What should the EU do when Trump wins the next election?
So, barring illness Trump will be the next president of the USA, simply by virtue of him not being in a position to fuck things up whereas Biden will. How should other countries react to the fascist douche being elected?
Comments (376)
Thank God he's not a neo-con.
Perhaps with a threat of economic sanctions because Americans care passionately about their economy. It's better than tempting another world war (supposing there is an up-rise of right wing nationalism).
Oh please. The EU fears US sanctions more than the US fears the EU. Trump, despite his many many many flaws is dovish, if for no other reason than he's protectionist.
Estado Unidos.
If that be the case i think it's inaccurate to call him a fascist in the same sense that Hitler and Mussolini were fascist.
Yeah, but they were a bit hawkish.
1. I think that unless Biden makes some serious blunders or fails on health reasons, it is unlikely Trump will be elected.
2. Trump is less fascist than Xi.
3. So, irrespective of who the POTUS is, I think the EU and the West in general should form a united front with Russia, India, and Japan against China.
Holy shit. It's all starting to make sense.
Point taken. We will call trump a non-hawkish fascist!
But is president Xi a threat to the EU? If so, who's a bigger threat to the European Union? The United States (under fascist Trump) or China?
I think he is. Not (yet) militarily, but certainly economically the EU is becoming dangerously dependent on China. With economic influence, sooner or later comes political influence and interference.
Which option should the EU go for? A divided world dominated by fascist China or a united world keeping Chinese expansionism under control?
Why even bring China into this? Chinese expansionism is a separate issue. The OP is about Trump America.
The OP title says "What should the EU do when Trump wins the election?" So I think it is about the EU. And the EU has close economic links with China, not only with the US.
The EU can't suddenly forget or ignore China just because America changes presidents. International relations operate within a global situation, not in some isolated EU-US rapport.
Yeah, i don't really care about the EU.
Well, let's wait to cross that bridge.
Having said that, there's little reason to suspect the EU will do much of anything. What could they do? Sanction the US or get out of NATO? They rely on NATO for defense.
If they had balls, they'd try to improve relations with other big powers, instead of following Washington in many aspects of FP. There are exceptions true, but the EU needs a dose of actual democracy.
The EU itself, as it currently exists, is extremely anti-democratic, relying on fanatical market bureaucrats. Maybe Trump winning again they'd talk about doing something, and then they'd do nothing.
French president Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have both expressed their support for a joint European army.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_army
Who's the fascist now?
Does mental illness count? Anyhow, no he won't because rabbits are cute. And my argument is just as strong as yours.
Yes, that's what they do talk. In that same article you provide it says:
"Currently, there is no such army, and defence is a matter for the member states." and "NATO has been described as the "biggest obstacle" to a European army."
I don't what you are talking about with the fascist question.
You can't spin elections, can you?
Something doesn't seem quite right with the EU. It isn't for nothing that the UK got out and apparently Poland and others are beginning to have second thoughts.
It's a shame really because I think Europe needs to be united in order to survive. The question is how to get a democratic leadership when the interests of corporations and their political collaborators are put before the interests of the people ....
Nevermind the fascist point. I had something else in mind. :yikes:
But the again EU is anti-democratic, and they also want and army... :grimace:
Sorry for being pedantic, but it's Los Estados Unidos. otherwise it'd be el estado unido: the united state or. in other words, consciousness. :wink:
As to the EU, anyone who wanted to bring the U.S. to heel need only come up with a viable PetroEuro or PetroYuan. We'd be a third world country overnight.
Yes. Varoufakis and Mody document this quite well.
I agree, they should unite in a kind of "United States of Europe", but the current system they have is crazy. They impose austerity on each other and central bank don't give a damn about anything but inflation.
After two World Wars, one would think they've learned fighting each other is no good.
?
Not for no lack of trying. He wanted to provoke a war with Iran by assassinating Soleimani. Iran did not take the bait, despite having ships near there territorial waters.
Not to mention this insane turn in policy with Taiwan, which, if continues as is, might well destroy us all. And I'm not exaggerating.
Trump would like to spin anything in what he does and somehow come out superior. But, the dementia seems to show when he tried to spin the 2020 elections.
Apology accepted.
I agree that this was a big faux pas as was his "debate".
But I'm not sure about "dementia". I think his biggest problem was that he had no knowledge or understanding of politics and he surrounded himself with advisers whose advice he half of the time chose to ignore.
And let's not forget that the pandemic was unprecedented, and no one was prepared for it. He could have done better, but he didn't handle it much worse than many other leaders around the world.
Correct. Total waste of time, money and other resources that could be put to better use. And other powers are taking full advantage to increase the division for their own agendas.
Sorry, but, he made 9 phone calls to the DOJ about turning over the election and handing him the victory. He may or may not have dementia; but, it strikes as some kind of needless spin so he can turn out superior because that what he believes he is, when the issue was about not his superiority; but, the votes of Americans.
Yeah. It's ironic.
Not that NATO is much better. I mean yes, the US is somewhat democratic, more than the EU now, I'd argue, but it doesn't matter, I mean they can just bombard you with propaganda and people go wild and want to go to war.
Insane.
Correct. The Iraq war had really good ratings on cable news. To quote George Carlin, "We love war!"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fox-news-tops-cnn-msnbc-in-initial-war-ratings-race
I agree. It's hard to tell what actually happened there. Quite possibly, he does have some psychological or personality issues. I'm not excluding that.
But someone in his position has no direct contact with the world, he knows what he is told by others and precisely because he wasn't a professional politician I don't think he understood how things are done outside the business world. He obviously doesn't have the refinement and social skills of someone who has been a lawyer and politician for many years.
Still, he did quite well in the polls until the epidemic started to bite and the issue of police racism flared up in combination with the general public frustration. But none of those issues were his fault.
Yeah. Fox.
I think there should be a law that says that opinion or preference can't be given as fact.
Yea, good luck passing that. I believe it's also unconstitutional. Was it the 1st amendment?
Maybe. The constitution should be updated though. It's not as if it were God's word or something.
But, point taken.
Petition for an amendment! Reason: too many gullible people! Now, how's that for a proposition? :nerd:
Yeah. It should be amended significantly every X amount of time. They had no idea about what we would be dealing with back in the day. Nor the moral progress we've made in many areas.
Yeah, but US conservatives won't have it. They've successfully made congress dysfunctional. And you need congress to help ratify a new amendment. (I forgot the whole process)
:rofl:
This is a gross misconception. People just keep repeating each other that the EU is not democratic. It is, in fact, more democratic than some European states and it certainly is more democratic than the USA if only for the fact that there's a plurality of parties, meaning the representation of various different types of EU citizens is better guaranteed.
Unlike the USA, the EU is less susceptible to lobbying influence as a result of the plurality as well and requires the approval of individual Member States depending on the subject. This requires successful lobbying efforts to connect with the EC, the EU Parliament and the relevant heads of state or ministers at the same time.
Of course, part of what is often considered the democratic deficit results from the particular constitutional setup of the EU, which has two sources for democratic legitimacy. On the one hand the EU Parliament and on the other the European Council (not to be confused with the Council of Europe). The first directly represents EU citizens the second the people of individual member states. The second is an international treaty principle of equality among states and it's difficult to reconcile the two because obviously smaller countries are "overrepresented" in the European Council which can be a loggerheads with the overall will of all EU citizens. On the other hand, it is another check and balance on the exercise of power, more regularly requiring compromises.
And while the Parliament only has a weak right to propose new legislation, which the EC can ignore provided it gives reason to do so, the fact is that in almost all democracies, the majority of legislative proposals are initiated by governments and often passed with little or no resistance (either due to governing coalitions enforcing party line voting or governing majorities in national parliaments). Additionally, for each new legislative proposal by the EC a new and separate coalition/compromise must be build to pass it. The EU Parliament exercises a lot of influence on legislative proposals.
Meanwhile, voting in the European Council requires a qualified majority or sometimes unanimity.
So when people complain about the democratic deficit of the EU, it usually reflects little knowledge of how the EU works and why. Which of course is also a problem because the EU should explain what it does much better than it does now.
This is how democracy works: prior to the American civil war there were five different parties that claimed to be anti-slavery. Only one party was pro-slavery.
The result was that anti-slavery energy was scattered at best and divided against itself at worst.
Lincoln gathered all the anti-slavery parties together and thus won the presidency.
Plurality of parties usually means there's either no pressing issues to deal with or there's apathy about dealing with the issues at hand.
Funny how all those Nordic European countries end up being so damn progressive, totally gripped by apathy...
The EU is not the USA and it certainly isn't the USA at the time of the civil war.
A sign that this forum needs new blood is that I already know you aren't going to understand what I just told you.
But the conditions in which it would have to make that shift would favor tyranny, not democracy.
Yes, it has all these separate governing bodies and all these fancy sounding internal organizations. How much influence does the average European have over any of this?
Virtually nothing. Yeah they can send some people to parliament, if they even know about it. It often (not always) boils down to ECB dogma.
As SchƤuble told Varoufakis when Syrizia won: āElections cannot be allowed to change economic policy."
Member states cannot decide how much money they should print given the specific economic situations they find themselves in - outside of a select number of countries.
Parliaments are nice, and I like that they can form coalitions to pass laws. Did the EU function well in the 2009 crisis? What about the pandemic, did the member states help each other out?
It was Cuba and China, not Germany or France, who helped Italy.
In short, the EU has a long way to go to become democratic.
Again, Mody and Varoufakis describe this very well.
But I do agree that information on how the EU works, should be made easier to gather.
Itās too late. EU leaders ran to contribute to world-wide fascism far quicker than Trump did. Theyāll need to beg the man for forgiveness.
Quoting Manuel
I just explained how it is more representative than some EU states so virtually nothing is still more than most "democracies". So if your point is that modern democracies are not democratic enough then ok, but otherwise, this is simply not true relative to existing democratic countries.
Quoting Manuel
Compared to what? I can criticise Dutch society up and down all day and point out all its flaws but at the end of the day it's a hell of a lot better than 98% of the rest of the world in most areas that matter to me. And did member states help each other out? They do so on an ongoing basis through the exchange of information, technology, capital, goods, people etc. and specifically Italy enjoys low interest rates on its bonds thanks to the ESF giving it headroom to react to the pandemic. Italy could borrow money from the ESD and received money through the Recovery and Resilience Facility during the pandemic. Did the EU and other member states initially not react to calls for help from Italy? Certainly. Everybody was unprepared for the pandemic, Italy, the EU and every other member state. But that's not a consequence of the function of the EU but a result of the gross underestimation of the risks of a viral pandemic, which underestimation we've seen in almost every country that hadn't dealt with MERS and SARS.
And Varoufakis has an axe to grind due to his role (or lack thereof really) in the Greek restructuring. Why take him so seriously? Greece and the other member states were collectively fucked by the banking industry, which claimed if Greece failed on its bonds it would cascade through Europe. Everybody feared that spectre and the resultant disintegration of the EU. Of course, Greece also got itself in that mess in the first place by window dressing its accounts through the use of off market swaps (courtesy of Goldman Sachs). Point is, it's not so black and white.
Mody, I assume you mean Ashoka Mody, is in the long list of the "euro can't work" authors at a time when support for the euro among industries, people and politicians is at an all time high. So really, who cares what he thinks? He probably makes some fair criticisms, I have some of my own especially around the introduction of the EUR but let's not pretend
At the end of the day, the EU functioned way better than the UK and the USA and worse than a few other countries.
Quoting Manuel
Yeah, not really, you overestimate the democratic credentials of EU member states.
Flawed democracies in the EU:
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Greece
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
I found that information here. :chin:
https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/01/less-than-half-of-eu-countries-are-fully-democratic-report
Full Democracies
Sweden
Denmark
Ireland
Finland
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Germany
United Kingdom
Austria
Malta
Spain
Am I missing something? Isn't the UK part of the EU??
Quoting Benkei 2009, there was no Brexit yet! I rest my case. :cool:
I see it makes more sense now. :smile:
It's true that the world was unprepared. Most of it. Not Taiwan or South Korea. But as soon as Biden came to office, the US did way better than the EU in organizing vaccine rollouts.
Now that's not the case, due, in large part, to the denialism of large swaths of the US population. But there's no reason why Europe could not have organized itself much better to respond to a crisis. It's a fault in the organization of the EU, it need not happen this way.
Quoting Benkei
Why take him seriously? He went to the EU to argue that they couldn't pay back the money they were being lent! They did not listen to him, and said what I quoted to you. What happened then? Brutal austerity. That's not a law of nature. It need not have occurred.
Quoting Benkei
One only "cares" about people who seem to make some sense on what they're saying. That's the only extent to which anybody should care about what anyone says. Yes, he's overly critical in my estimation, but if you read about how the EU formed and how they dealt with the crisis based on the observations of an insider to the IMF, it's interesting and tragic.
I'm not saying the EU is ALL bad. Not having to carry passports over borders, being able to move freely and having a common currency is comfortable and good. But again, normal citizens don't have a say about what laws pass in the EU, or at least, very rarely.
Quoting Benkei
Of course. There's no unflawed democracy at all. And the US is FAR from a political paradise. But they tend to treat each member state in a healthier manner than EU countries treat each other.
Is there some reason you can't engage others like a normal person?
Would rather have a divided Europe, keeping in mind recent, twentieth century history with world war 1 and world war 2? A unified Europe is much better for world peace.
That is emphatically not what I said.
Okay, but i am saying that the EU is important for world peace. Sorry for butting into your conversation. :sad:
No I mean, read the four words prior to where you quoted.
I agree with you. It's a shame they aren't better organized and coherent. They are important for the world.
You're not butting in.
Your not the first person here to tell me what to read. :zip:
:lol:
I mean, it's four words, not entire sentences.
No worries man, it happens to all of us, particularly if we're emotional on a topic, which happens a lot in politics.
I guess that explains the angry diatribe against US presidents in the OP. :gasp:
That's pretty much how it works here in America. Government representing special interest groups insurance companies and big business. Nevermind the people, we fend for ourselves.
Not a very strong democracy, imo.
If Trump really wins the elections fair and square, then nothing.
Take him as the President of the United States and simply try to deal with him like with any US President.
You should remember that the US Administration is far more than the POTUS. In the end it's the job of the Americans to select their President, not ours.
Just like we will accept what the Dutch choose as their leader.
You're a grown man. If you throw out comments like a five year old and subsequently whine about how I react to them I even have less of a reason to engage you normally. As is quite apparent, even in this thread, I take plenty of time to discuss things with people in a normal manner if they make at least a bit of an effort.
So what I'm gathering is that you didn't know the EU is just a partial government. It's not a fully functional government like the USA. So you need an argument before you'd believe that.
That's just... odd
One thing for media to criticize foreign governments, another thing for governments of other countries to weigh in. There is a reason that we do have diplomats, because otherwise nation states would ferocious wolves to each other. Nothing would be more easy to spread hostility and discontent between two countries.
Basically the US is like an arguing couple (with Mr & Mrs DNC/GOP) that you have to be with in the same table. The last thing a third party sitting with Mr & Mrs America would want would be to take sides in this heated marriage quarrel. And even if one does want to be outside of the couples fierce fights, the couple will actively draw into their quarrels those who sit close to them (as happened with Ukraine). Honestly, nobody wants to participate in that shit show.
Hence governments will be somewhat calm, but in truth a Trump-Biden-Trump presidency would be really a toxic mix that would put down and out the "Last Superpower". Talk about nonexistent or negative leadership.
Quoting frank
As the name states, it's a Union and unlike the Federation that the US is, it's an union of independent states. No matter what bullshit people in Brussels want to fantasize it being.
The precise term would be a Confederacy, but that term (thanks to US history) has a bad rhyme to it.
:100: That is spot on, as far as allies (sitting with) are concerned. Putin, not so much.
It's not a confederacy either. It's entirely it's own beast, so let's just call it the union.
Exactly. Yet the Russian have a specific agenda: the objective is to increase the distrust Americans have on their government. And have NATO go the way of SEATO and CENTO: to the dustbin of history. Naturally Americans can do this by themselves, but why not help your enemy with this?
No, that's how a polarized, simplificationist two-party system works. In such a system, what matters the most is whose will prevails, not what the issue is about or how well it is being handled in terms of economics, logistics, and such.
But indeed, Americans tend to call that "democracy".
Typical American response.
Again, no. A country has to deal with dozens of issues at any given time, most of which require some creativity, ingenuity. A dichotomous two-party system kills that creativity, ingenuity.
In the example of slavery: this was an issue on which two camps were possible at the time, in those circumstances, so there were party A, B, C, D, E who were against slavery, and party F who was for it.
But on some other issue, such as gun ownership, those parties couldn't form those same two camps, but, for example, A, B, F on the one side, and C, D, E on the other side.
While on the issue of women's rights, they could be divided in three camps, A, B vs. C, D vs. E, F.
There's a reason why there is a mutltitude of parties: because they do have different views, different programmes, which only partly overlap, and overlap differently on different issues.
The difference between old-school European politics and American politics is that old-school European politics approaches political communication as a means to solve a problem, a constructive exchange of ideas so as to jointly come up with the best solution of a problem. Whereas American politics is all about persuasion, persuading others of one's view, the prevailing of one will over another.
From what I've seen, Americans tend to be this way in general as well: "Either you're with me, or you're against me. Either you see things the way I do, or you're wrong/bad/defective. (But look, I'm so nice that I sometimes even let you have your wrong opinion!)" This is more pronounced with Republicans than with Democrats (although Democrats are still firmly in that dichotomous way of being). And this doesn't pertain just to how they handle politics, it's about everything, from cosmetics, to cooking, to the meaning of life: that same dichotomous mentality.
What you see as "apathy" in EU politics is actually putting the solving of a problem first, and placing the desire to rule as a distant second, or further down the list. EU politics is like a brainstorming session and teamwork to implement the best idea.
I wonder what you mean by "democratic".
It seems you mean something like "being voted into a position of power, as opposed to inheriting it or usurping it".
Yes. Believe it or not, democracy is about power.
Well, that would be a step in the right direction. As far as I can recall, you can only do this for the EU parliament, which has no power though.
I'd prefer that by "democratic", the EU would follow the will of most of its participants when it comes to policy. That's still a long way off.
Quoting baker
There's direct democracy and then there's represenative democracy. Just pointing out a useful distinction.
Yeah. I'm not going to pretend that the EU become an example of direct democracy overnight or anything like that. But I think the totality of its citizens should be able to elect people to represent them in a manner that actually affects economic policy and foreign policy.
Granted, that is not going to be easy at all, given different countries, cultures and the like. But a political (not solely an economic) "union" merits that name if citizens could have a say in what laws they'd like, to some extent. Right now, it's extremely little, in my opinion.
Was that a factor in Brexit? Or no?
Probably. A large part of it feels to me like a "fuck you" to the establishment, which is understandable.
But many factors involved in that.
Completely understandable. It's just too bad that folks who want to send that message can't look around and find within their ranks a person of honor, honesty and courage. I mean, it's completely understandable that the estabilishment can't find such a person. After all, they are all politicians. But you'd think a group of "fuck you" people could find one. If they did, then the "fuck you" people on both the left and the right could get behind them.
On the other hand, I'm probably wrong. We couldn't get the right behind Sanders, so . . .
