The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
These tariffs must be becoming self defeating. If they get imposed on a whim what is the point of avoiding them, only to be told you need to jump higher next time. Surely the answer must be to trade with anyone else and write off the USA.
Gave him a golden samurai helmet. Very rare, very important. I heard that it was like a New Yorker gifting a Ruth home run bat. Trade deal got signed, everyone was happy.
Then 'liberation' day happened. The Japanese got smacked with absurd tariffs. Big trade deal might as well have been chewing gum. They didn't get the samurai helmet back. They're still sore about it.
That peace prize he got on Friday? Couldn't even remember her name that afternoon.
There is not a single thing he says that any nation can trust. If the first rule of politics is that once you're bought, you have to stay bought, then Donny is playing Calvinball.
You cannot negotiate with a bully. The EU should have never backed down so easily before. I hope someone will soon find some balls and not let the US walk all over everyone
You can and you should, in order to make your case known, it's simple politics. Huffing and puffing while drowning in moral indignation isn't much different from the other side's approach. And don't jump the gun just because of some silly post somewhere on silly soc media.
I have never seen an official EU statement about US-EU-NATO relations that actually makes sense. What I see is kicking the ball back and forth moving in the same general direction.
It's inevitable that an "almost-anyone-but-the-US" free-ish trading coalition of countries will appear. The EU will air drop their tried, tested and scaled up trade negotiation teams worldwide during the upcoming weeks.
US spelling bee kids will be great at spelling P-A-R-I-A-H though.
This is on point - I think everybody was careful not to escalate because the common consensus seems to be that things are getting just too crazy and he can't stay in power for long.
The real danger might still be within the US itself - what happens if he loses and doesn't want to accept it. Civil war?
I feel this is a major turning point for how entities can/will behave from now on towards Trump's wants/decisions. Now it is publicly proved, that you cannot trust deals made with Trump, because they can be just invalidated at a moment's notice. Only bad deals to be made, so why would any reasoned entity agree to those. World will not take threats seriously any more, and will defend themselves.
Maybe missions in Venezuela, Iran etc. was accomplished so easily, that it blurred the judgment of what could be done. But those countries are different than a conglomerate of 450 M people / 27 countries. And now military and economic thinking/domains/threats were also mixed. "Weak EU leaders" can and are now forced to unite as one strong resistance.
Yeah, I see it as a kind of "jumping the shark" moment. There is simply no way to compromise with a neighbors territorial sovereignty to avoid tariffs. It is not going to happen. We may as well regard the US as a black hole that we no longer trade with.
We do. This would presumably be added on top of the existing ones. The only communication so far comes from a Trump Truthsocial post with its typical lack of clarity. Lots of bed ads though.
Funny, we are are beginning to think the same, why do we need you? (The truth, of course is that everyone wins when trade is open/free.)
Americans wanted change so they didn't want establishment politicians. When this usually happens the far-right and far-left come into view and typically what happens is that the far-right get first dibs because they always promise the impossible so their proposals are at first glance more attractive to the electorate. In the case of this election, the Democrats didn't even allow the progressives to contest the election so there wasn't really a choice at all.
The 'pissed off the left wing' thing is a bit of an issue. The Dems really need to return to representing the average american, not the extra woke. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of the far left.
Some voted for him for that reason, some for other reasons d. For example, I’ve heard several women voted for him because he said he’d make ivf more available/affordable.
The bigger question is why would anyone believe anything he says, especially if it was going to benefit regular people.
It appears to be a combination of racism, “crabs in the pot” mentality, tribalism and in group motivations, and people looking for another group to look down on because they have no opportunity ahead of them between now and death. Happiness is reality minus expectations.
His supporters still say “It’s not great but I’d vote for him again.” Well, the unfortunate news is he’s near end of life and they footgunned their own economic opportunity light cone. The global economy is going to route around the US accordingly, because it cannot be trusted to trade as an adult vs a bully. They will continue to have their vote and mental model regardless of rationality and logical reasoning. All you can do as a nation state counterparty is defend against military action and disconnect economically.
Same vibes as "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." —- LBJ
Trump did racist dog whistling, and the US mass media has been captured by oligarchs, so it wasn't reported honestly or completely. A surprising large portion of the US electorate is racist, and the US voting practices amplify exactly those voter's influence.
It was a bad election cycle for incumbents worldwide. Many Americans are hurting from the cost of living and wanted a change. I know many who are definitely not racist (in interracial marriages/relationships even) who voted for Trump just on the hope for an improved economy.
