I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.
The perfect excuse for the military industrial complex to move manufacturing overseas.
So I'm going to say that the military industrial complex is already there, it would simply be a rapid expansion.
Multiple EU countries want to, but they also want to give stuff to Ukraine and it's difficult to do both.
Cutting off American weapons manufacturers would tank the US economy. Please do it.
The problem is that America has all the money.
all the unhinged currency but also all the debt.
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can't really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly ....distracted in the Pacific
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help.
How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?
NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.
If Europe gets into a war, the US will side with Russia. Trump has been a Russian asset since the 80s, and it's clear that he gave Putin classified documents relating to American spies and informants during his last presidency when they suddenly started dying a few days after he met with Putin. And even more classified documents relating to American espionage against Russia than the ones he requested before that meeting were found in Mar a la Go.
can you cite a source on the spies dying a few days after he met Putin? Not saying it's not true, just curious.
I wrote that incorrectly, it wasn't a few days after he met Putin, but a marked spike over the months after. He requested classified documents related to CIA operations like 3 days before the meeting with Putin. It's also a series of events over a couple of years because it wasn't until at least a year later that the FBI raided Mar a Lago and found more classified documents related to intelligence operations. There's no real way to know for sure unless Trump or Putin admit it, but the correlation was and is suspect by even the intelligence operations of the government and is partially why the inquiry into Trump was called for in the first place.
Are you fucking stupid? Which is the only country to ever invoke article 5? How many other countries listened to the call for this injust war?
Are you fucking stupid?
yes.
Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.
Yeah, because Netanyahu's extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US's left-wing party, right?
I doubt Gaza was the deciding factor for 20 million people, but I could be wrong. Especially since anyone that aware of the whole would see trump would worsen the situation not improve it. I'm curious why they did stay home.
I also guess Americans don't want a woman president and they do want a hard crackdown on migrants. Especially Latinos, who apparently overwhelmingly came out for trump.
I also guess Americans don’t want a woman president and they do want a hard crackdown on migrants. Especially Latinos, who apparently overwhelmingly came out for trump.
Latinos voting for hard crackdowns on immigrants is the biggest "fuck you, I've got mine" energy I've ever seen.
And they will be so fucking shocked when ice comes for them.
Or their parents.
But they are one of the good ones! ™
Narrator: they weren't.
By far, the overwhelming Biden derangement syndrome factor was "transgenders exist and are in my news feed". That healthcare is available to prisoners and immigrants, means that they are all receiving gender reassignment surgeries. This is democrats fault.
The fact people can't differentiate edge cases from the norm is a general education issue. But their pushback was anemic.
General education in the US is underfunded on purpose. It's how the right have won on every issue that counts. Distracted, lazy, frightened and greedy. These are the levers the media pull to get whatever the billionaires want to happen. They tried it with Smedley Butler way back when and learned their lesson. Have the dumbass voter just do what they want with outrage. It doesn't matter who's president or who's in Congress. It matters what's on the news and who they can pay to put it there. The rest falls into place.
The Democrats also need better spokespersons. They might have better policy, but the infrastructure bill, chips act and lower drug prices will kick in during Trumps reighn.
Only 25% of students pass the civics literacy test
Americans don't fucking understand policy. Doesn't matter how you message it.
Probably why they need populist messengers. Fighting speach with more speach does not work if you are trying to have a nuanced conversation with a guy using a bullhorn.
Sure, I think you misunderstand me though. There's a century of Republicans good for economy and war, Democrats good for civil liberties and inclusion. There isn't any populist messaging available to Democrats that the Billionaire donors will allow to be printed or platformed. Look at Bernie Sanders for an example of that.
It wasn't deciding factor at all. People get far too internet poisoned and fail to realize how the median voter is actually motivated in this country. Foreign policy is nearly irrelevant to most voters.
If there is any validity to the idea that Harris' position on gaza tanked the campaign it's in the motivated active base lost interest in giving their time, sweat, and energy to putting boots on the ground for someone that has made every promise to continue bombing children.
It was, as it always is, and as Clinton said over 30 years ago, "the economy, stupid".
People who do not pay attention to politics vote like someone pressing random buttons on an elevator. They push the up button, no elevator comes, then they push the down button, no elevator comes, and all they know to do is to keep pushing buttons randomly hoping an elevator comes one way or another. And no elevator ever comes.
It was a multitude of reasons, Twitter being in the hands of Elon (who pushed the hashtags #genocidejoe and #holocaustharris, but I wouldn't be surprized if he also misinformed people about the election dates), other social media stopped enforcing their community guidelines to be "unbiased", media was way harder on Kamala than on Trump (including the downplaying of the mental decay and insanity of Trump), the whole "let's try to appeal to moderate conservatives" thing, etc.
The entire capital class rallied around trump. Bezos and Musk.. media is owned by them, so the bias against Harris, asking things of her they did not ask from Trump.. sanewashing Trumps ramblings.
Your elections where "stolen".. by the billionaires.. through totally legit means.
They're only "legit" if the people are letting them to be.
If it mattered: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that cost us the Republic.
If it didn't matter: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that didn't even matter in costing us the Republic.
Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them.
Urgh, even now before the votes are all in (this will take weeks to finalize) this election was the second biggest turnout since 1932. I hate living in this "post truth" world where everyone just goes off of feelings and emotions. People turned up, for trump.
What feelings and emotions? Trump got 72.6 million votes so far this year. He got 74.2 in 2020. That's 1.5 million voters right there.
Biden got 81.2 million votes. Harris got 68 million votes. That's 13 million votes difference.
And most elections get in the 60% +-5 range voter turnout.
So...yeah... 1/3 of the population doesn't bother to vote.
Do you know if they include disenfranchised voters in the possible voter category?
Afaik, everyone that's a citizen and over the age of 18 is included. But I could be wrong.
Yes, 1/3 does not vote. In any election (hell what do local elections hit? 30%) My point is it does not help just pulling the 2020 numbers since those are literally the record numbers of all time. This election was right on the money for turnout, not low, not really super high.
Blaming voter turnout would require some evidence that voters did not turn out. And in this case Trump won the popular vote, so 2016s electoral college crap is not in play. This election could be cheated (how would I know at this point one way or the other) but my money is on the Democratic party just face planted harder then in 2016.
The original comment to which you replied said "Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them."
We've agreed that millions of people did stay at home. So I don't see the problem. Yes, they often stay at home. That's the problem. When it's two of more of the same it's more understandable. But both sides have been pretty clear about what's at stake. And they still stayed home. That's it. And you've agreed that 1/3 of the people didn't vote.
Not sure how the op was untruthful or misleading or based in any way "off of feelings and emotions".
Millions of people chose to allow this to happen. And yeah, Gaza wasn't the reason.
Yeah the reason was that the public is tired, but no more then normal. Blaming this on voter turnout due to a single issue is..... silly. I agree with the first statement but not the idea that this election had low turnout, this was a referendum on the status quo. The result was clear (not one that will be good) and this post truth finger pointing just pisses me off, the race was not even close. Do you think if another 15 million people got off the couch they would have not voted for Trump? That is just about as arrogant as you can get.
Meh...dunno.. even the stupidest of the people I've spoken to have agreed that trump is bad and were outraged by some of the stuff he said/did. And people always claim that when people show up to vote, the Dems win. Not a fact I've bothered to check, but it does work for the past few elections.
Yes, I would agree in the past. But in this case 15 million votes would have to be very strategically placed to change the outcome (basically worse then the gerrymandering the Republican party is called out for). I don't think people are rationally looking at these election numbers and are just falling back to the old rhetoric. For fun try and put 15 million votes down and change the result.
Ok, I didn't look at the states that Harris won, because that would've taken longer and complicated things.
Only looked at states that trump won.
Interesting fact: if you strategically place 12 million more votes, you can win literally every single state and secure all votes.
Most fun way to win (imo): 1.5 million in Texas for 40 votes and then another 1.5 million in Florida for another 30.
