|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 21 2026 07:08 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 21 2026 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Okay so we have LS (and Kwark in his typical shitposty way) insisting that "lesser evilism" is only an electoral strategy. I believe everyone here knows that's pretty obviously wrong. On January 21 2026 04:49 LightSpectra wrote:On January 21 2026 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 02:08 Doublemint wrote:
also invading is the easy part. it's holding things together where things get tricky. and very, very expensive.
Americans should know, so should Canucks still wearing their Ameriboo blinders. He doesn't actually want to administer these conquests. He'll make superficial narcissistic demands like renaming the country to something with "Trump" in it, recognizing him as their monarch/leader, and claiming some valuable real estate to sell to some billionaires. Otherwise they'll largely be left to their own devices (save some colonists probably). It'll make more sense to Canadians/Europeans to accept the terms than break entirely with the US and declare a military conflict they can't win. NATO is a dead institution walking. EDIT: You guys might want to push for Trump to annex Taiwan? "Lesser evilism" is specifically an electoral strategy, and it's really just a cynical rephrase of "vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning". Of course, you already knew that and are making a bad faith argument since you can't help yourself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion to give your opinion knowing nobody cares about it. and Jankisa supposing there is ONLY "lesser evilism" On January 21 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote:GH, serious question. Is there a country on this earth that is not evil? Is there a population that has a choice that is not picking the lesser evil? I can see you are in a loop where you manage to boil everything we talk about around here to this concept, so I'm wondering if there is any proof of any other concept being in existence. + Show Spoiler +
If there isn't, then why even bring it up? We might as well talk about farting rainbows and shitting cotton candy.
I'm less clear on whether people (besides LS and Kwark) believe Jankisa is wrong here. Clearly Jankisa and LightSpectra's positions are mutually exclusive. How do you all suppose we resolve that contradiction? It seems Gorsameth is leaning toward a "lesser evilism" (common in foreign policy) approach. Lesser evil analysis is + Show Spoiler +useful when there's a structured contest in which there are only two known choices and those choices have established values.
It is simply not applicable to countries choosing how to respond to pressure over Greenland for the reasons I made so obvious even an idiot would understand them. It is not a choice between giving Trump what he wants (-8 value) or giving megaTrump what he wants (-10 value). There's a huge range of potential choices with potential outcomes of different values.
It is a toolset for a purpose. You cannot take it out of its context and insist that people who think it is an appropriate analytical tool for the purpose must also support it in any absurd scenario you come up with.
As always, I am very smart. I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows people use "lesser evilism" and "harm reduction" to refer to selecting the least harmful option when all choices are undesirable. This is something people apply widely to ethical and political dilemmas. Some people think of it more as "realism/realpolitik". I'm just saying the EU and Canada are going to use that to rationalize what some of you would likely prefer to call "appeasement" because of the social context. People keep telling how they are constantly forced to choose between bad choices while denying the feasibility of other, more principled options. They are too risky. Too bad for the economy. Go against strategic interest. This comes of as washing your hands of making the choice. This is also often recommended to others as an option to just let things go. However, if someone proposes doing the same with Greenland or Ukraine, for example, it is considered lunacy. To me, GH is deliberately using this behaviour in situations where people are appalled by even the suggestion of such a solution, which would, in other cases, be described as forced and unpleasant. GH may even hope that people will recognise this in the future and be more critical of explanations that claim the choices are unavoidable.
Much like Republicans, they know, but their ostensible worldview is contingent on pretending they don't. This is regardless of how ridiculous the contortions may get.
|
On January 21 2026 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 06:57 ETisME wrote:On January 21 2026 06:28 Gorsameth wrote:On January 21 2026 06:23 ETisME wrote:
I am actually finding this whole thing so funny.
Europe is now sending troops over Greenland, sorry ukraine. It was, imo, the big mistake with Ukraine. Europe should have send in soldiers the moment they learned of Russia's plan to invade (and we knew well before it actually happened). Having troops there that you would need to fight is a much much bigger deterrent then the threat that you might do something after they have already invaded. (also NATO troops in Ukraine means going into an active war with Russia, troops in Greenland don't mean we are at war with the US) They are sending troops because it's a PR move.Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. It's not just PR though; there are actual negative repercussions caused by Trump, and we know Trump is willing to invade other countries because he just invaded Venezuela. A lot of his threats need to be taken seriously. The fact that European military resources are being allocated towards Greenland to defend against Trump's threats [1] [2] instead of being allocated towards Ukraine (or even simply waiting on standby in case they need to be allocated towards Ukraine) means that Trump is helping Russia/Putin and hurting Ukraine. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/20/us-europe-send-troops-greenland/88264498007/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo
What happened to TACO?
