US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5503

On February 15 2026 18:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Will be interesting to see if anything remains of the Atlantic alliance once those clowns get the boot.

I think they have a point though, Europe should never have to rely on the US for its independence and its security. The US is not a reliable partner, and its voters are so volatiles and clueless they can elect a completely erratic president that turns allies into foes.

The damage to US soft power is unbelievable.

On February 15 2026 20:28 KwarK wrote:

The enemy. They think you’re the enemy.

On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:


Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person

On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:
without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.

On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:
I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.

On February 15 2026 23:45 farvacola wrote:
These folks are so delusional they’ll even lick Marco fucking Rubio’s boots! There’s no telling how low the floor will go.

On February 16 2026 00:11 Dan HH wrote:

More ragebait than delusion, these guys didn't spend 100 hours of their free time arguing the super important distinction between Trump being found guilty of fingerrape versus forceful penile pentration for any practical reason, they can't get off anymore without being called Nazi degenerates on the daily. Anyone that doesn't enjoy it would have stopped baiting those responses about a decade ago.

On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote:
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.

I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...

anyways Rubio was quite good

On February 16 2026 02:05 Fleetfeet wrote:
That said, in a system that seems to reward being a blustering, bumbling ignoramus, if you're correct I'm surprised she's not even more popular.

On February 16 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:


She should be like Marjorie Taylor Green and blame wildfires on Jewish space lasers to win the centrist vote.

On February 16 2026 02:27 LightSpectra wrote:


She should be like Marjorie Taylor Green and blame wildfires on Jewish space lasers to win the centrist vote.

On February 15 2026 17:24 Yurie wrote:


Last year was a speech on the exact same topic with the same core content aimed at the core Republicans in the US. This year they got somebody that cares about how Europe reacts to a speech about Europe to write it. So it is a better speech, but is it different when you go to the core of it?

On February 15 2026 20:17 Jankisa wrote:


Democrats derangement syndrome in action again, can't talk about his preferred 2028 candidate who is obviously an incredibly morally dubious and completely unprincipled person without bringing up a smart, principled and well spoken person of color.

I'd be perplexed as to how can someone watch/read that speech full of outright lies that go directly against the stated US NSS and come away impressed, but, given that you are someone who supports Trump that absolutely makes sense.

I guess it also makes sense, when you are supporting a pedophile who's hell bent on destabilizing the world and you are pretending to be a non cult member, what else will you do except come here to attack a women who you feel threatened by.

By the way, still no answer regarding why USA healthcare is what it is, I'm still very curious how you will make that one about Democrats, but I'm sure you will find a way.

On February 15 2026 15:27 Introvert wrote:
Rubio gave an excellent speech in Munich, the good cop to Vance's bad cop last year. While still not my top pick for 2028, he'd have the best chance of the people I like. Still not sold on Vance, as I think he's a thoughtful person but not a super principled one. But unfortunately as sitting VP he has to be considered the favorite.

I know this will just cause more accusations of "just likes to crap on Democrats" but honestly the contrast of Rubio with AOC is so night and day I have a hard time understanding how the party that thinks of itself as the smart one doesn't recognize that she's a blustering, bumbling ignoramus. Maybe it's just the clips I've seen but man...

anyways Rubio was quite good

On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


I guess to most Americans foreign policy seems a bit like a game because for a long time whatever happened it didn't really impact average Americans. The notable exception being covid (which really isn't foreign policy) which really riled you guys up. Other countries are more used to external factors pushing them around so even if national policy might have been even worse for covid it hasn't stuck around as hard in people's minds.

I guess if you are a hypercompetitive economy with low social safety nets your number priorities are going to be 1) the economy 2) the economy 3) the economy [...] 478) foreign policy that doesn't impact you much.
Domestic politics are just that much more important for the economy in the US so that's the focus.

The thing is. The factor insulated the average American from foreign policy is not that you are the most powerful nation on earth, although that is certainly a factor. It's that your "dad" is the global reserve currency and you got his credit card.
Of course Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign aid or whatever won't impact you much when you can just borrow money at ultra low rates.

Right now your $38,5tn in debt. After Trump is done that's going to be at least somewhere between $41-42tn.
Do we think democrats will balance the budget the next 4 years after that if they win? Unlikely.
Republicans? They control the trifecta and they obviously aren't interested.

The old world order that both Vance and Rubio seems to be done with has several built in features keeping interest rates down for government debt in return for a stable American hegemony. That's something that should be valuable considering the US current situation.
The US needs to deal with debt somehow. I (and much of the rest of the world) is struggling to see how the new foreign policy is a good thing given that it's quite instrumental to it. Just look at Bessent and the scare over Japan right now.

If we look at the goals for the administration some key point seems to be
- onshore manufacturing in the US
- politics driving inflation (tariffs, pressure on the fed)
- a large focus in trade imbalances
- no real effort in balancing the budget (quite the contrary actually)
- no care about soft power or maintaining the US status as hegemon diplomatically/economically

Solving the debt crisis through traditional conservative fiscal responsibility seems out. If anything inflating it away seems to be in.
In that context things actually makes sense.
If your plan is to inflate away the debt problem and you couple that with the tech bros supporting Trump expecting massive job losses due to AI then onshoring manufacturing makes sense. Both because people need to work with something but also because foreign goods will be to expensive.
The losses to the elite from massive inflation is acceptable because of AI and investment opportunities.
It's more questionable if much of the American middle class think it's a good solution seeing as they would be the ones getting an express ticket to poverty when their comfortable job gets replaced by manufacturing and their saving become worthless.

