|
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 |
Trump and his billionaire friends were looking to found big St. James so they tried to buy Greenland.
This war doesn‘t feel much different from one of Trumps temper tantrums. Even with an entire judicial branch that is absolutely compromised horseshit standing behind him.
He‘s following orders like a good soldier, but I‘m not sure that they‘re orders from Americans.
|
On March 03 2026 00:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:38 Legan wrote:
Democrats should openly promise pardons for people who are prosecuted for not participating in illegal wars. Maybe even some compensation, too. A pardon and reinstatement of their benefits from honorably serving would suffice. The money from that isn't insignificant, trust me. Look at VA benefits for people who get Honorable Discharge (look at VA disability ratings as well).
Does anyone here oppose what these two are suggesting?
If not, it might be something we can all rally around demanding from politicians that want our vote/support?
Abolishing ICE could be another, since it's a majority position among Democrats and Independents.
Among Democrats, support for abolishing ICE stood at 77 percent, while 52 percent of independents said they back ending ICE. Twenty-three percent of Republicans said they support ICE's demise.
It's important for people/politicians to identify whether they stand with those trying to abolish ICE or the Republicans and others trying to save it.
There's the left-wing: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, on X in January: “As tens of thousands across America protest the violence that ICE sows with impunity, federal agents shot and killed another person in Minneapolis today. ICE terrorizes our cities. ICE puts us all in danger. Abolish ICE.”
U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, on X Tuesday: “Trump’s “Operation Metro Surge” was a militarized campaign of fear that treated immigrants as criminals and weaponized the federal government against U.S. citizens. We need independent investigations, real accountability, and to abolish ICE.”
or the right-wing: The centrist Democratic group Third Way, in a January memo: “Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform of immigration enforcement—while handing Republicans exactly the fight they want.”
https://www.newsweek.com/abolish-ice-support-reaches-record-highpoll-11615650
|
The 10%, 15%, 10% global tariffs are set to go back up to 15%.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwzzq70qgvo
Trump was correct in using the threat of tariffs to get all allies and NATO allies in particular to spend 5% of GDP on military. Canada was especially lax in its weak defense spending. But, Trump won... he got a slew of concessions and every ally is going to spending 5% of GDP on military... that includes Canada. Tariffs' window of usefulness has come and gone. Trump should collect his win and call it a day. If he scales back the tariffs in a proper way and commits to proper admin and studies over the next year he can set up the ability of every president after him to hit countries with section 232 tariffs. The threat of those tariffs will allow the USA to strike great trade deals with all its allies.
Spain is firing back at Trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93wwq1n542o
Looks like Canada and the USA are in yet another hockey fight...
https://archive.is/ylW2A
The Globe And Mail has been around 23843897 years. it is Canada's right wing national newspaper for intellectuals. At first blush, and with no context, calling the US hockey team a bunch of monkeys was prolly going too far. HOWEVER ... Trump is constantly making over the top jocular type humour... so that "a bunch of monkeys" joke might fit right in with Trump's brand of humour. If Trump can dish it out... he better be prepared to take it.
|
On March 05 2026 02:53 Vivax wrote:Trump and his billionaire friends were looking to found big St. James so they tried to buy Greenland. This war doesn‘t feel much different from one of Trumps temper tantrums. Even with an entire judicial branch that is absolutely compromised horseshit standing behind him. He‘s following orders like a good soldier, but I‘m not sure that they‘re orders from Americans. I think some cabinet members around Trump have been rather candid that this is happening because of Israel.
Rubio strait up said that Israel was going to attack and Iran would (logically) respond so the US had to attack aswell.
"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio told reporters.
And Hegseth: "To our steadfast partner, Israel. Your mission is being executed with unmatched skill and iron determination. Fighting shoulder to shoulder with such a capable ally is a true force multiplier and a breath of fresh air." "Your mission"
|
On March 05 2026 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:The 10%, 15%, 10% global tariffs are set to go back up to 15%. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwzzq70qgvoTrump was correct in using the threat of tariffs to get all allies and NATO allies in particular to spend 5% of GDP on military. Canada was especially lax in its weak defense spending. But, Trump won... he got a slew of concessions and every ally is going to spending 5% of GDP on military... that includes Canada. Tariffs' window of usefulness has come and gone. Trump should collect his win and call it a day. If he scales back the tariffs in a proper way and commits to proper admin and studies over the next year he can set up the ability of every president after him to hit countries with section 232 tariffs. The threat of those tariffs will allow the USA to strike great trade deals with all its allies. Spain is firing back at Trump. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93wwq1n542o
A recent poll by the CIS research institute found that 77% of Spaniards had a "bad" or "very bad" opinion of Trump, suggesting that even many right-wing voters may back Sánchez on this issue.
It surprises me he is that popular in Spain.
|
United States44171 Posts
If you’re threatening them they’re not your allies.