It's messy. And it also isn't easy to make as strong a case for leaving for the left as there is for the right. There were leftists who wanted to leave and presented decent arguments, but they could not organize effectively enough as the right did.
Thing is, a portion of "leave" people were probably not thinking much about left or right.
Much like in the US, people who voted for Obama ended up voting for Trump, especially in the rust belt.
Are there fascist political groups where you are?
Where I am currently? No. Not that I'm aware. Political parties here barely have differentiating platforms. I don't know if some belongs to left or right.
But, the possibility of some kind of fascism always lurks in any place. Just look at Brazil.
True. The right is more susceptible to the fear/paranoia/conspiracy factor; and they make good, blind followers with a strong leader. The left is like herding cats and they disagree with everything and conflict with each other as much as they conflict with the right.
I'm not a big believer in the concept of "deserve" but I kind of think we deserve what we get. Kids, not so much.
Yep. 100,000%
True.
I think Andrew Yang explains in this next interview quite well just what is wrong in the US system and why. It's a great assessment that doesn't fall into a partisan side view (even if Yang had been a democrat). A political system that gives power to radicals, a divided media and a social media that alienates people into different camps. Yang goes to detail why it is so.
Europeans should note that this turmoil in US domestic politics isn't going away any time soon. On the contrary, one arbitrary spark could flame it again. And thanks to the dominant position of the American media, we will hear it immediately also.
He'll ride in on a flying pig and open the world's first fission reactor.
And let right-wingers win?
Sorry, but as always, you underestimate him and the support he has.
Then you shouldn't fret when Trump and co. win.
Once you hold that what matters is whose will prevails, you can quit the pretense of being intelligent and just grunt.
Depends on how questions are framed, you can get right wing sounding answers or left wing sounding answers.
But a democracy often means getting a person you hate being prime minister or president. If it comes to something with ugly authoritarian tendencies, like Bolsonaro or Erdogan, then anyone has a right to protest and resist as much as possible.
It doesn't appear to me that you understand what democracy is. You have to have the emotional maturity to accept loss.
Eh?
Where is the "emotional maturity" of doing politics primarily or even solely on the level of whose will prevails??
You speak like a right-winger. Formulating things in terms of winning and losing, while caring nothing about the problems at hand that politicians are supposed to solve.
It requires enough faith in people that you can allow them to discover their own way.
Every generation faces challenges to that faith. People who want to destroy that faith abound. You're an example of a person who's never had that faith.
It's not for everyone. That's for sure.
Wow. Just wow. Jesus.
If they are in it for winning, then why bother with soccer and with the rules by which it is supposed to be played?? Why not just get into a fist fight and settle the score once and for all??
Doing sports, or politics, for that matter, when what one really wants is a fist fight, makes sports or politics a sick joke.
Aren't you from eastern Europe? If so, you get no wow from me. You're what I would expect.
Just remind me, which President lost his party the Senate, the Congress, and the White House, after only one term?
Don't fall for the illusion that he's powerful. Falling for the illusion is the only thing that makes him powerful.
Iām not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet money on Trump being finished politically. He has a core of fanatical support, but theyāre diminishing in numbers and influence. My bet is that he will never hold public office again. Currently, right at this moment, heās telling Republicans not to vote in the mid-term elections until heās re-instated as President. Oh, and this thread should be merged.
Yeah, and Liz Cheney ought to run for POTUS. Not to drive a wedge and sink the party, but to offer real Republicans an avenue to redeem themselves and return to the United States. I disagree with her on most all things, but she's more conservative than Trump, more Republican than Trump, more honest than Trump, more honorable than Trump, has bigger balls than Trump, has more integrity than Trump, has more dignity than Trump and she's not as big an asshole as Trump.
Never mind. Fuck Republicans. She should run to drive a wedge and sink the party.
And you're an American cowboy.
How ironic then that your Founding Fathers instated the Electoral College, precisely because they didn't have the faith that people should be "allowed to discover their own way".
Anyway, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you, because you're such a dichotomous thinker. As is typical for Americans ...
Donald Trump might now indeed be what you say. But he is a sign of something much bigger, much more powerful, more pervasive than any one single person is or could be. Even if he doesn't get reelected, it's quite possible that someone just like him, and worse, will be. Because this is what America is all about.
I see no alternative Trumps on the horizon. Nor, regrettably, much by way of anti-Trumps. But don't loose sight of the fact that every one of Trump's challenges to the election have been comprehensively dismissed and ridiculed, many of the leaders of that effort are facing multimillion dollar lawsuits and disbarment. Again, don't fall for the illusion that Trump projects. That is the problem.
Quoting Wayfarer
Exactly. Can the US even produce a viable counterpart to a Trump? Could a counterpart to a Trump even survive in the US?
The US has shown an alarming and tragic regressive streak, associated with the moronic elements of what is called 'right wing', although really it's a popular culture phenomenon rather than a political movement per se. But there are also many brilliant people, ideas, cultural movements, in the US. I'm in Aus, but my elder son lives in Wisconsin and his children are growing up there, so I have a direct interest. And I retain hope. If I didn't live in Australia the next place I would live would be there.
:100: :up: The question I have is why? I disagree with the right on most things but I know that somewhere in that 70m people there has to be one with honor, honesty and courage. But they didn't float that person. Why? Because television, that's why. And, of course, because the Plutocracy wants division to keep our eyes off of it as it milks the country dry. And our enemies want it because, well, it keeps us off balance so they can go about whatever they are up to without any threat from us.
Giving all the benefit of the doubt possible, and agreeing that the apple cart needed to be tipped, I can't understand why "we" didn't pick a good human being to lead the way.
I've expressed my thought about Liz Cheney before. So let's try another tack. Why for heavens sake would a guy like Crenshaw not avail himself of the opportunity to stand up on his hind legs and bitch-slap Trump, then run for POTUS? No. Instead he sucks up to him and bows down to a base that he could turn toward himself if he had the integrity to try. The guy was a SEAL, for crying out loud. There is no way a guy like bonespurs Trump would last 5 seconds if some guy with Republican macho cred called him out. Oh well, it's their bed. Hopefully we won't have to sleep in it.
I know, right? And then there's the wife who likes her shows . . . so the box is on now and then.
P.S. I can honestly say that I never saw a single second of The Apprentice. I had no idea what all the hub bub was when he ran for POTUS. I thought he was just another city slicker realtor from NYC. Everyone knew but me. :lol:
Given that Biden will likely have a Republican Congress for two years and hence have very few accomplishments, depending on the economy Trump could have a shot. Republicans will try to burn everything down so the country blames Biden. But even then, I doubt heās elected. He was never elected to begin with.
Maybe people will forget that he was the worst president weāve ever had, and the four years of chaos we endured ā it really depends on how enthusiastic the more sane majority of the country feels. If thereās even some enthusiasm, Trump stands no chance. But Biden is a fairly uninspiring guyā¦
The thing to keep an eye on is this reconciliation bill. Looks like the Manchin and other Republicans are doing their best to destroy itā in which case we wonāt have a livable planet for much longer anyway.
I think it's time to do what the Republicans did and throw it all on the table. I think the progressive D's should hold their ground, sink the reconciliation bill, sink the infrastructure bill, and not raise the debt limit in December. Let it all come crashing down. Let the conservative Democrats blame the moderate and progressive Democrats. Let the progressive and moderate Democrats blame the conservative Democrats. Let the Democrats blame the Republicans. Let the Republicans blame the Democrats. Let those worthless whores in the media get their apocalyptical wet dream and throw gas on the flames while giving oxygen to "both sides."
Manchin, Sinema, McConnel, Cruz, those stupid Republican governors, and all the other assholes can suck wind and rule over a burning pile of shit.
I better hope I don't get what I pray for. Because it would hurt those I love. But I had to vent.
A little bit south of where I live, it's called "the devil's box".
@ssu @Tzeentch thoughts?
The only thing that matters is Washington's actions, and what we can reasonably glean to be Washington's interests in order to predict their future actions.
These are some things that in my view should drive European foreign policy:
1. The US must pivot to Asia sooner or later.
2. Due to waves of right-wing populism, the pivot to Asia will constitute a loss of control over Europe, at which point Europe becomes a potential rival to the US.
3. The reason the US hasn't pivoted yet, is because it is busy shaping the political landscape in Europe in a way that will benefit the US when it departs.
4. Both Europe and Russia will have a big role to play in keeping the Chinese economy going when conflict breaks out in the Pacific.
5. Additionally, both Europe and Russia stand to benefit as 'the laughing thirds' from large-scale conflict on the other side of the globe when the two superpowers beat each other to a bloody pulp.
6. Adding 2 + 2 together, the US will do everything it can to A. prevent Europe from becoming a laughing third as the result of a US-China war, and B. prevent Europe from keeping China's economy afloat during a US-China war.
In other words, the US is a major threat to Europe no matter which clown runs the White House, because US strategic interests no longer align with European strategic interests.
For Russia, virtually all the same things are true - it too stands to be the laughing third as the result of a US-China war and play an important role as a market for China.
So, what should Europe do?
First of all, it needs to understand that its strategic interests align more with Russia than they do with the US. Europe and Russia, if they act rationally, should both seek to avoid conflict between themselves and put themselves in position to benefit from a US-China war.
On the other hand, there is nothing that would suit the US agenda more than long-term conflict between Europe and Russia.
European leaders should:
1. Encourage the US (and Britain - but that's another topic) to leave NATO as soon as possible, preferably while keeping NATO itself intact as a European security structure.
2. Steer towards a return to the pre-2014 status quo between Europe and Russia. Open diplomatic talks vis-Ć”-vis Ukraine, normalize relations, trade etc.
3. Dust off their militaries in a non-antagonistic way.
4. Completely reform the EU so that it's an actual functional basis for an independent European state instead of a dysfunctional, compliant US vassal.
In other words, should Trump become president and start threatening to leave NATO, don't stop them. At the same time realize that this is going to mark a fundamental and inevitable change in US-European relations that we are woefully underprepared for and ignorant of. In fact, we should really be acting as though this has already happened, because the US has been preparing for this since at least 2008.
Funny to read an assertion like that. You put us at the bottom. I guess that means we are closer to a flawed nation than a real full democracy like Ireland or Austria.
It should try to be less reliant on the US for its defence by building up one itself, try to establish more of a foreign policy agenda of its own to weigh on its periphery in the first place, and protect its internal market effectively as protectionism is threatening to replace globalism.
All of this means - if it actually wants to make progress on these issues - that it should seek to integrate the EU even more into a real federal entity instead of the half-baked thing it is now.
Should it succeed in these directions the US might even come to value Europe more as an ally, and then Trumps antics maybe won't matter as much.
Failing that, it doesn't look to good for Europe, even without Trump. Trump makes things worse probably, but ultimately it's just a small part of the challenges it faces.
First of all, Biden has been already for a long time a demented politician holding for power and totally incapable of seeing that he himself is not up to the job. Let's not kid ourselves with that.
Trump has been leading the polls and with this pace, he will likely be the next president. But still much can happen.
In my view, the best thing is to just SHUT UP and calmly observe the garbage fire called the 2024 elections. Respect the US political process enough to not to intervene, at least not publicly. The worst thing would be for the EU to publicly support Biden. That would anger many of those that won't vote for Trump and simply offend Americans and likely it will offend Trump even more. Then understand that you will have a weak US administration entangled with domestic problem whatever happens. Only react if Trump attempts to do changes to the relationship, which he surely will do. Then don't budge. Trump is a bully and his followers just love how "the establishment" hates him. Yet he really is no Hitler. His real chance for a self-coup went as he couldn't even control his own security staff that drove him to the White House and not to Capitol Hill as he wanted during that infamous day.
If Trump wins, you will have an more erratic administration as earlier as Trump will likely bring on far more of his totally loyal yes-men into his administration. This actually didn't happen in the first administration: Trump for example brought on totally reasonable military officers (with the exception of Mike Flynn, who lasted 24 days) and they made Trump's foreign policy to be quite standard US policy (what else?). Trump is a great populist, but he lacks leadership qualities. He has the attention span of a five year old, if the topic isn't about himself. Yet after being left alone in the Florida mansion, I think Trump has a lot of built up anger and he has been contemplating "the next time..." for years now. And even if he know does have the best A-team that Republicans can offer, he can be and will be Trump as he is unmanageable. And Trump can promote his most loyal nutjob followers to prominent positions to make a total shit show.
With Biden winning, if that would happen, then it's old-Brezhnev-time for the US where you cannot know who actually is in charge. But it's a collective effort. And if Biden would come down or is hospitalized, then the Democrats have the opportunity to get a candidate that could win Trump.
The only thing here for the EU is to check really it's defense policy and in this field make more cooperation with the UK. As the UK never did leave NATO, defense cooperation would be a natural start for the EU to warm ties with the UK. Yes, NATO isn't in any way attached to the EU, but here the lines organization lines don't matter so much and Austria wouldn't mind.
I agree roughly with what you wrote, but aren't you going a little light on the UK?
It was their errand boy that went to Ukraine to boycot peace, acting diametrically against Ukrainian and European interests to score brownie points with the Americans.
Especially from a Finn I would expect a certain critical stance towards those pushing for war, since your nation will be on the frontline paying the heaviest price if the worst comes to pass.
Not so fast.
During Trump's office, the British Parliament understood quite clearly that if Trump really walks out of NATO, they have to take more role in Continental Europa. I don't think that has changed, from the tanks that the UK had, Challenger tanks are now in Ukraine. Sure, UK wants to be the closest ally of the US, but Trump will shit on every ally it has, except Isreal. In the case of Israel, the US is it's ally, not the other way around. This isn't because of the Jewish Americans voters, but because of the many millions more of pro-Israeli Christian voters in the US.
Quoting Tzeentch
My friend @Tzeentch, we have discussed much in the Ukraine, and if this thread comes too popular or the heated, likely it will whisked away to the Lounge as the Ukraine conflict -thread.
But to others, the actual story both Sweden and Finland did everything to keep the relations normal with the cranky neighbor in the East. And we really did, the whole term of Finlandization was invented for the Finnish situation. But there's a point until you try to be neutral and cordial and keeping up friendly relations to your cranky threatening neighbor. That point was crossed over in February 24th 2022. That it was it. Finland and Sweden abandoned both their neutrality, as Russia is obviously a threat to them.
I'm writing this just a few kilometers from the Russian border. There is NO traffic over the border, for years I haven't seen a single Russian truck and if you want to go to Russia, you have to go through Turkey. The Finnish Armed Forces have put the training cycle to a totally different gear to prop up the deterrence. Russia is spreading bullshit propaganda to it's people over the border that Finland is planning to invade Russian Karelia. Russian Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov yearns for the days of Finlandization and talks about it's opposite "Estonization" which for the Lavrov means Russophobia. (See here)
Well, you reap what you sow.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree with this, with the addition that perhaps we should listen what the US is saying and try do cooperate with country. The boisterous rhetoric of Trump can be put into one category, it's basically intended for his own base, the actual actions are another issue.
Why would continental Europe agree to that?
Island nations have a tendency to become opportunists and 'puppetmasters' due to their relative safety and limited ability for expansion. They should be kept at a safe distance.
Quoting ssu
I think the 'Five-Eyes' alliance, or Anglosphere, plays a fundamentally different role in American geopolitics, with the American commitment to this being a lot less fickle. These nations all share the same strategic challenges. They share intelligence, which is basically the most intimate level at which states can cooperate.
So in my view, Britain searching influence in Europe is mostly political opportunism, and not a matter of security for them.
Quoting ssu
Be that as it may, surely you do not want the Americans and Brits to push for war between Europe and Russia?
I get the distrust towards the Russians. What I don't get is the trust towards various other warmongering nations which are just as guilty to this conflict, like the US and UK.
If the US walks away from Europe, then naturally Continental Europe would love to have the support from the UK. Two aircraft carriers are always welcome.
Furthermore, I think aircraft carriers will turn out to be massive sitting ducks when the next major conflict that involves them comes along. They'll be like the battleships in WWII.
But if we want to understand reality perhaps we should discuss what fascism has to do with the strength of the US. The US is not the democracy it defended in world wars. Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. Tocqueville 1831.
Leia is Russia btw.
Well, you're an American, right? What else would they say?
We'll be in power and we'll not care a shit about you, but keep voting for us.
Perhaps that would be at least honest?
Yes, I see this. But there is a tenuous, speculative connection to fascism involved in the analysis. Is there something deeper being indicated here?
We know fascism for its violence rather than its bureaucratic and economic order. I am offering a link about how popular fascism was in the 30's. I have chosen just one paragraph that got my attention...
Quoting Mises Wire ā¢ Thomas J. DiLorenzo
There are so many ways this discussion could go. Always humans have worked for social security and we have tried many different ways of meeting the needs of the people. Fascism is one of them and its bureaucratic model was adopted by the US in 30s when Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to design big government. This shifted individual power to governmental power, and with this comes promises that our candidates will meet all our needs. Trump goes so far as to claim we will never have to vote again if he is elected because he will resolve all our problems for us. Kamala Harris promises to raise minimum wages but I don't know how this can happen without inflation and closing businesses that depend on cheap labor. I don't think we know enough to make good judgments and this thread is about global ramifications.
Through this forum, I have learned what I consider a fascist order is throughout Europe and this must be so because of the competition for world resources. We must have strong governments to compete and that is not the democracy that came out of the Enlightenment. Technology is changing our lives a lot and that includes the power of governments. Elements of fascism and for sure technology make a government strong. Education is very important to all this.
Quoting baker
What is America all about?
Neither one of the US candidates appeals to me. The government is to govern things, not run them.
Both candidates are fighting over who sits in the driver's seat. But what needs to be regulated and how can that be done?
I believe everyone has good intentions but not enough knowledge for good judgments.
In short, just having two political parties simply cannot be representive of what a population wants.
That's the problem. In fact, when these two entrenched parties agree on something, the matter isn't discussed at all, but given as a law of nature. It also creates the bedrock for corruption and the negative aspects of US politics.
Yes, even if there would be more candidates that have a realistic chance that they might win, you still might be disappointed. Yet with just basically a right-wing party and a centrist one, you won't have enough choices. The whole "primaries" thing is a stupid charade, where people hope to change political parties from inside.
Quoting DemocracyU Accountability
In almost every election for several years I wanted to vote for someone who is not a Democrat nor a Republican but I didn't because always it is either one of the two parties that win, and the risk of the worst one winning is too high. We have to change this very corrupt two-party system. We have to open the possibility for someone outside of the two-party system to win.
Elections have to be simple enough for people to understand them. This what you stated (RCV) is one of the clearest ways. If there are a multiple of candidates that get similar amount of votes (something that doesn't happen in the US with it's duopoly in political parties) and nobody gets 50% on the first round, then there's a second round with two candidates that got the most votes. The picking of the two best is enough usually. Having election day twice isn't too much.
It's simple and easy to understand.
I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.
What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level.
But we all know that's not going to happen. The US thrives on ceaseless meddling.
I hope one of these days the American people will suffer actual blowblack under Washington's policies, and be confronted with consequences for continually exporting suffering to the rest of the world.
Maybe that's what is required to open some eyes.