Trump is always and has always been unpredictable, that's his play.
Either way Ukraine was never going to get the men Greenland has right now, even when russia is ideologically incompatible with Europe and already causing "existential crisis for Europe"
|
|
|
On January 21 2026 11:41 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 07:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 21 2026 06:57 ETisME wrote:On January 21 2026 06:28 Gorsameth wrote:On January 21 2026 06:23 ETisME wrote:
I am actually finding this whole thing so funny.
Europe is now sending troops over Greenland, sorry ukraine. It was, imo, the big mistake with Ukraine. Europe should have send in soldiers the moment they learned of Russia's plan to invade (and we knew well before it actually happened). Having troops there that you would need to fight is a much much bigger deterrent then the threat that you might do something after they have already invaded. (also NATO troops in Ukraine means going into an active war with Russia, troops in Greenland don't mean we are at war with the US) They are sending troops because it's a PR move.Plus it's to show Trump they are "capable" to do something. If you outsourced the majority of defense to the US, really should have taken their advices and requests lots more seriously. I am still very impressed at EU earning more from fining US big tech than total tax from their own tech sector. It's not just PR though; there are actual negative repercussions caused by Trump, and we know Trump is willing to invade other countries because he just invaded Venezuela. A lot of his threats need to be taken seriously. The fact that European military resources are being allocated towards Greenland to defend against Trump's threats [1] [2] instead of being allocated towards Ukraine (or even simply waiting on standby in case they need to be allocated towards Ukraine) means that Trump is helping Russia/Putin and hurting Ukraine. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/20/us-europe-send-troops-greenland/88264498007/ [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo What happened to TACO? Trump is always and has always been unpredictable, that's his play. Either way Ukraine was never going to get the men Greenland has right now, even when russia is ideologically incompatible with Europe and already causing "existential crisis for Europe"
It’s not just unpredictable it’s erratic. He governs like a 3 years old, nothing makes any sense or has any follow up idea outside of his spite and his vanity. The unpredictability is not a play it’s a side effect of him being utterly unfit for the job.
|
United States43728 Posts
On January 21 2026 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 07:08 Legan wrote:On January 21 2026 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 21 2026 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Okay so we have LS (and Kwark in his typical shitposty way) insisting that "lesser evilism" is only an electoral strategy. I believe everyone here knows that's pretty obviously wrong. On January 21 2026 04:49 LightSpectra wrote:On January 21 2026 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 02:08 Doublemint wrote:
also invading is the easy part. it's holding things together where things get tricky. and very, very expensive.
Americans should know, so should Canucks still wearing their Ameriboo blinders. He doesn't actually want to administer these conquests. He'll make superficial narcissistic demands like renaming the country to something with "Trump" in it, recognizing him as their monarch/leader, and claiming some valuable real estate to sell to some billionaires. Otherwise they'll largely be left to their own devices (save some colonists probably). It'll make more sense to Canadians/Europeans to accept the terms than break entirely with the US and declare a military conflict they can't win. NATO is a dead institution walking. EDIT: You guys might want to push for Trump to annex Taiwan? "Lesser evilism" is specifically an electoral strategy, and it's really just a cynical rephrase of "vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning". Of course, you already knew that and are making a bad faith argument since you can't help yourself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion to give your opinion knowing nobody cares about it. and Jankisa supposing there is ONLY "lesser evilism" On January 21 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote:GH, serious question. Is there a country on this earth that is not evil? Is there a population that has a choice that is not picking the lesser evil? I can see you are in a loop where you manage to boil everything we talk about around here to this concept, so I'm wondering if there is any proof of any other concept being in existence. + Show Spoiler +
If there isn't, then why even bring it up? We might as well talk about farting rainbows and shitting cotton candy.
I'm less clear on whether people (besides LS and Kwark) believe Jankisa is wrong here. Clearly Jankisa and LightSpectra's positions are mutually exclusive. How do you all suppose we resolve that contradiction? It seems Gorsameth is leaning toward a "lesser evilism" (common in foreign policy) approach. Lesser evil analysis is + Show Spoiler +useful when there's a structured contest in which there are only two known choices and those choices have established values.
