|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 29 2026 02:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2026 01:17 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2026 00:38 WombaT wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2026 10:21 WombaT wrote:On May 28 2026 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2026 09:19 WombaT wrote:On May 28 2026 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Considering the first anti-organizing part is completely asinine and nonsensical, and you didn't mention it specifically, I have to believe you ignored it so you could say you agreed with the rest of Razyda's post.
As for the reality that people vote against their own interests because they have been propagandized to believe that's their best/only choice, that is part of what organizing is meant to address.
As for racists and bigots being selfishly motivated, that's what got us "The New Deal", which iirc is the biggest accomplishment Democrats can claim.
Republican voters want a far more equitable wealth distribution than the US has but they have no idea how to make it happen, same goes for Democrat voters (neither realize how bad it actually is). What is clear is that voting for them isn't going to get it, and it's only getting worse until it finally breaks. Without organization at the community level, it'll be a chaotic mess where those that are still holding wealth and power will reconsolidate under a new (likely worse) regime.
This all isn't unrelated to the description lightspectra just provided about both parties' fixation on Europe as a model or warning sign depending on the topic/country. It’s all fanciful bollocks tbh, projecting that the US is ripe for genuine left wing politics based on one poll is about as sensible as predicting that OnlyFans users will become models of chastity You don’t seem to actually live on this planet, or if you do you certainly don’t understand it very well Your assertion that I'm "projecting that the US is ripe for genuine left wing politics based on one poll" is certainly "fanciful bollocks". FWIW wanting a far more equitable society than the US currently is isn't unique to party, time, or even country. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5233831https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12397https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287000663_American's_desire_for_less_wealth_inequality_does_not_depend_on_how_you_ask_themIt's quite literally an issue of organizing the people that want it (~90%+ of the country) around an actual way to do it despite the other ~10%'s best efforts to stop them. Which includes but is not limited to: Amplifying our disagreements and idiocies among and against each other. The ratchet effect. Nihilism/hopelessness/"pragmatism" Bread and Circus etc... + Show Spoiler +It’s utter nonsense and you don’t live in reality. You don’t seem to understand how politics well, actually functions. Good luck with that
How much of that 90% voted to aid and abet genocide I wonder? Is it ok to bring them into the tent for the greater good now? Even though there is big support for this, it’s very diffuse and you’re going to have to make compromises with such a coalition. So much unnecessary hostility baked into that spoiler. Correct. On May 28 2026 11:12 Fleetfeet wrote:On May 28 2026 10:29 Turbovolver wrote:
"Want it" and "want to fight/sacrifice for it" are very different things, though. Agreed. I read the 90% of people wanting it with the same gravity as 90% of people wanting to learn to play guitar or 90% of people wanting to be fitter. Sure, people (say they) want it, but if they don't want it enough to get callouses and do boring practice, or stick to a workout routine and somewhat mindful diet, then how much does them 'wanting it' matter? It matters with regard to selling those people the thing they say they want, I suppose. Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? Who’s in the White House currently? Did they especially run on addressing these concerns? Of that 90%, you can wipe out a big chunk by considering 2 cohorts: 1. Resolve inequity for me but not for thee 2. I love capitalism and would like less inequity, but I don’t want to reform capitalism fundamentally or switch to an alternative. So effectively people who are dissatisfied but believe in magic and trends that run for decades and decades aren’t evidence enough that this won’t work In a crude sense, people love the government to give them money. For a society to actualise that, said people also have to be OK with them giving other people money. You tend to get way higher favourability on the former, but you need buyin on the latter to actually construct functional systems. I think there’s sufficient appetite for pretty significant improvement in certain areas, but I think that appetite is in a more distributive capitalism and a fairer tax regime etc and nothing all that radical Trump is and yes he did. Meanwhile Biden insisted people were hallucinating their economic conditions being bad. Now it's Trump's turn to pretend things aren't bad and Democrats to make empty promises about fixing them. Those two cohorts are functionally the only people that got to participate in crafting The New Deal, which iirc is the best accomplishment the Democrats have on record. So that's a baseline of sorts of what capitalism needs again. Getting back to the original premise: DanHH said: The main issue with fixing inequality / the tax burden on regular people is the lack of will and urgency, rather than a lack of potential solutions that are better and more predictable than flat tax and inshallah. I said: I believe it is increasingly becoming a lack of functional organization. I believe the number of people with the will and that are feeling the urgency is reaching a critical mass, but I also believe organizing is a critical factor in where that threshold ends up being. What is it you are trying to say you believe it is? EDIT: Forgot to include an obligatory Republicans are worse than Democrats for lightspectra I wasn’t clear enough there? I genuinely don’t know how much clearer I can make it Maybe someone else could articulate it? What don’t you understand in my position? Like I really don’t think I can make it much clearer, what are your quibbles?
