And now the fun begins where tv news' "political analysts" start on their "how to interpret what Trump said".. It won't happen but I can't help but wonder what would happen if other more sane...
And now the fun begins where tv news' "political analysts" start on their "how to interpret what Trump said"..
It won't happen but I can't help but wonder what would happen if other more sane countries started taking what he says at face value this time. He is chaos incarnate so take off the gloves and let him FAFO. Maybe then 51% of Americans would wake the fuck up, come to their senses, and elect someone reasonable next time.
What would that actually mean? Foreign leaders weren’t “nice” to Trump because they’re nice people or trying to be nice to Americans. They were nice to Trump because the US is an extremely...
He is chaos incarnate so take off the gloves and let him FAFO.
What would that actually mean? Foreign leaders weren’t “nice” to Trump because they’re nice people or trying to be nice to Americans. They were nice to Trump because the US is an extremely powerful economic and military force and it’s in their own best interests. That’s no different now.
Arguably, it’s even more so the case, with Europe being squeezed by Putin. If America stopped LNG shipments to Europe, it would be catastrophic.
I know it would have massive consequences - I still can't help but wonder what would happen though. It would be detrimental to Europe, yes, but also to the US, and maybe that's what it takes to...
I know it would have massive consequences - I still can't help but wonder what would happen though.
It would be detrimental to Europe, yes, but also to the US, and maybe that's what it takes to properly turn the tide. Maybe it would be best long term - for Europe too, because we rely way too much on the US in my opinion. Although irt. LNG, we got through it when gas was cut by Russia. But we need to be able to stand alone a lot better if there is an emergency of any sort and we are not capable enough nor have enough contingencies for worst case scenarios. Hybrid warfare is already underway and energy is a weak spot which can be hampered with. So yeah, we need to wake up too and be able to very quickly go into what I guess you could call a war economy to take care of ourselves. Because it's codependency now basically
I am black/white thinking I admit, but also just hypothesizing so don't take this too seriously!
Well, the issue is that Europe is mostly comprised of democracies. The far right is already ascendant in Europe - the European parliament has never been further to the right, several European...
Well, the issue is that Europe is mostly comprised of democracies. The far right is already ascendant in Europe - the European parliament has never been further to the right, several European countries have far right parties in power, and several more like Germany and France have far right parties dangerously close to being able to form a government.
What happens when the centrist governments now cause inflation to MASSIVELY spike (which is what would happen if many US exports stop to Europe, especially energy) to spite Donald Trump? How easy would it be for AfD to run on this? Have we not already seen how badly incumbent parties are hurt by inflation. And this time there's a direct link!
And now we have all of Europe becoming far right ultranationalist, who are not only friendly to Trump, but, y'know, far right ultranationalists.
An end of European and American cooperation wouldn't be a wakeup call for anyone. It would be an irreversible disaster that would take generations to recover from. Power abhors a vaccum, and...
An end of European and American cooperation wouldn't be a wakeup call for anyone. It would be an irreversible disaster that would take generations to recover from.
Power abhors a vaccum, and currently, the US/Europe hegemony is the most powerful in the world, and the most powerful the world has ever seen. Open competition would leave the door open to China, who is already poised to be the largest economy in the world, and would absolutely leapfrog even quicker if Europe and the US started spending significant amounts of resources to try to hurt each other.
The era of unrivaled European dominance has long gone, and the era of unrivaled American dominance is very quickly sunsetting. That's ok for both economies, the US can potentially occupy a still important, but not totally unrivaled space in the future, much like France or Germany or the UK have done for 100 years now. If we start fighting amongst ourselves though, it's far more likely that we end up like Russia; a once extremely influential country with a legacy of military, political and economic power that's now teetering on being a failed state, with an economy in shambles and the living standard of its people in the toilet.
No one would really learn anything from that, just like the Russians haven't learned. They'd dig their heels in, blame whoever the dominant power is for all of their problems, and things would just slowly continue to get worse.
To be honest, China wouldn't benefit for it either given their own economic woes. The only countries that may benefit from such an implosion would be France's former colonies it still has massive...
To be honest, China wouldn't benefit for it either given their own economic woes. The only countries that may benefit from such an implosion would be France's former colonies it still has massive influence over though France's influence in that region is already fading.
If we really fuck overselves over like this, well, I can only hope that the future generations will learn better than we have.
I don't know, I'm concerned we'll end up bombing Panama or blockading the canal or something else horrible. Like I don't know how to stop that if he decides to do it.
