|
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 |
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.
European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric.
And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either).
And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything.
Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war.
The EU is stepping up.
Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible).
|
On February 16 2026 06:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +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. European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric. And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either). And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything. Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war. The EU is stepping up. Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible).
I think the main US worry is nuclear war. Anything that risks that is a no-no. So the main goal is to appease Russia enough that it doesn't spin out of control. And that if Russia collapses due to the war that it is a soft collapse so the nukes aren't lost.
EU places a higher consideration on curtailing future Russian expansion and weakening Russia than the US does. US is mostly fine with Ukraine losing the war as long as there is no nuclear war.
The US is an ally in the war. That is clear when one looks at actions. They do a lot of very stupid stuff in the media, summits etc that portrays them as the opposite. But actual actions are those of an ally on the aggregate. Just look at the sanctions, Trump would be paid a lot of money if he just dropped those. Though the US oil sales might be the reason they are good for Ukraine.
Or switching Starlink off for Russians just now.
|
On February 16 2026 06:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:17 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. On February 16 2026 05:41 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. So you’re not going to pay the bill? Will you at least say thank you? I also don’t think you have any comprehension of just how much damage has been done by the policy you support. You don’t get to choose your enemies, your conduct picks them for you. You actively endorse and support a defence policy that mocks NATO allies who fought and died alongside Americans and shits on the sacrifice of their dead. Danes died at one of the highest per capita rates. Hegseth mocked NATO commitments and said ISAF stood for “I saw Americans fighting” while Trump said that they stayed far back out of danger. Bessent asserted that he didn’t care what Denmark did because Denmark is irrelevant. Trump repeatedly made threats to invade Denmark. If what you wanted was a stronger ally I can assure you that that’s not what you got. Stronger, yes, ally, no.
I just gave praise to a speech that did none of those things. I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. But I think the future of Ameican defense policy needs to look to the Pacific. If, as you say, Europe can handle Russia then no one is happier than I to hear it.
On February 16 2026 06:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +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. European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric. And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either). And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything. Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war. The EU is stepping up. Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible).
The starting baseline was way too small is the problem. Many are still below the target. Every once in a while i see Macron make some noise about really increasing European military strength. And yet... Meanwhile I'm trying to figure out if this struggle is existential and needs US help or, as KwarK says, Europe can deal with it.
But yes, the US has different considerations. Also from what I recall reading American analysts dis not think Ukraine would hols its ground as well as it has. Imo if it wasn't for the first Trump impeachment and Russiagate hysterics here in the US I dont think Democrats would care as much about Ukraine as they do now. You said before that this was "existential" but to the United States it very clearly is not.
|
For decades the EU 'wasn't carrying its own weight' in NATO because that is what was good for America. A weak Europe can't act without American support and therefor American approval. Something the modern crop of conservatives doesn't understand.
But sure they want the EU to do more, fair. And you can argue that Trump tried asking nicely in his first term and the EU didn't act. Again, fair.
But the Russian invasion of Ukraine changed that, there was a noticeable wave of sentiment in the EU to improve our defences and spend more. And Instead of capitalizing on this Trump went actively hostile on the EU. Complete with threats of invasion.
And shockingly a weak EU that can't compete with a hostile US starts looking elsewhere for allies, if the West has gotten hostile they need to look in the East. Trump's stupidity accomplishes the exact opposite of what he supposedly wants.
It doesn't lead to a stronger Europe that fights China together with the US, it leads to a stronger Europe fighting the US together with China.
Because China is not a more reliable business partner then the US.