As far as I can tell you're saying we can't have even a new New Deal level of inequality being addressed to save capitalism from itself (forget socialism) because organizing the cohorts that made the original New Deal for another is an insurmountable task. Keeping in mind that deal was/is widely considered the pinnacle accomplishment of the Democrat party.
1. Resolve inequity for me but not for thee
2. I love capitalism and would like less inequity, but I don’t want to reform capitalism fundamentally or switch to an alternative. So effectively people who are dissatisfied but believe in magic and trends that run for decades and decades aren’t evidence enough that this won’t work
It's nonsensical. Those cohorts are literally responsible for the best thing Democrats have ever managed to do, so presumably you mean something else I'm not deciphering?
It's also hopeless as far as leaving a remotely desirable path forward.
|
On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof.
Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here?
Why or why not?
Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"?
|
On May 30 2026 02:04 LightSpectra wrote:
Despite being financially braindead as an opinion, I would almost respect the "we should stop defending Europe on our dime" position on principle, as long as there was consistency about also not supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately MAGA's isolationist instincts only seem to apply to secular democracies like Ukraine and Taiwan, they're happy to fork over your tax dollars in ten digit amounts when it comes to middle eastern ethno-states and slave owners.
"Europe needs to take care of itself"
Also
"Amagad Europe why are you not helping fight my pointless war for me"
|
On May 29 2026 11:13 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 09:43 Manit0u wrote:On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 14:51 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I want to put forward the fair reading of how America's right wing views Europe, or the problems of Europe from the American right-wing context. Of course it's going to be vague! But if a poster's apprehension of the topic advances beyond, and I'm trying to be fair here so this is a direct quote from the thread, "EU is the "shining city on the hill" and Xi, Putin and Trump hate it because it's a horrible contrast to what they are doing to people at home," then that's an absolute win.
The ultimate goal here is to be able to express to a triple-Trump voter in America an opinion on Europe that they would wholeheartedly agree with from their perspective, and not the same claptrap that's how left-wingers view right-wingers and what they would really describe their thought process if only they were more honest. You've got a perspective that would reduce to how you'd argue a right-winger out of believing as they do, which is valid in that context, but not actually responsive to [quote]I doubt that there is such a hyperfixation, or that it's getting worse, but the substance of the charge is your own personal research, which isn't actually something that can serve as a basis for argument. Fair enough that's what they think. And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites. Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts. Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will One other thing worthy of note is that every country is rather unwilling to spend on defense because in general military expenditure is high and doesn't bring much of economy with it. Spending on military in peace time is pretty much just burning money. Sure, it does pay dividends if you ever get attacked, but we've had such a long period of stability now within the EU that most countries didn't really feel the need to spend so much on defense, especially those in the core as opposed to countries on the border (with potentially unstable or aggressive neighbors). Even now most of the arms produced in the West (both EU and US) are made for exports purposes as this is the way to keep your military production infrastructure running through peace times and justify its existence. Edit: Most countries that overspend on military are typically some kinds of dictatorships or oppressive governments. They need big military for posturing externally and internally to have the threat looming on their populace and inspire awe. Yeah exactly Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic Which the US should love except well, they obviously don’t. Chiefly because they’re lead by populist morons. That changes the equations The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. Idiocy or corruption, take your pick
"The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? "
It isnt, simply because Ukraine isnt part of NATO.
"Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic"
Ukraine is good example why it is not antiquated Cold War relic. Another rather compelling argument for NATO is "because those pesky Ruskies have nukes"
"This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off
Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. ?"
It is because they can, its the power aspect of "soft power" (just less soft). Whatever this administration is doing, is not exactly administration it is US.
On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
But lets ignore the obvious apples and oranges in the whole spending comparison, we have always paid an equal share and are now paying more then the equal share.
Thats factually wrong.