Most efficient points/voter states:
Michigan needed 80k for 15 votes
Georgia needed 120k for 16
Pennsylvania needed 145k for 19
And Nevada needed 52k for 6
For a grand total of 400k you'd get 56 votes that could've taken Harris from 226 to 282 and would've secured the win.
Other close calls:
North Carolina needed 200k for 16 votes
Arizona needed 140k for 11
Yes, and see how you need to play god to do this? Now lets say you only have 10 mil and a republican can do the same thing with another 10 mil? What if you could only move votes around?
This election was lost from those close call states, true. They could have in hindsight won this by getting 80k people in buses in Michigan and Nevada, but they did not do that.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I think everyone's got their share of the blame. The whole thing is fucked.
My argument is what did the democrats have to lose for supporting Gaza/Palestinians? It's obvious not running a fully left facing candidate and campaign was a mistake.
We are mad at the wrong people. The reality of the situation is that the democrats can't win without the far left of the party. So why won't we extend an olive branch? If we get a next time, what are we going to do differently?! This is the reality. Either we wake up to that or keep losing. Pick one.
Fuck the people who didnt vote based on gaza. They are even dumber than Maga hats. They help the candidate that is even worse for gaza win . No one should offer these people any branches. Fuck them. Treat them like the idiots they are just like we do with MAGA.
Okay but if we are guaranteed to lose without them, what's the harm in giving them what they want? Losing while taking the morally right position is never wrong. We spit in the Arab/Muslim/Palestinians/far left Americans faces and they stayed home on election day. So what's the harm in at least giving into their demands? The Republicans do that for their base and are winning even when they lose elections. So I'm arguing a change in tactics because we are literally taking the insanity route if we don't.
Are we. Is that what the demos say? Don't think black men and Latinos care about Gaza. The far left is so finicky and small
There is no left and esp. no far left in america.
Not any more there isn't. And soon, in the next few years, we'll see a systematic elimination of any remaining opposition, by means of oppression, suppression, and even more violent means.
There never was a left in america. What you call left os conservative in every country with a real political spectrum
A good number of left-wing politicans in my country would be considered right-wing in the USA.
And you think that matters when there isn't even going to be a fucking center-right any more?
There wont be free elections in the US anymore so of course it doesnt matter. Its thank to the maga, Jill Stein, and non voters.
So what’s the harm in at least giving into their demands?
If people refused to vote because both candidates support Israel, then whose to say that suggesting to withdraw that support wont make an equal or greater number of people to then vote for the candidate who does?
They dont have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power.
These idiots should never get what they want since they have shown to be completely brain dead.
But to get to your point better. Giving them what they want means losing all pro israel people to Trump. Staiying between both positions gets people from both sides.
However you cannot give the pro palestine people in america what they want since many want a genocide against israel instead which is just as inacceptable as the status quo.
Uhhhh no... Just no... Most Palestinian Americans don't want genicide to go the other way... And the people living in Palestinian don't have the capability to even have running water, electricity, airforce or navy let alone the capability to do a genicide so just no. Pro Isreal / pro genicide people were going to vote for Trump regardless... How about a no genicide party? Is that too much to ask?
Difference between you and rational people is we are trying to get the best and not just the least worst people. I voted blue but it's obvious change is needed.
I feel bad for the Palestinians in Gaza of course. Not for their relatives in america who just helped put a fascist in power who will kill their relatives.
Anyone who didnt vote or voted for Stein is deserving of everything that will happen to them
I hope their family in Palestine will cut them off because they have signed their life away.
Anyone who didnt vote or voted for Stein is deserving of everything that will happen to them I hope their family in Palestine will cut them off because they have signed their life away.
People facing a genocide have some other shit to do than cutting off family members about their electoral choices. How sheltered can you be lmao
The family members elected someone who wants every last palestinian to die. Someone who wants to escalate the conflict even more. Instead of choosing a person who is open to be talked to.
Every non voter and Trump voter has the blood of palestinians on their hands
And what's your solution to those with legitimate hangups? Sit behind a keyboard and call them idiots? There was no downside to being 100% anti genicide. There is no downside to be for universal health care. There's no downside to making education 100% free. There's no downside to fighting for income redistribution.
What's your solution to these real fucking problems? Because the democrats never truly tried any of these or even advocated for them. It's been this way since the new deal. A slow decay to Jim crow, women's suffrage, and xenophobia. We need new tactics because what you and the Democrat leadership is saying and doing isn't fucking working!
There is no solution. Idiots will stay idiots. They obviously dont give af about democracy or the lifes of anyone else but themselves.
As long as these idiots are alive they will keep handing the reigns to fascists who do exactly what the idiots punish the dems for.
All we can hope for is that american burns down quickly without too much damage to anyone else. So this time maybe something decent can be built on the remains.
Lol okay then way are voting. Why are you commenting? Rather than being proactive with a problem solving mindset you are just going to continue to do things that obviously don't work? This isn't some unavailable catastrophic outcome. This happened because people prefer to rip each other down than trying to lift each other up. If you aren't fighting for marginalized people everywhere, why do you get mad when they respond with apathy or anger when you demand they support your ideals? Everyone is copable in this presidential outcome. No one group or person is 100% to blame. My 2020 vote for Biden has blood on it and that doesn't sit well with me. I make up for it by doing more than just voting and insulting people on the internet. That's how you gain votes. Not whatever you are doing. The DNC could have let Palestinian Americans speak, but they didn't. They could have had a more left platform, but they didn't. This centrists agenda has a 33% success rate over the past three elections and when democracy is at stake can you really be calus to your base? I have history and facts on my side.
What's the definition of insanity?
Nothing is going to work to get people who fell for fascism back. These marginalized groups are the ones who suffer the most under Trumps fascism but doing what they did they deserve it. They obviously want it since they didnt mind handing the country to Trump.
The trump voters, non voters and third party voters are 100% to blame.
The democrats could be less right wing, sure. I wish they were. But it wouldnt have changed anything. Fascists and their enablers will not change. They want to take away peoples and their own freedoms.
Your way of thinking is like an abusive husband's mindset.
However you cannot give the pro palestine people in america what they want since many want a genocide against israel instead
You are inventing straw men. No one seriously expects this of Harris, and there is a lot of room between 'reverse genocide' and what the Biden/Harris admin did.
If you give in to the "Gimme what I want or I want fascism" crowd they will keep asking for more. Many are already demanding Israel to be dissolved.
So fuck these people. I will not shed a tear for them when they cry because Trump flattened all of Gaza.
Whooeee, scratch a lib eh?
Foreign policy is so far from a motivating factor for this country, why can't you just accept that the democrats are a failure of a party? They went further and further right looking for the 'Liz Cheney vote' and lost the popular vote because of it.
I'm not a lib. I am left.
The dems made stupid shit. I said so. It doesnt remove the blame of the fascists voting for Trump and the fascist enablers not voting to prevent Trump
Die mad I guess, but again, foreign policy just doesn't effect elections. You're mad at the wrong people.
I am mad at the right people. Those who held the stirrups for fascism.
They didn't cause this loss, the failures of the democrats did. Go yell at your politicians for failing to properly fight against fascism.
They don't have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic Presidential Nominee, lost. Because of her poor campaign tactics, she allowed a fascist to get into power. Are you equally upset with her for not doing what it takes to stop fascism?
If not, why was the "right answer" for this election to support Israel when we know that she lost following that tactic, and not supporting Palestine?
Obviously I am upset with Harris and her campaign. Since she became the candidate I have been critiquing her.
The right answer is not allowing a fascist to be elected. Supporting Israel is what Trump did too and even worse than Harris. Any pro Palestine voter with a brain would see that Harris is better for them.
Now they deserve everything Trump will do to them.
Supporting Israel is what Trump did too and even worse than Harris.
So the key to beating fascism in your mind was to platform the same policies, but a little less? What do you actually think Harris should have done differently that would have helped her win the election? Because clearly, doing the same thing but slightly less bad didn't work this time.
The key to defeat fascism is not voting for fascism. Nothing Harris could have done would have changed anything. American voters and non voters want fascism more than a female president.
