That's just it: bullying the rest of the world typically doesn't have drastic negative consequences for an economy.
China's claimed the South China Sea as its sovereign waters and has been using force against fishermen from the nations that actually have control over the water. They're continuing to threaten Taiwan in a purely ideological push. Chinese secret police have set up stations abroad to kidnap dissidents. Border skirmishes with India are not uncommon. The agreement for a democratic Hong Kong was torn up and now they're under the thumb of the CCP, same as the mainland.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and of course Eastern Ukraine in 2022. They haven't had a "real" election in decades. Dissidents die suspiciously with regularity.
Both nations have supported the efforts of North Korea to further its nuclear arsenal in blatant violation of UN resolutions.
With the exception of the invasion of Ukraine, there have been zero negative consequences for any of this behavior.
Both nations have hosted at least one major international sporting event in the last 20 years. China is signing trade deals with Canada and the EU nations because, for some reason, those parties see a totalitarian single-party state as a viable alternative to the US that will never produce a "mad king", when in fact, it's almost tailor-made to do so. Construction on Nordstream 2 started after the invasion of Georgia, specifically because Europeans wanted Russian natural gas. Russian oligarchs continue to hold major interests in European nations and are free to move about the continent. Sanctions against the Russian economy over the invasion of Ukraine are dodged by dealing with intermediate parties so that many nations, including those in Europe, can do business as usual.
If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
> This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.
The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.
Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.
A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.
But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.
Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.
I like to spend a lot of time at the World Happiness Report because it gives me a better sense of economic well-being. You can't just look at GDP, you need a sense of which countries are burning human capital to fuel GDP and generate billionaires. That's a very common short-term tactic, so the WHR gives you a better sense of long-term political stability. Unhappy populations tend to vote for strongmen.
It's basically impossible to get to Finland-levels without bringing everyone along. Not just internally like getting rid of 996, but also including neighbors like Taiwan/Ukraine cause corruption tends to leak back in. Imagine if Bush had spent the Iraq war trillions on high speed rail/free college/ housing. Instead we got ICE.
> If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Such a person (or the people willing to trust them) would be seen as naïve, though, because any sane person would tell you that's exactly what's been happening since you were born.
I don't think that counts as being pedantic. "Suspend" is not the right word if you're going to point out that it was the US that broke the deal, but the headline is burying the lede. Party A broke the deal, then party B announced the deal has been broken and formally suspended the deal. Party A's actions should be in the headline.
When both parties agree to terms that are written out, the one party (Europe) is given a document with modified terms, the provider (US) broke convention. The receiver of the modified document stopped the negotiation. Suspended is sufficient to describe the situation. This isnt complicated, sheesh.
Not pedantic enough, actually. European lawmakers don't suspend the deal, they suspend work on implementing the laws that are part of a multi‑step political and legal process that in the end makes the deal implemented in all member states.
I don’t know what the point of negotiating with Trump is if a few months later he will get upset about some made up problem and ignore the past agreement that was negotiated.
That the current US administration is behaving today not terribly unlike the UK regime of the late 18th century is not a convincing argument for the UK reasserting its historic imperial ambitions in North America or elsewhere.
Furthermore, the native populations of those western territories would probably like to have a word over UK & European rights to assert such privileges in the first place.
There was a recent article on Hackernews which has since got flagged but it was a petition where california gets to be part of denmark, because why not?
more than 200_000 people signed it & some in the hackernews comments even appreciated it with things like saying about healthcare etc.
so I can see it as a real possibility but this would invoke force given that US states cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
Edit: Forgot to write to be, my bad. Thanks to dragonwriter for seeing the edit as I agree that without the to be, the whole context completely changes
> > Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
> This isn’t particularly well know, but Russia has had nuclear weapons since 1949. I suspect this is why European countries have not adopted a more aggressive posture towards Russia in Ukraine.
Oh yeah, my apologies. Let me fix it, Sorry about that!! Yea my bad.
I understand why I got downvoted. Fair, yea its misrepresented I meant denmark gets california (edit: looks like I had made the same mistake here too lmao now fixed)
Indeed, force isn't required, just have all EU countries divest of US treasuries and invest in Eurobonds. Invest Eurobonds in industries to achieve US independence. Europe holds ~$8T in US treasuries. Why continue to invest this capital in US debt being used to wage war and provide tax cuts for the wealthy when it could be used to improve Europe?