China isn't threatening to invade Europe. The US is.
|
United States43812 Posts
On February 16 2026 06:42 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:40 CuddlyCuteKitten 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. European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric. And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either). And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything. Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war. The EU is stepping up. Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible). I think the main US worry is nuclear war. Anything that risks that is a no-no. So the main goal is to appease Russia enough that it doesn't spin out of control. And that if Russia collapses due to the war that it is a soft collapse so the nukes aren't lost. EU places a higher consideration on curtailing future Russian expansion and weakening Russia than the US does. US is mostly fine with Ukraine losing the war as long as there is no nuclear war. The US is an ally in the war. That is clear when one looks at actions. They do a lot of very stupid stuff in the media, summits etc that portrays them as the opposite. But actual actions are those of an ally on the aggregate. Just look at the sanctions, Trump would be paid a lot of money if he just dropped those. Though the US oil sales might be the reason they are good for Ukraine.
NK is an ally (of Russia). The US is neutral. It opportunistically takes chances to enrich itself and improve its position relative to rivals but it makes no sacrifices to support Ukraine. An ally provides support without an invoice.
|
On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:18 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:17 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. On February 16 2026 05:41 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. So you’re not going to pay the bill? Will you at least say thank you? I also don’t think you have any comprehension of just how much damage has been done by the policy you support. You don’t get to choose your enemies, your conduct picks them for you. You actively endorse and support a defence policy that mocks NATO allies who fought and died alongside Americans and shits on the sacrifice of their dead. Danes died at one of the highest per capita rates. Hegseth mocked NATO commitments and said ISAF stood for “I saw Americans fighting” while Trump said that they stayed far back out of danger. Bessent asserted that he didn’t care what Denmark did because Denmark is irrelevant. Trump repeatedly made threats to invade Denmark. If what you wanted was a stronger ally I can assure you that that’s not what you got. Stronger, yes, ally, no. I just gave praise to a speech that did none of those things. I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. But I think the future of Ameican defense policy needs to look to the Pacific. If, as you say, Europe can handle Russia than no one is happier than I to hear it. Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:40 CuddlyCuteKitten 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. European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric. And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either). And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything. Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war. The EU is stepping up. Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible). The starting baseline was way too small is the problem. Many are still below the target. Every once in a while i see Macron make some noise about really increasing European military strength. And yet... Meanwhile I'm trying to figure out if this struggle is existential and needs US help or, as KwarK says, Europe can deal with it. But yes, the US has different considerations. Also from what I recall reading American analysts dis not think Ukraine would hols its ground as well as it has. Imo if it wasn't for the first Trump impeachment and Russiagate hysterics here in the US I dont think Democrats would care as much about Ukraine as they do now. You said before that this was "existential" but to the United States it very clearly is not. America wants to focus on the Pacific. And in order to do that they created an adversary across the Atlantic by directly threatening the EU...
Congratulations, instead of an ally on your back while you turn to China you now have enemies on both sides and your isolated and alone.
Even the biggest supposed ally on your own continent is looking elsewhere because you threatened them with invasion aswell...
US policy makes no sense, because its being decided by absolute fucking morons.
|
On February 16 2026 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 06:18 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:17 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 05:40 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. On February 16 2026 05:41 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 04:02 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: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 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. 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. 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. 