans for a military takeover of the Panama Canal. Could it be a fake leak? Sure. Could it be a real preparation that will never actually be used? Sure. But in my experience everytime he proposed something crazy which was defended as being a joke it turned out to not be a joke and he either did it or attempted to do it and was stopped. So I'm taking this very seriously knowing that if he does do it, the same voices from the US that are now calling it a joke will then call it a brilliant and necessary move rather than seeing it as a red line he crossed.
As for Ukraine, the difference is that Ukraine has been fighting for its existence while Russia has been fighting for a luxury. It's not so much that Russia would have ran out of juice first as it is that how much they can squeeze the juicebox is based on those motives. The US didn't run out of juice before the Taliban or the Vietcong, it just wasn't an existential necessity for them to keep pouring it.
On March 17 2025 05:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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.
I think its fair to ask European countries to commit to a % of GDP in defense or being kicked out of NATO within a time frame, also the tariff war should have been against China to curb stump Xi, not against your closest allies lol wtf.
Coming to the table to talk about extra spending on defense is the way to do this. Throwing petty temper tantrums and toddlerish hissy fits to get your way, makes you look schizophrenic and unreliable and will make you quickly have to consider way more on your own than the "they're not contributing enough".
It's funny that they accused Biden admin of US chest thumping when it's entirely possible that's what they'll have to do when steady alliances are reconsidering and maybe even turn tail because they're finally fed up with this unhinged bullshit.
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
There is an important difference between a typical person's debt and the US government debt. The US Government can borrow money at low rates and it could potentially create a sovereign wealth fund that returns approximately market rate. Granted, the treasury is currently paying out 4.75% on 20 year bonds, so not exactly the heyday of low interest borrowing, but it could still borrow money at 4.75% and invest in the S&P500 which has returned 12.8% annually over the last 10 years (or 10.4% annually since 1965).
So it would make sense for the US to invest rather than pay down debt and probably even makes sense to borrow new money to invest. Granted, if you do that too much, people could lose faith in your currency and hyper-inflation could take over and destroy the value of your money. But the debt is denominated in $s, so it too would be partially inflated away. Alternatively, they could lose faith in your bonds rather than the currency and the interest rates on the bonds could start to match the market and the scheme stops working.
Granted, I don't think Trump would have any clue about what I just said. He just sees that other countries have sovereign wealth funds and that's it's a good thing for them and so thinks we should too.
The US government investing in the US stock market would be an interesting move to say the least. You're right that a country is not easily compared to personal finances, but you're wrong about the reason. The reason you say is a personal finances reason: I can take out a second mortgage on my house and get a low interest rate and use that to invest. But I am a consumer of currency. The US government (and other countries) is a producer of currency. They don't technically borrow money: they simply print it (well, nowadays it's digital so not even limited by how fast a printer can literally print USD). Thus the US "borrowing" money to "invest" in an S&P 500 index, is the equivalent of the US government taking over parts of S&P 500 companies. The only difference between that and a "communist" takeover is that the fat cats that own the stock right now get rich off the action. Overall it seems like terrible policy. If you want to socialize some of the US economy, it seems more logical to start with amenities, but definitely something GH should be interested in discussing as himself rather than one of his larpy characters! It also seems like you'd want to reduce billionaires' wealth in the process, not increase it. If you want to socialize Tesla, Amazon and Apple "for the good of the country", you should just take that shit away from Musk, Bezos and Tim Cook, rather than give them a massive payout.
Sovereign Wealth Funds don't work like that. What the Norwegian fund does isn't invest in Norwegian companies and hope the price goes up to earn money. No, it invests that in foreign companies that aren't already creating wealth for Norway. That way, when the oil runs out, Norway as a country, can keep paying pensions, schools and hospitals in a similar way as today because they diversified their "economy" by buying bits of the international economy. Norway as a country owns a stake in Apple: an entity they would otherwise not get anything from. A similar thing is done by the Saudis, but with more going into a slush fund for PR, so they can keep abusing human rights, but they're paying for football, golf and SC2 so it's okay.
This same model is unlikely to work for the US: if the Norwegians or Saudis run out of oil, it's unlikely to tank the global economy, so diversifying globally is a smart move. If the US dollar tanks, it doesn't matter how much Saudi oil or Chinese bonds they bought. All of that is either denominated in dollars, linked to something denominated in dollars or inextricably linked to the global economy: all of which will be inextricably linked to the value of the US dollar. So it seems that from a "future wealth" perspective, the US should work on ensuring trust remains strong in the US dollar, so people will want to keep trading in it. That isn't done by borrowing more to build a sovereign fund, it's done by ensuring stability and growth. Something most US presidents understood...