I called it 4 mths ago. Putting her up was a mistake. They either needed to stay with Biden or better yet, have him not run again and pick a white man as candidate.
Even then it would have been hard with so many people choosing fascism and choosing not to prevent fascism.
The key to defeat fascism is not voting for fascism.
Are you implying Harris was also fascist, or are you just complaining that not enough people voted for her? If it's the first, then fine. But if it's the second, what do you think Harris could have done to earn more votes?
Or are you saying that racism and misogyny in the US is just that much stronger than our anti-fascist beliefs? That there's no amount of good policy and campaign promises that a woman could give that would ever be enough to beat fascism?
Every person who did not vote for Harris chose fascism.
Fucking chat bots convinced enough dipshits to stay home that our country was taken by fascists. Humanity is doomed.
Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.
Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.
You can be rightfully mad at the party that's failing to represent you correctly (I certainly am) and still make the pragmatic choice of not getting the guy who will make those issues worse elected.
We need to come together nationally and locally to attempt to affect change within the DNC more often than every 4 years, because it seems like every time we're all reminded how incompetent they are, it's too late for us to do anything about it for that election cycle.
Didnt everyone do that four years ago, in monumental numbers and there stood a president that provided the arms to blow children out of house and home and off the face of the planet.
Biden did a lot but he missed on some vital issues and that is the fault of the dems.
Yes, and now Trump will help provide significantly more arms than Harris would have, even if she kept providing the same amount as Biden. Surely I don't have to tell you that that's worse?
We need to mobilize to change the DNC and Democratic Party leadership in the time we have in between these decisions, not ignore it for 4 years and then throw away your vote in protest.
So the continued support of Israel was inevitable. The choice was between shipping food with the bombs or not. How would you go about changing the democratic party by voting them in, they did that four years ago and they just drifted further right.
Surely I dont need to point out that record numbers defested trump only to have israel propped up and the strictest border laws ever put to a vote by the democrats.
Here is how you change the democratic party, kick out the losers. I wanted her to win but now that she hasnt the party can only blame themselves.
Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right
Ok, but
Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.
Bernie lost in the primaries, it’s our own fault (I voted for him…)
Bernie lost in the primaries
DNC primaries are a joke. look at this last primary. oh wait we didn't actually have a primary.
they intentionally waited until the "primary" was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
i firmly believe if Democrats were not trying to game democracy this presidential cycle, DNC would have had a chance to beat Trump
they intentionally waited until the “primary” was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
i think it was perfectly timed
a) after the primary was informally settled
b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner
sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary
and unprecedented, move. It’s a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them
risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.
so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with
b is the logical choice
The mythical left dem base doesn't out vote average centerist group. If you are looking for a perfect group you'll never find it
In support of that viewpoint, if they were ready to vote but just wanted to vote for someone who touted their interests, they'd have been there for a third party candidate, but they just were no where to be found.
Would be interested to see why people sat it out. To the extent it was something utterly mundane like "couldn't afford to take any time off work to get it done".
If you didnt want to vote gor either candidate why bother with the hardship to vote third party, everyone and their dog knew it was a two horse race. It always has been, and that is by design.
It is disingenuous to say they would have showed up for third parties when it was the same as not voting essentially.
Tbh, there’s a very dark part of me that makes me just want sit back, watch Gaza and the West Bank get fully reduced to rubble, and all the Palestinians getting put into woodchippers, and just smirk while saying “wow, good thing we dodged a Harris administration. Who knows what that would have meant for Palestine.”
We know libs have been saying that for nearly a year.
Oh look, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" right here!
So you want me to reward holocaust Harris and genocide joe for not doing ANYTHING to stop it? No, I chose to teach them a lesson. Don't blame us. Blame the dems for not doing enough and putting a shit candidate.
What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn't run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate's stance on that issue.
You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn't a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
To teach that supporting genocide is a red line and not doing anything about it will not get you elected.
Ah, genocide at home, in Gaza AND possibly in Ukraine instead.
Genius!
Delusional take. I'll see you in 4 years when no genocide occurred here in America.
No, I chose to teach them a lesson.
The only lesson you taught them is that the general public wants more right-wing ideas. What you've done is teach trans, blacks, and other minorities a lesson, the lesson that they should be beaten and driven out of their country. You've taught that women should be submissive, treated like property, like they are in Saudi Arabia.
Good job. I hope you reflect on your "lesson" in the next four years, as your right to vote is systematical dismantled.
trans, blacks, and other minorities
To be fair, a good number of people voted for Trump because of identity politics as well
Gloating as the Palestinians receive news that help isn't coming is something that someone who cares more about their own image than a genocide would do.
And where am I gloating exactly? I'm simply stating that you shouldn't blame the voters but blame the dems for standing for genocide. Not like if harris was elected it would have been any better for the Palestinians.
I'd rather lose my hearing than vision if those are the only two options, despite not actually wanting to lose neither - which is not an option.
Lose both, then you can shamelessly shift blame rather than risk having to bear any kind of responsibility that comes with using the remaining option.
These people are as detached from reality as the MAGA crowd if they think they're taking any kind of moral high road by staying home.
It will just be renamed to No America Treaty Organization
Technically not... They'd still have Canada.
Don’t you dare call us American! Next thing you know we’ll stop apologizing for everything and actually build a military with jets instead of snowmobiles!
Sorry about that. Can I be Canadian now?
Can you skate and hit a top corner slapshot? If so, yes. Here’s your complimentary Tim’s card! That’s ten free coffees on the house!
Sorry, but I'm not a sports guy. I like maple syrup though, does that count for something?
Can you track down thieves? We’ve had issues with maple syrup heists!
I'll try my best. But I'm an engineer, not a detective.
I'll allow it.
Rename it NUTO. No US Treaty Org.
Expecting the US to not maintain its monopoly on the demonym "American" is the same thing as expecting dogs not to bark at the mailman. Other western hemisphere countries shouldn't have dragged ass becoming independent.
It's not the "no americas club," they're allowed 1
Thank fuck we didn’t give up our nukes in the UK.
What does that accomplish?
Not a lot. The British weapons are reliant on US maintenance. Won't be credible for long if the US doesn't support them.
Isn't this a bit like saying that because I drive a German car that's maintained by the dealership, it's not my car?
I'm sure it wouldn't be tricky for the UK to move the Trident weapons program closer to home, or to align with allies in Europe (lol).
I'm sure it's possible, but it's not going to come for free nor will it be immediate
Defense
Autonomy.
Putin won't invade you
By the time Russia is knocking at the door of the UK, its already game over.
That said, I would not want to be Polish right now.
Russia can barely project power across its own border, what chance has it got of projecting all the way to the British isles? We have more aircraft carriers than they do and ours actually work.
Russia is a spent force. All they have is their rusty old nukes as a threat and I highly doubt they’ll ever actually use them.
Nato without USA is still bigger military than Russia.
But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag.
Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything?
France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.
Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.
We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.
This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don't just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.
Will the ones shit down rain down radioactive dust everywhere?
Yes, but to a way lesser degree.
The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.
Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.
It's like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)
Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you're to close, but one is comparably insignificant.
Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn't really help as much as you think, if it catches it.
Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn't be much better
You know they don't go critical when you shoot them right?
Doesn't that depend on how they're set up? I'd imagine in the 50+ years since they've been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.
I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they're not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won't work if used.
Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.
They upgrade them, it's public knowledge for the budget. Usually it's faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.
But any knowledge on how modern triggering works on them I'd imagine would be kept a state secret wouldn't it? I don't think it's something you'd want others to know.
Someone has to know because scientists and engineers are educated in universities and not in military boot camps. Universities are the origin of all scientific expertise in a nation, including the nation's military.
They hid the Manhattan project really really well, if you've ever looked into the history.
In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.
You can destroy the world just so many times.
The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)
A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
And I expect they will get nukes real fast. Ukraine is probably going to go for that, tbh. It’s kinda their only option at this point.
But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare... umm... party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?
Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.
We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.
It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.