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. So you’re not going to pay the bill? Will you at least say thank you? I also don’t think you have any comprehension of just how much damage has been done by the policy you support. You don’t get to choose your enemies, your conduct picks them for you. You actively endorse and support a defence policy that mocks NATO allies who fought and died alongside Americans and shits on the sacrifice of their dead. Danes died at one of the highest per capita rates. Hegseth mocked NATO commitments and said ISAF stood for “I saw Americans fighting” while Trump said that they stayed far back out of danger. Bessent asserted that he didn’t care what Denmark did because Denmark is irrelevant. Trump repeatedly made threats to invade Denmark. If what you wanted was a stronger ally I can assure you that that’s not what you got. Stronger, yes, ally, no. I just gave praise to a speech that did none of those things. I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. But I think the future of Ameican defense policy needs to look to the Pacific. If, as you say, Europe can handle Russia than no one is happier than I to hear it. On February 16 2026 06:40 CuddlyCuteKitten 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. European defense spending rose 80+% over the last 6 years. Most countries are above the 2% target. We are spending a lot of resources on Ukraine. We are definitely stepping up and it's not just rhetoric. And yeah, the US sells guns but I've doubt you've missed all the back and forth about things like air defence at critical times and multiple other systems. And you are definitely not selling things like Tomahawks that could end the war (not saying the EU was that keen on providing long range missiles either). And even if Biden was better than Trump he definitely wasn't good with delays on almost everything. Thing is we can take Russia in a fight (because we have the same air doctrine as the US) but for understandable reasons no one wants a full on conventional war. The EU is stepping up. Also at times I wonder if it's not some kind of 4D chess from the US. Both the Biden and the Trump administration has done exactly the kind of things that kept Russia in this war for 4 years. Meanwhile crippling their income. Maybe this is just a long con for Russian regime change after all by boiling them very slowly. (Europe and Ukraine would of course just want the war to end on as good terms as possible as early as possible). The starting baseline was way too small is the problem. Many are still below the target. Every once in a while i see Macron make some noise about really increasing European military strength. And yet... Meanwhile I'm trying to figure out if this struggle is existential and needs US help or, as KwarK says, Europe can deal with it. But yes, the US has different considerations. Also from what I recall reading American analysts dis not think Ukraine would hols its ground as well as it has. Imo if it wasn't for the first Trump impeachment and Russiagate hysterics here in the US I dont think Democrats would care as much about Ukraine as they do now. You said before that this was "existential" but to the United States it very clearly is not. America wants to focus on the Pacific. And in order to do that they created an adversary across the Atlantic by directly threatening the EU... Congratulations, instead of an ally on your back while you turn to China you now have enemies on both sides and your isolated and alone. Even the biggest supposed ally on your own continent is looking elsewhere because you threatened them with invasion aswell... US policy makes no sense, because its being decided by absolute fucking morons.
Yet again, I think much of the trade policy and rhetoric has been bad, but part of me so thinks that a pivot and an ask that Europe does more (something that started before Trump) was always going to upset them, for obvious reasons.
People are still acting like I'm endorsing every single thing when I repeatedly do the opposite.
|
United States43812 Posts
On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality.
If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are.
|
On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are.
I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is has a belligerent attitude.
|
United States43812 Posts
On February 16 2026 07:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are. I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is acting belligerent.
“doing more” what? Doing more to be a better US ally? That’s not what you’re getting out of this. That’s the part you’re deliberately failing to understand. Europe’s new arctic patrols aren’t aimed at deterring Russia, they’re arming themselves against you.
That’s why I compared it to declaring success because China is reasserting itself. The assertive part only counts as a win if the gun isn’t aimed at you.
|
On February 16 2026 07:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 07:08 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are. I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is acting belligerent. “doing more” what? Doing more to be a better US ally? That’s not what you’re getting out of this. That’s the part you’re deliberately failing to understand. Europe’s new arctic patrols aren’t aimed at deterring Russia, they’re arming themselves against you. That’s why I compared it to declaring success because China is reasserting itself. The assertive part only counts as a win if the gun isn’t aimed at you.
Doing more for themselves. The US will not, in fact, invade Greenland so in time whatevrr gun they thought of pointing over there, as an example, will obviously become less important. The economic relationship will need more work.
|
United States43812 Posts
On February 16 2026 07:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 07:14 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 07:08 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are. I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is acting belligerent. “doing more” what? Doing more to be a better US ally? That’s not what you’re getting out of this. That’s the part you’re deliberately failing to understand. Europe’s new arctic patrols aren’t aimed at deterring Russia, they’re arming themselves against you. That’s why I compared it to declaring success because China is reasserting itself. The assertive part only counts as a win if the gun isn’t aimed at you. Doing more for themselves. The US will not, in fact, invade Greenland so in time whatevrr gun they thought of pointing over there, as an example, will obviously become less important. The economic relationship will need more work.
Best I can offer is doing less for America. But assertively.
|
On February 16 2026 07:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are. I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is has a belligerent attitude.