But Acro, what about the Government Pension Fund of Norway?! They do exactly what you said the US shouldn't do and is buying stock on the Norwegian stock exchange!
Yes, but Norway isn't in late stage capitalism: diversifying the government's stake from just owning oil to owning a general slice of the Norwegian economy is part of socialism there. I don't actually know enough to say whether it's a good idea or not, but I know enough to say that starting doing this in the 60s in Norway with oil money makes it a lot more likely to be a good idea than doing the same in the 2020s in the US with expanded government debt.
On March 17 2025 05:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: 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.
I think its fair to ask European countries to commit to a % of GDP in defense or being kicked out of NATO within a time frame, also the tariff war should have been against China to curb stump Xi, not against your closest allies lol wtf.
Yeah demanding some set % is fine and much like how the entire political spectrum here is united in 'trump is an unhinged liar who forces us to rethink the idea of the US as a reliable ally', it's also pretty much united in 'we're actually willing to concede that Europe should've spent more on its own security and demanding that we spend more was entire fair'.
On March 17 2025 18:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump just made a Twitter post saying that Biden's pardons don't count. It looks like Trump is going to go after people that Biden had pardoned.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Trump - Jan 23, 2016
Democratic states should star preparing to secede from the US. Would be illegal, but hey that's the new theme okay?
On March 17 2025 09:40 Introvert wrote: I know Trump is making America more unpopular around the world, but I think some of that was inevitable. Trump's rhetoric doesn't help, but things have changed. The United States doesn't have the will, the means, or the capacity to be everywhere anymore. So it makes even less sense for it to be somewhere that should be fine without it. Perhaps things will change again in the future. And again I think it's more damaging long term to both power and prestige for the US to spread itself too thin.
I don't think we are as much in disagreement as it looked at first. I think all of Europe accepts that the US wants to diminish its sphere of influence -- as you put it, you feel like you're spread too thin. I think you're also on board with the point we're making that stopping Putin is just good long-term thinking -- you have said in your post that you support strengthening Ukraine as realistically possible.
I have no qualm with any of these.
What's your assessment of the way Trump is going about achieving these goals?
I would argue that Trump could achieve America's longterm goals without antagonising its allies, but I guess that's just a Euro-centric opinion.
On March 17 2025 18:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump just made a Twitter post saying that Biden's pardons don't count. It looks like Trump is going to go after people that Biden had pardoned.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Trump - Jan 23, 2016
Democratic states should star preparing to secede from the US. Would be illegal, but hey that's the new theme okay?
Still kinda wild that Trump of all people would start doubting pardons. That only makes sense if he believes that he will never not be president.
Of course, it also motivates all the people he pardoned to make sure he stays president at all cost, because else they might be on the hook again, if pardons suddenly only matter as long as your guy is president.
Canada can keep its national anthem while still being a 51st state says Trump. He is already angling towards exchanging zero% tariffs for partial oil, mineral, and natural resources rights.
On March 17 2025 19:45 EnDeR_ wrote: I would argue that Trump could achieve America's longterm goals without antagonising its allies, but I guess that's just a Euro-centric opinion.
Check Obama's videos where he talks about slashing government spending and deporting millions of illegals. Check out all the hard-core hard-right move Canada PM Jean Chretien made during his tenure. Way tougher on crime... slashing unemployment benefits super hard and lowering the debt while running a surplus. Both Chretien's and Obama's messaging was far more diplomatic. Liberal Party PM Chretien moved Canada so far right and no one except a few think tanks noticed. The CBC is so clueless.
I think the best thing for most G7 countries is a guy who dresses himself up as "left of center". In reality, the guy (or Margaret Thatcher ) is a hard-core, fuck-you, radical centrist making the ugly right wing moves necessary in the real world. Guys like Jean Chretien and Barack Obama are the model.
On March 17 2025 21:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada can keep its national anthem while still being a 51st state says Trump. He is already angling towards exchanging zero% tariffs for partial oil, mineral, and natural resources rights.
Mafia shakedown. How can any of my fellow Americans be ok with this?