On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
Lets also ignore the billions on billions Europe has to spend on refugees from US crises.
There is no has to, it was a choice.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 30 2026 03:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 11:13 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 09:43 Manit0u wrote:On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:On May 28 2026 16:46 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Fair enough that's what they think.
And I'm trying to understand *why* they think it. Thus my questions. I've been around for a while. US citizens (conservatives in particular) have never been particularly interested in gang related shootings in Sweden. Now it's discussed on conservative sites.
Why? The US has not, and isn't now, particularly concerned about the values of it's allies and conservative groups seem to care very little about it except for specific European parts.
Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong. On May 28 2026 23:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Interest on the national debt is eating 19% of federal revenue — watchdog warns it will get worse | Fortune https://share.google/DcQimvO0cksbGQsQFInterest rates are starting to spike. But Cuba is a national safety issue and the national debt apparantly is not. So why not have another war at a time where the budget should be cut considerably? Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will One other thing worthy of note is that every country is rather unwilling to spend on defense because in general military expenditure is high and doesn't bring much of economy with it. Spending on military in peace time is pretty much just burning money. Sure, it does pay dividends if you ever get attacked, but we've had such a long period of stability now within the EU that most countries didn't really feel the need to spend so much on defense, especially those in the core as opposed to countries on the border (with potentially unstable or aggressive neighbors). Even now most of the arms produced in the West (both EU and US) are made for exports purposes as this is the way to keep your military production infrastructure running through peace times and justify its existence. Edit: Most countries that overspend on military are typically some kinds of dictatorships or oppressive governments. They need big military for posturing externally and internally to have the threat looming on their populace and inspire awe. Yeah exactly Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic Which the US should love except well, they obviously don’t. Chiefly because they’re lead by populist morons. That changes the equations The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. Idiocy or corruption, take your pick "The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? " It isnt, simply because Ukraine isnt part of NATO. "Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic" Ukraine is good example why it is not antiquated Cold War relic. Another rather compelling argument for NATO is "because those pesky Ruskies have nukes" "This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. ?" It is because they can, its the power aspect of "soft power" (just less soft). Whatever this administration is doing, is not exactly administration it is US. Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
But lets ignore the obvious apples and oranges in the whole spending comparison, we have always paid an equal share and are now paying more then the equal share.
Thats factually wrong. Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
Lets also ignore the billions on billions Europe has to spend on refugees from US crises.
There is no has to, it was a choice.
Ukraine doesn’t have to be part of NATO for the conflict to be very important to NATO signatories
|
On May 30 2026 04:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 03:11 Razyda wrote:On May 29 2026 11:13 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 09:43 Manit0u wrote:On May 29 2026 09:14 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 07:32 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On May 29 2026 03:23 Introvert wrote:On May 29 2026 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 28 2026 23:51 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Well everyone had their own reasons and I am not sure I agree with you that there has been more focus. But if there has I would say mostly it is a similar reason to why lefties in the US *stopped* pointing to Europe all the time. They make for good examples. Dems used to tout Europe "if they can do xyz so can we!" But since Europe has fallen behind economically and has gained a reputation as an overly stifling bureaucracy, people don't really use it as a positive anymore, at least not on the center left. So over the course of a decade (at this point maybe longer ago) when some thought that Europe was a model of what to do, the rights primary engagement with it was against domestic political opponents. Now it still is, but it's used on offense. My own sense is that things began to change with the migrant crisis, but I could be wrong.