This will also force the US to fix its fiscal policy to avoid a debt spiral as the cost to borrow increases. To provide cheap credit to the US enables a bully who spends with no responsibility.
I do feel as if though this might lead to US defaulting on its loan but it still wouldn't make a state secede from the market
Also probably EU should co-ordinate with different countries who are holding US treasuries and if they get screwed (China,Japan,Australia etc.) then these other countries can have net loss as well. (which can impact these countries internally to prevent EU from investing in their currencies worried about what if EU might plug in again, yes I know EU is in the right regarding the greenland crisis but still it's not about if EU would be right but if EU would be capable to go and do this & what's the definition/criteria required for them to do such.
The most loss would still be of America though but still EU might still face some loss too (comparatively small to America)
I do believe that this can weaken US so much that it might trigger insurrection act or similar and we are saying US act so unreasoable regarding greenland right now, I am 99% sure that a nuclear war would feel imminent if this happens and would have a genuine impact on QOL of European and America and the world in general too.
Sure america might lose more but there has to still be a proper discussion on what's really valuable right now & if this would make this geopolitical sense, then we will see it happen.
I do beleive that even this 8 billion is start. We might not see an immediate 8T $ worth of bonds sellout just now. But we might definitely get to around 10% (800 billion) imo in slow chunks imo.
Europe's probably trying to get the world on its side and forming alliances right now.
>Germany, France and the UK should also revise their other US policies, regaining control of their US territories
Europe's problem is there's about as much chance of this succeeding as of Taiwan conquering mainland China. Decades of prioritising welfare over warfare and economic growth have left Europe technologically and militarily completely unable to compete with the US, in spite of Europe's significantly larger population. Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
> Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine
Considering how difficult Russia's advances have been inside the Ukraine in the past couple of years, it would be trivial to "kick Russia out of Ukraine" if a few big players in the EU actually tried to do it.
The real fear is political due to Russia's hybrid war which has pushed a lot of pro-Russia isolationist parties ahead in many EU countries. Starting a conventional war against Russia carries a higher risk of these "pro-neutrality/pro-peace" parties rising to power than any nukes dropping.
Putin is stretched very thin and this fiasco in the Ukraine has shown that Russia can barely take on one country, even though once they were touting themselves as equal or better than the US.
Yes yes there's not a single soldier in all of Europe. Every soldier, tank, and airplane is American. No other military technology exists. America great.
Seriously, I'll grant the most advanced stuff is American but you really think everybody else only has sticks, stones, and water pistols?
> Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
This isn’t particularly well know, but Russia has had nuclear weapons since 1949. I suspect this is why European countries have not adopted a more aggressive posture towards Russia in Ukraine. For some odd reason, no nuclear powers have ever invaded each other or declared war on each other since nuclear weapons were invented, aside from some bitchy slapfights in Kashmir. NATO is a de facto nuclear power, with (3) of the member states being nuclear states.
> Decades of prioritising welfare over warfare and economic growth have left Europe
This omnipresent talking point is ridiculous. You know what the EU prioritized over out economic growth? Budget stability. That's why the US has 50% more debt as share of GDP than the EU does. (And that's arguably a mistake given the low growth in the EU since the financial crisis because of that policy, but it has nothing to do with Welfare vs Warfare. Quite this opposite actually, the US would even be a much richer country if it had spent all the GWOT money on Welfare instead).
It is easy to understand, the citizens in the EU do not want to spill blood for Ukraine, and sinne not like in the Ruzzian empire where elections do not matter in EU countries politicians must not do unpopular things since they ned the support from the people and sending people to die is not popular in eU like it is in Ruzzia. But if say the Putin regime gets "tricked" again by CIA and Putin is forced to attack EU then we can see if we can push them out of not,
Talking with the Zed patriots they are convinced that CIA created nazis in UYkraine and also forced Putin to start this "special" operation, somehow Putin is a genius but at the same time IA tricked him or corced him to start a war that is in the 4th year of the 3 day operation.
So I don't really follow the news, except that adjacent stuff that pops up on hacker news... Is the administration serious or is this like just a distraction while they do something else when no one is paying attention?
I feel like not knowing about the tariffs and your cost of living being on an exponential graph is more than "not following the news"? The administration is serious and causing harm to everyone it can.
ICE isn't the Gestapo. The Gestapo didn't hide their faces.