I will have to agree you on this one even as a trump hater because i do feel like somehow people imagined that trump's gonna make all things affordable somehow (the same people now turning to mamdani see maga for mamdani movement no jokes)
i do feel like this is a pipeline
Disagree with some aspects of democrats? boom you are a republican
Disagree with some aspects of Republicans? boom you are a democrat
It's just picking the less worst candidate and media influence as such values a lot in the perception of "loss"
Obviously trump has been the more worst candidate in comparison and there were already tell tale signs of it
It's a shame that bernie sanders hasn't been an American president or the bias you see at democrats because of it regarding bernie or not pushing bernie at times.
That being said, what trump is doing so abhorent that Its literally killing the nation so I feel like some blame should be placed in its voters.
I genuinely just hope that you guys re-evaluate your two party system. You need a grass roots movement of independent to take on the system from within with the promise of changing the voting system to some better more independent or similar.
But looks like America's not gonna have mid term elections (Trump joked about it just as how he joked about greeland)
How does one fuck up a country that I used to admire a few years back into something that even I am comparing it to Iran & in many cases worse.
I do feel like Histories being written in front of our own eyes tho, Historians are also gonna analyze the average opinion on what's happening and we are gonna witness something in decades to come, "but why didn't they take action when all of this was happening, surely everyone could agree it was wrong" (this was my first thought reading about slavery/ pre-french revolution)
Now I understand how it feels like.
So right now's the perfect time to call bullshit on trump and impeach him or support the idea in the time being even you may've voted republican.
I do feel like America's gone to the point of no return but the only thing America can do right now is risk mitigation because chances are, war does feel more real now.
I am not american but first and foremost, whether or not if you are a democrat or republican, you all are american so why are some of you still defending a country which is breaching or trying to breach the sovereignity of another country and a guy who looks like hes all hell bent on breaking the ideas America was established on.
Cut the losses of the survivorship bias and do what's right. The world's watching.
That goes to the exact point about the media. Trump trashed the economy during Covid with trillions in new dollars so that that all important Line would continue to go up rather than reflect the reality of a global pandemic. The Biden administration did a decent job getting the price inflation from that under control, but rather than giving credit where credit is due, the oligarchic media continued to agitate against the incumbent who wasn't all-in on corporate rule. Cue a whole bunch of low-information voters for the New York con artist on vague "hope" for improvement, when everyone using at least half their brain knew that the policies Trump was promising would be highly destructive to our economy.
Biden has his flaws but I feel like he wasn't trying to appear strong, he did what he thought was right for his country ie. give power to those who could help the nation but somehow he got projected weak because of it even if numbers were doing good
Trump's doing the literal opposite. This is why Trump wants to trashtalk Biden so much
Somehow getting "projected weak" is the oligarch owned media, isn't it? It's the media reporting truthfully, but framed in a pro-Trump way, or just not reporting on Trump very emphatically. You could read bias into the oligarch owned media because of thar.
The policy isn't decided by one person or one party or the two parties for that matter. Trump is just an actor going thorough the script, as much as he can make it.
My biggest grievances with the current way is that China's gonna get more powerful because of it.
As an Indian, I don't like it
I hope that Europe realizes that the problem isn't america (although it kinda is as well), its the fault where if one party relies on another party and they go rogue. (I do feel as if America might have gone rogue)
China's Authoritarian too about tiannmen shows that it can go rogue as well.
My point is a new geopolitical order of net neutrality should be taken place all over the world.
I am saying this because I have read both Indian and American history and geopolitics and Something like this happened with India during its time to create a nuke (which now feels like being the biggest factor for security)
The point of the nukes aren't to do agression but rather to protect one in cases where its sovereignity is being undermined by oppression.
I can go on about this for hours but we have this saying from the people who remember the past grievances (its usually the older people more geopolitically well versed but some of those are being passed down to newer generations)
"to be an enemy of US can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."
We are probably gonna shift to a new world order now that America's trust is eroded effectively impacting its finance sector the most imo. Companies are simply gonna pull all the money and bonds out of America
that being said, once again I wish to point out that the solution isn't to rely on any other country just as Europe or the world did on America. its simply to be in a multi polar world where relationships and treaties are between countries and the reliance on a single country is tried to be minimal
We will probably see EU cozy up more to India (recently got a trade deal which does hurt India more than not) but India's willing to sacrifice some parts of this because India also wants to not be reliant on America.
I have been both pro America and skeptical of it but never in a million years I expected something like this.
I just feel sympathy for American businesses because some people voted because some of these people and businesses are genuinely good and they are gonna have a hard time in the future. My sympathy to both American families (if they get impacted by what might come in the future because of things like this) & the European nations effectively being bullied by America.