[quote]
Because millitary spending is not a primary driver of the debt. Social services is, I think just like it is in every western country. You cannot balance the budget on the back of the military, especially if the America that even the Europeans claim they want is to exist. I've learned about a stabbing in Switzerland from conservative message boards and not from Swedish news. And it's not that they don't cover things that happens in Europe, the school bus that got hit by a train in Belgium 2 days ago was major headline news everywhere. But no muslims involved so 0 zero response on US sites. Of course it's only my opinion it's getting "worse". Migrant crisis was 2015 so you might be correct in the timeline, it's a big political shift in Europe as well. But there are other things that aren't answered. Like where does the frequent claim that the US is subsidizing EU welfare states by allowing us to have lower defense spending come from? The numbers doesn't support that at all. We for sure reduced defense spending *a lot* after the cold war and are increasing it now but we had welfare states before, during, and after that time period as well. It's not only news about crime and migration there is also a big focus on (certain types) of political news from Europe, and an even bigger focus on US policy moves towards Europe. My personal take is that there is an ongoing information campaign against conservative voters in the US based on the content I've been seeing. I might be wrong it's not a wild take. As for social spending, military spending and debt. You absolutely have to take on social spending, especially social security which is otherwise going to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme in the not so distant future. Especially since that's $73tn not in the current debt. But if was any other country you would be broke right now. And make no mistake, you will be soon if you don't fix this. You can't afford a 1500bn military budget right now. It should never have been increased and you should probably look to cut some spending. Ideally almost everything in the budget that doesn't severely impact consumer spending should be shaved and taxes should go up. I would very much like for the current form of the US to continue for a long time, and not reducing the deficit is a far greater threat to that than keeping your current pre-Trump military budget. I leave you to your opinion on if there is a shift. I agree there has been a change in *how* Europe is discussed, for the reasons I gave. It's harder to find an American saying we should be like Europe. Stories about things like "subsidizing the welfare state" comes from both A) looking at the relative social spending vs millitary spending and B) the *unwillingness* by European nations to meet their NATO obligations. So sure, they have huge welfare states and have for decades. You see that France has government spending at like 57% of GDP and an Americans eyes pop out of our heads. At least mine do. I've said for a while now that the debt is a problem but I am convinced nothing will happen until we reach the crisis moment. Congress is not capable of cutting anything unless forced. For the record I am for more defence spending, that's one of the main things for the government to do. But cuts do need to be made especially since Americans will riot if there are large tax increases. Even Democrats nowadays promise "no tax increases for people who make less than $X" where X is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck with a VAT or broad based income tax hike. It’s almost like France having the welfare state it does is because it chooses to spend 57% of GDP on government spending or something The idea it can do this solely because of American largesse is utterly fanciful, I mean by all means don’t emulate it, but it’s perfectly within American economic capacity to emulate various European style welfare states. What’s even in NATO for Europeans if the current direction of travel continues? A European centric combined defence policy is looking more and more attractive by the day See you are looking at it from a European pov. Somehow France will spend 57% of GDP through the government but can barely manage 2% for defense spending. So while "subsidizing" is the wrong word it certainly seems as though, to go back to B), they are *unwilling*. I won't post it again because I have multiple times but administrations going back decades now have been pressuring Europe to spend more. I've posted the speech by Roberts Gates from ~2013 where he was telling a bunch of Europeans that the US public had limited patience. This is not new. It certainly *appears* that Europeans would rather spend more on benefits while relying on the US for protection. And their spensing choices seem to made that policy, official or not. The ‘somehow’ being that they choose to right? If France spent 7% of GDP on defence they could still spend 52% of GDP on other government spending, or massage those numbers how you will One other thing worthy of note is that every country is rather unwilling to spend on defense because in general military expenditure is high and doesn't bring much of economy with it. Spending on military in peace time is pretty much just burning money. Sure, it does pay dividends if you ever get attacked, but we've had such a long period of stability now within the EU that most countries didn't really feel the need to spend so much on defense, especially those in the core as opposed to countries on the border (with potentially unstable or aggressive neighbors). Even now most of the arms produced in the West (both EU and US) are made for exports purposes as this is the way to keep your military production infrastructure running through peace times and justify its existence. Edit: Most countries that overspend on military are typically some kinds of dictatorships or oppressive governments. They need big military for posturing externally and internally to have the threat looming on their populace and inspire awe. Yeah exactly Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic Which the US should love except well, they obviously don’t. Chiefly because they’re lead by populist morons. That changes the equations The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. Idiocy or corruption, take your pick "The Ukraine conflict is the litmus test for the NATO alliance and the US has been frequently found wanting, so why not pivot away? " It isnt, simply because Ukraine isnt part of NATO. "Under current conditions I don’t really see a particularly compelling argument for NATO versus a Europe that has a more coordinated defence strategy within the continent. Some may disagree, I think it’s an antiquated Cold War relic" Ukraine is good example why it is not antiquated Cold War relic. Another rather compelling argument for NATO is "because those pesky Ruskies have nukes" "This aspect of the current administration has long confused me. NATO is a sweet, sweet soft power deal, you keep Europe somewhat under thumb and buying your shit, you also kind of maintain ostensible liberal, open democracies who you can make more money off Instead the current administration decides let’s just fuck around with all that, a fucking sweet deal in exerting soft power. ?" It is because they can, its the power aspect of "soft power" (just less soft). Whatever this administration is doing, is not exactly administration it is US. On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
But lets ignore the obvious apples and oranges in the whole spending comparison, we have always paid an equal share and are now paying more then the equal share.