I can see that blowback coming with the present US support of Israel. That could have played a strong roll in removing Biden from the Democratic ticket. He lost me on that one and if the Republicans offered a better candidate than Trump they could get me if Kamala continues to announce her support of Israel.
This is not anti-Semitic as Arabs are also Semitic but it is anti-Zionism. Zionism has been the cause of the fighting from the beginning. It is not a democracy like the US and if it were the problem would have been resolved democratically.
You do know most of us (US) are totally ignorant of the rest of the world, right? Forgive me, I know nothing of your elector system, nor that there was anything to learn of it. This is a grievous error for someone committed to democracy.
We had a chance to vote on having a better voting system and the only media-type information we got is the new system was never tried. I knew that was a lie but I did not know how big the lie is. God help me, there is so much I do not know and so much to learn.
The U.S isn't even sniffing the arse of fascism currently.
Of course, you have studied bureaucratic order, public policy and administration, and know what you are talking about. But then you would be unusual. Not many people find that area of study interesting. But some who understand the fascist relationship with economics might not agree with you.
However, someone as good-looking as your avatar doesn't have to know everything. :grin:
If you weigh the two options, one promise is that you will never vote again, indicating Trump will become ruler without any election and the other is an economic policy that may or may not have adverse consequences for businesses, do you think they are on the same level of constitutionality?
Policy choice A: the abolition of a fundamental tenet of democratic rule, free elections
Policy choice B: an economic measure within a package of a whole lot of others that might have adverse consequences for business.
.......
The two cannot be compared in relation to the threat to democratic government.
Quoting Athena
What would make you say that? A fascist order is an order in which the state is held in supreme regard. The body politic is mass mobilized for the good of the state and individual rights are abolished in name of some kind of social unity, it is generally a nationalist and militarist creed.
This encyclopedia Brittanica's definition: "Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: āpeopleās communityā), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."
I assure you no government is as of yet fascist in Europe. Sure we have a state bureaucracy, thank god, but we are allowed to own businesses, we have human rights and thank heavens they are even oftentimes respected. We can vote our leaders our leaders out of office, express opinions contrary to the state and in many countries military service is abolished. You might think every infringement on the free market is 'fascist', but that is a mistake. Actually every type of market economy needs a substantial amount of regulation to keep markets at least semi-free.
Quoting Athena
What just say now, uttered in a side sentence, is actually a deep seated fascist belief. Our nation is necessarily in competition with yours and it cannot be any other way. That is a fascist line of reasoning because it legitimates authoritarian state control. However even the history of the United States itself shows that cooperation trumps conflict. Fascism might be closer to your home than you may think...
True - I suppose I would be looking for how you can instantiate an entire political mode from economics.. Though, i understand the 'slippery slope' aspect of seemingly-innocent policy changes.
Quoting Athena
AWww shucks :P
Have you no highly skilled assassins? Have you no advanced voting machine hackers? Have you no experts at insidious anti-Trump propaganda? Have you no skilled spies, infiltrators, and manipulators? Have you no personal-sized warhead guided missiles? Have you no war ships to mine our harbors in protest? Could you not seize control of Tesla's navigation systems to direct Elon's cars to attack Trump wherever he is? Ram, blow up, whatever?
Or is the EU just a bunch of feckless liberals with a sickly inability to use force?
Have you no balls?
Let's see who comes out stronger in the debate.
Edit: not that it makes sense, but if we're having an apocalypse in a few months, who would you vote for?
...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).
What exactly is a president supposed to do for the economy? Isn't that fascist? The government running the economy? Is that what we want?
How about the international concerns like the US banking crashes that pull down other economies? Don't we need to govern against such disaster? By we I mean the whole world. Do we know enough to make good economic decisions?
Thank you. We have the problem of one candidate getting the popular vote and the other one winning because of the Electoral College which gives some states more importance than others.
[/quote]The Electoral College is not a physical place. It is a process which includes the: Selection of electors. Meeting of electors who cast votes for the president and vice president. Counting of the electors' votes by Congress.
Electoral College | USAGov
USA.gov
https://www.usa.gov āŗ ... āŗ How the president is elected [/quote]
We have red states and blue states and I don't think the Electoral College was designed with this culture division in mind? And the economic division is interesting. Democratic states have done better economically making our argument about the President's impact on the economy skewed. People in different states have different realities and it is kind of nuts we argue so much about the President's impact when the reality is different in different states. https://gppreview.com/2020/02/21/growing-divide-red-states-vs-blue-states/
:lol:
What a delicious question. :nerd: Also what does the US Constitution have to do with the power of a president? US presidents gained a lot of power during the Roosevelt administration and again with Reagan and again after 911. Hum, I am thinking I need to be more careful because this is a serious subject and I hope you demand a good reply and don't let me slide with unsupported insinuations. I found a link that makes my point.
[quote]For most of the nineteenth century, the presidency was a weak institution. In unusual circumstances, a Jefferson, a Jackson, or a Lincoln might exercise extraordinary power, but most presidents held little influence over the congressional barons or provincial chieftains who actually steered the government. The presidentās job was to execute policy, rarely to make it. Policy making was the responsibility of legislators, particularly the leaders of the House and Senate.
Today, the presidency has become the dominant force in national policy formation, not all domestic policy springs from the White House but none is made without the presidentās involvement. And when it comes to foreign policy and, particularly security policy, there can be little doubt about presidential primacy. Of course, Congress retains the constitutional power to declare war, but the power has not been exercised in sixty-five years. During this period American military forces have been engaged in numerous conflicts all over the worldāat the behest of the president....
while the power to persuade and other leadership abilities wax and wane with successive presidents, the power of the presidency has increased inexorably, perhaps growing more rapidly under the Roosevelts and Reagans and less so under the Fillmores and Carters of American politics but growing nonetheless.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2016/05/17/the-growth-of-presidential-power/ [quote]
That is not a full explanation but I doubt anyone regular citizen can provide a more detailed explanation and it is citizen ignorance and complacy that gives the President so much power. We are not politically aware and Trump shares a lot with Hitler. If you want to question me, I will attempt to give answers.
Quoting Tobias
That is an agreeable statement. Now we can make abortion illegal and we can ban books and in some states, Christianity can control education but fortunately, Texas teachers did win their supreme court battle with the Texas' efforts to mandate Creationism be taught as legitimate science. "Some kind of "social unity" is Christianity. Education for technology does not defend democracy in the classroom and Trump is our Hitler. I hope you take into consideration Germany was a Christian Republic. The book "The Founding Myth" by Andrew L. Seidel explains "Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American".Yes it is a nationalist and militarist creed doing God's "power and glory" with high-tech military abilities that can be used without a congressional declaration of war.
I should say, I write with concerns, not facts that I am sure of. Unless people are working with the bible and for the kingdom of God, how can they imagine it is a good thing that someone running for the presidency would think it is a good thing for this person to announce once he is elected they will never have to vote again? Constitutionally "The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the number of terms a person can serve as President to two." What is Trump promising us when he says we will never have to vote again?
What I mean is, you seem to equate the promise 'you will never need to vote again' on a par with the promise to raise minimum wages. The first comes down to the abolition of democracy the second may have good or bad economic consequences. They are not on the same level. You seem to present them as a dilemma, but they are not. One is an outright attack on the constitutional order the other a rather mundane policy proposal. The constitution has everything to do with the power of the president as the constitution circumscribe his or her power, that is what constitutions do, among other things.
No, I think your quote is spot on and actually chimes in will with insights from political science. There is a shift from legislative to administrative power. Actually we may witness that in Europe as well. The US system though is already strongly presidential. The president of the US has a lot more power institutionally speaking than say, the president of Germany.
From the rest of your post I think we agree. But then, if we do, why would you say you do not support Harris? You might dislike her political views but at least she allows for the possibility you vote her out of office again... I do not know if Christian nationalism is 'unamerican', neither do I know if fascism is 'un-german', or that war crimes are 'un-dutch'. I do not think there is anything like an immutable character to a nation. All I know is that institutions need to be defended, because the institutional structure can come down. I'd be be worried of any candidate that promises to overturn the constitutional order.
I appreciate the distinction you made between the candidates. They are both stupid promises! Can I please have another choice? :lol:
However, saying the constitution has everything to do with the power of the president makes no sense to me because I know more and more power has been given to the president. On the other hand things completely out of our control happen and talking as though one person is responsible for that is lacking in logic. That lack of logic seems to go with believing this one person will give us something we want. :brow:
Quoting Tobias
Please tell more about Germany because this is so paradoxical. The US adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education and picked up German military ideas as well. However, I have come across info that makes me think the Germans are doing better. Such as you saying the German president does not have as much power as a US president and I think that means the Germans are doing something right that US is not doing. I read education in Germany encourages the young to pay attention to their personal experience instead of the US's excessive focus on empirical information.
Trump did not just promise to overturn the constitutional order, he acted on the willingness to do so. What is alarming to me is some people do not see that, and states that attempted to keep Trump off the ballot were prevented from doing so. How some can not see the danger Trump presents is a mystery to me. People who know he is a liar still believe he will keep his promises. That amazes me. It is his followers that lead me to say he is our Hitler. What is happening is more than the story of one man. It is also a story of our political climate.
So what steps can be taken to better protect our institutions?
I have to add, I don't think a presidential candidate should promise to raise minimum wages because I don't see how that can be done without creating inflation. I would like to know what others think of that.
No you cannot. They are not both stupid promises. One is a danger to democracy the other might be unwise, though I do not really know, I do not know nearly enough about US the economic situation. In any case the two promises are on utterly different scales, that is the problem. So no, there is no 'other choice', there is a rather existential one to make.
Quoting Athena
Well, I do not know about 'better' but they are different forms of government and that is because they have a different constitutional system. The constitution has everything to do with the amount of power a president has and also which checks and balances are in place. Not just the constitutional document as such but the whole constitutional order. Now in the German constitutional order the president is mostly a ceremonial figurehead, an elder statesman. Currently it is Walther Steinmaier. He is not the head of government though, the head of government is the chancellor, similar to a prime minister, a title unknown in the US. It is precisely the constitution that creates such differences. Now the German constitution (Basic law) has been written just after the second world war, with the prime imperative being to prevent a power grab by any one person or party. Germany has coalition governments also something unknown in the US. That is because it does not have a 'winner takes all' constitutional system. The funny thing is the German basic law has been inspired by the constitutions of the allied nations, including the US.
See, things are never clear cut. Of course the US has taken over ideas from German education because Germany was arguable the most advanced country in the 19th century, However, the Germans must have learned a thing or two about bureaucracy from the French, bureau being a French word after all.
Currently I think serious flaws in the US constitutional system are appearing, but so are they in Europe. Constitutional systems and institutional designs can add to the resilience of a political system, but they can never make it endure. The US constitution is actually a logical one given the US history and the wish to curb the dominance of the most populous states, but it ends up being a system in which only a few votes from people in a few states really matter. The US system, especially the politicization of the supreme court, leads to a very partisan and competitive democracy. It has its good sides, people are connected to their politicians, but it also has its bad sides, a tendency for polarization.
As for the minimum wage question, I am no economist. I will therefore pass on that question. I think there might be options though, you could for instance bring top tier incomes down through taxation to name one...
Wow! that is a wonderful post! You made me order a book The German Polity. I can not trust my brain to remember what you said of a week from now, find my way back to your post.
Germans may have learned bureaucratic order from others but I think what put them over the top was the Prussian military order. I hate this, when I go to explain something, I realize I don't have enough information. I will be watching my mail box for 3 books now. :roll: My daughter may have to take my bank card. :lol: But obviously I need more information.
Can we make a million copies of you and disperse them through the US so perhaps the citizens of the US will begin having reasonable discussions of the political and economic problems? It is so bloody obvious to some of us that extremes of income are problematic. It is also obvious that human beings are more likely to be civil if they have a good education, full bellies, and decent housing. Now this is way off topic so I will stop.
Thank you for being such a nice and well-informed person.
Thank you for your nice compliments! And of course for this interaction. :)
True. But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies?
Quoting Athena
Sis, we have competent economists to answer your question. Yes, they know enough.
Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. So politically, it made more sense to do something when backs are against the wall in 2025.
The tax cuts passed under Trump (that he signed, but had nothing to do with the design) had pluses and minusses. On the plus side: corporate taxes were too high - corporations were reincorporating in other countries with lower corporate taxes. But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory -IOW, you can't judge the effect of Trump's policies on the statevof the economy during his term.
The current issue in the election pertains to what to do about this debt (and deficit). Harris wants to raise corporate taxes and to indirectly tax wealth (for people worth more than $100M). I guarantee Congress will moderate this, if anthing is to pass. On the other hand, Trump wants to address the problem with even LOWER Corporate taxes- which aren't needed, but may moderated to get legislation passed. But he's also pledged across the board 10% tarriffs on all imports. He can do this unilaterally (no new legislation needed), and it will raise prices on imported goods and start a trade war. It's a horrible idea.
Not true. They passed the tax relief act during covid.
Quoting Relativist
Not true. The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago.
Bipartisan support for COVID relief, during the crisis, doesn't imply there would be bipartisan support to increase taxes on corporations and the rich.
Quoting L'ƩlƩphant
Of course, but I was focusing on the negative aspect of the tax cut, an effect that is long term. This was to support my overarching point that it makes no sense to judge any President on the state of the economy during his term. Both tax cuts and spending programs marginally stimulate the economy to some degree, but it takes economic modeling to estimate the net effect on employment, wages, and GDP growth. That modeling would try to take into account everything that affects the economy.
:lol: Who is they? How many of them are there?
slightly cynical smile
The Luxembourg prime minister also said he wants a permanent seat for the EU on the UN Security Council.
It is now or never, mates. We can't trust Trump's behaviour towards European interests. It is time to stay together more than ever, leaving aside our differences. No more cracks among us.
But it's likely more Trumpian moaning and bitching about us euroweasels. That Trump takes out the US of NATO is unlikely: you really would have to have some serious leadership abilities to do that.
At least last time he visited my country where he met Putin, so he know where my country is.
:lol:
That's a relief. I believe he doesn't know to pin the Iberian Peninsula in an European map, but he filtered with Morocco back in the day... so we have to be cautious from now on.
Oh, wait. My country will do anythingāas alwaysāand they will keep having Rota and MorĆ³n bases.
1. As the U.S. scales back on environmental regulations, the EU could solidify its global leadership in climate action. This moment could further the European Green Deal and enhance the EU's position as a hub for green technology innovation and investment. By strengthening partnerships with like-minded regions (e.g., Canada, Japan), the EU could lead a coalition to tackle climate change and attract global investors focused on sustainability.
2. The EU could also capitalize on a more protectionist U.S. approach by attracting foreign investors looking for stable markets.
3. The EU can leverage its more stable stance to exert greater influence in institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO. By doing so, the EU could shape international policy in ways that align with its standards on trade, human rights, and environmental protection.
4. Given Trump's prior skepticism toward NATO and multilateral security, the EU could take a stronger stance on European defense and autonomy. This might involve further funding for the European Defence Fund and strengthening PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation).
5. Policies may lead to a U.S. shift away from renewable energy production, possibly leading to increased oil and gas prices. The EU may want to fast-track its transition to renewables to mitigate potential price shocks and reduce reliance on external energy sources, especially in a time of political instability.
@ssu anything to add?
Agreed. Nations in the EU might need to stop bitching around and start to face the reality that we all need to collaborate more, not less. Build up a proper position that can hold back Russia, China and deal with whatever shenanigans the US does.
A major hurdle is however that we have so little technology research and development. There's too much of a dominance from the US in terms of technology like AI. While people think AI is a fad, they're just judging the current appearance of it. But outside the public fluff it has major implications in both security and productivity. The EU needs to support technology development more.
1. The US economy will boom under this plan, as global change regulations are expensive. The US will outproduce the EU and will attract places like Canada and Japan to engage in business with them. It is doubtful those nations will prioritize the ethics of global resource management over reduced prices.
2. The US isn't as much protectionist as it is narcissist. It doesn't think it can live by itself. It thinks it's the only one that matters because it's better than everyone else. Particularly under Trump, he's willing to do business with anyone under his terms. Whatever foreign investors the EU acquires are subject to US interests because a deal that disrupts US interests will have negative consequences as the US tries to eliminate the disruption. This isn't to say the US will prevail in any and all competitive efforts against it, but I don't think it's reasonable to think a competive response wouldn't be forthcoming.
3. Those organizations are paper tigers without US support. If you can't get US buy in, they become debate clubs.
4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe.
5. A shift toward more drilling will reduce oil prices and forestall climate friendly alternatives like electric cars and the like, which many Americans have no interest in anyway. Any drop in cost of living, even if temporary, will make Trump very popular because inflation of basic needs (like fuel, housing, and food) have risen drastically recently.
The solution is for the EU and its many nations is to figure out how to work closely with the US in order to function together harmoniously. You guys are going to have to deal with the devil. I can deal with having to deal with the devil since its the devil my fellow Americans and I created, but for you, wow, that must really suck. You were just sitting there eating your sandwich and this lands on your plate.
This is in Europe's interest, though. Relying on other countries for defense is nothing other than giving up one's sovereignty. This is exactly why I view Europe as little more than Uncle Sam's vassals.
Quoting Hanover
The EU should decouple from the US, and instead seek engagement with continental powers like China. The US is fundamentally a meddling power that relies on dividing the Eurasian continent as the source of its influence.
Conversely, it doesn't share in the cost of war on the Eurasian continent.
Let me repeat that: the US thrives when the Eurasian continent is divided, but does not share in the cost of war.
If you're in any way geopolitically conscious, you will keep the US very far from your door.
Sure, but the price one pays for a defense results in the loss of other things, like public healthcare, losses in revenues from business regulation and all sorts of things. Quoting Tzeentch
Yeah, great idea. Work with China. Let me know how that works out. Know who loves Trump? The Vietnamese and Vietnamese Americans. Know why? They hate China, just like he does. That is, a nation that was devastated by the US has aligned itself with the US instead of China because it needs protection from China. Think that one through.
Quoting Tzeentch
If you're Iran that's probably true.
Yeah but it probably won't beat places like China and India given how much more lax their regulations are. Those are the countries they need to compete with.
Quoting Hanover
Has he suggested decreasing defense spending before? It sounds like he will just continue the status quo of the US being the biggest spender on defense by far. I think it appeals to his tough guy persona.
Quoting Hanover
There's only so much more drilling that can be done to reduce oil prices (contrary to what some on the right say the Biden administration is overseeing record production right now). Also contrary to what Trump says, there is little correlation between the price of other goods the price of oil and gas.
Europe is not Vietnam, but on the topic of Vietnam - it became a 'partner country' to BRICS a few days ago.
I'm not supporting Trump here, but I'm just going through his policies. What you bring up here is why he wishes to impose tarriffs. He's using his bully power to limit trade with a nation that needs it, which will weaken them. If they locate other markets in Europe, I would expect tarriffs in Europe. And so what would then happen is that someone takes out a calculator and realizes the better way to make money is not to create their economic policies from moral theories, but instead to maximize profits.