If history is any guide, ICE may be better compared to the SA. Their job is to make it safe for the future Gestapo to operate unmasked... at which point the unprofessional street thugs in ICE will find that they've become a liability to the regime.
Note that Noem has already declared that any video evidence of ICE's criminal activity is itself illegal and inadmissible [1,2].
As I understand it, the right to record police has never actually been tried definitively at the SCOTUS level. The Republicans certainly have the tools on the SCOTUS bench to prohibit it now, so look for a case to be brought at some point.
Gestapo was proud of their work. If they could and had phones, they would post selfies.
But, they were actual police, highly effective. (Torured, murdered, commited genocide ... buy were actual trained cop good at being cops and good at genocide).
You can only threaten your friends so many times before they cut you out, and Trump is going on a year straight of threatening us (Canada, but also Greenland) with annexation, and the EU with sanctions and tariffs.
It doesn’t matter if the US government are serious or are posturing, the message is clear: prepare for existential warfare (economic or militarily) or be faced with it.
I think Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech yesterday captures the shared sentiment outside of the US very well. It’s worth listening to and lays bare the cracks in international diplomacy the last 80 years.
I personally find the argument that it’s about masking something clever weak. There are two things going on: repeatedly admitting US manufacturing can’t keep up with China and desperately trying to bring it home, and “Donroe Doctrine” colonialism where the US wants to lean on the weak to extract money out of them.
Maybe next year Trump is going to say “look how strong I made NATOs military, no more freeloaders here, this was all a ruse”, but I doubt it.
And my personal raw take, as a Canadian: we’ve shown we will take a punch to the nose for the US, it’s going to be impossible to look at our relationship the same for a generation. I’ve worked for US companies (as do most of our best and brightest), we have tight security integrations, this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
Agree 100%, this whole thing was incredibly dumb from the beginning. Trump's dementia and ego will ruin (has ruined?) the US's standing in what was the former West. What a sad day to be alive.
People should end up in jail, unfortunately it's the people responsible for enforcing the law that are breaking it. I expect impeachment attempts within the next year or so.
Neither. Trump is a reality TV guy and he's running things as if it's a TV show. He's making drama for the sake of drama. He's basically one of those kids who never learned the difference between good attention and bad attention.
He's also never gotten what drama addicts get as kids that kinda steers them in the right direction: someone to firmly tell him "no" and someone to kick him in the balls when he acts out.
What is the difference? When threaten or invade in order to distract from Epstein, how is it different from threatening or invading because they want glory and look masculine as a primary goal rather then second?
The US won't stop bullying the rest of the world until it has drastic consequences for its economy. Make of that what you will.
Well, a lot of countries are switching their supply chains to LATAM and Africa for this exact reason. I think the damage might have been already done
I mean, they've been doing far worse than what they're doing to Europe now to Asian, South American and African countries for at least 70 years.
That's just it: bullying the rest of the world typically doesn't have drastic negative consequences for an economy.
China's claimed the South China Sea as its sovereign waters and has been using force against fishermen from the nations that actually have control over the water. They're continuing to threaten Taiwan in a purely ideological push. Chinese secret police have set up stations abroad to kidnap dissidents. Border skirmishes with India are not uncommon. The agreement for a democratic Hong Kong was torn up and now they're under the thumb of the CCP, same as the mainland.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and of course Eastern Ukraine in 2022. They haven't had a "real" election in decades. Dissidents die suspiciously with regularity.
Both nations have supported the efforts of North Korea to further its nuclear arsenal in blatant violation of UN resolutions.
With the exception of the invasion of Ukraine, there have been zero negative consequences for any of this behavior.
Both nations have hosted at least one major international sporting event in the last 20 years. China is signing trade deals with Canada and the EU nations because, for some reason, those parties see a totalitarian single-party state as a viable alternative to the US that will never produce a "mad king", when in fact, it's almost tailor-made to do so. Construction on Nordstream 2 started after the invasion of Georgia, specifically because Europeans wanted Russian natural gas. Russian oligarchs continue to hold major interests in European nations and are free to move about the continent. Sanctions against the Russian economy over the invasion of Ukraine are dodged by dealing with intermediate parties so that many nations, including those in Europe, can do business as usual.
If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Why is Canada signing trade deals with China, when we’ve been putting up with tariffs from them for years?
This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
> This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.
The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.
Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.
A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.
But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.
Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.