Thats factually wrong. On May 30 2026 00:41 Oleo wrote:
Lets also ignore the billions on billions Europe has to spend on refugees from US crises.
There is no has to, it was a choice. Ukraine doesn’t have to be part of NATO for the conflict to be very important to NATO signatories
Nobody is denying that. What I am saying, is that since Ukraine is not a part of NATO, there is no obligation.
|
But that's the point. US and EU interests don't align on Ukraine, hence the litmus test terminology. Or did I misunderstood your post, wombat?
|
On May 29 2026 18:08 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 17:31 Velr wrote:
That the US wanted to get something out of NATO that is not fully alligned with what Europe wants was and is pretty much a given but with Trump it's not just "less diplomatic", it's an entirely diffrent game. He's not trying to restructure/reform NATO (or his Vassals) to allign more with US interests, he's outright trying to desolve it.
Bidens response to Ukraine, while not perfect, was seen as pretty good overall. All these issues weren't nearly as big until Trump II, sure the sentiment within the US was there but nowhere near to this level, at least on the diplomatic/politics side. Trump is just uniquely bad and he put uniquely bad people in positions of power.
The US had so much goodwill in the west, even when Iraq/Afghanistan allready hurt it, I don't think the average american ever understood just how many benefits and how much leeway this gave the US. I think Trump was frankly trying to 'restructure' NATO. In the sense that he was trying to get them to behave as he saw Europe's role in NATO. As in, he wanted his vassals to get in line and do what he says. He's just not very good at overcoming the understandable resistance to this (or his idea of negotiation is just always to threaten something worse, and hope they settle back on what he wants as 'the least bad option', I honestly can't tell which). To be fair on the average American, they don't really see the fruits of those benefits that that goodwill gave them. The system benefits the US, but the balance of those benefits do not go to the average person in the US. I can sympathize with the populist feeling of grievance, even if i think it's misdirected. It truly is like that Denis Lushch artwork of the rich person telling the worker the immigrant is after his cookie. But it's actually the rich person telling the guy with no cookies, that the rest of the world (with one cookie) is taking all his cookies.
Great posts, just to go further on a few points you have made. Goodwill, Brand value, these things in business have HUGE value, sometimes has much or more than all the brick and motor assets. Trump has dropped this to zero if not a negative.
Next all of the countries that US counts as allies and are democracies, need to take into account how their populous feels about the deals they make. And we all know self interest is the number one factor for basically every politician. If anyone makes a seemingly US favoured deal they will be be crushed at the ballot box. There is actually only 1 country (Israel) of all their allies that sees him as favourable, it is wild. And it is not just dislike, it is strongly dislike.
The two things above are going to punish the US for the next couple of decades. Future presidents choices are going to be to suck up (expensively) or get bad / short term deals.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 30 2026 06:20 EnDeR_ wrote:
But that's the point. US and EU interests don't align on Ukraine, hence the litmus test terminology. Or did I misunderstood your post, wombat?
I’d agree there. I had specific issue with the idea that because Ukraine isn’t in NATO that it’s not a NATO issue. Especially given that that particular avenue of action was withheld specifically to appease Russia.
In general, I’d not dispute that the US and EU interests have drifted rather far apart
|
On May 30 2026 06:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 06:20 EnDeR_ wrote:
But that's the point. US and EU interests don't align on Ukraine, hence the litmus test terminology. Or did I misunderstood your post, wombat? I’d agree there. I had specific issue with the idea that because Ukraine isn’t in NATO that it’s not a NATO issue. Especially given that that particular avenue of action was withheld specifically to appease Russia. In general, I’d not dispute that the US and EU interests have drifted rather far apart
They were never that close to begin with, maybe except military goals during cold war.