It is simply not applicable to countries choosing how to respond to pressure over Greenland for the reasons I made so obvious even an idiot would understand them. It is not a choice between giving Trump what he wants (-8 value) or giving megaTrump what he wants (-10 value). There's a huge range of potential choices with potential outcomes of different values.
It is a toolset for a purpose. You cannot take it out of its context and insist that people who think it is an appropriate analytical tool for the purpose must also support it in any absurd scenario you come up with.
As always, I am very smart. I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows people use "lesser evilism" and "harm reduction" to refer to selecting the least harmful option when all choices are undesirable. This is something people apply widely to ethical and political dilemmas. Some people think of it more as "realism/realpolitik". I'm just saying the EU and Canada are going to use that to rationalize what some of you would likely prefer to call "appeasement" because of the social context. People keep telling how they are constantly forced to choose between bad choices while denying the feasibility of other, more principled options. They are too risky. Too bad for the economy. Go against strategic interest. This comes of as washing your hands of making the choice. This is also often recommended to others as an option to just let things go. However, if someone proposes doing the same with Greenland or Ukraine, for example, it is considered lunacy. To me, GH is deliberately using this behaviour in situations where people are appalled by even the suggestion of such a solution, which would, in other cases, be described as forced and unpleasant. GH may even hope that people will recognise this in the future and be more critical of explanations that claim the choices are unavoidable. Much like Republicans, they know, but their ostensible worldview is contingent on pretending they don't. This is regardless of how ridiculous the contortions may get.
You just have a very poor understanding of the world.
If you’re presented with a scenario and can construct your own strategy from a blank sheet and choose the best that is not lesser evilism. Canada navigating the best path through the current crisis is not lesser evilism, it’s just not.
You’re desperately trying to apply it to situations in which it just doesn’t work but you just don’t have the understanding to see why it doesn’t work. It’s equal parts sad and tiresome. Have you ever considered just stopping sharing your ideas? I know you identify as someone who is highly political (as do I, I’m actually a literal abolitionist, thanks for asking) but you’re just not equipped for the task at hand.
|
On January 21 2026 17:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 07:08 Legan wrote:On January 21 2026 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 06:33 KwarK wrote:On January 21 2026 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Okay so we have LS (and Kwark in his typical shitposty way) insisting that "lesser evilism" is only an electoral strategy. I believe everyone here knows that's pretty obviously wrong. On January 21 2026 04:49 LightSpectra wrote:On January 21 2026 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2026 02:08 Doublemint wrote:
also invading is the easy part. it's holding things together where things get tricky. and very, very expensive.
Americans should know, so should Canucks still wearing their Ameriboo blinders. He doesn't actually want to administer these conquests. He'll make superficial narcissistic demands like renaming the country to something with "Trump" in it, recognizing him as their monarch/leader, and claiming some valuable real estate to sell to some billionaires. Otherwise they'll largely be left to their own devices (save some colonists probably). It'll make more sense to Canadians/Europeans to accept the terms than break entirely with the US and declare a military conflict they can't win. NATO is a dead institution walking. EDIT: You guys might want to push for Trump to annex Taiwan? "Lesser evilism" is specifically an electoral strategy, and it's really just a cynical rephrase of "vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning". Of course, you already knew that and are making a bad faith argument since you can't help yourself. It must be some kind of psychological compulsion to give your opinion knowing nobody cares about it. and Jankisa supposing there is ONLY "lesser evilism" On January 21 2026 05:27 Jankisa wrote:GH, serious question. Is there a country on this earth that is not evil? Is there a population that has a choice that is not picking the lesser evil? I can see you are in a loop where you manage to boil everything we talk about around here to this concept, so I'm wondering if there is any proof of any other concept being in existence. + Show Spoiler +
If there isn't, then why even bring it up? We might as well talk about farting rainbows and shitting cotton candy.
I'm less clear on whether people (besides LS and Kwark) believe Jankisa is wrong here. Clearly Jankisa and LightSpectra's positions are mutually exclusive. How do you all suppose we resolve that contradiction? It seems Gorsameth is leaning toward a "lesser evilism" (common in foreign policy) approach. Lesser evil analysis is + Show Spoiler +useful when there's a structured contest in which there are only two known choices and those choices have established values.