Next stage of russian ops will focus more heavily on splitting Europe now that UK and US have been severed off
He even used the term ‘special military operation’ in 1997…
His plan is certainly being implemented by putin
It's death by a thousand cuts and nobody seems to care. Smh
Would be nice. Hungary tho 😤
Hungary can join the Russian union state alongside Belarus.
PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA
NATO will be fine. They'll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it'll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.
Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That's just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.
I think that’s unlikely.
But I also thought Trump winning was unlikely,
So what do I know?
Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.
Norway and Iceland are crucial to European defense - what are you talking about?
Yeah, what is your reasoning behind that statement about Norway and Iceland?
The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can't do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.
That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe
No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.
Yes let me explain my answer I didn't elaborate properly.
I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.
And if Europe continues to intreases it's weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe
I'm not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it'll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.
Just my two cents as an assembly line guy: Parts on aircraft fall into three categories
-Big custom fuckoff parts. They're not high tech but they're huge and they're a specific shape so you need a huge, precise and very expensive mould/die/whatever to make them. Anyone with the aircraft and a decent engineer could design a machine to make these parts but they would be left with a smoking crater where their wallet was after getting the mould made.
-Easy parts. Sure, an aircraft fuel pipe is worth 20k, but the civilian parts are made to higher standards anyways, we can find one no problem.
-Secret technical complex parts. Proprietary cutting edge stuff, which is frankly just bolted onto already complete aircraft. Obviously you can't replace it if you don't even know how it works, but the US doesn't let that stuff out of their direct control very often anyways.
Don't fucking talk to me about engines though, those are a whole different beast
TLDR: We can totally keep our F35s in the air as long as the parts we're replacing aren't the skin panels, the engines, or the Secret Third Thing. And as long as we have the money.
That sword cuts both ways. The F-35 has parts from all over the US and EU. This doesn't extend to every weapon system, but if the US refuses to support F-35s, their own F-35s would lose support too.
If only there was a country in europe that had voiced this concern in the 50s, all of that could have been avoided... Oh wait.
Let’s just kick America out if need be.
No need, Republicans will leave it at the behest of their Russian handlers.
NATO will kick us to the curb and rise to the challenge. We will need them one day and they will say no.
Can NATO still mean something if the US leaves? I think so, but there is much soul searching to be done.
Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.
NATO article 5 will still have use in self defence, but obviously it will be way less impressive
The article is only powerful if it's enforced.
I suspect that Putin's direct report won't really sign on to any sort of defense of European countries.
It isn't credible now. It likely won't exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.
The main point I was making is that Trump is almost certainly going to pull the US out of NATO altogether.
If not attempt to destroy it outright in an attempt to extort it.
Only if he gets attention or money for doing so. Those are his two gods, and he serves no others.
Well don’t forget Putin
He serves Putin because Putin gives him attention and money. It's the same gods.
Putin also kinda obviously has some serious dirt on him
What dirt could he possibly have that the MAGA crowd gives two shits about?
I doubt there's anything that will sway them. My guess is he's in massive financial debt to the Russian mafia or directly to Putin. He's afraid of being suicided out a window defenestration style.
Doesn't all authority already lie with the USA? If we're going to be real, I mean. I'm sure France thinks otherwise but let's be real: NATO was always the "Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia"-treaty.
France knows this, that's why it wasn't in NATO for most its history. This only changed when one of our president needed war crime buddies
C'est faux. France is one of the founding members of NATO, however for much of the time it was under a French Command instead of a combined command.
NCD not beating the MIC bootlickers allegations
4 years? Try 6 months from now.
Now watch red maga walk back on that too, like all of blue/red maga promises.
The only good thing that could've possibly come out of this, and it won't even happen.
For people outside NATO it hasn’t been credible for a long time now.
For people inside NATO its surprising how much credibility they have considering how much just straight terrorism they've carried out over the years. Defensive alliance my arse
Love the implication that the shitty imperialist anglo organization was ever credible.
calling the shots in europe is part of the us strategy to perpetuate imperialism. nato wont go anywhere.
Trump's point about NATO countries needing to adhere to the funding that was agreed with mutually is a good one and I'm super confused why he was ridiculed about it when he said it. I mean, what's the point of the alliance if we don't do the things we agree to do?
@vga@gravitas_deficiency Adhering to the much-flaunted spending commitments wasn't ridiculous, but Trump's framing of it was.
Back when he raised it, he was threatening to withdraw the US from the alliance if other nations didn't start adhering to it, and as recently as this year he's said he'll encourage Putin to do "whatever the hell he wants" to states who don't meet the spending commitment, directly undermining the collective defence principle of NATO.
He was ridiculed because he thought that America was paying these countries to close the gap. He thought he could save money if the other countries would own up. Which is just not true. Since the US didn’t put a dime into these countries’ military spending. If all NATO countries would reach the requirement it wouldn’t move the US military budget. It’s in America’s own interest to keep the forward operating bases in Europe fully staffed and armed.
I despise him, but 1 of 2 good things I think he did was call out NATO nations for not contributing their fair share. Merkel's face when he said this was like that of a dog that's been caught getting into the cupboard.
(the other thing he did was to call out drug companies for making medications so expensive. of course he didn't followup, but that was a good thing to say)
The problem is the technology gap between nations. Europeans are literally sending over their smartest and they are going over because all they care about is greed, politics be damned because because to them it's a rest of the world going around in a cycle of stupid problem. Which is stagnating both societies, science, and global security. The US is using those engineers to build the most modern weapons against fictitious "if we won't, they will" enemies, weapons that are disseminated to opposing world powers through corruption except those still stuck in the system of legitimacy rapidly devolving into subservience, weapons that are getting battle-hardened through imperialistic use throughout conflict world wide through the industrial military complex.
Europe militarily has been in shambles since WW2, evidenced by how much of its colonial ambitions it had to give up. It wasn't just oligarchs suddenly becoming good. What is going to happen is not that Europe is suddenly going to become capable of sustaining NATO, it's that it is going to have to give concessions to the nations that aren't going to be cutting them off. Before, that was the US, now it will have to be Russia and China.
Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.
From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party.
Of those 90 officials, 34 had been members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), Nazi Party paramilitaries who aided Hitler's rise and took part in Kristallnacht, a night of violence that is believed to have left 91 Jewish people dead.
:::
good?
No
it's pretty good
I don't think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it's apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe...until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.
NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.
The fuck are you smoking bro
Their comment reads like a bad MAGAcid trip
that everyone believes CIA/US empire disinformation when a D is in the whitehouse does not mean the US empire is full of truth and love for all.
Ok grandpa let’s get you back to bed
Tell this to an Estonian or a Pole or a Lithuanian and they'll punch you. You might not know this, but Russia has been working on a cassus belli (A reason for war) against all those countries. You can read national defense strategies on each of those countries to see what they are concerned about.
It is so easy to make war necessary from fear. Your rulers get richer the more fear there is, and the CIA is welcome to ensure the right rulers stay, in addition to the direct US military occupation that controls Germany.
There is zero possibility reality that Russia gains by occupying those countries. But like Ukraine, if fanatical hatred can be enhanced towards Russia, that can make a good CIA pawn sacrifice as your reward. The pure slavery, and the temptation to submit to harsher slavery as a plea for Trump to piss on you less is one path for those eastern colonies most consumed by hate.
I think you wildly overestimate how powerful the CIA actually is. They're barely can understand South American politics, much less control all of Europe.
Blaming the CIA is about as productive as McCarthy blaming communists in the 50s
I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.
The perfect excuse for the military industrial complex to move manufacturing overseas.
So I'm going to say that the military industrial complex is already there, it would simply be a rapid expansion.
Multiple EU countries want to, but they also want to give stuff to Ukraine and it's difficult to do both.
Cutting off American weapons manufacturers would tank the US economy. Please do it.
The problem is that America has all the money.
all the unhinged currency but also all the debt.
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can't really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly ....distracted in the Pacific
How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?
NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.