I don't know, I'm concerned we'll end up bombing Panama or blockading the canal or something else horrible. Like I don't know how to stop that if he decides to do it.
Trump has direct control over foreign Policy, the military and immigration. There might be civilian mass action that could interfere or pressure congress to impeach him, but these are clumsy tools...
Trump has direct control over foreign Policy, the military and immigration.
There might be civilian mass action that could interfere or pressure congress to impeach him, but these are clumsy tools and people would have to agree in significant numbers.
Right, he seems really fixated on expanding the US in a way he wasn't before and it concerns me that he'll have more yes-men in federal agencies and that if he does decide to run a blockade of the...
Right, he seems really fixated on expanding the US in a way he wasn't before and it concerns me that he'll have more yes-men in federal agencies and that if he does decide to run a blockade of the Panema Canal for example there's nothing anyone can or will do about it. (Corporations are the most likely to get involved there IMO but yeah)
He rambles all the time but he's going to be in charge of those things in days.
You're not wrong. Either he is just being a blowhard or he will take aggressive action. Popular backlash if any will come after the fact. Johnson and Nixon were free to fight Vietnam. Andrew...
You're not wrong.
Either he is just being a blowhard or he will take aggressive action. Popular backlash if any will come after the fact.
Johnson and Nixon were free to fight Vietnam. Andrew Jackson was free to enforce the trail of tears.
The thing is, he's not the one that gets everything done. Obviously he's made it quite clear he wants more power and wants to abuse all the power he can get, but he's got teams and organizations...
The thing is, he's not the one that gets everything done. Obviously he's made it quite clear he wants more power and wants to abuse all the power he can get, but he's got teams and organizations full of people who are planning and scheming of ways to abuse this power. They're all scrambling to get into this grift and find ways to exploit America and the rest of the world in whatever way they can for their own personal gains. Trump's remarks might occupy some amount of time where he could be doing something else, but he's only one person anyhow, these ridiculous sideshows are providing cover for hundreds or thousands of people who are looking to take advantage of this situation.
I simply don't buy that Trump's first term was a dud of mostly nothing (I'm not saying you said it, but it's along the lines of the idea expressed, and I've seen it mentioned about Trump's first term before so it sticks in my head when talking about the success of his actions as President and how we should really be evaluating them), many people involved in this grift caused immense damage to this country and to the world through actions beyond what Trump was pointing his finger at, and beyond the obvious Supreme Court judiciary and federal judiciary appointments. It's not like it's just Trump himself evaluating all the people for those appointments and it's not Trump himself that orchestrated the theft of a judiciary appointment in Obama's term nor did he make much of the other appointments happen either. People around him advise him, he makes decisions or delegates when he wants, and other people carry it out. Congress approved his appointments, he nominated them but they approved them. These are the people we should be concerned about as much as if not more than Trump.
I hope you're right! And I say that not in a sarcastic, pessimistic way, but with genuine optimism. May he waste both his own time, as well as that of everyone around him who thirsts for power.
I hope you're right! And I say that not in a sarcastic, pessimistic way, but with genuine optimism. May he waste both his own time, as well as that of everyone around him who thirsts for power.
Greenland is such an odd angle for anything. What's desirable over there? icebergs to "fix global warming"? Not to mention that grabbing Greenland means conflict with Denmark (and then the EU in...
Greenland is such an odd angle for anything. What's desirable over there? icebergs to "fix global warming"? Not to mention that grabbing Greenland means conflict with Denmark (and then the EU in general).
(btw: the answer was seafood. That and some oil and minerals here and there)
Panama is more of a .1% chance. always seemed to be this small area of North/South America that the US wanted control over but never got full control over. Perfect place to flex a power hungry president's ego.
Greenland is strategically important because it allows access to the pole and the straits, as well as provide military presence to deter China and Russia. That entire region is becoming more...
Greenland is strategically important because it allows access to the pole and the straits, as well as provide military presence to deter China and Russia. That entire region is becoming more passable due to global warming, which is expected to open a much shorter shipping lane, and it provides a ton of untouched raw resources that can be exploited due to... You guessed it.. global warming.
The play for Greenland isn't an odd one if this were 1938, but imperialism is moderately frowned upon these days.
There's also the fact that Denmark is a US ally and NATO member, and thus we already benefit from most of the strategic advantages there. The US has had a military presence in Greenland since WW2....
The play for Greenland isn't an odd one if this were 1938, but imperialism is moderately frowned upon these days.
There's also the fact that Denmark is a US ally and NATO member, and thus we already benefit from most of the strategic advantages there. The US has had a military presence in Greenland since WW2. It used to be where our northernmost Air Force base was... but that base is apparently a "space force" base now.