"I had specific issue with the idea that because Ukraine isn’t in NATO that it’s not a NATO issue"
When it comes to NATO it is obviously NATO issue, similarly like xmas is children issue:
It underlines importance of being member of NATO
It weakens Russia
It kills loads of Russian soldiers
All that without loosing single NATO soldier
"Especially given that that particular avenue of action was withheld specifically to appease Russia. "
Oh please Wombat, you should know better than that.
Its just... good money.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10308/
"On 14 July 2025, the US administration also announced a new package of military assistance to Ukraine (referred to as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) mechanism). However, this does not mean a return to full and unconditional US military support for Ukraine. President Trump has been clear that the US will not pay for any of this new assistance. It will be funded by NATO allies, and some assets, including Patriot air defence systems, will be delivered to backfill European capabilities that will be sent to Ukraine in the first instance."
Instead of sending stuff to Ukraine, US will just graciously let its allies to buy this stuff and send to Ukraine  .
To put it bluntly, it is in best interest of NATO and US for this war to go forever.
|
|
|
Freedom Williams, the rapper known for "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)," recorded a seven-minute video message explaining why he will still be performing at Freedom250 after other artists dropped out of the MAGA concert:
Barack Obama does not regret killing Muammar Gaddafi because Obama works "for the motherfuckers, the Zionists and the white capitalists," suggests that anyone who took the COVID vaccine will die from "poison in your arm," refers to Kid Rock as "that pussy n**** from Detroit" and "that skinny f*****," and asserts he'll vote for "fucking Genghis Khan, Hitler, and motherfucking Ivan the Terrible before I let you n****s tell me what to motherfucking do." He also estimates that the crowd at most of his shows is 90% white people and speculates that the vast majority of them vote Republican
https://stereogum.com/2500391/cc-music-factory-rapper-fires-back-at-trump-concert-critics-in-seven-minute-toilet-rant/news
|
On May 30 2026 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof. Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here? Why or why not? Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"?
Of course it applies to the posters here. Just like any other group of people, the majority of them are not itching to fight a nebulous and much more powerful enemy. I've personally described myself as a coward on these very boards.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On May 30 2026 19:14 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof. Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here? Why or why not? Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"? Of course it applies to the posters here. Just like any other group of people, the majority of them are not itching to fight a nebulous and much more powerful enemy. I've personally described myself as a coward on these very boards.
Coward is probably being unfair to oneself!
I think what stops a lot of people is simply the prospect of actually winning, and the complexity. Aliens invade tomorrow and are stressing that they’re here for our women, you give me a gun and point me towards those pesky aliens and I’m doing it. Hopefully this doesn’t actually occur to disprove what I think I’d do
Fighting some good fight to elicit social change, much harder. What are the tactics? Shooting aliens is quite simple A to B stuff
If it were as simple as bringing good arguments to the table and fighting that good fight and gathering like-minded people I imagine you’d see more people doing it.
|
On May 30 2026 19:14 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof. Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here? Why or why not? Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"? Of course it applies to the posters here. Just like any other group of people, the majority of them are not itching to fight a nebulous and much more powerful enemy. I've personally described myself as a coward on these very boards.
"The majority"?
Can you identify anyone currently not in that majority here? How about outside of here?
|
https://montrealgazette.com/news/trump-remembers-claude-lemieux-as-a-friend-and-a-true-legend-of-the-game/
i appreciate Donald Trump's kind words for Claude Lemieux. It was clear he was in distress during the torch lighting ceremony in Montreal a few days ago. What a warrior. That 1995 playoff run was inspiring.... damn.
On May 30 2026 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof. Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here? Why or why not? Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"?
its a forum board for people who spend too much time playing video games. i'm not sure what people expect?
i don't know if i'm a coward, but i am extremely lazy. I worked really hard for ~7 years of my entire life. And, once every couple of years I rescue some project by working 75 hours/week for a couple months. Other than that, I'm a bum.
I put together a new book every aspiring software engineer needs for career survival.
Excuse Making and Blame Shifting: The Comprehensive Guide to Shipping Nothing.
I've done pretty good, however, I know my place in the ecosystem of nothing. I must bow to the God of nothing: Rob Pardo. He left Blizzard in 2014 and has made nothing since then. 12 years.. what a run... its like Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak!
|
On May 30 2026 19:14 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2026 10:37 Turbovolver wrote:On May 28 2026 12:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
Are either of you under the impression that people want the current inequality (that they expressly say they don't want whenever asked) bad enough to fight and sacrifice to keep it over the more equitable society they expressly say they want? No, I am not under that impression. The point is closer to what you said in your other post — most people are just following the inertia of the current system.+ Show Spoiler +If you want those people in your organising efforts, you have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia. Or, you need to amass enough of the people already willing to fight/sacrifice that you can start to change the system's inertia.