Quoting Mr Bee
This is the whole thing about him wanting to force NATO nations to pay for their own defense. He's threatening Europe with insecurity by underfunding NATO unless European nations better foot the bill. This fits his "everything is a deal" persona.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'm not getting into the weeds of what causes what because I don't know enough about it. I can say that fuel costs are an important part of everyone's budget and they've increased. Sam's Club sells gas at like 10 cents cheaper per gallon and cars are up and down the street to save the $2.00 on a tank. It's part of inflation control.
Tariffs only work with regards to the US-China/India trade relationship. You mentioned how places like Canada and Japan will invest more in the US because of the deregulation but China and India produce way more goods at a cheaper cost and Trump's tariffs won't do anything to change that.
If anything starting a global trade war may weaken the US's economic standing on the global stage, as other countries are more likely to become less dependent on the US market and trade with each other, strengthening China's hand. I think that is likely to happen even after Trump leaves office because the US has shown itself to be an unpredictable trading partner. That's not even going into the likely counter tariffs imposed on the US from other nations who don't like the idea of a 20% tariff being imposed on them.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah but I don't see the end goal of all this to cut spending domestically and fund things like, say, healthcare. That may be what people like Bernie would do but Trump in his first term has increased military spending like every other president and I've seen no indications that he would change that in what he says. He only seems interested in NATO countries paying their fair share for it's own sake.
Quoting Hanover
Gas prices have gone down since 2022 but we haven't seen the costs of other goods go down in turn. Inflation has consistently been happening for the past century while gas prices have fluctuated. There is no connection between gas prices being low and the cost of everyday items.
What a day.
The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US.
One can argue that the current situation is a crisis, or has the potential to lead to one. At the very least I think alot of countries are gonna reassess their reliance on the US, which is to the benefit of countries like China. Even after Trump leaves how long will it be before people elect another lunatic?
Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing?
Quoting Mr Bee
The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world.
Trade policy since we're talking about it. A global trade war sounds like it'd be pretty bad for everyone including the US ironically enough.
Quoting frank
Exactly and I think this will accelerate that.
Yes. There was a trade war right before the Great Depression.
I think it's quite likely that Trump will entangle himself even more than Biden in the Middle East as wanting to be the loyal ally to Bibi. Bibi can play Trump well. I think here it would be beneficial for Europe to stay clear from this mess.
On your writing about security (in part 4). Well, that Trump would do away with Atlanticism is an exaggeration. He likely might try to do something with Ukraine what he has promised to be over in 24 hours. Here the EU should be consistent and not think (like Germany) that Finlandization would be the solution for Ukraine and not waiver in it's support to Ukraine. What Trump does, Trump does and it's separate from the EU. Americans waiver and abandon whom they have earlier suppported, they think that everything is an forever war made up by their own military industrial complex and wars don't have other reasons to erupt.
I think the real issue is really not to get stressed about the President of the US, really. We wouldn't get stressed if the leader of China would be suddenly replaced either. It's just four years.
Quoting Vera Mont
The EU? This is something at the level that Civil war will erupt in the US ...like now or yesterday. Never underestimate the fact the other EU member states saw how bad Brexit worked for the UK. No appetite for inflicting self harm like the Brits did to themselves. Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other.
Yes. However, things have been changing and will change faster now. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. Also, an alarming surge of xenophobia has been causing ructions, and will get worse. The richer nations will have to keep forking out more for mutual defence - especially if Trump-Vance scuttle NATO, and will be increasingly reluctant to protect states that are failing or turning into enemies.
OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal.
So, it doesn't much matter what they do.
What small countries are you talking about specifically?
Quoting Vera Mont
I'm not an advocate or a supporter of the objectives of the federalists in the EU. It's their own delusional idea that the EU has to have strong federalism, that it has to be like the United States of Europe.
It isn't the United States and never will be. The European Union is really a confederacy. It's a confederacy of independent states that just tries to show off as a federalist entity. These countries are independent to the bone, when you just scratch the surface. This is really important to understand, Vera, because otherwise one can be swept away with the discourse coming from Brussels and then think the EU is on the verge of collapse. It isn't. It will just look as weak when it really isn't.
And the debt? The current fiat monetary system is likely to sooner or later collapse, yet it can still run for decades, so who cares.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems.
Yep, India has surpassed the EU.
Quite telling where the actual industrial growth has been. We can easily forget the sheer enormous size of Chinese production and output. It's one of the things that many haven't noticed in the West: that these decades have been for us an era of slow growth and stagnation, while globally huge changes have happened in the world. Looking at just our own navel doesn't give the correct picture of the world.
And it's not only Asia that is changing. A lot of places are becoming part of the consumer society, which then drives industrial output further:
Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria are openly pro-Russian; Poland has a rising pro-Rusian faction, Serbia will probably follow soon. I don't know the current political situation in Albania and Romania, but they're all scared of another wave of refugees: xenophobic parties keep gaining power even France and Germany. And most EU countries now have debt problems. Once Putin's taken Ukraine, they'll be unable and/or unwilling to mount a convincing defence without the support of NATO.
Quoting ssu
It doesn't matter anymore. The tipping point is passed; global cooperation might have provided some mitigation, which isn't going to happen now. Nor will any effective prevention of the next pandemic.
I have always been against the diversion of funds towards military expenditure; but, the EU simply needs its own defense force.
Quite a list! :yikes:
I would be critical about this. How is Poland sliding to totalitarianism? Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism?
And do notice that the EU has quite changed it's stance about immigration. When Russia started to let into foreigners into Finland without any papers, we just shut the Russian border altogether. And the prime minister willingly acknowledged that this creates constitutional problems, but simply said that national security overrides this. Did the EU reject our actions? Nope, von der Leyen came to Finland, accepted and supported the actions. This already happened when Turkey let refugees to the Greek border and the Greece simply didn't let anybody through. And EU was OK with this. Does the media tell this? No. It's not something that picks up a media frenzy.
Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny.
No, I mean the rise of right-wing xenophobia all over the world, to which some nations are more susceptible than others, for reason of their location and/or history. Politically, Poland may be safe for the moment, but those antisemitic, anti-Muslim sentiments haven't gone that far underground - and the refugees keep on coming. Of course, if Putin picks them off one by one - a possibility of which they are all keenly aware, the question of elections becomes moot. Quoting ssu
Okay. But keep your eye on your own overridable constitution.
Like as not, Trump will do little to make life better for workers, but he did manage to make a connection with more working class people than Democrats have managed to do. You are worried about xenophobia; most workers are not. Xenophobia is one of our liberal bogeymen. Sorry, bogeypersons--pronouns are they, them, theirs.
Most working people are not prioritizing gay, bisexual, and trans rights; there isn't any compelling reason for them to be pro-Palestinian; no reason for them to be pro-immigrant--legal or otherwise. Even if their forebears came from Eastern Europe, they may not be grateful for us sending $64 billion to Ukraine. We have spent $150 billion on Israel since they were founded in 1948. Maybe the average worker doesn't care about Israel that much. (I'm a pro-Israel gentile).
I'm not a typical working class guy -- I'm gay, have a graduate degree, have belonged to socialist organizations, read widely, etc. In many respects I align with liberal elites. I may loathe Trump, but I don't think Democrats have done a great job meeting run-of-the-mill working class needs, plus there's the "basket of deplorables" and "garbage" problem. The "leftist agenda" which developed out of post-modernism and identitarian politics is of no help to 90% of Americans. It isn't much help, for that matter, to the preferred "marginalized oppressed people" that the left concerns itself with. It's mostly an irrelevancy.
Are we heading toward collapse? Civil War? A fascist dictatorship? I don't think so. What I am more afraid of is 4 years of seriously incompetent and corrupt management of the government, and an altogether failing effort to deal with basic problems ike Social Security funding, environmental protection, global warming, health care costs, etc.
Oh, he'll make it much worse, if he gets the chance.
Quoting BC
I'm worried about fascism, which rides in on nationalism, racism and the fear of strangers. Trump didn't say all those horrible things about immigrants just to piss off the liberals; it always got big cheers. He got elected on paranoia and misdirected anger, not for his concepts of a plan to improve health care. And if he puts the migrants in concentration camps (mass deportation is too expensive, even if Venezuela, the only Latin American country Trump knows, wanted them) the price of food will go through the roof.
Quoting BC
Now there is a perfect example of double standards!! Two isolated comments by two unrelated people over 10 years - in reaction to the continuous toxic spewage from Trump and his many mouthpieces. (What, no indictment of the Democrats' response to Covid? Or how they let down the labour unions?)
Quoting BC
You needn't worry too much about incompetence. Chances are, it will be a Vance presidency. He has an agenda. Maybe it's the one laid out in the book, maybe not: nobody knows what the next Vance incarnation believes or wants to do, though we can be sure he'll please as many billionnaires as possible. He'd probably try to keep the Wall Street feeding frenzy going, which doesn't bode well for the working class. We don't know whether he can keep the Inverterbrate Party or its tame judges in lock-step; we don't know whether he has a foreign policy the military can stomach. All we know is, he's sane, smart, utterly uncharismatic and unreadable.
You've got what you've got; you'll cope as you can.
Demagogues might often use xenophobic rhetoric to take advantage of the fact that the West's migration policies are deeply unpopular, even among many minority communities at this point. However, the key reason the center and the left's efforts to push back on the ascendent far-right have failed is an absolute inability to countenance major changes or compromises on migration.
First, because the current policies disproportionately benefit the elite, keeping wages low, rents high, and unions out, but probably moreso because elite opinion has shifted such that [I]any[/I] opposition to high levels of immigrant is necessarily racist.
I think Musa al-Gharbi's "We Were Never Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite," does a pretty good job explaining how this happened. āWhy is it that the āwinnersā in the prevailing order seem so eager to associate themselves with the marginalized and disadvantaged in society?ā is its key question. The main thesis is that, in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis, faced with surging inequality, elites (in both status and wealth) felt the need to justify their own success to themselves and others. They did this by framing themselves as defenders of the oppressedāof minorities of all sorts. Long gone are the days where Clinton ran to the right of Bush on immigration, to the applause of labor unions (and long gone is the relevance of unions to national elections in the US).
I find this eminently plausible (and the book itself is well argued). It also explains why virtually every issue for the elite tends to get framed as a sort of rehash of the American Civil Rights Movement or the decolonization efforts of the mid-20th century vis-Ć”-vis Europe. One need not worry too much about public opinion if one is on the "right side of history." After all, the Civil Rights Movement was initially very unpopular as well.
The problem here is that it's unclear if immigration is appropriately thought of as a "civil right" of sorts. Nor is it clear what the potential scale of the consequences will be if migration continues to undermine public support for the modern welfare states that underpin the success of liberal democracies.
At any rate, it isn't good for winning elections. While Biden's border policies might still seem racist, oppressive, and far from just for elites, they are deeply unpopular with the public for the opposite reasons. Increasing migration is less popular in the United States than Kamala Harris was in rural Kentucky counties this election. Support for a meaningful constriction of migrant flows is the majority position and the highest it has been in a quarter century.
But could Democrats even pivot on this? I sort of doubt it. Already the finger pointing has started for their latest disgraceful showing and, on seeing that Trump won a majority of Latino men, "toxic masculinity" seems to be getting identified as the main problem, not a disconnect on priorities.
The elites navigated the 2008 financial crisis extraordinarily well, but the "morality card" has now been overplayed and the broader political movement has become trapped in oppressor-oppressed quicksand.
Changes like sending millions of people to destitution, misery and death is a bit hard to countenance. (Especially since we know that it was the allied powers' actions since WWII, and European imperialism preceding the wars, that cause most of the current displacements).
But that wouldn't be sufficient appeasement for the extreme right: next, they'd have to give the Christian militants control of reproduction, marriage, education, assisted suicide and gender issues. They've pretty well caved on climate mitigation at every summit. Soon, they'd have to start dismantling social services.
Major changes in that directions will come, but through coercion, not compromise.
So am I. One of Timothy Snyder's latest books is The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America 2019, with an updated preface. Snyder has studied fascism for a long time. He thinks Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have significant commonalities in their personalities and plans. One of Snyder's ideas is that fascism is perhaps more readily identified by its methods more than by its ideology. Chaos and disorder is one of its methods. Contrary to popular belief, the trains did not run on time in Mussolini's fascist Italy. Whether the disorder of Trumps last administration was a mark of fascistic tendencies or unfamiliarity with the function of government, I don't know. We'll find out.
Quoting Vera Mont
The urge to piss off liberals is normal and healthy, if it doesn't become a compulsion.
Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric got cheers for a reason: Many in the working class audiences compete with low-wage immigrants for jobs in the former industrial heartlands (and elsewhere) which were hollowed out by Reagan's NAFTA plan, and previous/later de-industrialization programs sponsored by the financial elites. The millions of jobs lost were those held by less-skilled working class people. Who is an employer going to hire first: a less skilled immigrant (legal or not) who will work for $6 or $7 per hour, or a less skilled native worker who will work for $10 or more per hour?
Someone is paying the price for 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants in the US, and it isn't the liberal elites.
"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. Why not? Because the economic elite isn't running the country for the benefit of workers. It's run for their own benefit. So, workers get fucked over.
OK, sorry for mentioning the basket of deplorables.
A mainstay of socialist party thinking is that neither of the ruling class parties, whatever state they are in at the moment, intend to seriously upset the status quo. The voters slosh back and forth between relative liberals and relative conservatives, whoever appears to have the lesser of evils. And, honestly, sometimes it is hard to tell. Clinton seemed reliably liberal, but he's the one who ended "welfare as we know it". At the time, Nixon was the liberal nightmare, but in retrospect his administration wasn't that bad (most of the time). He started the Environment Protection Agency, for instance, and his drug policy was reasonably progressive.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Tricky. How does a society extend rights to people who do not yet, and may never, live there? Do people in Austria, France, Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, or China have a "civil right" to come to the United States, Australia, UK, Spain, etc.? I'm pretty sure I don't have a civil right to take up residence in Australia or Canada, just because I might want to.
It seems like the way immigration is supposed to work is that "you can ask to come here; we might say yes, but no means no." In reality, a lot of immigrants just walk right in, sit right down, and have anchor babies.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yascha Mounk in his book, "The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time" traces the elite's interest in the marginalized and disadvantaged to the history of postmodernism and identitarian politics that has developed over the last 50 years (Michel Foucault's crowd). The elites profess a preferential option for the minority / marginalized / disadvantaged in society. Elite rhetoric doesn't mean that they intend, or are even able, to do much about it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree; it's doubtful. At any rate, "toxic masculinity" is a phrase I'm tired of hearing.
Nor is it the "conservative" elites. It's convenient that the famous American political amnesia has sainted Reagan and blamed everyone else for the consequences of his policies. It's convenient that nobody asks why so many Latin Americans are fleeing their homelands. Those questions would be far too complicated for the average Trump voter. They'd rather be taxed for thousands of bibles at three times the regular price than not have bibles in their schools.
Quoting BC
Well, duh! And the coming deregulations are not going to bring any good jobs to Americans or reduce their rents, gas and food prices - but at least it will eliminate overtime and strikes. I'm sure enough scabs can be rounded up in the concentration camps.
Quoting BC
He still is, to me, despite some of his good policies. His campaign advisors made the little snowball that turned into the Trump presidency and he dropped it in front of George Wallace, who kicked it down the hill.
Quoting BC
Won't make any difference to the next catastrophe.
They should, and have already, arranged peace meetings. Say what you want about Trump, but foreign countries respect his power and fall in line.
But thanks for the permission.
Trump is insane, but cunning. And he will destroy America if he is allowed to, and possibly the world. How to respond, is certainly a conundrum for foreign politicians; my response to bullies, gleaned from long experience, is to attempt to bore them to death by not responding at all.
The US and Biden's push into Ukraine is the single greatest threat to the world since the Cuban Missile Crisis - not Trump.
Trump has been elected on a strong platform to end this war.
As Trump moves into office, we see the Biden administration deliberately taking steps to deteriorate the situation in the hopes of making peace impossible.
Is partisanship the sole reason you're avoiding this pink elephant, or do you really not see it?
Interesting relation. As I remember it was the US issuing the apocalyptic threats, and Russia backing down over Cuba. Now the boot is on the other foot. Perhaps it is the US turn to blink. Putin is insane but cunning. But I thought Trumps' platform was to make America Great again, not to make America feeble.
I do believe you should focus more on the situation at hand, not lament the mistakes of the past. The proxy-war in Ukraine has a long history with both players escalating over time. The reality is Trump is not exactly a stable factor where it concerns foreign policy. Since the EU is not sufficiently integrated militarily to deter Russian aggression, Trump is not making our world safer. Zelensky realises this and immediately signalled a willingness to negotiate.
Of course, it could lead to long term stability at least on the European continent, where it concerns Russia, if we ensure the EU has a strong role in establishing the peace deal and it becomes more a tri-partite treaty than bilateral.
In what way do you suppose I am not?
Quoting Benkei
The problem lies in US and UK integration into the European security structure.
If the Americans want to leave voluntarily and clean up the mess they created while they're at it (ergo. peace in Ukraine) then that's manna from heaven.
A diplomatic settlement in Ukraine would lead to a period of peace during which Europe can get its act together. Given our population and GDP, there's no reason whatsoever Russia should ever be a threat to us.
Under the current state of geopolitical affairs, there's no conceivable reason why Europe and Russia should be thinking about war, so what on earth are our politicians doing?
Exactly.
Indulging in the results of many decades of Russophobia.
Pointing the finger at Russia (and China and South Korea) in order to detract attention from their own misdeeds. (Because, apparently, nothing makes one as innocent as casting the first stone.)
Deporting millions of working people will simply mean an economic downturn. I mean. this is just Silly-talk from Trump. 11 million is 3,2% of the US population. Just to put into some historical perspective just how big of a population we are talking about: when one famous Austrian rose to power and didn't especially like one ethnic group of Germans, this group was less than 1% of the German population in 1933.
When Idi Amin in 1972 ordered the expulsion of the Indian Minority from Uganda, there were about 80 000 of Indian origin in the country. Of the whole population of Uganda in 1972 (ten million), the Indian minority were just 0,8% and the Ugandan economy went into tailspin (obviously Idi Amin did other insane things too). Now Trump is going to do something totally on a different level in a country were states do have power and where there are democratic institutions still.
How do people believe this kind of lunacy?
Why do people believe this kind of lunacy?
Just look at what happened to UK , and they even left the gates open for other immigrants for replacement as 460 000 or so EU migrants working in various jobs left the UK and went back to mainly Eastern Europe, which countries were actually very happy to get them back.
We have had a whole Brexit-thread and anyone that has read has to come to the conclusion that Brexit, at least economically, SUCKED BIG TIME!
So, 11 million people are from the population of the US 3,2%. Now those EU citizens going away (that were replaced by third world) created huge problems for the UK economy, like many were truckers that are quite essential. And yet 460 000 is peanuts compared even to the UK, something like 0,7% of the population.
Please just think about it: what the hell you think happens to an economy when suddenly 3,2% of people simply just move away from the economy. Even if they aren't the wealthiest people, imagine all the things they are working in now, which a median American worker surely won't take as a job. You really think the US will have a great time after that???
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Replace that gun just with a cannon. But seems that nobody has dared to even try to give Trump the series of pictures what this means (ECONOMY -> REALLY, REALLY BAD!).
And then, starting a trade war with EVERYBODY.