That's kind of a question for your priest, but I'll give it a go.
https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart
I like to spend a lot of time at the World Happiness Report because it gives me a better sense of economic well-being. You can't just look at GDP, you need a sense of which countries are burning human capital to fuel GDP and generate billionaires. That's a very common short-term tactic, so the WHR gives you a better sense of long-term political stability. Unhappy populations tend to vote for strongmen.
It's basically impossible to get to Finland-levels without bringing everyone along. Not just internally like getting rid of 996, but also including neighbors like Taiwan/Ukraine cause corruption tends to leak back in. Imagine if Bush had spent the Iraq war trillions on high speed rail/free college/ housing. Instead we got ICE.
> If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Such a person (or the people willing to trust them) would be seen as naïve, though, because any sane person would tell you that's exactly what's been happening since you were born.
The headline has it backwards. The US was the one that invalidated the trade deal by imposing more than the 15% tariffs agreed to in the deal.
No, you are being pedantic. They did sit down and agree to suspend it because the 15% tariffs go against the agreement.
I don't think that counts as being pedantic. "Suspend" is not the right word if you're going to point out that it was the US that broke the deal, but the headline is burying the lede. Party A broke the deal, then party B announced the deal has been broken and formally suspended the deal. Party A's actions should be in the headline.
> US that broke the deal,
Changed the deal.
A deal is between 2 parties in agreement.
When both parties agree to terms that are written out, the one party (Europe) is given a document with modified terms, the provider (US) broke convention. The receiver of the modified document stopped the negotiation. Suspended is sufficient to describe the situation. This isnt complicated, sheesh.
> Changed the deal... [after] both parties agree to terms, [one] is given a document with modified terms...
Putting on my Dart Vader hat: "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw&t=11s
Not pedantic enough, actually. European lawmakers don't suspend the deal, they suspend work on implementing the laws that are part of a multi‑step political and legal process that in the end makes the deal implemented in all member states.
Makes sense, based on the situation...
Bullies hate this one weird trick.
I don’t know what the point of negotiating with Trump is if a few months later he will get upset about some made up problem and ignore the past agreement that was negotiated.
Is that the trade deal that prevents jailbreaking and interop that Doctorow was talking about?
I don't think so. I believe it is about "Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade". It was yet to be ratified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Reciprocal%2C_Fai...
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46702280
Alternate title: US doesn't want to get fucked by an illegitimate EU "government".
[flagged]
That the current US administration is behaving today not terribly unlike the UK regime of the late 18th century is not a convincing argument for the UK reasserting its historic imperial ambitions in North America or elsewhere.
Furthermore, the native populations of those western territories would probably like to have a word over UK & European rights to assert such privileges in the first place.
There was a recent article on Hackernews which has since got flagged but it was a petition where california gets to be part of denmark, because why not?
more than 200_000 people signed it & some in the hackernews comments even appreciated it with things like saying about healthcare etc.
so I can see it as a real possibility but this would invoke force given that US states cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
Edit: Forgot to write to be, my bad. Thanks to dragonwriter for seeing the edit as I agree that without the to be, the whole context completely changes
You have that backwards. It was a petition to sell California to Denmark.
https://www.newsweek.com/petition-denmark-buy-california-sig...
Yea, I knew that / meant this but I still miswrote it, sorry about that. Fixed it now.
> it was a petition where california gets part of denmark
You left out “to be” between “California gets” and “part of”, which rather substantially misrepresents the petition.
> > Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
> This isn’t particularly well know, but Russia has had nuclear weapons since 1949. I suspect this is why European countries have not adopted a more aggressive posture towards Russia in Ukraine.
Oh yeah, my apologies. Let me fix it, Sorry about that!! Yea my bad.
I understand why I got downvoted. Fair, yea its misrepresented I meant denmark gets california (edit: looks like I had made the same mistake here too lmao now fixed)
Be the chage you want to see, rather than stoop to lower levels.
Indeed, force isn't required, just have all EU countries divest of US treasuries and invest in Eurobonds. Invest Eurobonds in industries to achieve US independence. Europe holds ~$8T in US treasuries. Why continue to invest this capital in US debt being used to wage war and provide tax cuts for the wealthy when it could be used to improve Europe?