It is simply not applicable to countries choosing how to respond to pressure over Greenland for the reasons I made so obvious even an idiot would understand them. It is not a choice between giving Trump what he wants (-8 value) or giving megaTrump what he wants (-10 value). There's a huge range of potential choices with potential outcomes of different values.
It is a toolset for a purpose. You cannot take it out of its context and insist that people who think it is an appropriate analytical tool for the purpose must also support it in any absurd scenario you come up with.
As always, I am very smart. I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows people use "lesser evilism" and "harm reduction" to refer to selecting the least harmful option when all choices are undesirable. This is something people apply widely to ethical and political dilemmas. Some people think of it more as "realism/realpolitik". I'm just saying the EU and Canada are going to use that to rationalize what some of you would likely prefer to call "appeasement" because of the social context. People keep telling how they are constantly forced to choose between bad choices while denying the feasibility of other, more principled options. They are too risky. Too bad for the economy. Go against strategic interest. This comes of as washing your hands of making the choice. This is also often recommended to others as an option to just let things go. However, if someone proposes doing the same with Greenland or Ukraine, for example, it is considered lunacy. To me, GH is deliberately using this behaviour in situations where people are appalled by even the suggestion of such a solution, which would, in other cases, be described as forced and unpleasant. GH may even hope that people will recognise this in the future and be more critical of explanations that claim the choices are unavoidable. Much like Republicans, they know, but their ostensible worldview is contingent on pretending they don't. This is regardless of how ridiculous the contortions may get. + Show Spoiler +You just have a very poor understanding of the world.
If you’re presented with a scenario and can construct your own strategy from a blank sheet and choose the best that is not lesser evilism. Canada navigating the best path through the current crisis is not lesser evilism, it’s just not. + Show Spoiler +You’re desperately trying to apply it to situations in which it just doesn’t work but you just don’t have the understanding to see why it doesn’t work. It’s equal parts sad and tiresome. Have you ever considered just stopping sharing your ideas? I know you identify as someone who is highly political (as do I, I’m actually a literal abolitionist, thanks for asking) but you’re just not equipped for the task at hand.
This sort of pedantic contortionism is part of why I started with
On January 21 2026 04:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 04:24 PoulsenB wrote:
Canada/EU cannot give in to Trump's bullying because if they do he will demand more. And then some more. Then some more still.
Also I hope against hope that the US military will know better than agree to go against their current allies. Perhaps you've never heard about a funny little thing called "lesser evilism" and its buddy "harm mitigation"? Of course Canada and the EU MUST give in to Trump's bullying, because the alternative is immediately worse for everyone.
also: I'm pretty sure everyone else here knows people use "lesser evilism" and "harm reduction" to refer to selecting the least harmful option when all choices are undesirable. This is something people apply widely to ethical and political dilemmas.
Some people think of it more as "realism/realpolitik".
I'm just saying the EU and Canada are going to use that to rationalize what some of you would likely prefer to call "appeasement" because of the social context.
The point (which none of you are even disagreeing with afaict) is that Canada and the EU have to give in to Trump's bullying, and you're all just looking for the least bad/lesser evil way to do/rationalize it (however you want to phrase it).
It's infuriatingly shameful for everyone involved, so I understand why you petulantly/emotionally/personally lash out at me. It's just not conducive to productive discussion imo.
|
Lol, GH, if you are unwilling to answer simple questions and lay out your theory of the case, which you are, I asked you a bunch of very simple questions, then please refrain from putting things in others people's mouths.
What I and many others have been saying for a year now is that appeasement is a stupid strategy, I was even called stupid here for saying that EU rolling over and pretending like they got a great deal from Trump when it came to tariffs was incredibly damaging and that they should have picked a fight, they didn't and now he wants more.
He always wants more, he is evil, there is no lesser evil to negotiate with, stop with this nonsense.
|
GH can you read? I literally said two pages back that EU and Canada cannot give in to Trump. Are you dumb or just stirring shit up for kicks?
|
On January 21 2026 18:11 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Lol, GH, if you are unwilling to answer simple questions and lay out your theory of the case, which you are, I asked you a bunch of very simple questions, then please refrain from putting things in others people's mouths.
What I and many others have been saying for a year now is that appeasement is a stupid strategy, for saying that EU rolling over and pretending like they got a great deal from Trump when it came to tariffs was incredibly damaging and that they should have picked a fight, they didn't and now he wants more. He always wants more, he is evil, there is no lesser evil to negotiate with, stop with this nonsense.
I'm genuinely curious who did that?