Trump already has a signed trade deal with Canada that is not up for renegotiation. Trump keeps trying to negotiate deals with individual EU states because he still doesn’t understand the EU, despite Merkel literally bringing a set of pictures with her to help him get it.
You say every ally, it’s not every ally. For example Spain has an exception. You also say 5%, it’s not 5%, it’s 3.5%. Trump went in demanding 5% and they wouldn’t give it to him but they agreed to come up with a new calculation.
Let’s say you’re paid $20/hr, roughly $40k/year. You demand a pay increase to $25/hr. You walk out with a piece of paper saying that if you count $10k in benefits annually then your total comp is $50k/year. You didn’t get the pay increase to $25/hr, you got a misleading new way of presenting the existing information. There’s a bunch of stuff that never previously counted towards NATO spend that everyone was doing anyway. They agreed to keep doing that stuff and for Trump to announce the combined new number as if it was an apples to apples increase.
Except it’s not 3.5% because giving away military hardware to Ukraine counts towards that 3.5%. The more hardware you give away, the greater your military contribution to NATO.
If ever you find yourself praising Trump for making a deal you’re probably an idiot.
|
On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
Trump already has a signed trade deal with Canada that is not up for renegotiation. Trump keeps trying to negotiate deals with individual EU states because he still doesn’t understand the EU, despite Merkel literally bringing a set of pictures with her to help him get it.
the USA has been "not following" their free trade deals with Canada since 1988. Trump is worse than most presidents, but let's not act like the USA have been angels following all their deals with Canada in good faith. Both countries are constantly bickering back and forth about many aspects of their various FTAs over the decades.
Interestingly, in the first FTA of 1988, more Canadians opposed it than favoured it.
On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
You say every ally, it’s not every ally. For example Spain has an exception. You also say 5%, it’s not 5%, it’s 3.5%. Trump went in demanding 5% and they wouldn’t give it to him but they agreed to come up with a new calculation.
yep, Spain and the USA are squabbling right now. that's an exception. SPain is 1 that shows no intent on hitting 5% of GDP.
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 05 2026 03:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
Trump already has a signed trade deal with Canada that is not up for renegotiation. Trump keeps trying to negotiate deals with individual EU states because he still doesn’t understand the EU, despite Merkel literally bringing a set of pictures with her to help him get it.
the USA has been "not following" their free trade deals with Canada since 1988. Trump is worse than most presidents, but let's not act like the USA have been angels following all their deals with Canada in good faith. Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
You say every ally, it’s not every ally. For example Spain has an exception. You also say 5%, it’s not 5%, it’s 3.5%. Trump went in demanding 5% and they wouldn’t give it to him but they agreed to come up with a new calculation.
yep, Spain and the USA are squabbling right now. that's an exception. SPain is 1 that shows no intent on hitting 5% of GDP.
They’re not squabbling, they agreed. The US agreed to the Spanish exemption. It’s inked into the signed agreement.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
|
On March 05 2026 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
Trump already has a signed trade deal with Canada that is not up for renegotiation. Trump keeps trying to negotiate deals with individual EU states because he still doesn’t understand the EU, despite Merkel literally bringing a set of pictures with her to help him get it.
the USA has been "not following" their free trade deals with Canada since 1988. Trump is worse than most presidents, but let's not act like the USA have been angels following all their deals with Canada in good faith. On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
You say every ally, it’s not every ally. For example Spain has an exception. You also say 5%, it’s not 5%, it’s 3.5%. Trump went in demanding 5% and they wouldn’t give it to him but they agreed to come up with a new calculation.
yep, Spain and the USA are squabbling right now. that's an exception. SPain is 1 that shows no intent on hitting 5% of GDP. They’re not squabbling, they agreed. The US agreed to the Spanish exemption. It’s inked into the signed agreement. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
The USA and Spain disagree about the usage of their air fields and Trump is threatening to cut off trade. That is a "squabble".
In any event, Trump's tariffs threats generated many concessions from many trading partners. They can't accomplish anything more. its time to repeal the tariffs.
|
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else.
Let’s piss off everyone and arm them seems like a bad plan to me.
|
On March 05 2026 03:45 Billyboy wrote:
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else.
Welp, Canada can't defend itself. So, if Canada spends more on defense it lowers the USA's military burden.
|
On March 05 2026 03:45 Billyboy wrote:
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else.
Let’s piss off everyone and arm them seems like a bad plan to me. Well the people convincing Trump that the EU should spend more did not expect Trump to then threaten to use kill switches in the military hardware the US would sell to its allies if those allies didn't suck his balls hard enough.
(also again, the US has for decades wanted a weak Europe, because a weak Europe cannot act without US support, and therefor approval. A strong Europe is a Europe that doesn't have to listen to the US)
|
On March 05 2026 03:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:45 Billyboy wrote:
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else. Welp, Canada can't defend itself. So, if Canada spends more on defense it lowers the USA's military burden.