It's fundamentally correct that if EU had their cold war era stockpiles Ukraine would be armed with whatever they wanted in less than half a year. But we didn't, we were prepared for a conventional war and not an attritional proxy war.
At the same time Europe has almost exclusively let the US dictate that kind of policy. I'm not clear on the pre-conflict situation in Ukraine but it feels more like a US project than European.
Messing around in former colonies is something that happens but moving satellite states from the orbit of an hostile global power is not really in the modus operandi for EU countries.
|
United States43812 Posts
Nobody is moving Ukraine, Ukraine is fleeing.
|
On February 16 2026 07:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2026 07:14 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 07:08 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2026 07:01 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2026 06:53 Introvert wrote:
I get the desire to conflate words and policy, as this seems to be a European speciality. If your best defence for what your head of state is saying is that he doesn’t mean any of it then it might be time to stop defending it. Listening to what someone says isn’t “a European speciality”, it’s literally communication. We’re not the weird ones here, you are. I have not defended what Trump or Hegseth said. Nor have i defended a threat to invade Greenland. I qas on the record some months ago bemoaning how Trump's tarriffs and words make it harder to change policy. It was wrong and stupid. But I am defending a change in orientation and I agree with the calls for Europe to do more. I am not going to ditch that because Trump is acting belligerent. “doing more” what? Doing more to be a better US ally? That’s not what you’re getting out of this. That’s the part you’re deliberately failing to understand. Europe’s new arctic patrols aren’t aimed at deterring Russia, they’re arming themselves against you. That’s why I compared it to declaring success because China is reasserting itself. The assertive part only counts as a win if the gun isn’t aimed at you. Doing more for themselves. The US will not, in fact, invade Greenland so in time whatevrr gun they thought of pointing over there, as an example, will obviously become less important. The economic relationship will need more work.
Great, so then when it turns out there is no threat, the patrols will stop patrolling again. Just like the Americans dismantled all their bases except Pitufik. Russia isn't threatening Greenland and China definitely isn't. If you didn't mean Greenland but were talking about Finland or Norway, then... yes, apparently the Russian threat is real there. But those countries were already prepared for it and had Arctic patrols watching the border that is actually potentially under threat.
|
Canada11473 Posts
On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
Centrist is about right.
Oh, so you do consider yourself a centrist. (So in my mind, you are in fact category A.) What are you a centre on: Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
For instance, on Foreign policy- Trump's ideas on NATO, NATO should be stronger. From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right. My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted. In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
anti-Free Trade and a hyper focus on ending trade deficits? "Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or domestically, the current use of presidential executive orders by declaring everything an emergency? Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress. Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not. I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show. The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't. The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
How legitimate do you think Trump's grievances are regarding a) rigged voting b) fedsurrection?
And his most recent calls to 'nationalize the voting'. Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating. Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection." Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Or the removal of oversight over crypto plus the pausing of enforcing of the FCPA combined with Trump's enrichment efforts in international negotiations? I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong. The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June? Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:On February 14 2026 22:55 oBlade wrote:
I have no ideology, I just have ideas. On immigration specifically I'm around 80%-90% where Obama was 15 years ago which Reagan was to the left of.
So you claim: 1) To be a centrist 2) That your immigration position is 80-90% in line with Obama 15 years ago And 3) Have really only defended Trump's current use of ICE in this administration. #3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet. Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama. Show nested quote +On February 15 2026 05:14 Falling wrote:
Do you believe that Trump's current use of ICE is 80-90% similar to Obama 15 years ago and that this is a centrist position?
Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies.
So I genuinely think this is the most interesting thing you have written in this thread (that I can recall). Thank you for answering.
It does leave me rather confused why that would have you voting and defending Trump unless the issues are weighted where immigration holds the balance against everything else.
For instance, you think NATO should be stronger. Do you think Trump makes it stronger, more united, more likely to come to each others aid with Article 5? What do you think about all his talk about wanting to leave NATO and how no-one has every come to the defence of the US (Afghanistan post-9/11)?