So one theory I heard is that perhaps Trump is saying ridiculous shit now in order to tank the market, so that when he becomes president he can back track and cause the market to rocket, then...
So one theory I heard is that perhaps Trump is saying ridiculous shit now in order to tank the market, so that when he becomes president he can back track and cause the market to rocket, then claim he improved it compared to Biden.
Long before Trump was president, he cultivated a friendship with the owner of the National Inquirer and one with WWE's Vince McMahon. Saying things to make a publicity impact without those things...
Long before Trump was president, he cultivated a friendship with the owner of the National Inquirer and one with WWE's Vince McMahon. Saying things to make a publicity impact without those things being literally true is absolutely part of Trump's play book.
However Trump is greedy and I could see him honestly wanting to annex Greenland. It looks big on flat maps. It has projected mineral wealth. It has empty land that could potentially be developed. It's strategically located. Trump wants his presidency to not be forgotten.
The daily exhaustion of "wtf did he say today" is something I don't miss from 2016 and I'm trying to find a way to stay informed and be able to respond through contacting my Representative or...
The daily exhaustion of "wtf did he say today" is something I don't miss from 2016 and I'm trying to find a way to stay informed and be able to respond through contacting my Representative or Senator for example, while also not having to listen to his voice or somehow worse the "reasonable interpretation" that media gives him but that he usually explicitly disdains in a "Tweet" later. I just... idk.
99% of the time, and that's being generous, something someone says is never news. 101% of the time, something someone refuses to "rule out" is not news. If you could filter any news source for...
99% of the time, and that's being generous, something someone says is never news. 101% of the time, something someone refuses to "rule out" is not news.
If you could filter any news source for things that people 'DO', vs things that people 'SAY', news sources would have 1 story ever 3 days.
Now you're getting it. (I originally just wrote this, but I'm gonna add context so its not all just sass) Example 1. Putin and his spokespeople say stuff all the time. The reason they say it is...
Now you're getting it. (I originally just wrote this, but I'm gonna add context so its not all just sass)
Example 1. Putin and his spokespeople say stuff all the time. The reason they say it is because they know the news will run with it. Its all nonsense and posturing. None of that is news. If a country promises jets to Ukraine, that's just words, but its an action in a sense. They have committed to something. If North Korean troops start showing up, that's news. If lil' Kim had said they were gonna send troops, that's one of those that you have to take a look at. Maybe he is just blustering, but it's also kinda unprecedented and worth perking up for a bit.
Example 2. Nvidia has event to announce their new graphics card. This is like scheduling a press conference to announce the sun is coming up tomorrow. You know they are gonna do it. You know the event is going to be riddled with marketing nonsense. None of this is news.
It's not news, its nonsense. And, its nonsense because people are interested in random gossip and can-you-believe-isms. You can argue that there is value in that, but it ain't news.
I’m also considering myself “out” on these kinds of stories for term #2. Congrats to the press who had to suffer through four years of boring years of Biden, you can now make money off “wacky...
I’m also considering myself “out” on these kinds of stories for term #2. Congrats to the press who had to suffer through four years of boring years of Biden, you can now make money off “wacky Trump” articles again. But I’d rather not give him the oxygen, if he wants attention it should be by actually governing.
That's part of what ~society was made for. But it's still a new group and it'll take time for most posters to adjust on where to post such news. The moderation work to organize stories is also...
That's part of what ~society was made for. But it's still a new group and it'll take time for most posters to adjust on where to post such news.
The moderation work to organize stories is also volunteer work, so we can't necessarily expect expedient work from them.
Honestly the headline is the cleaned up version of that press conference.
And now the fun begins where tv news' "political analysts" start on their "how to interpret what Trump said"..
It won't happen but I can't help but wonder what would happen if other more sane countries started taking what he says at face value this time. He is chaos incarnate so take off the gloves and let him FAFO. Maybe then 51% of Americans would wake the fuck up, come to their senses, and elect someone reasonable next time.
What would that actually mean? Foreign leaders weren’t “nice” to Trump because they’re nice people or trying to be nice to Americans. They were nice to Trump because the US is an extremely powerful economic and military force and it’s in their own best interests. That’s no different now.
Arguably, it’s even more so the case, with Europe being squeezed by Putin. If America stopped LNG shipments to Europe, it would be catastrophic.
I know it would have massive consequences - I still can't help but wonder what would happen though.