This will also force the US to fix its fiscal policy to avoid a debt spiral as the cost to borrow increases. To provide cheap credit to the US enables a bully who spends with no responsibility.
https://usafacts.org/government-spending/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_vigilante
I do feel as if though this might lead to US defaulting on its loan but it still wouldn't make a state secede from the market
Also probably EU should co-ordinate with different countries who are holding US treasuries and if they get screwed (China,Japan,Australia etc.) then these other countries can have net loss as well. (which can impact these countries internally to prevent EU from investing in their currencies worried about what if EU might plug in again, yes I know EU is in the right regarding the greenland crisis but still it's not about if EU would be right but if EU would be capable to go and do this & what's the definition/criteria required for them to do such.
The most loss would still be of America though but still EU might still face some loss too (comparatively small to America)
I do believe that this can weaken US so much that it might trigger insurrection act or similar and we are saying US act so unreasoable regarding greenland right now, I am 99% sure that a nuclear war would feel imminent if this happens and would have a genuine impact on QOL of European and America and the world in general too.
Sure america might lose more but there has to still be a proper discussion on what's really valuable right now & if this would make this geopolitical sense, then we will see it happen.
I do beleive that even this 8 billion is start. We might not see an immediate 8T $ worth of bonds sellout just now. But we might definitely get to around 10% (800 billion) imo in slow chunks imo.
Europe's probably trying to get the world on its side and forming alliances right now.
>Germany, France and the UK should also revise their other US policies, regaining control of their US territories
Europe's problem is there's about as much chance of this succeeding as of Taiwan conquering mainland China. Decades of prioritising welfare over warfare and economic growth have left Europe technologically and militarily completely unable to compete with the US, in spite of Europe's significantly larger population. Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
> Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine
Considering how difficult Russia's advances have been inside the Ukraine in the past couple of years, it would be trivial to "kick Russia out of Ukraine" if a few big players in the EU actually tried to do it.
> "kick Russia out of Ukraine" if a few big players in the EU actually tried to do it.
And you know why they won’t do that, right? Would anyone risk a new Hiroshima in their own country to save the Donbas?
The real fear is political due to Russia's hybrid war which has pushed a lot of pro-Russia isolationist parties ahead in many EU countries. Starting a conventional war against Russia carries a higher risk of these "pro-neutrality/pro-peace" parties rising to power than any nukes dropping.
Putin is stretched very thin and this fiasco in the Ukraine has shown that Russia can barely take on one country, even though once they were touting themselves as equal or better than the US.
That would require a military arsenal. The EU outsourced that to the U.S. a long time ago.
Yes yes there's not a single soldier in all of Europe. Every soldier, tank, and airplane is American. No other military technology exists. America great.
Seriously, I'll grant the most advanced stuff is American but you really think everybody else only has sticks, stones, and water pistols?
> Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine; how could it hope to deny any land to the US?
This isn’t particularly well know, but Russia has had nuclear weapons since 1949. I suspect this is why European countries have not adopted a more aggressive posture towards Russia in Ukraine. For some odd reason, no nuclear powers have ever invaded each other or declared war on each other since nuclear weapons were invented, aside from some bitchy slapfights in Kashmir. NATO is a de facto nuclear power, with (3) of the member states being nuclear states.
Europe is not waging a war with Russia, Ukraine is
Russia invaded Ukraine and would like to expand even more.
Not only that it was a USA project. The goal is to keep Europe and Russia apart.
> Decades of prioritising welfare over warfare and economic growth have left Europe
This omnipresent talking point is ridiculous. You know what the EU prioritized over out economic growth? Budget stability. That's why the US has 50% more debt as share of GDP than the EU does. (And that's arguably a mistake given the low growth in the EU since the financial crisis because of that policy, but it has nothing to do with Welfare vs Warfare. Quite this opposite actually, the US would even be a much richer country if it had spent all the GWOT money on Welfare instead).
> That's why the US has 50% more debt as share of GDP than the EU does.
The EU as a whole? Maybe. Now do, say, France.
You look like you are cherry picking.
> The EU as a whole? Maybe. Now do, say, France.
> You look like you are cherry picking.
Well, I'm taking the aggregate data, you pick one country in particular, who is cherry picking again?
>Europe couldn't kick Russia, a country with 10x lower GDP and a decrepit army, out of Ukraine;
Meanwhile, USA basically capitulated to Russia.
Capitulated what? Did the US lose something by stopping donations to Ukraine?