How's that going to improve the economy? Serious trade wars have just the same consequence as the pandemic had: trade and logistical systems competed to perfection will just collapse and then things just simply suck. Americans just find later how these brilliant trade wars damage their own economy as they find out just what stuff more has been totally dependent on international trade.
The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US?
Again, this is just silly talk.
It's a conundrum.
"I will protect American Jobs and American families" and similar luminous words, are positive sounding non-inferential statements which, while meaningless, sound like something good. There isn't any way the hearer can know what the statement means in real terms. People hear the words, hear the applause, and feel just a little glow of warmth. It's like a benediction. "May the Lord make His face to shine upon you." Freedom, flags, liberty, loyalty, faith, guns... a whole batch of nice words. The man speaking the words must be OK.
Deporting 10 million people is, for starters, not a simple task, and we have no recent experience in rapidly rounding up millions of people and moving them to the next street over, let alone across national borders. The logistics are unspeakable and likely far more expensive than imagined. Unless one pauses to think in detail about what deporting 10 million people would actually mean, it has little reality.
The famous Austrian who got rid of 6 million+ people he didn't want around, established annihilation as a high priority national objective. There was census data stored on punch cards (and other records) that facilitated identification and location of subjects. A large bureaucracy was created to execute the annihilation, and a lot of money was spent on it. The appalling atrocities were completed.
Is the orange-tinted Real Estate Agent prepared to engage in the intensely detailed and strenuous planning process that would bring about his goal? Does he really expect 330 million Americans to quietly ignore the military trucks loaded with Mexicans and Venezuelans and others rumbling through town stopping to drive ever more onto the transports?
But the average person isn't reflecting on the details any more than Trump is, and it doesn't have much reality for them.
Whatever he does, I call a plague down on his head, his minions, and his plans.
Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives.
Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't.
Even if Russia fired a ICBM into Ukraine with a conventional charge (pretty expensive going there), I think that Europe survives. Even Ukraine too.
Quoting Mr Bee
I think it's safe to bet that we haven't seen the last of inflation in the US (and the World).
Right now, the US and the UK are playing with Ukraine and Europe.
No country in the world should accept this.
The manufacturer of a weapon system simply isn't the belligerent. It's the user of the weapon system who is the belligerent. Also, giving intelligence to a party isn't either an act of war. Giving arms to defend for a country to defends itself from outside aggression is quite understandable. And btw Ukraine is using many different weapon systems in Russia as it has troops inside the country.
This part of the discussion should be at the Ukraine thread, even if touches the subject. Or otherwise this presumably is moved to the lounge also.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting javi2541997
Seems like a case has been made. Maybe not just the EU, but including other interested European countries?
Quoting Tzeentch
And yet that's exactly what Russia kicked off (more than once). Plus other hostilities. :shrug: OK, one of them is a "special military operation". :D (Sep 18, Oct 6, Nov 2,16,17,20 2024)
Well he just said he plans to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, so he probably has plans for the EU too. Personally I'd say call his bluff. He doesn't seem to know what tariffs will do and neither do his voters so they'll likely be in for a reality check if he goes through with it. Given how sensitive he is to political and market pressure he's honestly more likely to blink than anyone else if it gets really bad.
It should help American businesses.
As for manufacturing, it's not clear 25% tariffs will be enough to encourage investment in US production but assuming it is, it'll take at least a decade before those supply chains are built out and some companies may very well choose to wait out the Trump administration instead or at best move production to other countries like Vietnam which have equally cheap labor compared to China.
Or it might become reasonable to start making those items at home instead of importing them.
Quoting Mr Bee
I'd say more like two years, but I believe the tariffs will be permanent. Bringing back North American free trade wouldn't be a popular move. It was never popular to begin with.
They'll still be hurt regardless. Whatever will be made in the US will be more expensive and retailers will have to bear that cost or make prices higher. So even in the case where tariffs will bring back US jobs the inflationary effects will be permanent.
Now of course it's debatable whether that is good or not, but that wasn't the concern for most voters this year. It was inflation and a belief that Trump will bring prices down which is the irony here.
Quoting frank
The timeframe that's been thrown around is a decade. You can't just simply rebuild entire supply chains in a couple of years, one with the connections and an experienced workforce, especially if a good chunk of that workforce is gonna be deported.
But if you think Trump should impose these massive tariffs permanently and that the economy and prices would somehow work itself out before the midterms or the next presidential election, that's fine by me. I welcome it too, for different reasons.
North American free trade undermines the position of US labor. It gives the US a more flexible labor force by putting it in competition with Mexicans who have a lower cost of living. That issue was raised during the Clinton years when NAFTA was initiated, but the establishment promised that over all, free trade would help Americans. That hasn't turned out to be true. The only people who really don't want a return to the way things were pre-NAFTA are certain Wall St. entities. If Trump did succeed in returning the US to a pre-1990s trade position, it would be the first step in the recreation of American labor unions. It would mean demands for a better social safety net would have power behind them.
I don't like Trump, mainly because I don't want to hear his mouth, but on this issue, he's actually lining up with exactly what he said he wanted to do back in 2016: shore up the position of American labor.
Quoting Mr Bee
I guess it depends on what commodity we're talking about. I think the main thing we get from Mexico is agricultural products. What kind of supply chain were you thinking of?
Quoting Mr Bee
I mean, inflation is coming down. The Fed is set to decrease rates again next year. When I say I think the tariffs will be permanent, I mean that it won't be possible to form a coalition to get rid of them again. As for Europe, I don't think it's even on the American radar at this point. I think we'll be parting ways in terms of fundamentals.
The irony is that empowering labor unions is what you wouldn't want if you want to encourage US onshoring. Businesses don't build in the US because the labor and safety standards are poor in countries like China.
That being said I don't think Trump would care about that. He hasn't been very pro-labor in his first term and as much as he may try to give some crumbs to the labor workers he's been trying to court he's certainly gonna be worse than the Democrats on the matter especially as he surrounds himself with anti-union business leaders like Elon Musk. There will probably be a port strike coming in January, so we'll see how he handles it.
Quoting frank
He didn't really do that during his first term. In fact, Biden accomplished that. Also, the renegotiated NAFTA he did wasn't even that different from NAFTA.
Quoting frank
I mean it's not just Mexico and it's not just agricultural products. The discussions I've seen haven't gone into specifics about the different industries, but they have generally given that time frame for the US to rebuild it's manufacturing infrastructure to pre-NAFTA levels. Two years is way too short a period to expect everything to be fixed especially given how offshoring happened over several decades.
Quoting frank
A future president can remove tariffs if they want as much as Trump can impose them. You don't need congressional approval to get this done. You just need a president who disagrees with Trump's approach on the issue.
I think this is probably coming from his VP.
GB put itself out of contention with Brexit. France and Germany are too politically compromised.
I suppose, if the tariffs were high enough, then the imports would be canceled, which would be bad for the exporter (compare with sanctions).
The importers aren't likely to swallow the tariffs, they increase the cost of goods for the population.
So, instead of the tariff stuff, how about pressuring capitalists to increasingly bring production/manufacturing home (and perhaps take a wage cut)?
Well, that might decrease support among the capitalists, less $s for campaigning, fewer votes, ... (worse self-image for The Clown).
Capitalism isn't patriotism, it's about maximizing profits, cheaper labor (lower wages) + less environmental regulations + less health and safety protection + ...
So, the EU should give these countries the opportunity of joining the Euro-zone finally.
On the other hand, I only hope that France and Germany will be more fond and considerate of Mediterranean countries. That would be neat.
Because, as you said, he and his voters don't know what tariffs and trade wars do, we are going to see a lot of damage. It's quite inevitable. Just look at the reasons given to the 25% tariffs.
Nothing will change the minds of Trump voters about this. It's like trying to talk in 2016 to Britons that Brexit won't work, that it will create huge problems for the economy, no real benefits will counter it's bad effects and btw the migration to the UK will continue, the EU migrants will just be replace with Third World migrants.
You think any Brexit supporter would have believed you? Of course not!
And the same is here true. Trump won't change. He will choose into his cabinet sycophants and totally obedient yes-men, whoever they are. There won't be any "grown ups" in this administration towing a normal US policy, it really will be at the whims of Trump. Congress simply will not put up with the most bizarre ideas, hence executive orders and foreign policy will be the
Europe has to understand the Trump is a bully for whom appeasement is weakness. He has already made up his mind of Europe and Europeans. Only a Victor Orban will do, everybody else are simply annoying Europeans that one has to be tough with... in the end they will bend over backwards and do flips as the US wants.
The consisent approach to this for Europe is to set it's own goals and stay there. Don't react to Trump's bickering. If Trump makes outrageous demands, just say no and wait for four years. Trying to negotiate as one would with a normal person doesn't work. If Europe gives in, then Trump will just ask for more. Best thing is market European objectives as huge concessions that we have made to the US thanks to Trump. That's enough for Trump.
This is a rational choice, yet knowing the EU, no country alone can be a real leader... except the US if it would see alliances important (which it won't see in two months). Poland had the VisegrƔd Group, which was established by Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia (still), Lech Walesa of Poland and the prime minister of Hungary Antall in Visegrad, Hungary. Well, now unfortunately that won't work as Hungary is now pro-Russian (and quite hostile towards Ukraine).
Poland is seen as a possibility for leadership, as here (the American) Foreing Policy writes in the summer of this year:
But it will take time still when Poland will be strong, even if their armament program is huge.
During the 1930's the countries between Germany and Soviet Union tried to do some defense cooperation, but that amounted to very little. In the Nordic countries when this came up, Finland saw the existential threat to be the Soviet Union, Denmark to be Germany and Sweden and Norway didn't think that anybody was threatening them.
I think the best way would be simply to form a "group" from NATO countries that would be willing to take seriously the assistance to Ukraine, perhaps UK-Poland leading with the Baltic and Nordic States. Now as all Nordic countries are in NATO, this would be totally possible. I would assume that the UK would like to be taken seriously as it has a difficulty having a new relationship with the EU. It's always difficult to start a relationship when your marked as the other one's "ex". Yet the UK is in NATO and when it's only in NATO, it will want to be an active member.
And notice that Trump won't naturally take the lead in NATO. The old orange man will just repeat his line that NATO members aren't doing their share and that time has moved past the organization and thus doesn't want to do anything with it. Anyway, he will spend his all his time bullying and quarreling about his tariffs that he so dearly loves.
This is a little discussion moderated by the Brookings Institution about EU defense:
It's a long discussion about nothing. I think the EU will pull itself together when and if it needs to. Since Russia is relatively gutted and under the thumb of Xi, I don't think it presents much of a threat right now. As time goes by, I would guess that the EU will work on ties with China and look in their direction for a diplomatic base. Maybe play China and the US off each other.
I'd disagree with that. Putin isn't under the thumb of Xi. Just look at how many times the Russians have disappointed Xi with their wars.
First of all, when Putin says that he's at war with NATO, you really shouldn't underestimate this. Iran hasn't declared being at war with the US, even if the US is the Great Satan. Hamas hasn't declared being at war with the US. But Putin has. This won't end in Ukraine.
Usually Eastern Europeans have clarity on the Russian intensions and objectives. One clear and thoughtful document is from Warsaw based think tank Center for Eastern Studies (OSW), and it is worth listening to.
It shows what the West is clearly lacking. Determination to counter Putin and his reconquista.
Xi publicly chided him for talking about nuclear engagement. I took that to be a sign that Xi is in charge. No?
Quoting ssu
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what he's thinking until he actually puts troops on the border. He lies all the time. And at this point he's using North Korean troops. Is he really at a point where he could unilaterally declare war on any European state?
What else would someone say? And it's not like China is putting sanctions or limits on Russia because statements like that. China isn't going to go all North Korea, naturally, as it still views that it has to have ties with Europe. It's support of Russia has already alienated European countries.
Quoting frank
Nope and It doesn't happen like that.
The objective is to simply weaken the US and European ties, NATO and the EU. You see, Russia gains it's objectives is NATO collapses. Then it has military superiority against European states. Do not think that this game is played only by actual conflict with Russia tanks rolling to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. What it's aims are for example for my country, Finland, have been said quite clearly: Finland should be as "Finlandized" as it was let's say in the 1970's with Russians having a dominant say in the internal politics of Finland. And it of course "understanding" Russian foreign policy.
He doesn't need to put any effort into that.
Trump will do that for him? :chin:
Actually, the Kremlin surely hopes this happens. An intense trade war might do the trick.
Or it might not. Let's remember what was written about Trump's trade wars in the first Trump administration:
More pain than gain: How the US-China trade war hurt America
Really, one of the first things we ought to do, isn't to focus on the physical wars but the information war. We need to gut algorithms and AI systems in search engines and anything providing info and that's best done by a blanket ban on using personal data in those systems. If we don't, we will have a disintregrating EU with fascist like AfD and whatnot cheering along the way - right up to when things get a lot worse and there are no more allies because everybody is doing what's best only for themselves.
The driving force behind the spread of disinformation isnāt human psychology; itās the way platforms use personal data to manipulate what people see.
Every click, like, share, and comment is tracked, analyzed, and used to create detailed profiles of users. These profiles allow platforms to predict what kind of content will keep someone engaged the longest. Misinformation benefits from this system because it is often more emotionally charged than factual news. Fear, outrage, and confirmation bias make people more likely to engage, and engagement is exactly what the algorithms are designed to maximize. Instead of prioritizing accuracy, platforms prioritize content that will provoke a reaction.
Because content is personalized, two people searching for the same topic might see completely different results. A person prone to conspiracy theories will be shown links that reinforce those beliefs, while someone with different browsing habits might receive more neutral or factual sources. The same mechanism applies to advertisements, political messages and even the news articles people see in their feeds. This is how misinformation becomes a self-reinforcing cycle; once a person starts engaging with misleading content, they are shown more of it, pushing them deeper into their own reality.
Without access to personal data, this system would break down. If platforms couldnāt track usersā interests and behaviors, they wouldnāt be able to microtarget them with specific narratives. Misinformation would still exist, but it wouldnāt spread as quickly or as precisely. People would be exposed to a broader range of content rather than being fed a curated stream that aligns with their biases. Filter bubbles would weaken, and the ability to manipulate public opinion through personalized propaganda would diminish.
A ban on personalized content wouldnāt eliminate misinformation entirely. People would still spread falsehoods, and some would actively seek out misleading information. But it would remove the most powerful tool that allows disinformation to be targeted, optimized, and amplified at an industrial scale.
I agree with that.
The reason 'disinformation' has become a problem now, is because the (near-)monopoly held by governments and large coorporations on news distribution has been broken up by social media and the alternative news platforms they accommodate. In many ways, this flight towards alternate media can be explained exactly because governments failed to be reliable information brokers.
At the end of the day, the 'information war' only has losers. Both sides are dealing in propaganda, framing, mass manipulation, etc., which results in constituencies that are delusional, detached from reality, borderline brainwashed.
That is clearly not a sustainable situation, whoever 'wins' the information war.
Only cracking down on the social media side of things will just give the establishment free reign on the information landscape again.
Key here is the acknowledgement that it's not just 'the other side' who is guilty of engaging in blatant use of propaganda. It's not just the Russians and the Chinese. It's not just the Trumpsters. It's almost everybody.
As such, I think the primary 'cure' for this is for people to educate themselves on how they're being manipulated. If anything, all of this open friction is slowly waking people up to how the rotten machinery works.
Do not forget the hybrid war that is going around. That is far more serious than the information war. We are already having hybrid attacks here quite constantly. And where do you put the fact that the German navy has come out and said that it's naval vessels have been sabotaged:
(See here)
This will only increase now. It is telling if the news like above won't be picked up by mainstream news. And when it comes to information warfare, we have to remember that the information war has effect when the topic is actually something that the people would feel to be changed even without the topic. One of the things the populists and especially the Trump administration will try to do is portray Europe as being stuck in pre-2016 thinking. For example the migration issue. Never will they admit that actually that European countries have changed their policies. Greece doesn't allow refugees coming over Turkey and we even have closed our border totally with Russia. Our prime minister admitted that yes, it is problematic for our laws and international agreements, but it has to be done because of security. And were we reprimanded by the EU? Of course not. But JD Vance can scold Europe for not handling the migration crisis, naturally. As if the populists would be the only one's taking this seriously.
I think that we as Europeans on this forum would really need quite many new threads because yes, it has been worse than even you anticipated. Like should the EU have it's own nuclear deterrent? Quo vadis NATO?
Governments are democratically elected and have all sorts of checks and balances and information access rights for civilians. The idea European governments are largely unreliable or untrustworthy is ridiculous. There are of course all sorts of issues with political parties that will blame other parties (or foreigners) for policies they themselves enacted or at the very least enabled for political gain. Obviously, government does not have a role in policing whatever bullshit political parties are peddling. If people were actually politically engaged and historically aware, which they generally are not, we wouldn't be sliding into the cesspool ahead of us.
And whatever issues people had or have with mainstream media is no different from the monopoly obtained by social media corporations. If this is a problem, your problem is with corporate capitalism - as it should be. Nevertheless, the suggestion that social media and "alternative news platforms" are qualitative alternatives for more traditional media is weird, considering basic journalistic standards are simply not implemented at most of them. There cannot be freedom of speech if we only talk about lies.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is factually entirely untrue. Well before the advent of social media there were a lot of new independent news websites that still approached journalism in a traditional way. For instance, Salon, Slate, the Drudge Report, Democracy Now!, AlterNet, Truthout, Raw Story, EUobserver, EurActiv, The Local, Meduza OpenDemocracy and Indymedia, etc.
Also the access to traditional media in other countries became much easier. All of them well before the rise of social media.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's a paranoid outlook on the state of things. When you receive a letter from the government about your taxes, it's not propaganda, it's communication. Governments interact in all sorts of ways and most of it is still beneficial even if there's always a lot of room for improvement.
First of all, the EU should keep pushing forward to get Georgia's membership. We can't let them behind. It is important to lend a hand to those countries. Otherwise, they would think the EU is not relevant enough for improving human rights.
On the other hand, I would ask Norway to join the EU. It is not understandable that this country had a NATO secretary, but their citizens have no voice in European chambers. How can we allow that? Furthermore, they are very clever at managing natural resources, as they usually do with oil in their sea.
United Kingdom: Since Brexit was a terrible mistake, I think our representatives should start to get them in again or something similar. We can't have a WWI and WWII winner out of the EU. This was established exactly to prevent wars amongst Europeans. Also, it is reckless the high costs for not being in the common market. Alas, we had the worst politicians possible.
Ukraine should not be a member of the EU.
One thing I would point out though, is that of course independent media has existed for a while, but the problem is they are denied large platforms - those are jealously guarded by the legacy media.
Algorithms suppress 'undesirable' search terms, governments lobby YouTube to strike unwelcome channels, and there have been many examples, in our own country even, of the government sending police officers to the doors of people who express 'undesirable' opinions in what is an act of blatant intimidation.
After a decade+ of Rutte, I am surprised you would still consider people who have lost all trust in government 'paranoid'.
Well, if Germany won't be willing to stand up for it, then they'll not make a huge issue with it. You would have to respond to it. Do you take it up to NATO?
Remember that for example the Eagle S episode when Finland intervened, boarded and confiscated the tanker, it happened during Biden's watch. Finland got a lot of praise for that. But that was the NATO with the US under Biden.