If Europe gets into a war, the US will side with Russia. Trump has been a Russian asset since the 80s, and it's clear that he gave Putin classified documents relating to American spies and informants during his last presidency when they suddenly started dying a few days after he met with Putin. And even more classified documents relating to American espionage against Russia than the ones he requested before that meeting were found in Mar a la Go.
can you cite a source on the spies dying a few days after he met Putin? Not saying it's not true, just curious.
I wrote that incorrectly, it wasn't a few days after he met Putin, but a marked spike over the months after. He requested classified documents related to CIA operations like 3 days before the meeting with Putin. It's also a series of events over a couple of years because it wasn't until at least a year later that the FBI raided Mar a Lago and found more classified documents related to intelligence operations. There's no real way to know for sure unless Trump or Putin admit it, but the correlation was and is suspect by even the intelligence operations of the government and is partially why the inquiry into Trump was called for in the first place.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/575384-cia-admits-to-losing-dozens-of-informants-around-the-world-nyt/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-fbi-raid-could-some-connection-murdered-cia-assets-msnbcs-joy-reid-speculates
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/trump-affidavit-intelligence-spies.html
Are you fucking stupid? Which is the only country to ever invoke article 5? How many other countries listened to the call for this injust war?
yes.
Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.
Yeah, because Netanyahu's extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US's left-wing party, right?
I doubt Gaza was the deciding factor for 20 million people, but I could be wrong. Especially since anyone that aware of the whole would see trump would worsen the situation not improve it. I'm curious why they did stay home.
I also guess Americans don't want a woman president and they do want a hard crackdown on migrants. Especially Latinos, who apparently overwhelmingly came out for trump.
Latinos voting for hard crackdowns on immigrants is the biggest "fuck you, I've got mine" energy I've ever seen.
And they will be so fucking shocked when ice comes for them.
Or their parents.
But they are one of the good ones! ™
Narrator: they weren't.
By far, the overwhelming Biden derangement syndrome factor was "transgenders exist and are in my news feed". That healthcare is available to prisoners and immigrants, means that they are all receiving gender reassignment surgeries. This is democrats fault.
The fact people can't differentiate edge cases from the norm is a general education issue. But their pushback was anemic.
General education in the US is underfunded on purpose. It's how the right have won on every issue that counts. Distracted, lazy, frightened and greedy. These are the levers the media pull to get whatever the billionaires want to happen. They tried it with Smedley Butler way back when and learned their lesson. Have the dumbass voter just do what they want with outrage. It doesn't matter who's president or who's in Congress. It matters what's on the news and who they can pay to put it there. The rest falls into place.
The Democrats also need better spokespersons. They might have better policy, but the infrastructure bill, chips act and lower drug prices will kick in during Trumps reighn.
Only 25% of students pass the civics literacy test
https://jackmillercenter.org/news/how-we-lost-our-civics-education-and-how-we-can-get-it-back
Americans don't fucking understand policy. Doesn't matter how you message it.
Probably why they need populist messengers. Fighting speach with more speach does not work if you are trying to have a nuanced conversation with a guy using a bullhorn.
Sure, I think you misunderstand me though. There's a century of Republicans good for economy and war, Democrats good for civil liberties and inclusion. There isn't any populist messaging available to Democrats that the Billionaire donors will allow to be printed or platformed. Look at Bernie Sanders for an example of that.
It wasn't deciding factor at all. People get far too internet poisoned and fail to realize how the median voter is actually motivated in this country. Foreign policy is nearly irrelevant to most voters.
If there is any validity to the idea that Harris' position on gaza tanked the campaign it's in the motivated active base lost interest in giving their time, sweat, and energy to putting boots on the ground for someone that has made every promise to continue bombing children.
It was, as it always is, and as Clinton said over 30 years ago, "the economy, stupid".
People who do not pay attention to politics vote like someone pressing random buttons on an elevator. They push the up button, no elevator comes, then they push the down button, no elevator comes, and all they know to do is to keep pushing buttons randomly hoping an elevator comes one way or another. And no elevator ever comes.
It was a multitude of reasons, Twitter being in the hands of Elon (who pushed the hashtags
#genocidejoeand#holocaustharris, but I wouldn't be surprized if he also misinformed people about the election dates), other social media stopped enforcing their community guidelines to be "unbiased", media was way harder on Kamala than on Trump (including the downplaying of the mental decay and insanity of Trump), the whole "let's try to appeal to moderate conservatives" thing, etc.The entire capital class rallied around trump. Bezos and Musk.. media is owned by them, so the bias against Harris, asking things of her they did not ask from Trump.. sanewashing Trumps ramblings.
Your elections where "stolen".. by the billionaires.. through totally legit means.
They're only "legit" if the people are letting them to be.
If it mattered: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that cost us the Republic.
If it didn't matter: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that didn't even matter in costing us the Republic.
Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them.
Urgh, even now before the votes are all in (this will take weeks to finalize) this election was the second biggest turnout since 1932. I hate living in this "post truth" world where everyone just goes off of feelings and emotions. People turned up, for trump.
What feelings and emotions? Trump got 72.6 million votes so far this year. He got 74.2 in 2020. That's 1.5 million voters right there. Biden got 81.2 million votes. Harris got 68 million votes. That's 13 million votes difference.
And most elections get in the 60% +-5 range voter turnout.
So...yeah... 1/3 of the population doesn't bother to vote.
Do you know if they include disenfranchised voters in the possible voter category?
Afaik, everyone that's a citizen and over the age of 18 is included. But I could be wrong.
Yes, 1/3 does not vote. In any election (hell what do local elections hit? 30%) My point is it does not help just pulling the 2020 numbers since those are literally the record numbers of all time. This election was right on the money for turnout, not low, not really super high.
Blaming voter turnout would require some evidence that voters did not turn out. And in this case Trump won the popular vote, so 2016s electoral college crap is not in play. This election could be cheated (how would I know at this point one way or the other) but my money is on the Democratic party just face planted harder then in 2016.
The original comment to which you replied said "Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them."
We've agreed that millions of people did stay at home. So I don't see the problem. Yes, they often stay at home. That's the problem. When it's two of more of the same it's more understandable. But both sides have been pretty clear about what's at stake. And they still stayed home. That's it. And you've agreed that 1/3 of the people didn't vote.
Not sure how the op was untruthful or misleading or based in any way "off of feelings and emotions".
Millions of people chose to allow this to happen. And yeah, Gaza wasn't the reason.
Yeah the reason was that the public is tired, but no more then normal. Blaming this on voter turnout due to a single issue is..... silly. I agree with the first statement but not the idea that this election had low turnout, this was a referendum on the status quo. The result was clear (not one that will be good) and this post truth finger pointing just pisses me off, the race was not even close. Do you think if another 15 million people got off the couch they would have not voted for Trump? That is just about as arrogant as you can get.
Meh...dunno.. even the stupidest of the people I've spoken to have agreed that trump is bad and were outraged by some of the stuff he said/did. And people always claim that when people show up to vote, the Dems win. Not a fact I've bothered to check, but it does work for the past few elections.
Yes, I would agree in the past. But in this case 15 million votes would have to be very strategically placed to change the outcome (basically worse then the gerrymandering the Republican party is called out for). I don't think people are rationally looking at these election numbers and are just falling back to the old rhetoric. For fun try and put 15 million votes down and change the result.
Ok, I didn't look at the states that Harris won, because that would've taken longer and complicated things.
Only looked at states that trump won.
Interesting fact: if you strategically place 12 million more votes, you can win literally every single state and secure all votes.
Most fun way to win (imo): 1.5 million in Texas for 40 votes and then another 1.5 million in Florida for another 30.
Most efficient points/voter states:
Michigan needed 80k for 15 votes
Georgia needed 120k for 16
Pennsylvania needed 145k for 19
And Nevada needed 52k for 6
For a grand total of 400k you'd get 56 votes that could've taken Harris from 226 to 282 and would've secured the win.
Other close calls:
North Carolina needed 200k for 16 votes
Arizona needed 140k for 11
Yes, and see how you need to play god to do this? Now lets say you only have 10 mil and a republican can do the same thing with another 10 mil? What if you could only move votes around?
