"Trump is following a playbook written for him by Christian White Nationalists."

[Elok]

To be fair, I don't think anybody should be getting paid to marry anybody. It's an archaic and deeply sketchy custom.

[N35t0r]

To be fair, I don't think anybody should be getting paid to marry anybody. It's an archaic and deeply sketchy custom.

And you think that's why he said that?

[Elok]

No. I'm just being inane for fun.

[BeBMan]

"Normalize Indian Hate"
"I was racist before it was cool"
"You could not pay me to marry outside my ethnicity"
"Eugenics"

All cool he should be rehired, says Trump, Vance and Musk (and 78% of people who voted in his poll on the topic.

But remember, MAGA isn't racist and doesn't promote hate. It's about forgiveness to racists who let their mask slip.

I sense that the above post is not sufficiently pro-Trump. But let's be clear, all those so-called "points" can be easily disproven by a simple "You liberals!", "Woke", or, if anything else fails, a resounding "TDS!!111!"

[Elok]

I think I've said this before, but seriously: don't watch the mouth, watch the hands. Of course it makes no difference what you do on here, but as a general bit of advice for Democrats, getting worked up over somebody saying something offensive is a sucker's game and has yet to accomplish anything vs. Trump. This backlash against "cancel culture" is on his side, and the facts that this bozo kid is in a position of real importance, and said something plainly and deliberately offensive, probably wouldn't matter to that. Most people just won't care that much. They see a headline, mentally sum it up as "trying to get somebody canceled over old tweets," chalk this up to zealot progressives, and move on without reading. Democrats would do better to focus on actions than words. This goes double for Trump himself, since the man is an obvious and inveterate troll. Somebody recently pointed out to me that it's his standard tactic to "negotiate" by demanding something outrageous he doesn't even want, then letting himself be talked down to something merely offensive which will seem like sane compromise by comparison. Does he actually want to take over and purge Gaza? Probably not. That would be work, and take time. He's just opening with a dickslap, as one does. I don't think he wants Greenland either, or Panama, or any of that other crap. It can be hard to tell, of course, whether he is just spitballing because he enjoys chaos, or spitballing something stupid that he's stupid enough to think is clever, or playing outrage matador for deal purposes. Either way, people keep breathlessly reporting the stupid drivel he says alongside what he's doing, thereby hiding what matters behind what doesn't.

[Provost Harrison]

I think I've said this before, but seriously: don't watch the mouth, watch the hands. Of course it makes no difference what you do on here, but as a general bit of advice for Democrats, getting worked up over somebody saying something offensive is a sucker's game and has yet to accomplish anything vs. Trump. This backlash against "cancel culture" is on his side, and the facts that this bozo kid is in a position of real importance, and said something plainly and deliberately offensive, probably wouldn't matter to that. Most people just won't care that much. They see a headline, mentally sum it up as "trying to get somebody canceled over old tweets," chalk this up to zealot progressives, and move on without reading. Democrats would do better to focus on actions than words. This goes double for Trump himself, since the man is an obvious and inveterate troll. Somebody recently pointed out to me that it's his standard tactic to "negotiate" by demanding something outrageous he doesn't even want, then letting himself be talked down to something merely offensive which will seem like sane compromise by comparison. Does he actually want to take over and purge Gaza? Probably not. That would be work, and take time. He's just opening with a dickslap, as one does. I don't think he wants Greenland either, or Panama, or any of that other crap. It can be hard to tell, of course, whether he is just spitballing because he enjoys chaos, or spitballing something stupid that he's stupid enough to think is clever, or playing outrage matador for deal purposes. Either way, people keep breathlessly reporting the stupid drivel he says alongside what he's doing, thereby hiding what matters behind what doesn't.

"The law of unintended consequences". It probably seems like he's winning with his strategy in the short term, ignoring the fact that geopolitics are resigning and not favourably to the US. It's a slow shift but it's started with a bang and won't stop. The US has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick.

[Geronimo]

"The law of unintended consequences". It probably seems like he's winning with his strategy in the short term, ignoring the fact that geopolitics are resigning and not favourably to the US. It's a slow shift but it's started with a bang and won't stop. The US has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick.

And Europe has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick. The US through Trump's betrayals. Europe through decades of ignoring every US president's plaintive pleas to pull its weight on defense expenditures. You talk as though there was this equitable arrangement going on that US arrogance and stupidity utterly ruined but Europe was rocking the boat just as badly and for far longer.

[Elok]

Our current role as World Cop is plainly not sustainable, given our budget. Europe is plainly capable of supporting a larger deterrent military force to stand up to a pathetic excuse for a power like Russia. Trump's way of approaching this plainly leaves much to be desired, and I don't even know why the hell he wants to shake down Canada. All these things can be true.