It's clear as day whose behind the cabal cutting and it cannot be "an accident", because cabal cuttings of cabals didn't happen at least in my lifetime in the Gulf of Finland, and not with the frequency of today. Yet the investigations "are ongoing". Finland won't say that Russia is behind it. Just as Germany won't say Russia is behind the sabotage of it's surface combatants.
Why?
Because you have the real Putin-apologist in Trump, who likely would lash out to Germany or Finland of trying to break his peace negotiations with Putin. Remember that he has never criticized his friend Putin. All this nonsense that he would be tough on Russia is absolute horse shit. When you have already Trump saying that the war was the fault of Ukraine, how do you think he'll go with Germany whining that their navy ships are sabotaged?
Wouldn't go well with the "Putin wants peace" message that Trump is repeating. Trump wants ties to Russia to be opened, to get Russia to the G8. That Russia would be sabotaging those annoying allies wouldn't go so well for Trump.
I have to remind that there are sane people in the US. Many Republicans still hold the view that Putin is a warcriminal and the US should stand with Ukraine. Likely Marco Rubio is trying to do his best to make of the situation. But nobody, nobody will stop Trump.
Europe should understand that the US is an untrustworthy ally that under Trump will fuck everything up.
Let's remember that membership either to NATO or the EU is voluntary. Norway was in talks in joining the EU, did weigh the pros and cons and decided to be away. Just as Switzerland, I can understand them: they would be paying much and not getting much. And Norway was in NATO.
If NATO goes into the dustbin of history, I am sure that Norway will then do a security arrangements with Europe.
Europe has to wake up is the unreliability of the US as an ally under Trump. Heck, even some Americans are saying this to us in this forum. The unfortunate thing is to try to simply avoid this fact and think that everything is just fine, when it surely isn't. Especially not to do anything, because it would upset Trump.
I know it is voluntary but...
It depends on the nation we are referring to. We were forced to join NATO (1982)āwhen most of the Spaniards didn't want toāas a previous step to join the EU (1986); that was what we really wanted since Franco's death. Felipe Gonzalez was treated as a traitor in that period of time, but many years later he admitted that Reagan forced him to join NATO if Spain dared to be an EU nation. We don't know if he threatened Felipe Gonzalez, but probably he did, and we were in a social context where we felt the necessity to be friends with Western democracies.
Quoting ssu
I don't get it, and that thought rang a bell on an old prejudice. The north feeds the south (Mediterraneans) and East (Romania or Moldova). I hope you were thinking about political relevance or the number of seats when you thought about "not getting much" and "they would be paying much"...
Joining the EU means give part of sovereignty and many things. I get it. But that's the point. Share the best of each country. We were in war for centuries, and look now. That's what I wish Europeans could see and understand. Our old continent already suffered from wars and dictatorships, so no one is entitled to give us lessons of how we should do the things up.
But we do understand it. It's a happy confederation of sovereign states, that tries desperately be something it cannot be, a real federal union.
Let's go through just what we get from EU and the monetary union:
1) With the euro, the country risk is lower, hence we have far lower interest rates than we would otherwise have. That's a plus. We cannot use the devaluation cycle to prop up our export industries (and in your case, make Spain cheaper for tourists). That a plus, that also has minuses.
2) We don't face our problems alone and have to negotiate all as smaller entities. We don't have to face either Russia, but also the US as far more smaller countries.
3) Moving here or especially pensioners moving from here to sunny Spain has it plus sides. These people do bring jobs to Spain, they aren't there to use your welfare programs. This is a plus when open borders that we have don't make a problem. And surprisingly many Spaniards work in Finland.
4) And then the obvious: other Europeans countries aren't there cut us into pieces if we have internal problems. Just think how lovely it would have been, when you had your internal Constitutional Crisis of 2017-2018 and the other European countries would have sided their favorite side as during the Spanish Civil War. Some would have backed Catalonia and some Spain because, why not? Time to squeeze some benefits from your dire situation. And once you kill the first people, then people adapt to the "new reality" of OK, this is war. Last time in your civil war about half a million perhaps died. Well, that didn't happen and in the EU didn't happen. And we aren't thinking that our EU members would be thinking of starting a war with us, just as we know Sweden isn't going to declare us an "artificial country" and start to preach how the natural state is that Finland is part of Sweden as it has been in history. Or something similarly crazy, as we are now hearing from Putin on Ukraine.
So there are indeed benefits to the EU already.
It absolutely doesn't matter if or how much people educate themselves and wish to not be manipulated. Believing otherwise it's not only arrogant but evidently self-defeating (BTW this belief is typical of Westerners spoiled by the myth of "critical thinking" and "rights to know" and "freedom of speech"). If you know politics better than the politicians you so bitterly complain about, why don't you yourself fix politics right now? Instead of patronising political leaders, let's see if you can run for president or prime minister of your own country without manipulating or even without being accused of being manipulative by random anonymous people (like on the internet) even when you didn't have absolutely no intention to manipulate anybody or you made your BEST to not look manipulative. Anybody is instrumental to political agendas and everybody has enough blind-spots and biases, independently from their good intentions, and which politicians normally are and MUST be in condition to exploit TO WIN POLITICAL COMPETITORS OR PREVENT POLITICAL COMPETITORS FROM COUNTER-EXPLOITING. It's precisely inherent to their job. At best, ordinary people can make the intellectual effort to understand what side one could be instrumental to in a power struggle by fallible political competitors in certain historical circumstances and have the honesty to acknowledge it.
From a geopolitical competition point of view a key problem is that Western democracies have open social media that anti-Western authoritarian regimes can troll and intoxicate with convenient fake news, but Western democracies can't do the same against them. Western democratic regimes are compelled to compensate this asymmetry one way or another, but unfortunately the easiest way they can do it is by turning authoritarian as their rivals.
Or then, they can try to
a) Instill social cohesion, understand the utter peril of political polarization and how cheap shots at your competing parties can backfire when the political sides don't respect them. Get the real support of their people, don't just assume that if they won some election, they don't have to think about the people until the next elections.
b) genuinely answer to the worries of the people and take these seriously on both sides of the aisle.
c) and the best thing is to tell things how they are. Don't lie. Have the ability that if the country finds itself on really tight spot, the opposition can and the administration can set differences aside and agree on the large issue, even if this naturally gives a lot of points to the ruling parties.
d) Avoid gerrymandering and avoid situations when one party can take all the power. Coalition governments are usually better than one-party governments, especially those that can pass through the representative all kinds of laws.
The only thing I dislike is that I perceive that there are still some negative prejudices against us. The coronavirus crisis was a good example of that. I remember Mark Rutte and the Finance Minister of The Netherlands saying very negative comments on Spain and Portugal. But I didn't feel frustrated about their view but the fact that it is actually true our politicians suck at managing budgets. Alas, we always had corrupt politicians and despotic kings. :sad:
Oh, it is not surprising to me that there is an important community of Spaniards working in Finland. Low incomes and unemployment are the most tough troubles in modern Spain. Since our politicians don't seem to find the solution, my fellow countrymen decide to go to other EU countries, searching for better-paid jobs.
I agree. Which is precisely why I proposed the prohibition on using personal data as a free resource to allow influence on an industrial scale. Your previously unedited post (thanks for this improvement) seems to consider me hopelessly out of touch with just about everything. So what would you propose to do about this?
And that's what Trump doesn't understand. If a leader of one nation directly goes to badmouth another nation, out of nowhere it creates resentment and hostility. And especially when you don't know just what the hell you are talking about.
There's on saying about the British, they just love to criticize their Royalty, but a foreigner criticizing their royalty? Now way.
So then Trump repeating Kremlin talking points and making the deals with Putin on Ukraine and seems also Eastern Europe won't fly so well. But naturally he doesn't know what the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement meant to Poland, Finland, The Baltic States and Romania. But they will, once the media in these countries will report things as they are.
First of all, you are still reasoning from what is desirable not from what is feasible. All you just wrote deserves hours of universal standing ovation, sure. Unfortunately the point is that you yourself are 100% unable to do yourself what you expect politicians to do (like telling what they think to be the truth honestly, persuasively and to the best of humansā knowledge). Not only, you are 100% unable to find politicians that do what you wish them to do. Not only, you are also 100% unable to persuade enough people to make win politicians which would do what you wish them to do. Can you prove me wrong now? Tomorrow? In one week or month or year?
I think that realistic understanding of politics and political competition and debate should start from this very basic fact. This truth should curb any temptation to assess politiciansā performance more subjectively, namely based on what we think itās desirable independently from what they actually can do. At least in a philosophy forum.
Secondly, politicians do not move in a vacuum of pre-existing contingent cultural and historical factors that constrain and shape their options. Politicians have to work with what they have not with what they wish they had, and with what is attainable given available means and uncertainties not with what they wish they could attain. If Trump has been elected despite being a āfascist doucheā and is now able to centralise power in his hands maybe as no other American president could in the past, it would be more enlightening to dig into the pre-existing historical and geopolitical circumstances which favoured his rise to power. And explore his options for achieving what he has promised to achieve to satisfy his supporters better than available alternatives. Iām afraid neither gerrymandering nor the peril of political polarization is the issue among pro-Trump supporters, lobbies and trusted advisors (like Miran or Musk).
Well, in my country politicians do act like that.
For starters, they understand that they will get to power only by forming a coalition. Now if they go on and personally attack other politicians ad hominem and basically dehumanize other parties, they will surely now that the party won't have anything to do with you and the politician will be your enemy for the rest of your life. The kind of attacks and then total turnarounds that happen in US politics would be treated as utter dishonesty and spinelessness. Sorry, but we don't have that fake Professional wrestling theatre that State side Americans have and love so much.
It's the US that has a severe problem with it's citizens thinking that their real enemy is their own government. That's just a bizarre, unhealthy state which leaves you prone to attacks by your enemies. We here know what a real enemy looks like. We might not like everything the government does, but it still isn't the enemy our grandfathers fought.
Quoting neomac
In a philosophy forum politicians performance should be assessed objectively. You can go to social media and talk with your friends about what subjectively they mean to you.
Quoting neomac
Yes. And that's why in some countries politicians kill each other and are surrounded by armed gangs. We might call the warlords, but actually they are politicians.
Quoting neomac
And that has actually been discussed here on the forum, if you haven't noticed. January 6th was the only a deer-in-the-headlights moment for other politicians. But now Trump is far more ready in what he tries to do. What now he doing is simply bypassing everything and using executive power as a king, and the whole system is getting again this "deer-in-the-headlights" moment and calling "he cannot do it". And that's why it seems he's doing so much, because there isn't any "separation of powers", the Congress is just an annoying speed bump and it's power, just as the courts, should be taken away.
So have that civil war everybody has wanted and talked so much about.
Quoting frank
Europe should get it's shit together at first.
I really think that Europe should first approach Canada, as they have to take the same shit from Trump as we do and don't want to cut all relations with Americans. Remember that Trump won only a narrow victory, and there are many Americans that don't like Trump either.
If you mean they need to further integrate, I think they will, with China as an ally. It's their only choice. Europe couldn't withstand an attack from the US.
Quoting ssu
Not a chance
Quoting ssu
I think Vance comes next, and he much younger and smarter than Trump. Time to start learning Chinese.
No. It's not our only choice. It's not something that China would be so enthusiastic about either. We can have normal ties to China and if they go all imperialistic, then we can do our share. But you don't need to be allies with them and likely they wouldn't be excited about the idea either. Russia is a containable threat and the US isn't a threat. It's just Trump that is annoying.
The EU (+ UK and Norway) could easily give twice as much as they are giving now. They just should really build the defense industry up, simply put it. They could easily make the investment to defense, if they think defense is an important matter. Heck, Sweden ALREADY had actual nuclear weapons! It's not so hard.
It's hard to believe, but that was the fact. I already posted this, but it's history that usually isn't well known.
Quoting frank
Why not? It's just allies of the US getting closer to each other and contemplating on how to respond to a situation where Americans have these fits of Trump.
Quoting frank
We are just one month into MAGA paradise. We haven't even had the trade wars. Americans have not tasted the victory of tariffs when they buy food at the local grocery. Believe me, a lot can happen with Trump around. Like living another month in MAGA paradise.
Well, let's revisit it in 10 years and see which of us understood the situation better. :razz:
Is this normal in tone and content coming from an ally? Sounds to me as another attempt to destabilize the European democracies, just as Musk is trying to do with his support of the extreme right wing. Who would benefit from the resulting confusion among the European leadership?
No.
But very normal from a populist politician who will talk to his base all times and who doesn't give a speech on his role or on what the subject issue of the conference is about.
Quoting magritte
They want the MAGA revolution to happen in Europe too.
Maybe they do, but perhaps they only need to create sufficient confusion and division to paralyze disjointed multinational leadership.
MAGA is a nationalist movement that encourages authoritarian cult leadership. Here in the US, Musk is busy downsizing government bureaucracy by swinging an executioners axe. Unfortunately no limbs are spared. Even essential services will be crippled.
A similar MEUGA might push European unification into overdrive to rebuild a militarily self-sufficient world power. As Trump already suggested military expenditure needs to dramatically increase. But instead of 5% the military expenditure should be nearer to 25% or even more if Europe is to survive.
By share of the budget, wages for the federal workforce are between 4.5% and 6.6% of the federal budget, depending on how you count employees. There are about 1,870,000 employees. In order for Musk to make a significant dent in the bureaucracy, he might have to clear out about 500,000 workers.
Cutting 5,000 here, 20,000 there; eliminating such agencies as USAID, and so on, isn't going to achieve much toward trimming the bureaucracy.
One gets a bigger bang for the buck by disabling agencies like the IRS, which is laying off 6000 more recent hires (made largely under Biden, I would guess). Weak agencies just can't do as much to get in the way of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels as strong, fully staffed agencies can.
It would make sense for the DOGE to use AI to sift through administrative records of government contracts for suspected waste and corruption. Younger people with marketable skills and near retirees took the bonus and bailed out. They're eliminating social services as 'Marxist' and 'woke' agencies as promised to Trump supporters. But I can't tell how they so quickly single out individuals to be fired. If it is other than competence, is it by tweets? I imagine they're keeping all Trump supporters.
I'm Jutlandian and have lived in Canuckia for a couple of decades.
I can tell you with some confidence that Trump has, in my experience, insignificant support.
Granted, that's not so much about the US in general, it's about Trump, applying as he's doing his thing.
Lists of what you might not want to buy have been distributed, which isn't something I've seen before.
Chance? Yep. Redirecting to Europe has already been discussed. But we'll see.
Trump calls Canada āserious contenderā to become 51st US state (ā Global News Ā· Feb 13, 2025 Ā· 1m:40s)
In general, the Canucks have been growing tired of the noise and crap for some time.
High-level administrators can be singled out because they have a public record of statements--but that's a small number. Most federal employees are getting fired in bulk, by classification. For instance, new employees, or old employees with new jobs--are "probationary" for a period of time. It's easy to identify them as a group and fire them.
The big problem with firing 5000 people who are probationary is that these employees--trying to prove themselves--are probably the most hard working and diligent.
Musk and his raiders haven't had time to go through the files in the Personnel Department (or Human Resources) and pick out people to fire on the basis of performance efficiency or ideological stances. That could be done, but that would require time.
There is a paper trail, no doubt, but most of the records needed to fire en-masse are computerized. It doesn't take AI or a super computer.
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse takes time to ferret out. One can't just walk into the Treasury Department, look around, and say -- "We find waste and fraud here." A) there's probably not much fraud, and B) what is 'waste' anyway? Musk is abuse personified.
I'd say that the opposite is likely. What would be in the interest of the "tech-bro oligarchy", as we could call it, would be a Europe of divided and weak nation states that would be forced to accept the dominant position of the oligarchic service providers that control online media and AI.
Quoting magritte
This is assuming that what Musk is doing is still part of the "normal" political game and the goal of his actions is ultimately to deliver on political promises and shore up the power of the administration.
However, it is also possible that the goal is not part of the normal political landscape and instead what we're seeing is a deliberate attempt to make the federal government ultimately unable to fulfill many of its roles and thus provide an argument for replacing most of it with private contractors.
Quoting BC
Or they'll have to buy services from "the market" which will really mean Musk, Bezos etc.
Wasn't there already a tweet by Musk offering services from X to take over from a government agency he weakened?
Strictly by the numbers, so far as I can tell. āFire all your probationary employeesā (because they have less tenure.) āReduce your staff by 80%ā. The vetting for Trump Loyalty is made for new hires, as I see it. MAGA loyalists among those being let go will be by-catch. But if anyone wants to join the public service, they better answer that they know the 2020 election was stolen.
And Rutte has said it as secretary general of NATO.
Did he throw down the gauntlet and the EU took up the challenge?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SecGenNATO/status/1891577158323015786?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet%7Ctwtr%5Etrue&mx=2[/tweet]
And what do we see?
The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.
There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.
I've predicted this would happen.
Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.
Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.
Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.
Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.
Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.
Europe's next.
(Thought I'd post this in this thread as well, since it's quite relevant to Trump's election.)
Well, that multinational leadership was what the US had, and this is what they are trashing here.
Trump simply doesn't understand the backlash his arrogant and contemptuous behavior is having. Ukrainians are rallying around their president in the spat that Trump and Zelenskyi are having and even Trudeau's popularity have risen thanks to the 51st state nonsense.
Trump going to bed with Putin will likely have the opposing effect on Europe. It all depends if European wake up. We are quite aware of the threat that Russia poses and so is Poland, it's countries like Germany, France and the UK that should respond and approach their people. The silliness of this being "warmongering" when Russia is making hybrid attacks on NATO countries is simply Russian propaganda.
Russia will negotiate peace only when continuing the war can lead to a worse situation for Russia. Trump handing over Ukraine on a silver platter to Putin isn't a solution, and luckily the Ukrainians understand this. The Trump surrender plan won't go anywhere. This surrender monkey gave the Taleban Afghanistan, so we have to understand that he wants to surrender Ukraine to Russia. Time to have that spine, Europe!
Quoting Tzeentch
The aid given to Ukraine has been very small, and Europe has already given more than a half of that aid to Ukraine. Russian advances have been minimal and it's incapable of now rapidly taking over Ukraine.
There's still sanity in Washington DC, just like Republican Senator Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee
As he said: "Putin cannot be trusted. He is a warcriminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed."
That's the correct thinking.
Trump can perhaps see everybody else as his rivals, except Bibi's Israel or Victor's Hungary. But he lives in his ignorant senile dreamworld were his enemies are his friends and the Allies of the US are it's enemies, because they got so well with Obama.
It's a bit rich coming from the Washington elite.
But Trump is just a temporary phenomenon, and he is exactly what the Washington elite need to justify their 180 on Ukraine and pivot to Asia. "The US didn't want this, it was all mad man Trump!"
I can understand that. I'm American and I'm tired of it.