On March 17 2025 21:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada can keep its national anthem while still being a 51st state says Trump. He is already angling towards exchanging zero% tariffs for partial oil, mineral, and natural resources rights.
Mafia shakedown. How can any of my fellow Americans be ok with this?
If Canada had the capacity to protect its own arctic borders it would not need the USA's protection.
On March 17 2025 21:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada can keep its national anthem while still being a 51st state says Trump. He is already angling towards exchanging zero% tariffs for partial oil, mineral, and natural resources rights.
Mafia shakedown. How can any of my fellow Americans be ok with this?
If Canada had the capacity to protect its own arctic borders it would not need the USA's protection.
"Nice border you got there. But so unprotected. Would be a shame if something happened to it. Maybe you should look for some protection? It is really dangerous out there, you know?"
On March 17 2025 21:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Canada can keep its national anthem while still being a 51st state says Trump. He is already angling towards exchanging zero% tariffs for partial oil, mineral, and natural resources rights.
Mafia shakedown. How can any of my fellow Americans be ok with this?
If Canada had the capacity to protect its own arctic borders it would not need the USA's protection.
"Nice border you got there. But so unprotected. Would be a shame if something happened to it. Maybe you should look for some protection? It is really dangerous out there, you know?"
Canada can not protect its northern border. Years earlier Trump requested Canada's military spending reach 2% GDP. Trudeau laughed at the request and said he'd get there by 2032.
There is a reason why Trudeau was at 20% approval his last year in power and the lowest popular vote PM on 2 separate occasions. He made some very dumb moves.
If the US is going to spend money protecting the Arctic... Canada is going to help pay for it in some manner. If not, if Canada just gets a free ride then Canada is not really a country. Canada is more like a US State.
Its pretty hilarious that Trump is saying the same things I said about Canada on this board many years earlier. Canada is not really a country. Its more of an economic zone than anything. In many ways Canada is nonviable as a country. It is a miracle guys like Pierre Elliot Trudeau managed to get 25 million people spread across the 2nd largest nation on earth to thrive.
Who does Canada need their Arctic protection from? Do you think its in Americas interest to have it and greenlands part controlled by friendly governments or Chinese friendly governments?
Its exactly mob behavior to allude to a need to protect things and to extort demands from that implication. Canada was already our resource basin that we were exploiting just fine. Pissing them off to engender nationalist movements that make them more likely to prefer Chinese protection than American protection is stupid. Greenland was a few hundred thousand people who want to be left alone, Making the EU rethink the reliability of the US as a partner and not buying our military equipment is stupid.
Its stupid people who think the only way for other nations to pay us back is in direct money transfers that will hurt us more than anything.
Jimmy. What countries in the world can protect themselves from the US or China besides a select few? Is that an excuse for the US and China to take over the globe? What the fuck is wrong with you.
So if Canada is going to run around making disputed land claims it needs a military to back up that claim.
On March 17 2025 21:34 Sadist wrote: Jimmy. What countries in the world can protect themselves from the US or China besides a select few? Is that an excuse for the US and China to take over the globe? What the fuck is wrong with you.
i am just fine. Canada is the 2nd largest nation on earth and requires military resources to protect itself. Canada is not Finland.
The world is about making babies , developing them into adults, along with military force and the ability to apply it strategically for maximum impact. The military force protects the babies and children. That is all we're here for. Once that is established you can then build a civilization then you or I can party our asses off and go to PC Bangs all night playing Starcraft.
On March 17 2025 21:34 Sadist wrote: Jimmy. What countries in the world can protect themselves from the US or China besides a select few? Is that an excuse for the US and China to take over the globe? What the fuck is wrong with you.
i am just fine. Canada is the 2nd largest nation on earth and requires military resources to protect itself. Canada is not Finland.
The world is about making babies , developing them into adults, along with military force and the ability to apply it strategically for maximum impact. That is all we're here for. Once that is established you can then build a civilization.
Protect itself from who? It has a population of 40M. Its not protecting itself from the US (330M) or China (1.5B). The globe works together to keep morons who are expanionist in check. Are you a US citizen or on a green card? If you arent a US citizen you know you can be shipped back and have to deal with an aggressive US right? Even if you received citizenship I wouldnt put it past the Trump admin to try to revoke status.
EPT
) is a hard-core, fuck-you, radical centrist making the ugly right wing moves necessary in the real world. Guys like Jean Chretien and Barack Obama are the model.