"evil" isn't a word I typically use personally, but I mostly agree and basically think that applies to everything since at least Jan 6th and his failed insurrection. Anything less than locking his ass up for treason (or something similar) was/is functionally appeasing the fascists imo.
As to a "lesser evil" to negotiate with, in the FP context for the EU/Canada, it would seem to basically boil down to pivoting away from the US and toward China. Hence the threats on trade and [1] of using the ACI[2]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gwp2me3gzo
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coercion_Instrument
I basically just don't believe that the EU or Canada will pivot without having to buy at least a year or two with some concessions/appeasement to Trump's bullying (regardless of how we feel about whether they should).
It's basically how the NYT described Mexico sending Trump criminals (by demand).
Mexican authorities have now sent nearly 100 people accused of being key criminals to the United States.
The transfers are part of a larger effort by Mexican authorities to appease Mr. Trump as he threatens unilateral strikes inside Mexican territory — an act that President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has said would be a violation of her nation’s sovereignty.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/world/americas/mexico-cartels-suspects-trump.html
Appeasing Trump/Fascism/the US with some rhetoric/symbolism to the contrary is what is happening and continues to be the plan for the immediate future afaict, unless Poulsen has a plan we all don't know about?
|
GH, we're fast approaching the end of our patience with Trump. Many politicians are calling the pivot point in how to proceed. So I don't think you should underestjmate our principals. We have it good here, we don't want it not good. However, if a fucking 80 year old dementing strong man wants to flip the table, I'm quite sure we can turn it on quite fast if we feel like it. I just think we're very aware of the sacrifices it will take and want to hold it off as much as possible. Unified global world order seems vastly superior to forever war multipolarity, but it sure seems like Russia/China/US are hellbent on doing the latter.
|
On January 21 2026 18:11 Jankisa wrote:
Lol, GH, if you are unwilling to answer simple questions and lay out your theory of the case, which you are, I asked you a bunch of very simple questions, then please refrain from putting things in others people's mouths.
What I and many others have been saying for a year now is that appeasement is a stupid strategy, I was even called stupid here for saying that EU rolling over and pretending like they got a great deal from Trump when it came to tariffs was incredibly damaging and that they should have picked a fight, they didn't and now he wants more.
He always wants more, he is evil, there is no lesser evil to negotiate with, stop with this nonsense. Well on a positive note that 'appeasement' deal between the Trump and the EU is back off the table.Global markets on alert as Europe to suspend approval of US trade deal.
The European Parliament is planning to suspend approval of the US trade deal agreed in July, according to sources close to its international trade committee.
The suspension is set to be announced in Strasbourg, France on Wednesday. www.bbc.com
|
Trump's volatility is once again hurting national and global markets:
"Markets plunge as Trump reignites fears of a trade war over Greenland ... Global markets plunged Tuesday after President Donald Trump reignited fears of a U.S. trade war with the European Union, America's largest trading partner. ...
The S&P 500 ended Tuesday lower by around 2.1%, its worst day since October. The Nasdaq Composite plunged more than 2.4%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped around 870 points, just over 1.7%. The S&P 500's losses Tuesday erased the index's gains for the year so far. The Nasdaq is now down more than 1% in 2026.
The selling amounted to more than $1.2 trillion in value wiped out from the S&P 500, as investors digested the global shock waves of Trump's threat to tie U.S. tariffs to his broadly unpopular bid to acquire Greenland. Investors also sold off U.S. government bonds, driving up interest rates. Rising returns on U.S. treasuries usually translate into higher mortgage rates and interest on new personal loans.
Markets in Europe also experienced sharp drops Tuesday for the second day in a row. Germany's benchmark DAX index closed down 1%, Britain's FTSE 100 ended lower by 0.7%, and Italy's FTSE MIB slid 1.1%. The STOXX Europe 600, Europe's equivalent to the S&P 500, tumbled 0.7%, with a majority of stocks on the index ending the trading day in the red."
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/stock-market-trump-tariffs-greenland-rcna254918
|
Maybe the EU can appease Trump by giving him Iceland. Tiny little fascists dwelling there would make a fine addition to his collection.
It‘s an inside joke, kinda.
|
Well, you can read the few pages around the EU-USA "deal" that was negotiated by UVL that was praised by KwarK and touted as a good move by quite a few others here:
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5129
My stance was, as it is now, that giving "wins" to bullies even if they are bad for their country will lead to the bully coming back for more, and, lo and behold, he's back and now he wants territory. Who would have thunk it.