Maybe I wasnāt clear, but itās not Finnish politicians that you are criticising but American politicians right? (āIf you know politics better than the politicians you so bitterly complain about, why don't you yourself fix politics right now?ā). Even if Finnish politicians are as virtuous as you claim (the rise of right-wing populism in Finland, pro-Russian sentiment and problematic future of NATO makes me doubt Finns are immune from growing political polarisation and controversies), I would look into historical conditions (like the historical experience of Russian pressure) and geopolitical conditions (being a small and relatively homogenous community, being abundant of natural resources and nuclear energy which have sustained a generous and distributed welfare system, high standards of education, technological progress) that favoured the emergence of such cooperative political environment so far. But, more to the point, how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other statesā leaders, does actually empower Finnish politicians to instill wider social cohesion among nations, make them understand the utter peril of political polarization and get the real support of their people, genuinely answer to the worries of the people, and that the best thing is to tell things how they are, don't lie? how much of their satisfying political performance compared to other statesā leaders, does empower Finnish politicians to influence more than being influenced by major world crisis, like fixing the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and geopolitical competition between Big Powers like the US, Russia and China?
Iām asking also because their example doesnāt seem to inspire all political leaders to become more like Finnish political leaders, right? And thatās why to me assessing the chances of a collective change in society or politics based on decontextualised analogies as you do sounds really misleading to me (it sounds to me as arguing something like: āman, why donāt buy a Ferrari if you like it so much? If I bought a Ferrari so can you, whatās the big deal?ā).
In this forum Iām more in a contemplative mode and therefore Iām more interested to better understand pros/cons of proposals than to actually āproposeā anything to anybody. And this attitude helps me understand that politics may be replete of thorny tradeoffs to make as much as various degrees of tolerance for failure, especially of trust. Of course, the heigher oneās expectations are the easier it is to remain disappointed.
Concerning your proposal, I see three main issues:
1. Business, politicians, and law enforcement are compelled to collect and access personal information to shape and target their business/political/enforcement activity. As I said controlling the information flow is of paramount importance for politicians in democracy as in authoritarian regimes. In democracy, freedom of information, public right to know and security concerns can be always be invoked in democracies (also manipulatively of course). One can at best wish to reconcile this with protecting a subset of personal data, āprivate dataā, hence the regulatory solution.
2. However depending on the technological evolution (especially in the Information Technology field) regulations risk always to lag behind and make it tricky for an executive power to enforce them effectively. Even more so if regulations vary from country to country (e.g. in Europe rules forbid European companies from collecting data about everyone but American do not forbid American companies to collect data from European people). Besides disruptive technologies like Artificial Intelligence may find smart ways to work around data classified by regulations as private, especially if AI algorithms do not need more personal data to improve user profiling (AI algorithms might be able already or soonish to successfully profile users on the fly even with little personal input from them).
3. Geopolitical competition: preventing social platforms to collect personal data will impact the interference of foreign powers propaganda but also that of local governments. However if a Russian-style, China-style, Iran-style information control over social networks is a valid instrument of control and for nurturing domestic consensus, while interference in democratic social platforms through troll armies, bots and influencers, and trough more traditional means outside social platforms (e.g. corruption of politicians and media) is enough to create the information war asymmetries that are advantageous to their regimes, then prohibiting the usage of personal data didnāt help off-set this asymmetric advantage. In other words, as long as the information flow in Western-style democracies has certain features that by institutional design can be hacked by authoritarian regimes against Western democracies themselves (not vice versa), and independently from Western people or politiciansā best intentions or education, prohibiting social platforms from collecting data wonāt off-set this asymmetric advantage which authoritarian regimes can exploit. While turning authoritarian can more easily offset this asymmetric advantage: I think Trump is on this path. Hence my sarcasm: those Westerners who didnāt like hypocritical Western-style propaganda and censorship because at least Russians are non-hypocritical (whatever that means) hoping to get less manipulation and censorship from their Western governments by voicing populist outrage everywhere, including hackable social platforms, now they are risking to experience a rising trend of non-hypocritical Russian-style propaganda and censorship inside the West, then we will see if that's really what they prefer. This makes look such Westerners more as part of the problem than being part of the solution since their moral outrage was intentionally aimed at getting better Western leaders and policies but eventually it worked de facto to discredit Western institutions themselves on world stage and aggravate their dysfunctionality.
The migration issue has naturally been a similar discussion as in other parts of Europe, however the True Finns -party, which is the local populist party, is and has been accepted into coalitions and actually is now in the present administration. However unlike the typical populists, they are all for Ukraine. Here is the party leader giving a speech to the Ukrainian parliament and getting a standing ovation:
If you would listen to the speech (with English captions), you think this populist favor what Trump just did? Heck, the guy has been fined for "hate speech", so we know the woke police too that painted him as the dangerous far right. Sorry, but here in Finland we do have also unity, and not braindead polarization at all levels, even if the culture war issues have been discussed(agued).
Quoting neomac
Quite confusing what you say here. First of all, domestic politics should be left to sovereign states. You don't start messing in others own politics and work with all administrations from one country. It's an issue that at normal relations you wouldn't touch at all (unlike Vance did). But to get wider cohesion, well, basically Finland got Sweden also to join in NATO, even if Sweden had to haggle a lot with Turkey.
Quoting neomac
First, do cut down with the sentences. Very hard to read.
Secondly, a functioning democracy, a republic, needs a lot from both it's citizens and it's institutions. Those institutions have to function so that the citizens appreciate them, which isn't something that you get only with free elections. Those countries incapable of having a functioning republic will have the extremely stupid idea of authoritarianism being the solution. It won't be, it will make just things far worse, because an authoritarian state can easily just let loose unrestricted corruption, oligarchy or nepotism.
Quoting neomac
That's a path to hell. And the US has chosen that path. At worst, they really might have the civil war looming in the future. The more likely outcome is that the US is more like the countries in Latin America.
A question worth imaginatively considering?
curious smile
So, in your opinion, there is no legal or de facto barriers to stop Trump from declaring himself El Presidente for life with unlimited executive powers?
Sounds like the USA's constitution and political structure isn't worth defending because the Founding Fathers created a flawed country that has lasted well past its use or repair by date.
Due for a new model? Maybe it's getting that new model now?
confused and surprised by the evidence smile
OK Iāll note down that you are happier of your politicians than other Europeans of theirs, fine.
But you still do not get how basic (common sensical?) my comment was. Iāll try another way.
Think of ordinary commercial services (like the ones for power supply or mobile communication). What do you do when you have an issue with this type of services? First, you try to see if you can fix it yourself, if you canāt you call the help desk. If the help desk canāt fix it, they will call the admins. If the admins canāt fix it, they will call the experts (development, infrastructure, etc.). But what happens if none of them can fix it now, in one week, in months, in years, ever? You learn to live with it (hoping that one day it gets fixed) or you try to change the service (and hope the problem wonāt replicate).
Now we have been discussing for a while of international conflicts like the one in Ukraine or Palestine, or the troubles with the American or Russian foreign politics. These problems are of such kind that single individuals can neither fix by themselves, nor see them fixed just by escalating to higher levels of expertise. Indeed, itās powerful people on the top of the hierarchy which are struggling to find fixes. Or worse if/whenever they come up with one, maybe itās not the one you wished for, actually it could even be the opposite.
Keep repeating something like āin Finland things work swell because there are Finnish moral champions running their governments, why canāt they do the same in Russia or the US or the EU, or Israel, etc.?ā as if you were hinting at some solution, it looks rather empty to me. Indeed, Finnish politiciansā exemplar behaviour by itself doesnāt trigger the political resolution you wished for. Nor you can escalate those problems to Finnish politicians so that by virtue of their moral virtues those problems get fixed. And the reason of that is not much that the Finnish politicians should not interfere in other sovereign countries politics to fix their problems, but more that Finnish politicians most likely canāt fix those problems even if their moral imperative was to interfere. Why canāt these problems be fixed in a morally satisfying way as in Finland? Thatās what needs to be understood better. Maybe itās because the nature of the conflict in Ukraine or in Palestine is more complex and politically costly than the problems handled by Finnish political moral champions, and/or that pre-existing selective factors that favored the rise of moral champions in Finnish politics do not exists in the US or Russia, etc. In other words, Finnish politicians are not EMPOWERED by their moral status to fix the world issues we are discussing, or worse, to shield Finland from the nasty cascading consequences of those world issues.
Quoting ssu
Stupid or not, the risk of a spiralling political polarization inside democracies can end up in the political protracted paralysis of necessary reforms to effectively addressing growing internal or external challenges. And this polarizing escalation can eventually bring about civil wars or the rise of authoritarianism. Does knowing this risk help people avoid polarization? Hopefully yes, but there are also reasons to doubt. Why? Because in democracy people want to be free to oppose policies and politicians they do not like, vocally and publicly so. Thatās an in-built feature of Western democracies. It doesnāt matter which side one is on.
And feeling morally entitled per se doesnāt mitigate this effect at all, and not only because there people can also diverge over moral issues. Indeed, morally self-entitled citizens do not want to self-censor themselves, āpeople must know the truthā (like that of āuniversal human rights violationā). And if others warn them about the risks of being instrumental to hostile foreign powers, they may exercise their ācritical thinkingā and certainly suspect that some immoral political villain is using this argument to induce self-censorship, out of fear that the truth will eventually triumph. So they are going to voice their moral outrage even harder, and if others do not want self-entitled moral political activists to censor themselves on the contrary they give them a megaphone, these others might surely share their moral battles in politics. Unfortunately thatās precisely how foreign authoritarian powers can hack self-entitled political militants to foment political polarization. The paradoxical conclusion is that being instrumental to foreign hostile powers is justified if it is inspired by moral outrage, apparently no matter if this is going to backlash against them.
In other words, democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking (all traits typical of Western democratic institutions and pedagogy) put together can be source of polarization that a foreign attacker can exploit against democracy + appeal to universal human rights + free speech + critical thinking.
So here is a bitter conclusion on the limits of viewing politics in moral terms:
1. Appeal to morality doesnāt fixes per se clashes in moral sensitivity over lots of political issues: wealth redistribution, immigration, abortion, gender relations, religion, environment, etc.
2. Leading by moral example is effectively depending on moral sensitivity (e.g. if I'm politically left-leaning I'll look for moral champions in the left-side of the political spectrum, if I'm politically right-leaning vice versa). Besides it doesnāt necessarily bring about the morally desirable collective behaviour in people by itself (namely without law enforcement), because people can be morally fallible no matter what is morally desirable. BTW one way people show moral fallibility is their disposition to detect hypocrisy in others more than in themselves, and often for the wrong reasons (since they assume their moral sensitivity to be the universal moral compass).
3. Political activism to moralize homeland politics is exploitable by rival foreign powers. And anti-Western authoritarian regimes have an asymmetric advantage to sow division over Western democracies.
Basically just the sycophant acolytes around him advising that his base wouldn't like it. As I posted on another thread, the most likely outcome here is a "competitive authoritarianism" where there are elections and a opposition, but the whole structure is rigged towards the leader. There will be elections, but sure as hell Trump will do what he already tried the last time around.
Quoting kazan
It's not flawed or well past it's use. That would be basically what the authoritarians will market: Trump, or the "El Presidente" as in the Latin American model, has to circumvent the "corrupt" Parliament and judges. That's their line here. So they are already giving here "the new model".
It's from the "El Presidente" playbook: the opposition is the enemy and thus it has to be fought every way possible. The kind of consensus building that happens in a democracy is wrong and trying to make changes through legislation takes too much time and his the possibility of the "enemy", the opposition, to go against it.
You simply have a defective product. It's your loss.
Quoting neomac
Look, what I'm saying that if you want a functioning democracy, a prosperous country, then a lot of things have to be right. And if go to the DRC, we cannot think to change things to be like Switzerland. But what we can do is that they could be at least like in Botswana? Probably yes. That would be a huge improvement. First of all, you cannot think that a country is a democracy without all the necessary institutions and by just having elections.
Quoting neomac
Because you have to start with the reality that you have. Like for example the US. What it desperately needs is for it's citizens to think that the government works for them, and not the oligarchs. The only way for people to change their views is for the government really seen to work for them. What is happening now that some are pinning their hopes on an idiot reforming things and others are seeing how blatantly even without any fig leaf of the republic working as it's supposed to do.
The blatant error is thinking that somehow it's billionaires, that already enjoy the current system, would somehow reform the system. But Americans believe that these people are some kind of supermen. Poor people are stupid, billionaires have to be really smart, because they are billionaires, right? The public reaction to the shooting of a CEO is telling. What the country would have needed is for example that during the Financial Crisis, the Wall Street banks would have been treated like how the government treated the Savings & Loans bankers. That would have given credibility to the system.
Indeed it can. Polarization makes it difficult even to approach the other side in order to make any agreements. As one observer noted from the Parliament of the Weimar republic when he saw that the coffee tables in the cafeteria were marked by parties, you cannot have a democracy. If members of opposing parties cannot have a coffee together, democracy won't work!
Quoting neomac
Of course bad actors will abuse things like freedom of speach and so on. But the authoritarian looks at democracies being weak with all the woke nonsense. Yet in fact it's the authoritarians who are in the fundamentally weak, because they actually fear their people.
Quoting neomac
Yes, but just look at those questions. They basically have a question of morality inside them, even if many aren't just a moral problem. You cannot "appeal" to morality. You have to make your case for your solution to the moral problem.
Quoting neomac
Yet leading by example goes only so far. If others won't pick up your example, refute that your wellbeing and prosperity happen because of "your example", they won't go along.
Quoting neomac
And that usually can hit back at you very hard, if you aren't sensitive enough. Giving the "You People" talk to a crowd on how they should do a you do can sound arrogant and contemptuous. Anti-Western authoritarian government will do their propaganda, but if people see that things are better in the West than they are under the authoritarian government, they will draw their own conclusions.
Not sure if these claims are meant to be objections to my arguments, because they sound pretty in line with what Iāve already said.
Quoting ssu
Russian is authoritarian, China is authoritarian, the US is moving from democracy to authoritarianism.
Russia, China and the US seem to be stronger than democracies like France, Italie, UK and Germany.
In some sense, in authoritarian regimes political leaders won their fear of people, more than political leaders in democratic regimes.
Besides, after compering authoritarian regimes, one can notice that the popular support for Putin doesnāt seem as weak the popular support for the Iranian leader in Iran.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
Precisely, but the problem is that in authoritarian regimes, āpeopleā exclusively refers to the relative majority that vocally supports or silently tolerates the regime, also in a period of crisis where protracted collective sacrifices are required, the rest is forced into political irrelevance and suppression. While, in democracy, āpeopleā doesnāt exclusively refer to the relative majority that vocally supports or silently tolerates the regime, but includes also people and political movements that criticise the regime. So in a period of crisis where protracted collective sacrifices are required, there are always margins for disputes and blame gaming.
"more than half (52%) of Gen Z thinks that "the UK would be a better place if there was a strong leader in power who doesn't have to worry about parliament and elections" and a third (33%) believe that "it would be better if the army led the country"
https://assets-corporate.channel4.com/_flysystem/s3/2025-01/Gen%20Z%20Trends%20Truth%20and%20Trust_0.pdf
Trump didn't come into power in a vacuum.
From your link:
[quote]White working-class men are hardest-hit: only
14.6% entered higher education in 2021, the
lowest of any ethnic or socioeconomic group.
One in three is economically inactive ā a figure
that has doubled since the early 1990s ā leaving
nearly two million young men out of work.
This leaves many struggling to find their place
in the world.[/Quote]
And this is the reason why the fascination. And just why the crusade against wokeism and the support for anti-immigration policies. And why populist movements are so popular.
It's an universal phenomenon in the West. I assume it's even a bigger issue in the UK, which has long had a very clear class system. Usually for boys who relate to the blue-collar background, school isn't a place for. Yet the similar issue is happening also in the Nordic countries, where a similar class divide isn't so apparent in the society.
Is the administration's foreign policy becoming as far outside of previous norms and as bizarre as R. F. Kennedy Jr.'s approach to disease control and prevention? Kennedy cancelled an important meeting where virologists zero in on the strains of influenza to target in the next batch of late 2025 flu vaccine. Kennedy considers the measles outbreak in Texas (among Mennonites) as 'normal'. No, it isn't normal. Measles had been eliminated in the US 25 years ago. And he has NOT backed off the erroneous claim that vaccinations cause autism.
Whoever's writing the software for this matrix is going off the rails.
The part where Trump saw Putin and him as victims of the same plot does tell other nations that flattering Trump won't be enough to get the results in the world they live in.
Europe needs to do everything, and I mean everything, to become independent from the US. Start by stomping the billionaires enabling Trump to the curb by simply prohibiting microtargeting European citizens. This will blow up at least their business case here and stop the industrialized propaganda systems. But if we do it, much like with GDPR, other countries will follow. Next, industry policy, secure resources and ensure we can upcycle everything ourselves to whatever we need, from solar panels to tanks. Finally, integrate defensive capabilities. If we take every army together, Europe is already the best equipped army in the world - it's logistics and policies keeping them separated.
Meanwhile, support Ukraine unwaveringly. While I will always maintain that the proxy war of NATO/USA against Russia largely contributed to the start of the war, that doesn't mean we can fail them again through another betrayal.
Mounting an effective counter is challenging.
What's worse is that, we don't have the military industry to supply the war in the short term, so we will have to look to the US for that, no doubt on bad terms given the position we are in,... and that will make us effectively technologically dependant on them for decades to come.
The US instigated the war by pushing Russia into a corner, now they turn their backs on it, and we are just going to take up the crusaders mantle in an attempt to crush Russia like a bunch of zealots... it's all so dumb.
Europe is absolutely capable of defeating Russia in terms of war-making capacity. Russia, even at its more rapid pace of gains in recent months, would have to spend over a millennia at war to conquer all of Ukraine. They are down to sending out men to conduct frontal assaults with golf carts and passenger cars instead of armored vehicles. Their artillery advantage has shrunk dramatically, etc.
What Europe lacks is the political will and courage to defeat Russia, and make the sacrifices that would come with actual wartime defense spending and actually cutting off Russian energy sales. German defense spending remains below half of pre-1990 levels, as does French spending. The more comparable situation, given an active war in Europe, would be the 50s and 60s and spending to GDP now is about 25-33% of those rates, which are more in line with active deterrence.
It's not the case that, three years into the war, Europe and the US were incapable of mobilizing the resources to give Ukraine artillery superiority, armor superiority, or even air superiority. They simply decided it was too expensive, a decision they stuck with long after it was clear that "escalation" was not a real issue.
What is Michel Houellebecq's phrase on mainstream secular French culture, "a civilization that has lost its will to live?"
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I would agree that it probably could defeat Russia given enough time, but it's not like we would be able to conquer back the territory to force the conditions we want any time soon. Maybe more important is the why of all of this. It's a war instigated by the US we initially didn't want (Merkel and Hollande were against it), and ultimately it isn't really in our long term strategic interest. What is most important is a stable European security system (without the US so they don't have to come bail us out every 10 or so years) which would have to include some arrangement with Russia if it wants to succeed. Fighting a bitter war until the end probably makes the prospect for that a lot more dubious.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room, they have a lot of nukes. Do we really want to see how far we can go before they use them?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
There's a lot of political will at the moment, but yes the question is how much are people really willing to give up for it. The issue here is that there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. You have an aging population and low fertility rate, which means you probably need more immigration to get enough active working population to keep the economy somewhat going. But then immigration is allready causing massive political frictions all over Europe. This is the way this whole thing can really spiral out of control i.e. a drawn out war, more budget for the army, less budget for welfare and other nice things, which in turn creates more discontent, etc etc.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think the culture has become to negative or negating in that it has come to consist mostly of things not to do. A lot of mores, regulation and social distribution that keeps an open and diverse society reasonably ordered and sufficiently affluent. But it doesn't really inspire much.