[Aeson]

Our current role as World Cop is plainly not sustainable, given our budget. Europe is plainly capable of supporting a larger deterrent military force to stand up to a pathetic excuse for a power like Russia. Trump's way of approaching this plainly leaves much to be desired, and I don't even know why the hell he wants to shake down Canada. All these things can be true.

We can't afford to to not be the world cop. We just have to cut out the stupid (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.)

Ensuring free movement of goods and healthy trading partners has benefited the US immensely.

We've already given the Panama canal to China to avoid paying some upkeep. We'll give China the SE Asia shipping lanes because lord knows nothing we use passes through there. We are pushing all our trading partners away because they give us too much stuff for our depreciating pieces of paper. It's insane.

Our budget is a mess because we pay way too much for way too little in regards to healthcare. If we paid OEDC average for OEDC average outcomes, deficit is fixed and we're all healthier. Single payer is the only way we won't bankrupt ourselves.

​​​​​​There's some other waste that can be cut, but even cutting the military and "other" to 0 wouldn't balance the budget. (Especially not while cutting taxes. Nevermind that "other", specifically the IRS, brings in all the revenue. We are so screwed.)

​​​​​

[Aeson]

I think I've said this before, but seriously: don't watch the mouth, watch the hands. Of course it makes no difference what you do on here, but as a general bit of advice for Democrats, getting worked up over somebody saying something offensive is a sucker's game and has yet to accomplish anything vs. Trump. This backlash against "cancel culture" is on his side, and the facts that this bozo kid is in a position of real importance, and said something plainly and deliberately offensive, probably wouldn't matter to that. Most people just won't care that much. They see a headline, mentally sum it up as "trying to get somebody canceled over old tweets," chalk this up to zealot progressives, and move on without reading. Democrats would do better to focus on actions than words. This goes double for Trump himself, since the man is an obvious and inveterate troll. Somebody recently pointed out to me that it's his standard tactic to "negotiate" by demanding something outrageous he doesn't even want, then letting himself be talked down to something merely offensive which will seem like sane compromise by comparison. Does he actually want to take over and purge Gaza? Probably not. That would be work, and take time. He's just opening with a dickslap, as one does. I don't think he wants Greenland either, or Panama, or any of that other crap. It can be hard to tell, of course, whether he is just spitballing because he enjoys chaos, or spitballing something stupid that he's stupid enough to think is clever, or playing outrage matador for deal purposes. Either way, people keep breathlessly reporting the stupid drivel he says alongside what he's doing, thereby hiding what matters behind what doesn't.

He would build in Gaza in a heartbeat. His son in law has been talking about it for a while. Trump doesn't do work. He gets other people to do the work and slaps his name on it. You don't think he'd slap some big gold letters on other people's buildings in Gaza?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev

[Dauphin]

And Europe has proven itself an utterly unreliable ally and that will stick. The US through Trump's betrayals. Europe through decades of ignoring every US president's plaintive pleas to pull its weight on defense expenditures. You talk as though there was this equitable arrangement going on that US arrogance and stupidity utterly ruined but Europe was rocking the boat just as badly and for far longer.

If you remove what the US spent on non-NATO relevant activities, such as Iraq, forces and bases in the Pacific, etc, how far apart are the comparable per GDP numbers? In the context that almost 100% of European NATO spending goes to European defence.

I'm not making a point that the are similar (may even be negligible) but given the trillion or so that the US spent in Iraq, and that US military spend as %age of GDP went up some 75% during that Iraq excursion, such extra-curricular spending can't really be included in a fair comparison of NATO strategic defence.

[Geronimo]

If you remove what the US spent on non-NATO relevant activities, such as Iraq, forces and bases in the Pacific, etc, how far apart are the comparable per GDP numbers? In the context that almost 100% of European NATO spending goes to European defence.

I'm not making a point that the are similar (may even be negligible) but given the trillion or so that the US spent in Iraq, and that US military spend as %age of GDP went up some 75% during that Iraq excursion, such extra-curricular spending can't really be included in a fair comparison of NATO strategic defence.

which only underlines the intrinsic inequity of NATO. As structured if a European country is attacked everyone is on the hook to help but if an adversary nukes Hawaii, well that's not what NATO is about...sorry tough luck...North Atlantic only chum...

[Dauphin]

Falklands.

(Las Malvinas)

[Dauphin]

More importantly, NATO was only ever really set up to counter Russia. Any Russian assault on America (e.g. Hawaii), would be accompanied by a much larger fight in the European theatre.

[BeBMan]

which only underlines the intrinsic inequity of NATO. As structured if a European country is attacked everyone is on the hook to help but if an adversary nukes Hawaii, well that's not what NATO is about...sorry tough luck...North Atlantic only chum...

Nonsense. Hawaii = US. Fun fact, the only ever instance of article 5 being invoked was after 9/11.