This election was lost from those close call states, true. They could have in hindsight won this by getting 80k people in buses in Michigan and Nevada, but they did not do that.
Oh, yeah, definitely. I think everyone's got their share of the blame. The whole thing is fucked.
My argument is what did the democrats have to lose for supporting Gaza/Palestinians? It's obvious not running a fully left facing candidate and campaign was a mistake.
We are mad at the wrong people. The reality of the situation is that the democrats can't win without the far left of the party. So why won't we extend an olive branch? If we get a next time, what are we going to do differently?! This is the reality. Either we wake up to that or keep losing. Pick one.
Fuck the people who didnt vote based on gaza. They are even dumber than Maga hats. They help the candidate that is even worse for gaza win . No one should offer these people any branches. Fuck them. Treat them like the idiots they are just like we do with MAGA.
Okay but if we are guaranteed to lose without them, what's the harm in giving them what they want? Losing while taking the morally right position is never wrong. We spit in the Arab/Muslim/Palestinians/far left Americans faces and they stayed home on election day. So what's the harm in at least giving into their demands? The Republicans do that for their base and are winning even when they lose elections. So I'm arguing a change in tactics because we are literally taking the insanity route if we don't.
Are we. Is that what the demos say? Don't think black men and Latinos care about Gaza. The far left is so finicky and small
There is no left and esp. no far left in america.
Not any more there isn't. And soon, in the next few years, we'll see a systematic elimination of any remaining opposition, by means of oppression, suppression, and even more violent means.
There never was a left in america. What you call left os conservative in every country with a real political spectrum
A good number of left-wing politicans in my country would be considered right-wing in the USA.
And you think that matters when there isn't even going to be a fucking center-right any more?
There wont be free elections in the US anymore so of course it doesnt matter. Its thank to the maga, Jill Stein, and non voters.
If people refused to vote because both candidates support Israel, then whose to say that suggesting to withdraw that support wont make an equal or greater number of people to then vote for the candidate who does?
They dont have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power. These idiots should never get what they want since they have shown to be completely brain dead. But to get to your point better. Giving them what they want means losing all pro israel people to Trump. Staiying between both positions gets people from both sides. However you cannot give the pro palestine people in america what they want since many want a genocide against israel instead which is just as inacceptable as the status quo.
Uhhhh no... Just no... Most Palestinian Americans don't want genicide to go the other way... And the people living in Palestinian don't have the capability to even have running water, electricity, airforce or navy let alone the capability to do a genicide so just no. Pro Isreal / pro genicide people were going to vote for Trump regardless... How about a no genicide party? Is that too much to ask?
Difference between you and rational people is we are trying to get the best and not just the least worst people. I voted blue but it's obvious change is needed.
I feel bad for the Palestinians in Gaza of course. Not for their relatives in america who just helped put a fascist in power who will kill their relatives.
Anyone who didnt vote or voted for Stein is deserving of everything that will happen to them I hope their family in Palestine will cut them off because they have signed their life away.
People facing a genocide have some other shit to do than cutting off family members about their electoral choices. How sheltered can you be lmao
The family members elected someone who wants every last palestinian to die. Someone who wants to escalate the conflict even more. Instead of choosing a person who is open to be talked to.
Every non voter and Trump voter has the blood of palestinians on their hands
And what's your solution to those with legitimate hangups? Sit behind a keyboard and call them idiots? There was no downside to being 100% anti genicide. There is no downside to be for universal health care. There's no downside to making education 100% free. There's no downside to fighting for income redistribution.
What's your solution to these real fucking problems? Because the democrats never truly tried any of these or even advocated for them. It's been this way since the new deal. A slow decay to Jim crow, women's suffrage, and xenophobia. We need new tactics because what you and the Democrat leadership is saying and doing isn't fucking working!
There is no solution. Idiots will stay idiots. They obviously dont give af about democracy or the lifes of anyone else but themselves.
As long as these idiots are alive they will keep handing the reigns to fascists who do exactly what the idiots punish the dems for.
All we can hope for is that american burns down quickly without too much damage to anyone else. So this time maybe something decent can be built on the remains.
Lol okay then way are voting. Why are you commenting? Rather than being proactive with a problem solving mindset you are just going to continue to do things that obviously don't work? This isn't some unavailable catastrophic outcome. This happened because people prefer to rip each other down than trying to lift each other up. If you aren't fighting for marginalized people everywhere, why do you get mad when they respond with apathy or anger when you demand they support your ideals? Everyone is copable in this presidential outcome. No one group or person is 100% to blame. My 2020 vote for Biden has blood on it and that doesn't sit well with me. I make up for it by doing more than just voting and insulting people on the internet. That's how you gain votes. Not whatever you are doing. The DNC could have let Palestinian Americans speak, but they didn't. They could have had a more left platform, but they didn't. This centrists agenda has a 33% success rate over the past three elections and when democracy is at stake can you really be calus to your base? I have history and facts on my side.
What's the definition of insanity?
Nothing is going to work to get people who fell for fascism back. These marginalized groups are the ones who suffer the most under Trumps fascism but doing what they did they deserve it. They obviously want it since they didnt mind handing the country to Trump.
The trump voters, non voters and third party voters are 100% to blame.
The democrats could be less right wing, sure. I wish they were. But it wouldnt have changed anything. Fascists and their enablers will not change. They want to take away peoples and their own freedoms.
Your way of thinking is like an abusive husband's mindset.
You are inventing straw men. No one seriously expects this of Harris, and there is a lot of room between 'reverse genocide' and what the Biden/Harris admin did.
If you give in to the "Gimme what I want or I want fascism" crowd they will keep asking for more. Many are already demanding Israel to be dissolved. So fuck these people. I will not shed a tear for them when they cry because Trump flattened all of Gaza.
Whooeee, scratch a lib eh?
Foreign policy is so far from a motivating factor for this country, why can't you just accept that the democrats are a failure of a party? They went further and further right looking for the 'Liz Cheney vote' and lost the popular vote because of it.
I'm not a lib. I am left.
The dems made stupid shit. I said so. It doesnt remove the blame of the fascists voting for Trump and the fascist enablers not voting to prevent Trump
Die mad I guess, but again, foreign policy just doesn't effect elections. You're mad at the wrong people.
I am mad at the right people. Those who held the stirrups for fascism.
They didn't cause this loss, the failures of the democrats did. Go yell at your politicians for failing to properly fight against fascism.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic Presidential Nominee, lost. Because of her poor campaign tactics, she allowed a fascist to get into power. Are you equally upset with her for not doing what it takes to stop fascism?
If not, why was the "right answer" for this election to support Israel when we know that she lost following that tactic, and not supporting Palestine?
Obviously I am upset with Harris and her campaign. Since she became the candidate I have been critiquing her.
The right answer is not allowing a fascist to be elected. Supporting Israel is what Trump did too and even worse than Harris. Any pro Palestine voter with a brain would see that Harris is better for them.
Now they deserve everything Trump will do to them.
So the key to beating fascism in your mind was to platform the same policies, but a little less? What do you actually think Harris should have done differently that would have helped her win the election? Because clearly, doing the same thing but slightly less bad didn't work this time.
The key to defeat fascism is not voting for fascism. Nothing Harris could have done would have changed anything. American voters and non voters want fascism more than a female president.
I called it 4 mths ago. Putting her up was a mistake. They either needed to stay with Biden or better yet, have him not run again and pick a white man as candidate.
Even then it would have been hard with so many people choosing fascism and choosing not to prevent fascism.
Are you implying Harris was also fascist, or are you just complaining that not enough people voted for her? If it's the first, then fine. But if it's the second, what do you think Harris could have done to earn more votes?
Or are you saying that racism and misogyny in the US is just that much stronger than our anti-fascist beliefs? That there's no amount of good policy and campaign promises that a woman could give that would ever be enough to beat fascism?
Every person who did not vote for Harris chose fascism.
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Why can't we be mad the the DNC for shit strategy and be mad at the folks who stayed home?
Because we're only allowed to hold one idea in the brain at a time.
For a lot of people, "allowed" can be replaced with "able".