On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:


Maybe part of it is a difference in perspective as you say. Because I view tariffs as far more detrimental to the things you listed than a re-orientation of defense policy. It's possible to have a good, mutually beneficial trade relationship while having the US pull back defensively and Europe step up. I'm going to say something that sounds like bait at first, but it's not. If Europe is such a great place, and one of such significance, as I keep hearing, I don't see the downside in having it reassert itself? It seems more like it does not *want* to. And i think this was part of what Rubio said, but not in those words. Give the continents behavior over the last 5 years i suspect they don't actually want to do it.

On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:


Maybe part of it is a difference in perspective as you say. Because I view tariffs as far more detrimental to the things you listed than a re-orientation of defense policy. It's possible to have a good, mutually beneficial trade relationship while having the US pull back defensively and Europe step up. I'm going to say something that sounds like bait at first, but it's not. If Europe is such a great place, and one of such significance, as I keep hearing, I don't see the downside in having it reassert itself? It seems more like it does not *want* to. And i think this was part of what Rubio said, but not in those words. Give the continents behavior over the last 5 years i suspect they don't actually want to do it.

On February 16 2026 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


My idea of European defense is regional alliances (nordic group, central group, east group, south group (?)) with combined armies and nuclear weapons.
So I'm not against the idea of Europe stepping up.

It would be possible to have a mutually beneficial trade relationship even with the US pulling completely out of Europe.
That's not what's happening however. You are fucking with us way more than that.
- You break the trade agreements we have.
- Pulling back from Ukraine is one thing but Trump actively meddles in the conflict in very unproductive ways. Sometimes against the interest of Ukraine and Europe. If the US just sat back, paid nothing and sold us guns that would be fine at this point. If we are truly allies we could also assume that you would be fine with some none-material aid when it's cheap and convenient for you. But no, it's a constant stream of fuckery.
This is an issue Europe views as existential, it's very odd behaviour to do this now and not try to help us resolve this conflict first and then leave.
- The US uses the banking system and potentially also IT as a weapon.
- Your fucking with our elections both via social media and direct statements and support from the administration.
- And of course Greenland...

Another thing is that US hegemony has been incredibly profitable for both sides.
We can buy things like fighter jets from you so we don't have to develop our own. We use almost exclusively US software. We have a stable global trade environment. There is access to US capital markets (both ways).
And of course we only need enough military power to beat Russia.
All we have to do is to support the global reserve currency which is kind of like paying tribute. But it's fine because there is so much to gain.

But now? We need more military. We are unsure if we can rely on US weapons. In fact the only way the Russian army beats Europe is with US air support (I mean we have ~200 F35s right now and will reach ~700 soon and we know how Russian made AA deals with them by now).
That shouldn't even be the vaguely theoretical consideration that it now has to be.

And of course, we would really like for the US to not implode economically because it would be a global disaster. But at a point where you should be looking at how to curb your deficit spending and we should be looking how to help that by stabilizing US interest rates IDK whats happening.
But I'm fairly sure that forcing key allies divest out of your weapons, software, trade relations etc is not helping.

On February 16 2026 05:41 KwarK wrote:

You’re not getting Europe as a strong partner, your chosen policy is building Europe as a rival that hates you. It’s not productive. China is reasserting itself and yet you don’t seem to embrace that as successful American foreign policy.

Europe’s military spend has been entirely sufficient to meet Europe’s military defence needs since the fall of the USSR. America engaging in ruinously expensive adventurism in the Middle East and then demanding to know why Spain isn’t spending as much money as they are is ridiculous. Spain doesn’t need to spend as much because Spain chooses good relations with other countries. The United States is openly resentful of its own foreign policy choices, it chooses to run a global interventionist empire and yet gets mad about the bill when it arrives. And then demands to know why more countries aren’t grateful for it after it destabilizes the Middle East for the hundredth time triggering a migrant crisis.

If anything the US is a huge beneficiary of Europe, Europe provides bases, European NATO allies answered the call, Europe subsidizes American hardware. The American empire would be a lot more expensive and a lot weaker without European assistance.

After years of good relations building around the world you have to wonder who the US thinks Europe needs to arm against. Europe can take Russia and it has nuclear deterrents. Rejoicing that you finally made Europe pick up a gun is somewhat missing the point when it’s aimed at you.

The only serious threat of an invasion that Europe has received since the fall of the Soviet Union has come from Trump.

On February 16 2026 06:17 Introvert wrote:


Man i just lost everything I had written. Short version. I would like to see Europe's actions match its rhetoric. The trade war is incredibly stupid. The US is selling guns for Ukraine, right now. If Europe actually viewed this as existential I'm not how the UK continues to let its military strength decline, or how France spends 57% of GDP through the national government but only 2.1% for defense. But I'm glad you are not against the *idea* of Europe stepping up.



See your problem here is that what you wrote earlier is wrong. I don't view Europe as the enemy. Asking why I don't embrace China's rise but ask for Europe to do so is laughable. Yes, much of the current relationship is mutually beneficial. But if Europe is more than capable of handling Russia, and that's all it really needs to do, then I would say that 5 years later they should get on with that. I'm not for "subsidizing Ameican hardware" just for the sake of it. Framing European defense as a bill to be paid is freaking wild.