They say culturally we're 5 years or so behind the US. I think we can expect something similar like what is happening now in the US. The particular thing in Europe is that those far right voices allways have been "contained" by keeping them out of governement, societal dialogue and media, which has left issues like immigration and identity undealt with. Now these parties have found their way to the young voters via social media and its changing the entire dynamic.
This sort of question was asked of the Commission a few years back, and the answer was unwavering in its support for Zelensky, ensuring us that āregular dialoguesā about freedom and human rights were occurring between EU and Ukraine, and other bureaucratic gobbledegook. A couple years later the abuses have only continued.
Iām curious as to why The Commission and its biggest supporters wish to aid the little dictator, and with so much gusto?
But to answer your question, some have their own interest, a lot have Russofobia, and most really believe our own propaganda.
Here's the real issue though, and it hasn't a whole lot to do with Urkraine being Nazi's or some such, because Europe has outsourced its foreign policy and defence to the US the past 70 years, most strategic thinking in Europe has been lost... they've mostly just been following the line set out by the alliance, i.e. the US.
I take your point regarding the ineffective suction. Further attempts will occur.
The way that Trump described himself and Putin suffering from the same hoax indicates how much more important what happens to him is compared to anyone else. Trump does not understand Putin as an agent independent from himself.
I support your call for more integration in Europe. While you are at it, start diverging from the multinationals who are owning the crap out of the U.S.A.
I will leave the discussion of proxy wars for another day.
(machine translated)
I'm a long time reservist and been in the voluntary training of reservists for decades. I remember once sitting down with fellow reserve officers and non-coms who have dedicated quite a lot to voluntary work for the military and said: "I guess none of us would be here, if on our Eastern border there would be Canada." They all agreed. None of them likely would have gone to the military in that position. I definately wouldn't have, because I thought it would be a nightmare for me. Well, it wasn't, especially afterwards.
And this is the absolute question for the Dutch, the country is one of most strategic places for Europe with having the important artery of Rotterdam. Yet you have all around quite nice countries. Belgium isn't bellicose towads you and the Germans aren't either coming. Spanish are even less are thinking of taking back their old possessions. When the Soviet Empire had it tanks in East Germany, that was close enough for you to have a large army and conscription. It was easy to see the threat. Now it's far more difficult, because Russia isn't threatening the territory of the Netherlands. But it will try to attack and dissolve the EU just as it tries to dissolve NATO. And that does create a threat.
In my view Netherlands has been one country, that has really put it's cards into the existence of NATO. When Elon Musk is wanting the US to ditch NATO and UN (which the latter would have tremendous effect on UN decisions towards the Palestinian conflict), this is a new situation. The dramatics won't end up these weeks that we have seen now.
Perhaps it's the contrast to what comes out of America, but European leaders seem to be dealing with the new situation quite well and understanding the situation. At least I'm hopeful.
We declined the fantasy of taking back our old possessions since the day we lost them all! :rofl:
But the absurdity of it to us Europeans does tell about the insanity of Putin. An European politician saying similar things and we would think he's lost his marbles. Spaniards understand that they have lost their empire. The British understand that they have lost their empire. What we now have to show the Russians that they too have lost their empire and the they will just do enormous harm to themselves in trying to regain back that empire.
If every European nation would pick from it's history when it was the largest and declare this to the "be the natural state" and then demand that these territories belong to them and any state now existing in them are purely "artificial", we easily understand what kind of a Pandora's box we would open. And we understand that EU was formed because many millions of Europeans had died in two World Wars. Nowhere else has there been such a massacre of people. It's because of those millions of dead that the idea of European integration did achieve so much.
Yet people like Putin (and Trump) don't see it as this way. And a lot of appeasers come to proclaim that these insane visions are "realpolitik".
Quoting Benkei
It will be a coalition of the willing. Always. And that's fine with me.
I wouldn't like an EU that would behave like an imperial entity. Europe doesn't need the integration that Napoleon or Hitler attempted to do. Besides, a confederation of democratic states will always look like a laughable crowd of chickens to an autocrat.
If so, I think you grossly underestimate how dire the situation will become in Ukraine if the Americans pull the plug. The country has been hollowed out in every way, and there's no way of telling what will happen to it after the Americans leave, or who will be in charge.
The idea that caving now doesn't prolong the war is only true with regard to the Ukrainian theatre but we are at war with Putin whether we like it or not. He's made that abundantly clear through all the cyber warfare and campaign influence Russia exercises in Europe with the complicit support of US tech giants (who love to sell distribution for propaganda as long as it turns a profit).
Moreover, a weakened Europe that gives in to Trumpian demands means we relegate ourselves to being vassal states of the USA but now unwillingly. It's, hopefully, a bridge too far for EU politicians.
EDIT: On a final note; it's about high time principles start governing policy again as that's the only true road to security. Pragmatism and opportunism have bred terrorism and antagonistic views across the world against the West; let their hatred pour over the USA idiot in charge - the EU should leverage that undercurrent and position itself as a trustworthy partner not out to police the world but to facilitate cooperation and peace.
Without the Americans, the Europeans will have to reinvent the wheel in virtually every domain and reboot their entire military industry. Meanwhile, Ukraine will be a crumbling, porous husk.
I don't disagree with the general direction you're thinking in, but to try and do so while also preserving Ukraine is not feasible.
Ukraine would likely not survive long enough for the Europeans to get their things in order, and it would put Europe on a war footing with Russia. The Russians have their allies backing them, while the Europeans will probably lose their principal strategic ally.
Personally, I think the fact that the Russians are willing to settle for a deal under the current circumstances is a clear indicator that they have no interests in needlessly antagonizing Europe.
If they wanted a larger part or even all of Ukraine, now would be the time to press their advantage.
There's historic precedent without it leading to disaster. So what disaster are you thinking of?
I'm quite surprised that through all this I've felt a certain amount of increased energy. In the last Trump run, things just felt like geopolitical depression, but this time he went so far that Europe seems to collectively wake up to a new kind of elevated spirit.
If it goes on like this, it would end with a collective "fuck the US" and at that point I'm not sure the US will be able to get back to the relations until they crawl back on their knees.
We can argue that the economic power of the US is too large for this to happen, but if Trump takes it too far there's not gonna be a choice. And if the industry and collaboration across Europe increases and reaches a point of self-suficiency it didn't have before, we're not really gonna rely on the US even past this phase of toddler politics Trump wallows in.
Trump is effectively just operating on "the art of the deal". He's pushing everyone in order to own any deal. Europe, at the moment, is trying to play by his tune and I think political leaders in the EU need to wake up to the fact that Trump doesn't surrender to anything if there's nothing to lose. He will push until he gets pushed back.
So even if there are risks involved with going against Trump, I think Europe should just give him the fucking finger, even if that may crash the market a bit. Because that crash may lead to a boom when native industries start to form stronger trade deals within the EU.
A key point that fuels industry is diversity, it's proven in so many research papers that anyone disputing it is just ignorant. And the EU has more diversity than the US due to the fact its a union of nations rather than federal states. Increasing the free movement and industry within, beyond the current operation, may lead to an industrial boom. The US, even with immigration included, is too inbred into patriotic nationalism to function on gains in diverse thinking. And the EU has been too dependent on the US to seek collaboration with their neighbors.
I think there's just a matter of time before the EU organizes a European military, a federal investigation agency (akin to the FBI), joint industries spread across nations rather than centralized in specific nations etc.
And I kind of feel ok with how things are going in this regard. The war and Russia is the key area of risk and that's the only reason I'm worried; but outside of that, it's kind of refreshing to see European leaders being invigorated to collaborate more rather than less. The US essentially pushes us away from Brexit mentalities and that is a good thing.
Let's just tariff back against the US and they'll find out just how much trade is actually benefiting the US. I'd say, let the MAGA cult and Trump supporting voters of the US rot until they get rid of toddler politics. Let us drink fine, but through better trade, less expensive French and Italian wine while the US citizens grow fat and stupid on suger and suger-replacing chemicals. Let our EU regulations safeguard the citizens so they can live decent lives while the US citizens die from infections out of losing healthcare or die from not taking vaccines because Kennedy told them so.
Let the US suffer - If the US abandon us, then let's abandon the US. Why should we care for the stupid toddlers that vote and run that broken nation?
Soon, the dept crisis will swallow the US economy and if Europe builds enough security against that downfall, we will win the art of the deal in the end.
Meanwhile, the US is obviously reconsidering its stance towards Europe, which could very well mean that its interests are becoming diametrically opposed to those of Europe. (In the sense that if they cannot control Europe, they will seek to weaken it or even break it up).
Ukraine becoming a giant blackhole for money and military hardware, war between a weak Europe and a strong Russia that could potentially go nuclear? Add Uncle Sam's capricious meddling into the mix, and who knows where that might end.
To top it off, we don't even know what will happen to Ukraine when the Americans leave. Who knows who will be pulling the strings a year from now? It could be FSB agents for all we know.
I fully agree that Europe should start moving towards a situation where its security vis-Ć”-vis Russia is safeguarded, but Europe is way too weak currently to start pretending like that is already a reality.
Europe is too geopolitically ignorant at this point in time to get itself into that type of trouble.
It will no longer be a black hole when gas contracts are signed and effective again. Be patient: Weāve been holding on for three years. The key is to resist until we get a better agreement to Europe's interests.
We are on a war footing already!
You named cyber attacks and election meddling earlier as an indication that we are, but that's nothing we haven't done before, and little more than a tit-for-tat for our involvement in the Ukraine war.
Consider that the Poles have definitively said they will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. They're arguably the nation that stands to lose most as a result of a mismanagement of the Ukraine conflict. They don't want to put boots on the ground because they know that all it will do is move Europe closer to war.
Iām curious where Europeans get the idea that Russia will invade the rest of Europe. I canāt find anything that bolsters this claim. Unlike Ukraine, ethnic Russians arenāt being ethnically-cleansed anywhere else in Europe, so it doesnāt make any sense that Russia would attack.
I figured as much.
Cute when echoing old Kremlin lines (again). ;)
Kremlin lines. Kremlin talking-points. You can gauge the depths of the anti-Trump mind by how quickly it hits this basement floor.
The problem is the "Kremlin talking-points" schtick is never proven. That's particularly difficult to do in any case because such talking points have been roundly censored around the globe and most of us don't speak Russian. You won't quote whom or what I'm parroting, for example. You can't; that's because it isn't an observation of reality. Rather, it's a mental stop-gap that permits you to stop thinking once the cognitive dissonance sets in.
Anyways, like you said, we shouldn't sling mud. Cheers.
As to arming Ukraine; that's perfectly legal and doesn't constitute war. Countries sell arms to each other all the time.
And having lost a lot of equipment, basically capable of making quite localized attacks. Perhaps several years of a cease-fire + sanctions put off, it would be totally different.
Quoting Tzeentch
Ukrainians have resources for few months to half a year. That's it. Or Europe would really get it's act together. And they might, even if you don't want them to do that.
Like Ursula von den Leyen is purposing:
With ā¬800 billion you can help Ukraine a lot. And start replacing the weaknesses that you have for relying on the untrustworthy ally.
The idea that Russia is so strong and European countries so weak is just this mental barrier that we have in our minds. Because many Europeans don't simply believe in themselves.
Foregoing practical realities in favor of a 'legal' technicality over a matter of this gravity is something that I'm sure most international law scholars would scoff at. It's so contrived that it almost seems you want us to be at war with Russia. Do you have any idea what the consequences of that would be? You'll be the first to volunteer for the trenches, I presume?
Besides, do you then believe NATO declared war on Russia when they bombed Nord Stream?
I would prefer Europe to get its act together without getting lured into a cataclysmic war with Russia, thank you very much.
Unelected Queen Ursula and the Trans-Atlantic clique are the morons who got us here in the first place. They know their political lives will be cut short if they have to make a 180 on Ukraine. That's why they're so eager for more crisis.
There will be peace in Ukraine, and Europe won't be going to war with Russia, no matter how hard some disgruntled intellectuals might find it to swallow their words.
If you're eager for more blood, go volunteer for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion while you still can.
You need a strong military and the will to fight the aggressor to have real deterrence. Appeasement will bring that cataclysmic war with Russia. Only strong deterrence does literally what it means: deters Russia. Weakness and appeasement will only raise the interest of Putin.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it saw the country as weak. All the intelligence people (that Putin later fired) gave that impression that it would be as easy as annexing Crimea. That Ukrainian military wouldn't put up a fight, that a Russian proxy leader could be installed quickly to rest of Ukraine as Novorossiya would be carved up was the idea. It would be as successful as the dash for Crimea. Or like Operation Danube, from history.
Quoting Tzeentch
Europe doesn't have to go to war with Russia. Europe can assist Ukraine. If they only would believe in themselves. Europe holds the cards here as Ukraine does. Not Trump. But Putin can simply continue the war too. He isn't been pressured at all.
Quoting Tzeentch
I know some of them. They are highly respected in our military and with our reserves as they bring valuable insight on the actual fighting capabilities of the Russian forces.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, working for Putin will cause that, because people at least in the Nordics, Baltics and Eastern Europe do see Putin as a threat. It's called democracy, you know.
Russia will be able to maintain its narrative with US approval and Ukraine and Europe will be able to maintain theirs. Truth be damned. This war is going to end.
Russia has a tendency to want to annihilate the Ukrainian identity. It gives them joy to try. Ukrainians say no to this for some strange reason. I get the feeling this war might outlive all of us.
Enabling Putin to fight his war against Ukraine by putting Ukraine in a tougher spot does actually quite the opposite. There is no reason for Putin to end this war now. Putin can see that he can have everything. Putin is on the road to get his objectives: Having Novorossiya, having a puppet Ukraine (or at least an Ukraine that has Finlandization), having the Atlantic alliance broken and have the US pushed down to be just a Great Power, not a Superpower anymore. All totally possible.
But live in your bubble where Trump is playing his 4D-chess, and enjoy the trade war he has started.
I don't subscribe to his being a genius as much as his being the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room. He gets to do what he wants because no one can stop him.
It's just bullying is all it is. He has the idea that playing nice concedes too much. That's how all ruthless people rule. I just think it will be more effective than you do.
How is that effective to you? Perhaps for your enemies like Russia and China, it's great. Putin can breathe now more easily.
I think Trump is simply shattering the Superpower status of the United States. And then he starts the most stupid trade war, which will hurt you. Perhaps Americans are indifferent to that or think it's a great thing. I don't.
Why so indifferent about it?
Correct, but Europe must re-arm quickly, this is why many people are shouting about the Russian threat. It takes a lot of effort to overcome the inertia that you hit when it actually comes to working out and funding how you are going to do it.
Russiaās special military operation is a failure. It has weakened her capabilities, reduced her to a pariah and resulted in the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve.
Russia had an opportunity to become a respected partner and actor on the world stage when Relations between the West and Russia were good following the fall of USSR. But it was all squandered and thrown away by a tinpot dictator. All it required was a bit of humility in accepting that the smaller now independent states that used to be in the USSR had a right to autonomy. They will have to wait another generation, or two now before they can come in from the cold.
Oddly though, there's been no bullying of Russia at all. Russia seems to stand apart, with no demands made of them at all.
Quoting Punshhh
I wouldn't paint the picture all that rosy. The shock therapy approach had appalling consequences for the countries of the former USSR, notably in Russia. The treatment of the citizens of these countries was at times quite callous, and the West did abuse its post-1990s hegemony to weaken the principles of non-intervention.
Mistakes were definitely made. Of course, it does not follow that there is a direct line between those mistakes and the Putin regime. Other countries with similar problems made different choices.
I haven't come across any examples of Trump criticizing Putin. Anyone?
It's not a technicality. It's the existing framework along which these things are assessed. That Europe so far has decided not to act reflected a lack of political will. But the situation and our rights are crystal clear. If Russia wants war with Europe, it's welcome to it because it will lose just as it lost the Cold War.
Glad somebody is. Ah well, at least the news is exciting.
Quoting jorndoeNever.
No doubt. But the amount of money and years that would eventually take the following reconstruction could be frightening. Imagine Europe spending years and wasting resources to recover from a war once again.
We always thought that diplomacy was the main venue to solve disputes (I still think it is), but, sadly, the main superpowers are forcing us to spend a lot of money on the army because we no longer can trust them.
Diplomacy wouldn't work on Hitler.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
It's rock-bottom bad.
It is nationalist paranoia. It's jingoism*** in the extreme. Is the EU a phantom in a capitalist nightmare of competition? (I thought competition was supposed to be a universal capitalist good. No?) It is irrational hostility towards our best friends. (Yes, I know, nations don't have friends -- they have interests. So: hostility towards the EU is not in our national interest.) It's crude thinking. But then, nobody has ever accused Trump of being refined. It's the sort of statement Trump fishes out of his gold toilet.
***The term "jingoism" comes from a British music-hall ditty during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.
First it is Ukraine and Zelenskyi, because he isn't making the surrender deal so Trump could get a win and the Nobel-prize he's after. It's already Denmark, because The Europeans are just in the bewilderment-phase. They are not yet even angry. The Canadians start to be in anger-phase.
Next he will likely start bashing the Europeans and Canadians.
Now I might be wrong, but good luck if the US stays in NATO until and after the next Summit in June 2025 in Hague. As that's many months from now, who the fuck knows what has happened between now and then.
A recent piece from Slavoj Žižek, Trumpās Oval Office clash with Zelensky killed diplomacy. A few philosophical ideas are drawn in to the analysis, which sets out the impossible position of Ukraine, and suggests, perhaps only half jokingly, an alliance between Europe andChina.
Heās right in that the populist right is a result of failures of the left. I think the left has been wrapped in a āgood guyā mantra, always positioning itself as the one standing for human rights and the goodness of people against the capitalist machine of the neoliberal right. And in doing so have become blind to actual issues in society which the right could exploit to gain power.
And it is interesting that thereās been this flip, in which the right acts with post modern methods directly taken from the left. While the left is becoming a rather conservative group in that it speaks of a decency of a welfare state in a conservative rhetoric.
That the left may become the form of politics which tries to hold on to some form of stability in the same way conservatives on the right spoke of stability, but now that the right is sliding into chaos itās the left doing so instead.
However, the current right is formed on populist ideas, meaning they have no central vision. They gained power without a plan to use that power, other than imbue more power to the oligarchs around the central power figure, and enrich themselves as much as possible on the backs of the people.
This form of power is essentially doomed from the start. And the left still has a vision of economics and ideals, which might boom in a few years because itās a vision that power can naturally form around in the long term.
Essentially, a post modern populist leader who tricks voters and followers, will eventually fall, they always do. And when they do, people will want a new ideal to follow. And with industries dying or being automated, the traditional voters sharing the ideals of the right-wing populists will die off as they wonāt benefit from the right-wing leaders politics.
I think that the 2020-30s will be marked as a large tectonic shift in politics and world economics. How the world looks when we go into the 30s will be the defined state of the world for the most part of this century.