I'm sure that Rutte and people who think he's a great mastermind strategist playing Trump will be "come on, just one more concession, the elections are close and we'll get normal president" folks will be doing this shit well into his 3rd term.
|
@GH What is the difference between your personal definition of Lesser Evilism and Making the best decision possible with the information available?
And how would you suggest people/countries make decisions instead?
|
United States43728 Posts
On January 21 2026 22:24 Jankisa wrote:Well, you can read the few pages around the EU-USA "deal" that was negotiated by UVL that was praised by KwarK and touted as a good move by quite a few others here: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5129My stance was, as it is now, that giving "wins" to bullies even if they are bad for their country will lead to the bully coming back for more, and, lo and behold, he's back and now he wants territory. Who would have thunk it. I'm sure that Rutte and people who think he's a great mastermind strategist playing Trump will be "come on, just one more concession, the elections are close and we'll get normal president" folks will be doing this shit well into his 3rd term.
I praised the concept of trade. If you have a situation where both parties make 5 and one of them says that they're going to insist on replacing it with a situation where they make 3 and you make 4 then you take that deal. Not because it's better than what you have but because it's still worth having.
|
United States43728 Posts
On January 21 2026 22:48 Billyboy wrote:
@GH What is the difference between your personal definition of Lesser Evilism and Making the best decision possible with the information available?
And how would you suggest people/countries make decisions instead?
Why would they not just blame the Democrats.
|
I think you guys are too focused on democrats at this point. The Democratic Party is for sure not going to be a thing in the future. If Trump and his gang ever lose power, democrats will have had nothing to do with it. It will be a new, organic political movement that ends up having leaders who build their name entirely separate from the Democratic Party.
Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition. They won’t be making a big splash. They won’t have a big moment. Someone else will. And whoever that is will not be declaring themselves a Democrat
|
On January 22 2026 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I think you guys are too focused on democrats at this point. The Democratic Party is for sure not going to be a thing in the future. If Trump and his gang ever lose power, democrats will have had nothing to do with it. It will be a new, organic political movement that ends up having leaders who build their name entirely separate from the Democratic Party.
Jeffries and Schumer have made it clear they fully intend to simply function as controlled opposition. They won’t be making a big splash. They won’t have a big moment. Someone else will. And whoever that is will not be declaring themselves a Democrat
Unless they somehow can find the bank that the Ds have, they will indeed call themselves that. If only for the access and money. They can flip afterwards, but for the time being, they will declare D next to their name. Mamdani, Sanders, AOC, etc. They may have a variation of it, but they still are lock step with them.
What are you suggesting the new party be called?
|
On January 21 2026 23:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2026 22:24 Jankisa wrote:Well, you can read the few pages around the EU-USA "deal" that was negotiated by UVL that was praised by KwarK and touted as a good move by quite a few others here: https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5129My stance was, as it is now, that giving "wins" to bullies even if they are bad for their country will lead to the bully coming back for more, and, lo and behold, he's back and now he wants territory. Who would have thunk it. I'm sure that Rutte and people who think he's a great mastermind strategist playing Trump will be "come on, just one more concession, the elections are close and we'll get normal president" folks will be doing this shit well into his 3rd term. I praised the concept of trade. If you have a situation where both parties make 5 and one of them says that they're going to insist on replacing it with a situation where they make 3 and you make 4 then you take that deal. Not because it's better than what you have but because it's still worth having.
The wider discussion was very clearly about the negotiations and who do they hurt.
My thesis (outside the very simplified math that you hyper focused on) was that it's going to be incredibly damaging because EU objectively bent over and folded like a lawn chair and made some promises to appease Trump.
I've been saying for more then a year now that this is a failed strategy, I believe the current events clearly show this.
The countries that dealt with Trump and came away with least consequences are the ones that punch back, namely, China, you don't see him fucking with them.
China being the adversary was a huge part of his narrative for 9 years, then, over the last year he tried to pull his BS with them and they returned in kind, by using their leverage, and he folded.
Taiwan is but a footnote in the new USA Security doctrine, China is not the focus, you know what and who is? Well, it's the EU, the week, meek EU that showed it's soft underbelly and invited Trump and his ghouls to go for the kill.
This re-alignment happened in the exact period as these trade wars played out, you can attribute that to whatever you'd like, but I'm absolutely sure that EU rolling over contributed to what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