Fucking chat bots convinced enough dipshits to stay home that our country was taken by fascists. Humanity is doomed.
Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.
Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.
You can be rightfully mad at the party that's failing to represent you correctly (I certainly am) and still make the pragmatic choice of not getting the guy who will make those issues worse elected.
We need to come together nationally and locally to attempt to affect change within the DNC more often than every 4 years, because it seems like every time we're all reminded how incompetent they are, it's too late for us to do anything about it for that election cycle.
Didnt everyone do that four years ago, in monumental numbers and there stood a president that provided the arms to blow children out of house and home and off the face of the planet.
Biden did a lot but he missed on some vital issues and that is the fault of the dems.
Yes, and now Trump will help provide significantly more arms than Harris would have, even if she kept providing the same amount as Biden. Surely I don't have to tell you that that's worse?
We need to mobilize to change the DNC and Democratic Party leadership in the time we have in between these decisions, not ignore it for 4 years and then throw away your vote in protest.
So the continued support of Israel was inevitable. The choice was between shipping food with the bombs or not. How would you go about changing the democratic party by voting them in, they did that four years ago and they just drifted further right.
Surely I dont need to point out that record numbers defested trump only to have israel propped up and the strictest border laws ever put to a vote by the democrats.
Here is how you change the democratic party, kick out the losers. I wanted her to win but now that she hasnt the party can only blame themselves.
Ok, but
Bernie lost in the primaries, it’s our own fault (I voted for him…)
DNC primaries are a joke. look at this last primary. oh wait we didn't actually have a primary.
they intentionally waited until the "primary" was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
i firmly believe if Democrats were not trying to game democracy this presidential cycle, DNC would have had a chance to beat Trump
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
i think it was perfectly timed
a) after the primary was informally settled
b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in
sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary
unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them
risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.
so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with
b is the logical choice
The mythical left dem base doesn't out vote average centerist group. If you are looking for a perfect group you'll never find it
In support of that viewpoint, if they were ready to vote but just wanted to vote for someone who touted their interests, they'd have been there for a third party candidate, but they just were no where to be found.
Would be interested to see why people sat it out. To the extent it was something utterly mundane like "couldn't afford to take any time off work to get it done".
If you didnt want to vote gor either candidate why bother with the hardship to vote third party, everyone and their dog knew it was a two horse race. It always has been, and that is by design.
It is disingenuous to say they would have showed up for third parties when it was the same as not voting essentially.
Tbh, there’s a very dark part of me that makes me just want sit back, watch Gaza and the West Bank get fully reduced to rubble, and all the Palestinians getting put into woodchippers, and just smirk while saying “wow, good thing we dodged a Harris administration. Who knows what that would have meant for Palestine.”
We know libs have been saying that for nearly a year.
Oh look, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" right here!
Yeah, that'll teach the do-nothing-dems!!1
So you want me to reward holocaust Harris and genocide joe for not doing ANYTHING to stop it? No, I chose to teach them a lesson. Don't blame us. Blame the dems for not doing enough and putting a shit candidate.
What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn't run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate's stance on that issue.
You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn't a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
To teach that supporting genocide is a red line and not doing anything about it will not get you elected.
Ah, genocide at home, in Gaza AND possibly in Ukraine instead.
Genius!
Delusional take. I'll see you in 4 years when no genocide occurred here in America.
The only lesson you taught them is that the general public wants more right-wing ideas. What you've done is teach trans, blacks, and other minorities a lesson, the lesson that they should be beaten and driven out of their country. You've taught that women should be submissive, treated like property, like they are in Saudi Arabia.
Good job. I hope you reflect on your "lesson" in the next four years, as your right to vote is systematical dismantled.
To be fair, a good number of people voted for Trump because of identity politics as well
Gloating as the Palestinians receive news that help isn't coming is something that someone who cares more about their own image than a genocide would do.
And where am I gloating exactly? I'm simply stating that you shouldn't blame the voters but blame the dems for standing for genocide. Not like if harris was elected it would have been any better for the Palestinians.
I'd rather lose my hearing than vision if those are the only two options, despite not actually wanting to lose neither - which is not an option.
Lose both, then you can shamelessly shift blame rather than risk having to bear any kind of responsibility that comes with using the remaining option.
These people are as detached from reality as the MAGA crowd if they think they're taking any kind of moral high road by staying home.
It will just be renamed to No America Treaty Organization
Technically not... They'd still have Canada.
Don’t you dare call us American! Next thing you know we’ll stop apologizing for everything and actually build a military with jets instead of snowmobiles!
Sorry about that. Can I be Canadian now?
Can you skate and hit a top corner slapshot? If so, yes. Here’s your complimentary Tim’s card! That’s ten free coffees on the house!
Sorry, but I'm not a sports guy. I like maple syrup though, does that count for something?
Can you track down thieves? We’ve had issues with maple syrup heists!
I'll try my best. But I'm an engineer, not a detective.
I'll allow it.
Rename it NUTO. No US Treaty Org.
Expecting the US to not maintain its monopoly on the demonym "American" is the same thing as expecting dogs not to bark at the mailman. Other western hemisphere countries shouldn't have dragged ass becoming independent.
It's not the "no americas club," they're allowed 1
Thank fuck we didn’t give up our nukes in the UK.
What does that accomplish?
Not a lot. The British weapons are reliant on US maintenance. Won't be credible for long if the US doesn't support them.
Isn't this a bit like saying that because I drive a German car that's maintained by the dealership, it's not my car?
I'm sure it wouldn't be tricky for the UK to move the Trident weapons program closer to home, or to align with allies in Europe (lol).
I'm sure it's possible, but it's not going to come for free nor will it be immediate
Defense
Autonomy.
Putin won't invade you
By the time Russia is knocking at the door of the UK, its already game over.
That said, I would not want to be Polish right now.
Russia can barely project power across its own border, what chance has it got of projecting all the way to the British isles? We have more aircraft carriers than they do and ours actually work.
Russia is a spent force. All they have is their rusty old nukes as a threat and I highly doubt they’ll ever actually use them.
Nato without USA is still bigger military than Russia.
But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.
Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.
We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.
This is where I think there is a misunderstanding. You don't just fire only nukes at a country. You fire a multi pronged attack with regular bombardment aswell.
Will the ones shit down rain down radioactive dust everywhere?
Yes, but to a way lesser degree.
The bombs become really nasty by creating a big chain reaction (boom) and then radiating the dust the explosion creates (aftermath) which then spreads everywhere.
Without a controlled explosion there will be significantly less radiating reactions and radioactive dust.
It's like deep inhaling the smoke of a package of burning fire starters VS throwing said burning fire starter into a warehouse full of fireworks (and for the sake of this argument you cant leave the warehouse and have no equipment whatsoever)
Both will probably fuck you up a bit if you're to close, but one is comparably insignificant.
Shooting down a nuclear icbm doesn't really help as much as you think, if it catches it.
Not to mention the atmosphere lighting up wouldn't be much better
You know they don't go critical when you shoot them right?
Doesn't that depend on how they're set up? I'd imagine in the 50+ years since they've been invented they would have designed it so it could, specifically because modern anti missile defenses exist.
I mean, I know world governments can be dumb, but I would imagine they're not that dumb as to bother maintaining a key super weapon just to not upgrade it / design it so that it won't work if used.
Maybe but no not really the triggering process is extremely fast but kinda fragile because everything needs to be compressed just so.
They upgrade them, it's public knowledge for the budget. Usually it's faster smaller or different form factor plus renewal programs.
But any knowledge on how modern triggering works on them I'd imagine would be kept a state secret wouldn't it? I don't think it's something you'd want others to know.
Someone has to know because scientists and engineers are educated in universities and not in military boot camps. Universities are the origin of all scientific expertise in a nation, including the nation's military.
They hid the Manhattan project really really well, if you've ever looked into the history.
In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.
You can destroy the world just so many times.
The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)
A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
And I expect they will get nukes real fast. Ukraine is probably going to go for that, tbh. It’s kinda their only option at this point.