The best way to win fights is not get into them. Canada has a long history of punching above its weight and supporting peacekeeping around the world. Only the ignorant and traitors speak as you do. With your constant spewing of false premises that follow with illogical conclusions even unrelated to those false premises. There is a reason you are batting close to zero as far as getting agreement from anyone on anything in any thread.
I think everyone knows this to be true. But a friendly reminder that nothing jimmyjraynor says related to Canada is true, or in general for that matter.
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 05 2026 03:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:43 KwarK wrote:On March 05 2026 03:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
Trump already has a signed trade deal with Canada that is not up for renegotiation. Trump keeps trying to negotiate deals with individual EU states because he still doesn’t understand the EU, despite Merkel literally bringing a set of pictures with her to help him get it.
the USA has been "not following" their free trade deals with Canada since 1988. Trump is worse than most presidents, but let's not act like the USA have been angels following all their deals with Canada in good faith. On March 05 2026 03:36 KwarK wrote:
You say every ally, it’s not every ally. For example Spain has an exception. You also say 5%, it’s not 5%, it’s 3.5%. Trump went in demanding 5% and they wouldn’t give it to him but they agreed to come up with a new calculation.
yep, Spain and the USA are squabbling right now. that's an exception. SPain is 1 that shows no intent on hitting 5% of GDP. They’re not squabbling, they agreed. The US agreed to the Spanish exemption. It’s inked into the signed agreement. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. The USA and Spain disagree about the usage of their air fields and Trump is threatening to cut off trade. That is a "squabble". In any event, Trump's tariffs threats generated many concessions from many trading partners. They can't accomplish anything more. its time to repeal the tariffs.
The US had no trade with Spain. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
|
The goal in getting nations to up their defense spending to 5% was to buy American hardware to subsidize American industry and jobs. Since child molester Trump has been threatening to invade half those nations, many of them are opting to switch to European armaments whenever possible, with a few exceptions.
Saying that's a "win" for child molester Trump or his "negotiating skill" is pretty dumb. If my wife asks me to fix a squeeky door handle and I fulfill that by demolishing our house and making us homeless, I wouldn't sound like a sane individual by remarking "but the door handle doesn't squeek anymore".
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 05 2026 03:59 LightSpectra wrote:
The goal in getting nations to up their defense spending to 5% was to buy American hardware to subsidize American industry and jobs. Since child molester Trump has been threatening to invade half those nations, many of them are opting to switch to European armaments whenever possible, with a few exceptions.
Saying that's a "win" for child molester Trump or his "negotiating skill" is pretty dumb. If my wife asks me to fix a squeeky door handle and I fulfill that by demolishing our house and making us homeless, I wouldn't sound like a sane individual by remarking "but the door handle doesn't squeek anymore".
Again, 3.5%, not 5%.
The 5% was just something for Trump to announce. It's not apples to apples, it's a whole new military spending target measurement system created entirely for him. Road improvements count towards it if at some point soldiers could drive on that road to get to their staging points.
|
Northern Ireland27125 Posts
On March 05 2026 03:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:45 Billyboy wrote:
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else. Welp, Canada can't defend itself. So, if Canada spends more on defense it lowers the USA's military burden.
Defend itself against who?
American interests have been pretty bloody well-served by the structure of NATO over the years. They can have it continue to do so and shoulder various burdens, or not and not have those benefits.
|
Hey guys! another win for the 50% aluminum tariffs.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/power-trumps-tariffs-another-us-aluminium-smelter-shuts-2026-02-18/
Perhaps Trump can just carpet bomb the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region? There is a report from Israel that they were building their own nukes. 
On March 05 2026 04:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2026 03:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 05 2026 03:45 Billyboy wrote:
I’m unsure of how, even if countries were spending more on defence, and they were spending it on companies outside the US, that it would be a win for the US.
I’m sure when the idea of the US spending more was planted in Trumps head this was going to drive business to them. Instead he is driving business everywhere else. Welp, Canada can't defend itself. So, if Canada spends more on defense it lowers the USA's military burden. Defend itself against who?
I think its "defend itself against whom". but i'm not 100 on that.
any how,
China and Russia.
Canada is seeing a number of potential threats, including increased Russian activity in Canadian air approaches, China’s regular deployment of dual-use—having both research and military application—research vessels and surveillance platforms to collect data, and a general increase in Arctic maritime activity. Adversaries and competitors also employ disinformation and influence campaigns, malicious cyber operations and espionage and foreign interference activities to target Canadians, including northerners.
https://international.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/corporate/reports/arctic-policy-2024
|
ah yes, the dreaded Russian and Chinese invasion of Canada...
Any day now...
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 05 2026 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:
ah yes, the dreaded Russian and Chinese invasion of Canada...
Any day now...
It's not like launching an amphibious invasion across the Arctic Ocean would be hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