I feel like a lot of Europeans might feel the same way right now where we aren't American businesses or families but what America as a country is doing itself & its becoming a matter not of nationalism but of national sovereignity.
American geopolitics have been super depressing recently that I had to avoid most talks about geopolitics after tariffs but there are so many points where one is almost forced to speak because of the insanity behind thngs and thats been so frequently basically being every news nowadays.
Is there seriously any more further escalation which can take place except from a full scale war? Perhaps raising more tarrifs I suppose from 10% and I am pretty sure if things dont go out that way we might see this too & this violates NATO's article 2 as well so I don't know what's left aside from a full scale escalation of war.
Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, the UK, the Netherlands and Finland to face a 10% tariff beginning February 1. Trump said tariffs will be in place until "a deal is reached" on Greenland. [...] Trump added that if no resolution is reached until June 1 this year, the tariffs will jump to 25%.
As I Swede, I must say this list of countries are the countries I love the most in Europe (well, I like the weather in Spain and Italy, but I mean politically).
I would like our countries to integrate more, maybe with a common army. In the Nordics we already have begun to integrate our Air Forces to a common Nordic Air Force. Why not extend that to UK, France, Netherlands and Germany? These countries together could form a quite powerful army, air force etc. that could safeguard Europe against external threats.
The Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto found the operation superfluous and ridiculous, calling it a joke, and urged that it be carried out under NATO coordination.
It's just that I also want that split (north vs south, sort of). The EU of today is dysfunctional, largely because of this immense cultural split.
Now I want to delay this split though. At the moment we need EU unity.
> At the same time we need to realize that the US actions are clearly meant to tear the EU apart.
Generally true with one small but very important correction - the US actions are clearly meant to bait the EU into breaking itself apart.
> It's just that I also want that split (north vs south, sort of).
You've been had. Trump is smarter than you, you've bitten his bait and you're hanging on his hook... and you were doing so well initially.
> The EU of today is dysfunctional, largely because of this immense cultural split.
There's no cultural split, there are only politicians on varying levels of corruption and the leading EU countries are in the center of it all. That's the problem that needs addressing.
> You guys are all really purist with your shade of white.
A lot of the nationalist theatrics you see in political space lead to inflaming the small differences between similar peoples and getting them at each other's throats. That was clearly seen in the run-up to the tragic war between Russia and Ukraine.
It's telling that I don't see any politician in the EU addressing that threat. You'd think EU politicians would know better given the long history of bloody intra-European wars.
P.S. I reformulated my previously downvoted comment in order to make it more precise and less stingy. That will also help me understand the reason for the explanation-less downvoting - is it the truth in the content or the blemishes in form that caused it.
> You guys are all really purist with your shade of white.
That's the major goal of all the theatrics you see in political space - to have very similar peoples get at each other's throats. It was wildly "successful" in provoking the idiotic war between Russia and Ukraine.
It's telling that I don't see any politician in the EU addressing that threat. You'd think EU politicians would know better given the long and bloody history of idiotic intra-European wars.
Willful misunderstanding of NATO. The US is committed to defend Greenland as it is now or if it’s theirs. So, I guess, they’ve left NATO just didn’t leave a forwarding address.
Time to tell the bully to do quaint anatomical actions with mobile baked goods.
Fairly simple really. Greenland decided they wanted it and that they still want it. They are sovereign and free to decide otherwise. It is not a claim.
“Greenland joined the then European Community in 1973 with Denmark, but after gaining autonomy in 1979 with the introduction of home rule within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland voted to leave in 1982 and left in 1985, to become an OCT.”
It is very easy to read about Greenland gaining autonomy also in more detail. I don’t know what is happening on your end that you have trouble with it?
Even more on it but Greenland right now is unsustainable and funded by Danish govt. who is willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area
But its still Greenland's which is sovereigen/autonomous. Trump/America right now are the opposite of it.
Also all the points trump makes is bullshit and danish govt and everyone is always willing to help since they dont want russia either in the area but yeah I do feel as if this is just a smokescreen.
> willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area.
This is a very transactional point of view that you put on them. I would rather guess that Denmark funds Greenland because the citizens are part of the kingdom. Not because the "see potential".
Not everything is about money. Money is just means.
I am not saying that they are doing it for the money. Of course the national identity is something which can't be expressed within words but my point was that Greenland and Denmark have a healthy relationship (unlike other colonies) and Greenland is happy being part of Denmark for multitude of reasons and Denmark's happy too.