It would be detrimental to Europe, yes, but also to the US, and maybe that's what it takes to properly turn the tide. Maybe it would be best long term - for Europe too, because we rely way too much on the US in my opinion. Although irt. LNG, we got through it when gas was cut by Russia. But we need to be able to stand alone a lot better if there is an emergency of any sort and we are not capable enough nor have enough contingencies for worst case scenarios. Hybrid warfare is already underway and energy is a weak spot which can be hampered with. So yeah, we need to wake up too and be able to very quickly go into what I guess you could call a war economy to take care of ourselves. Because it's codependency now basically
I am black/white thinking I admit, but also just hypothesizing so don't take this too seriously!
Well, the issue is that Europe is mostly comprised of democracies. The far right is already ascendant in Europe - the European parliament has never been further to the right, several European countries have far right parties in power, and several more like Germany and France have far right parties dangerously close to being able to form a government.
What happens when the centrist governments now cause inflation to MASSIVELY spike (which is what would happen if many US exports stop to Europe, especially energy) to spite Donald Trump? How easy would it be for AfD to run on this? Have we not already seen how badly incumbent parties are hurt by inflation. And this time there's a direct link!
And now we have all of Europe becoming far right ultranationalist, who are not only friendly to Trump, but, y'know, far right ultranationalists.
An end of European and American cooperation wouldn't be a wakeup call for anyone. It would be an irreversible disaster that would take generations to recover from.
Power abhors a vaccum, and currently, the US/Europe hegemony is the most powerful in the world, and the most powerful the world has ever seen. Open competition would leave the door open to China, who is already poised to be the largest economy in the world, and would absolutely leapfrog even quicker if Europe and the US started spending significant amounts of resources to try to hurt each other.
The era of unrivaled European dominance has long gone, and the era of unrivaled American dominance is very quickly sunsetting. That's ok for both economies, the US can potentially occupy a still important, but not totally unrivaled space in the future, much like France or Germany or the UK have done for 100 years now. If we start fighting amongst ourselves though, it's far more likely that we end up like Russia; a once extremely influential country with a legacy of military, political and economic power that's now teetering on being a failed state, with an economy in shambles and the living standard of its people in the toilet.
No one would really learn anything from that, just like the Russians haven't learned. They'd dig their heels in, blame whoever the dominant power is for all of their problems, and things would just slowly continue to get worse.
To be honest, China wouldn't benefit for it either given their own economic woes. The only countries that may benefit from such an implosion would be France's former colonies it still has massive influence over though France's influence in that region is already fading.
If we really fuck overselves over like this, well, I can only hope that the future generations will learn better than we have.
I don't know, I'm concerned we'll end up bombing Panama or blockading the canal or something else horrible. Like I don't know how to stop that if he decides to do it.
Trump has direct control over foreign Policy, the military and immigration.
There might be civilian mass action that could interfere or pressure congress to impeach him, but these are clumsy tools and people would have to agree in significant numbers.
Right, he seems really fixated on expanding the US in a way he wasn't before and it concerns me that he'll have more yes-men in federal agencies and that if he does decide to run a blockade of the Panema Canal for example there's nothing anyone can or will do about it. (Corporations are the most likely to get involved there IMO but yeah)
He rambles all the time but he's going to be in charge of those things in days.
You're not wrong.
Either he is just being a blowhard or he will take aggressive action. Popular backlash if any will come after the fact.
Johnson and Nixon were free to fight Vietnam. Andrew Jackson was free to enforce the trail of tears.
I don’t see us going to war to get this land, so I’m always put at ease when Trump focuses on these things. It’s a massive time sink for him.
The thing is, he's not the one that gets everything done. Obviously he's made it quite clear he wants more power and wants to abuse all the power he can get, but he's got teams and organizations full of people who are planning and scheming of ways to abuse this power. They're all scrambling to get into this grift and find ways to exploit America and the rest of the world in whatever way they can for their own personal gains. Trump's remarks might occupy some amount of time where he could be doing something else, but he's only one person anyhow, these ridiculous sideshows are providing cover for hundreds or thousands of people who are looking to take advantage of this situation.
I simply don't buy that Trump's first term was a dud of mostly nothing (I'm not saying you said it, but it's along the lines of the idea expressed, and I've seen it mentioned about Trump's first term before so it sticks in my head when talking about the success of his actions as President and how we should really be evaluating them), many people involved in this grift caused immense damage to this country and to the world through actions beyond what Trump was pointing his finger at, and beyond the obvious Supreme Court judiciary and federal judiciary appointments. It's not like it's just Trump himself evaluating all the people for those appointments and it's not Trump himself that orchestrated the theft of a judiciary appointment in Obama's term nor did he make much of the other appointments happen either. People around him advise him, he makes decisions or delegates when he wants, and other people carry it out. Congress approved his appointments, he nominated them but they approved them. These are the people we should be concerned about as much as if not more than Trump.