Simply observing that a lot of people don't like the current system is almost irrelevant, beyond as a way to prove that a better system is needed. But if 90% of people already believe that, you don't even need that proof. Would you say it's fair to say this describes all the posters here? Why or why not? Perhaps that none of us here actually want to "have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia"? Of course it applies to the posters here. Just like any other group of people, the majority of them are not itching to fight a nebulous and much more powerful enemy. I've personally described myself as a coward on these very boards.
If you punch the fog wall enough you can trigger the boss fight.
Very difficult boss, do not reccommend unless you feel that something's really off.
Bring axes, flamethrowers, crosses.
|
How's the table hammering going?
Those are not US citizens mistakenly held for immigration violations.
They are people arrested under probable cause for crimes that they do right in front of DHS personnel, or to DHS personnel. Obstruction, impeding, throwing rocks, throwing broken up pieces of concrete, blocking federal facilities. The arrestees were Americans only at "83" locations because those locations were the sites of protests and attacks on federal buildings, which illegal immigrants don't do. Illegal immigrants don't go to an ICE facility, throw rocks at it, scream arrest me, and get arrested. Leftists do. That's not the core mission of ICE, but that's what happens. If people went to DEA buildings and threw rocks at them, they would also be arrested even if none of them were drug dealers.
Here's one just the other day of a guy who bit agents: https://nypost.com/2026/05/30/us-news/anti-ice-agitator-brendan-geier-charged-with-allegedly-biting-officers-during-nj-delaney-hall-protest/
If you impede and attack federal officers, they will arrest you. Not under the pretense that you're an illegal immigrant. They don't need that. They don't need to pretend you are an illegal immigrant and falsely hold you on that. They literally just have the power to arrest you for the crime you do in front of them, as you and most of your ilk realized like six months ago when it came out that DHS are actually deputized federal law enforcement. People who bite federal law enforcement and throw rocks at them SHOULD feel fear.
Actual US citizens held for "months" in immigration detention, I know literally a handful of the egregious months-long holding cases off the top of my head, I think one guy was mentally impaired in some way, one didn't know his own citizenship status, two were negligent/mistakes, and one guy lied about his own citizenship status on purpose.
|
So "The handful of US citizens held by DHS for months mentioned in LightSpectra's response were not done "on purpose."" is categorically false. Thanks for playing.
|
On May 31 2026 01:35 LightSpectra wrote:
So "The handful of US citizens held by DHS for months mentioned in LightSpectra's response were not done "on purpose."" is categorically false. Thanks for playing.
These people:
On May 28 2026 19:49 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2026 16:50 oBlade wrote:The arm of "nobody is above the law" continuous to extend its reach. It's just an investigation, if she didn't perjure herself she has nothing to worry about. Just like the U.S. citizens who have spent months in ICE detention facilities have nothing to fear from immigration control, right?
are different than these people:
The people you initially referenced are a category of people containing examples like Rene Lopez from 2023-2026, Lorenzo Palma in 2015-2016, Davino Watson in 2008-2011, and Mark Lyttle from 2008-2009 who was the handicapped guy I mentioned earlier because between the two of us amazingly I'm the only one who actually knows the facts of the abuses you claim to care about. This is not a large category of people as seen by the fact that these are literally the most recent examples.
You are trying to conflate them with the second, nonoverlapping, larger category of people, which is people deliberately arrested for crimes, because they're arrested for doing a crime against or in the presence of a federal officer and not detained for immigration violations. Those people are not held for months in immigration detention centers. They are arrested, detained, and then very soon either let go with no charges, bailed out and sent to court later, or remanded to federal criminal custody pretrial. Why do you want us to think there are hundreds and thousands of citizens being held for months in ICE detention facilities when there aren't - shouldn't you just be happy there aren't? I know why. Because firstly you just don't understand what happens and assume it must be the way that you imagine in your head, secondly you're physically incapable of honesty, and thirdly this makes the undisputedly bad thing look orders of magnitude more widespread than it really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