But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare... umm... party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?
Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.
We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.
It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.
Next stage of russian ops will focus more heavily on splitting Europe now that UK and US have been severed off
Straight out of Alexander Dugins book...
thanks! I couldn’t reminder who wrote it.
Foundations of Geopolitics
And later
The Fourth Political Theory
He even used the term ‘special military operation’ in 1997…
His plan is certainly being implemented by putin
It's death by a thousand cuts and nobody seems to care. Smh
Would be nice. Hungary tho 😤
Hungary can join the Russian union state alongside Belarus.
PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA
NATO will be fine. They'll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it'll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.
Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That's just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.
I think that’s unlikely.
But I also thought Trump winning was unlikely,
So what do I know?
Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.
Norway and Iceland are crucial to European defense - what are you talking about?
Yeah, what is your reasoning behind that statement about Norway and Iceland?
The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can't do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.
That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe
No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.
Yes let me explain my answer I didn't elaborate properly.
I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.
And if Europe continues to intreases it's weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe
I'm not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it'll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.
Just my two cents as an assembly line guy: Parts on aircraft fall into three categories
-Big custom fuckoff parts. They're not high tech but they're huge and they're a specific shape so you need a huge, precise and very expensive mould/die/whatever to make them. Anyone with the aircraft and a decent engineer could design a machine to make these parts but they would be left with a smoking crater where their wallet was after getting the mould made.
-Easy parts. Sure, an aircraft fuel pipe is worth 20k, but the civilian parts are made to higher standards anyways, we can find one no problem.
-Secret technical complex parts. Proprietary cutting edge stuff, which is frankly just bolted onto already complete aircraft. Obviously you can't replace it if you don't even know how it works, but the US doesn't let that stuff out of their direct control very often anyways.
Don't fucking talk to me about engines though, those are a whole different beast
TLDR: We can totally keep our F35s in the air as long as the parts we're replacing aren't the skin panels, the engines, or the Secret Third Thing. And as long as we have the money.
That sword cuts both ways. The F-35 has parts from all over the US and EU. This doesn't extend to every weapon system, but if the US refuses to support F-35s, their own F-35s would lose support too.
If only there was a country in europe that had voiced this concern in the 50s, all of that could have been avoided... Oh wait.
Let’s just kick America out if need be.
No need, Republicans will leave it at the behest of their Russian handlers.
NATO will kick us to the curb and rise to the challenge. We will need them one day and they will say no.
Can NATO still mean something if the US leaves? I think so, but there is much soul searching to be done.
Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.
NATO article 5 will still have use in self defence, but obviously it will be way less impressive
The article is only powerful if it's enforced.
I suspect that Putin's direct report won't really sign on to any sort of defense of European countries.
It isn't credible now. It likely won't exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.
The main point I was making is that Trump is almost certainly going to pull the US out of NATO altogether.
If not attempt to destroy it outright in an attempt to extort it.
Only if he gets attention or money for doing so. Those are his two gods, and he serves no others.
Well don’t forget Putin
He serves Putin because Putin gives him attention and money. It's the same gods.
Putin also kinda obviously has some serious dirt on him
What dirt could he possibly have that the MAGA crowd gives two shits about?
I doubt there's anything that will sway them. My guess is he's in massive financial debt to the Russian mafia or directly to Putin. He's afraid of being suicided out a window defenestration style.
Doesn't all authority already lie with the USA? If we're going to be real, I mean. I'm sure France thinks otherwise but let's be real: NATO was always the "Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia"-treaty.
France knows this, that's why it wasn't in NATO for most its history. This only changed when one of our president needed war crime buddies
C'est faux. France is one of the founding members of NATO, however for much of the time it was under a French Command instead of a combined command.
NCD not beating the MIC bootlickers allegations
4 years? Try 6 months from now.
Now watch red maga walk back on that too, like all of blue/red maga promises.
The only good thing that could've possibly come out of this, and it won't even happen.
For people outside NATO it hasn’t been credible for a long time now.
For people inside NATO its surprising how much credibility they have considering how much just straight terrorism they've carried out over the years. Defensive alliance my arse
Love the implication that the shitty imperialist anglo organization was ever credible.
calling the shots in europe is part of the us strategy to perpetuate imperialism. nato wont go anywhere.
Trump's point about NATO countries needing to adhere to the funding that was agreed with mutually is a good one and I'm super confused why he was ridiculed about it when he said it. I mean, what's the point of the alliance if we don't do the things we agree to do?
@vga @gravitas_deficiency Adhering to the much-flaunted spending commitments wasn't ridiculous, but Trump's framing of it was.
Back when he raised it, he was threatening to withdraw the US from the alliance if other nations didn't start adhering to it, and as recently as this year he's said he'll encourage Putin to do "whatever the hell he wants" to states who don't meet the spending commitment, directly undermining the collective defence principle of NATO.
He was ridiculed because he thought that America was paying these countries to close the gap. He thought he could save money if the other countries would own up. Which is just not true. Since the US didn’t put a dime into these countries’ military spending. If all NATO countries would reach the requirement it wouldn’t move the US military budget. It’s in America’s own interest to keep the forward operating bases in Europe fully staffed and armed.
I despise him, but 1 of 2 good things I think he did was call out NATO nations for not contributing their fair share. Merkel's face when he said this was like that of a dog that's been caught getting into the cupboard.
(the other thing he did was to call out drug companies for making medications so expensive. of course he didn't followup, but that was a good thing to say)
The problem is the technology gap between nations. Europeans are literally sending over their smartest and they are going over because all they care about is greed, politics be damned because because to them it's a rest of the world going around in a cycle of stupid problem. Which is stagnating both societies, science, and global security. The US is using those engineers to build the most modern weapons against fictitious "if we won't, they will" enemies, weapons that are disseminated to opposing world powers through corruption except those still stuck in the system of legitimacy rapidly devolving into subservience, weapons that are getting battle-hardened through imperialistic use throughout conflict world wide through the industrial military complex.
Europe militarily has been in shambles since WW2, evidenced by how much of its colonial ambitions it had to give up. It wasn't just oligarchs suddenly becoming good. What is going to happen is not that Europe is suddenly going to become capable of sustaining NATO, it's that it is going to have to give concessions to the nations that aren't going to be cutting them off. Before, that was the US, now it will have to be Russia and China.
Wait ... NATO was credible now?
The Baltic states certainly think so. Their entire defense posture relies on it
NATO hasn't been credible since they helped the US perpetrate a brutally violent colonialist pity party in Afghanistan.
Good.
NATO is a trash organization. It's basically Reich Lite.
It is the Fourth Reich
::: spoiler Oh wait, that's just post-WW2 West Germany There were more Nazis in West Germany's justice department after WWII than during Third Reich
Nazis in post-WW2 Germany's government
good?
No
it's pretty good
I don't think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it's apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe...until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.
NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.
The fuck are you smoking bro
Their comment reads like a bad MAGAcid trip
that everyone believes CIA/US empire disinformation when a D is in the whitehouse does not mean the US empire is full of truth and love for all.
Ok grandpa let’s get you back to bed
Tell this to an Estonian or a Pole or a Lithuanian and they'll punch you. You might not know this, but Russia has been working on a cassus belli (A reason for war) against all those countries. You can read national defense strategies on each of those countries to see what they are concerned about.
It is so easy to make war necessary from fear. Your rulers get richer the more fear there is, and the CIA is welcome to ensure the right rulers stay, in addition to the direct US military occupation that controls Germany.
There is zero possibility reality that Russia gains by occupying those countries. But like Ukraine, if fanatical hatred can be enhanced towards Russia, that can make a good CIA pawn sacrifice as your reward. The pure slavery, and the temptation to submit to harsher slavery as a plea for Trump to piss on you less is one path for those eastern colonies most consumed by hate.
I think you wildly overestimate how powerful the CIA actually is. They're barely can understand South American politics, much less control all of Europe.
Blaming the CIA is about as productive as McCarthy blaming communists in the 50s
🙏🙏🙏 here's hoping 🙏🙏🙏