I hope you're right! And I say that not in a sarcastic, pessimistic way, but with genuine optimism. May he waste both his own time, as well as that of everyone around him who thirsts for power.
Greenland is such an odd angle for anything. What's desirable over there? icebergs to "fix global warming"? Not to mention that grabbing Greenland means conflict with Denmark (and then the EU in general).
(btw: the answer was seafood. That and some oil and minerals here and there)
Panama is more of a .1% chance. always seemed to be this small area of North/South America that the US wanted control over but never got full control over. Perfect place to flex a power hungry president's ego.
Greenland is strategically important because it allows access to the pole and the straits, as well as provide military presence to deter China and Russia. That entire region is becoming more passable due to global warming, which is expected to open a much shorter shipping lane, and it provides a ton of untouched raw resources that can be exploited due to... You guessed it.. global warming.
The play for Greenland isn't an odd one if this were 1938, but imperialism is moderately frowned upon these days.
There's also the fact that Denmark is a US ally and NATO member, and thus we already benefit from most of the strategic advantages there. The US has had a military presence in Greenland since WW2. It used to be where our northernmost Air Force base was... but that base is apparently a "space force" base now.
Yes, wouldn't be odd back then! Denmark sold some Caribbean islands to the US in 1917:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indies
So one theory I heard is that perhaps Trump is saying ridiculous shit now in order to tank the market, so that when he becomes president he can back track and cause the market to rocket, then claim he improved it compared to Biden.
Long before Trump was president, he cultivated a friendship with the owner of the National Inquirer and one with WWE's Vince McMahon. Saying things to make a publicity impact without those things being literally true is absolutely part of Trump's play book.
However Trump is greedy and I could see him honestly wanting to annex Greenland. It looks big on flat maps. It has projected mineral wealth. It has empty land that could potentially be developed. It's strategically located. Trump wants his presidency to not be forgotten.
A more plausible theory is that he just has dementia.
Please tag as politics.
Is there a Rage bait nonsense tag we can filter for? Mark it as that.
Is it still rage bait if it's something the president actually says?
Given the nature of mr. orange's behavior and speech, it could reasonably be asserted as both at the same time.
The daily exhaustion of "wtf did he say today" is something I don't miss from 2016 and I'm trying to find a way to stay informed and be able to respond through contacting my Representative or Senator for example, while also not having to listen to his voice or somehow worse the "reasonable interpretation" that media gives him but that he usually explicitly disdains in a "Tweet" later. I just... idk.
99% of the time, and that's being generous, something someone says is never news. 101% of the time, something someone refuses to "rule out" is not news.
If you could filter any news source for things that people 'DO', vs things that people 'SAY', news sources would have 1 story ever 3 days.
So, yes.
I would guesstimate that 99% of what someone says is what makes it on the news. So 99% of news is ragebait..?
Now you're getting it. (I originally just wrote this, but I'm gonna add context so its not all just sass)
Example 1. Putin and his spokespeople say stuff all the time. The reason they say it is because they know the news will run with it. Its all nonsense and posturing. None of that is news. If a country promises jets to Ukraine, that's just words, but its an action in a sense. They have committed to something. If North Korean troops start showing up, that's news. If lil' Kim had said they were gonna send troops, that's one of those that you have to take a look at. Maybe he is just blustering, but it's also kinda unprecedented and worth perking up for a bit.
Example 2. Nvidia has event to announce their new graphics card. This is like scheduling a press conference to announce the sun is coming up tomorrow. You know they are gonna do it. You know the event is going to be riddled with marketing nonsense. None of this is news.
It's not news, its nonsense. And, its nonsense because people are interested in random gossip and can-you-believe-isms. You can argue that there is value in that, but it ain't news.
I’m also considering myself “out” on these kinds of stories for term #2. Congrats to the press who had to suffer through four years of boring years of Biden, you can now make money off “wacky Trump” articles again. But I’d rather not give him the oxygen, if he wants attention it should be by actually governing.
That's part of what ~society was made for. But it's still a new group and it'll take time for most posters to adjust on where to post such news.
The moderation work to organize stories is also volunteer work, so we can't necessarily expect expedient work from them.
A man's gotta sleep... 😉