I can understand not liking ACA if you want single payer instead... does Trump get you closer to that? Him and his 'concepts of a plan?' Is US healthcare in a better or worse position with anti-vax RFK Jr in charge?
You say you want higher taxes on higher incomes... is that what Trump is doing?
re: Ukraine & Israel
From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right.
Not exactly. It was more there are very particular positions I've seen from certain branches of Trump defenders and I wanted to see where you landed. The horseshoe theory of politics tends to explain these two better than any true Left/Right divide. I can understand your Ukraine position- what do you think of Trump constantly berating Ukraine for starting the war and arguing that it is Ukraine that is holding up his peace deal. (As well as Trump's plan to limit the size of Ukraine's army, give up territory, etc.) I don't agree that Ukraine has lost the war so much as it has ground into a stalemate. The war seems more existential for Ukraine, so I don't know how Ukraine stops fighting (even if it's just car bombing the occupiers for decades) without them getting invaded again in a couple years unless they are given security guarantees... which Trump is unwilling to give.
so Trump is exaggerating.
This is where I fundamentally disagree and why I think opposition to Trump is outside the Left-Right divide in politics. He's not just exaggerating. He's not out on a couple hundred votes. In Georgia alone, he was seeking thousand upon thousands of extra votes: 11,780 specifically as it would tip the vote his way. He side-lined staff who would demonstrate the falsity of his claims and sought out people who would lie for him (Giulani) and who could come up with increasingly illegal ways of maintaining power.
re: fedsurrection
I agree there was no fedsurrection either. But it's a lie Trump maintains to this day to obfuscate that it was his supporters that first smashed in the windows and broke in while threatening violence if lawmakers did not comply with their illegal demands. Trump to this day maintains he did not lose 2020. Do you agree with him?
re: crypto
You are against the public crypto grifting- so what of Trump's crypto and the multitude of methods he has created to personally enrich himself in this second administration? I thought the SNC Lavelin and WE Canada scandals were outrageous in Canada, but the corruption I'm seeing from Trump office... the Richter scale would need to be used in orders of magnitude.
re: Free Trade
Or your position on Free Trade. Ok, I can understand some sort of tariff policy with China as dependency on China could be a legitimate concern. Does Trump's tax war on the entire world align with that view? If the US has a trade deficit with Canada, have we been cheating you Americans for years, treating you very badly, the worst country to deal with yadayada?
Is Trump being honest when he says tariffs are paid by the targeted countries? Does America need to eliminate every trade deficit with every country in order to stop getting ripped off?
re: Executive Orders
No, I know not all executive orders are to do with emergencies. But as taxation rests with Congress, do you think America is in a constant state of emergency that when he is tariffing the world, it requires executive orders from the president. 30% to the Swiss. 39% after he gets off the phone with a woman on the Swiss council (or "prime-minister" according to Trump). 15% when the Swiss billionaires come a knocking. Are these all emergency situations?
|
it's funny that AOC slightly fumbling questions her first time in Munich somehow is the contrapoint to lil Marco doing damage control for his Bosses/The Don going scorched earth the year prior - and ever since.
Rubio (54) has been in the Senate since 2011, he already tried and failed to become the nominee of the R party - hence lil Marco.
AOC (36) joined Congress in 2019.
apples and oranges. both have ambitions though, no doubt about that.
|
Rubio vs Aoc that would be to easy for the bookmakers. The strongest republican candidate vs the democratic candidate that is most likely to lose.
|
Lets run another woman of color, what could possibly go wrong.
I wish that wasn't the reality that the US exists it but it may well be.
|
personally I think she is great and shows promise though is still very young and green in some respects. and preferably needs a scalp to get a taste for this game.
ineffective Schumer and his seat come to mind.
Rubio doing Trump's bidding shows more follower than leader quality imho.
but it's still early for that, first the mid-terms need to happen in an orderly and transparently correct fashion... lest we get a rerun of a "run to the Capitol".
this time to stop an actual steal, perhaps hang a traitor or two like its 2021 - pardons included? /s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