It is easy to understand, the citizens in the EU do not want to spill blood for Ukraine, and sinne not like in the Ruzzian empire where elections do not matter in EU countries politicians must not do unpopular things since they ned the support from the people and sending people to die is not popular in eU like it is in Ruzzia. But if say the Putin regime gets "tricked" again by CIA and Putin is forced to attack EU then we can see if we can push them out of not,
Talking with the Zed patriots they are convinced that CIA created nazis in UYkraine and also forced Putin to start this "special" operation, somehow Putin is a genius but at the same time IA tricked him or corced him to start a war that is in the 4th year of the 3 day operation.
So I don't really follow the news, except that adjacent stuff that pops up on hacker news... Is the administration serious or is this like just a distraction while they do something else when no one is paying attention?
It is certainly a privilege being an American right now and not having to worry about:
1) A rapidly growing economic crisis due to aggressive and inchorent foreign policy decisions
2) The new force of Gestapo murdering and harming citizens in cities all across the nation
A real privilege.
ICE isn't the Gestapo. The Gestapo didn't hide their faces.
If history is any guide, ICE may be better compared to the SA. Their job is to make it safe for the future Gestapo to operate unmasked... at which point the unprofessional street thugs in ICE will find that they've become a liability to the regime.
The Gestapo also didn't have smartphones recording their every action in public places being disseminated to the entire planet.
Note that Noem has already declared that any video evidence of ICE's criminal activity is itself illegal and inadmissible [1,2].
As I understand it, the right to record police has never actually been tried definitively at the SCOTUS level. The Republicans certainly have the tools on the SCOTUS bench to prohibit it now, so look for a case to be brought at some point.
1: https://reason.com/2026/01/08/you-have-the-right-to-record-i...
2: https://www.kqed.org/news/12070260/what-you-need-to-know-abo...
She says all kinds of stupid stuff. Nobody out in the real world should take that kind of statement seriously. Which school gave her that law degree?
Ah, the "They don't really mean it" school of thought. Thanks for your input.
Gestapo was proud of their work. If they could and had phones, they would post selfies.
But, they were actual police, highly effective. (Torured, murdered, commited genocide ... buy were actual trained cop good at being cops and good at genocide).
Does it matter?
You can only threaten your friends so many times before they cut you out, and Trump is going on a year straight of threatening us (Canada, but also Greenland) with annexation, and the EU with sanctions and tariffs.
It doesn’t matter if the US government are serious or are posturing, the message is clear: prepare for existential warfare (economic or militarily) or be faced with it.
I think Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech yesterday captures the shared sentiment outside of the US very well. It’s worth listening to and lays bare the cracks in international diplomacy the last 80 years.
I personally find the argument that it’s about masking something clever weak. There are two things going on: repeatedly admitting US manufacturing can’t keep up with China and desperately trying to bring it home, and “Donroe Doctrine” colonialism where the US wants to lean on the weak to extract money out of them.
Maybe next year Trump is going to say “look how strong I made NATOs military, no more freeloaders here, this was all a ruse”, but I doubt it.
And my personal raw take, as a Canadian: we’ve shown we will take a punch to the nose for the US, it’s going to be impossible to look at our relationship the same for a generation. I’ve worked for US companies (as do most of our best and brightest), we have tight security integrations, this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
>this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
American here with Canadian family members.
Agree 100%, this whole thing was incredibly dumb from the beginning. Trump's dementia and ego will ruin (has ruined?) the US's standing in what was the former West. What a sad day to be alive.
This administration is awful and yes they are serious. Listening to the speech yesterday was infuriating.
I wish I could ignore all of this because I am tired man.
[flagged]
Who knows. But at some point it doesn't matter and it would be imprudent not to deal with it as serious.
>> or is this like just a distraction while they do something else when no one is paying attention?
"Nearly all Epstein files still unreleased a month after Congress deadline" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/jeffrey-epst...
People should end up in jail, unfortunately it's the people responsible for enforcing the law that are breaking it. I expect impeachment attempts within the next year or so.
Neither. Trump is a reality TV guy and he's running things as if it's a TV show. He's making drama for the sake of drama. He's basically one of those kids who never learned the difference between good attention and bad attention.
He's also never gotten what drama addicts get as kids that kinda steers them in the right direction: someone to firmly tell him "no" and someone to kick him in the balls when he acts out.
What is the difference? When threaten or invade in order to distract from Epstein, how is it different from threatening or invading because they want glory and look masculine as a primary goal rather then second?