So if the sovereign people of Greenland chose denmark and think its right for their country (and they are given autonomy as well by Denmark)
I just don't see how America gets any right in Greeland and wanted to debuke the claim that Denmark can get the claim as well.
Y'know the thing is America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark but they still don't think its worth it to get into the mess, that's how happy Greenland is with Denmark and prides themselves to be part of Dane culture and neither is Denmark interested in selling Greeland (quite the contrary)
In all of these cases, as such America got literally zero argument ever and that was what I was trying to say. It's got the same argument as that of "mine" or just bullying
Denmark has sold virgin islands to America once and also for greenland, they could've gotten complete support of Danish govt/Greenland govt to make bases/mineral deals even in diplomatic ways and they literally tried to say that
Up until now. I don't see why America would want to do such a blunder not unless they just want to have the flag show Greenland as part of America just for the sake of it which is such a crazy thing when you think about it.
Also Greenland's as close to Denmark (around 2000 miles) as it is to America, so saying its in America's backyard because the map makes one think so is a crazy statement too.
Are we 100% sure that these guys didn't just look at mercator map and decided all this stupidness in it with 0 reason? This seems so silly even a teenager can tell this so much.
> America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark.
When did they do that? Since I believe approaching individual citizens to pay them for opposing the country they belong to would be seen as an act of war.
It was settled by Scandinavians in 986 and with a bit of reorganisation Norway transferred it to Denmark in 1933.
They signed an agreement with the US in 1951, that the US military could freely use and move between defence areas, but was not to infringe upon Danish sovereignty.
Well personally I don’t think the USA has a strong claim to Hawaii. It’s basically a strategic military outpost that got retconned into being a state after the war.
It’s kind of weird, like sure Wikipedia articles exist but it’s not as if people who have some position are basing their position entirely on the Wikipedia article and I can infer the structure of their position from the Wikipedia article. So I’m asking about what people think, and all I hear back is “reeeeeee”.
Nato - Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
These tariffs must be becoming self defeating. If they get imposed on a whim what is the point of avoiding them, only to be told you need to jump higher next time. Surely the answer must be to trade with anyone else and write off the USA.
Early on the Japanese learned this.
Gave him a golden samurai helmet. Very rare, very important. I heard that it was like a New Yorker gifting a Ruth home run bat. Trade deal got signed, everyone was happy.
Then 'liberation' day happened. The Japanese got smacked with absurd tariffs. Big trade deal might as well have been chewing gum. They didn't get the samurai helmet back. They're still sore about it.
That peace prize he got on Friday? Couldn't even remember her name that afternoon.
There is not a single thing he says that any nation can trust. If the first rule of politics is that once you're bought, you have to stay bought, then Donny is playing Calvinball.
You cannot negotiate with a bully. The EU should have never backed down so easily before. I hope someone will soon find some balls and not let the US walk all over everyone
if they back down on this one then orange-adolf will go after canada
EU politicians like Merz and von der Leyen are pushovers.
> You cannot negotiate with a bully.
You can and you should, in order to make your case known, it's simple politics. Huffing and puffing while drowning in moral indignation isn't much different from the other side's approach. And don't jump the gun just because of some silly post somewhere on silly soc media.
I have never seen an official EU statement about US-EU-NATO relations that actually makes sense. What I see is kicking the ball back and forth moving in the same general direction.
It's inevitable that an "almost-anyone-but-the-US" free-ish trading coalition of countries will appear. The EU will air drop their tried, tested and scaled up trade negotiation teams worldwide during the upcoming weeks.
US spelling bee kids will be great at spelling P-A-R-I-A-H though.
[dead]
[dead]
think this is a pretty obvious demonstration that the 1776 republic is no longer fit for purpose
why is the congress allowing this to continue?
in any parliamentary democracy this cretin would have been gone by now
"in any parliamentary democracy this cretin would have been gone by now"
Right. The West's not seen anything like this since the Reich's march into the Sudetenland.
One can only hope Europe has enough gumption to confront the bully long enough for US citizens to awake and correct the situation.
The last thing we need now is gutless Appeasement from European states à la Chamberlain.
This is on point - I think everybody was careful not to escalate because the common consensus seems to be that things are getting just too crazy and he can't stay in power for long.
The real danger might still be within the US itself - what happens if he loses and doesn't want to accept it. Civil war?
He absolutely is not going to accept it. He wants to die a free man and that plan runs into serious problems very quickly if he loses.
I feel this is a major turning point for how entities can/will behave from now on towards Trump's wants/decisions. Now it is publicly proved, that you cannot trust deals made with Trump, because they can be just invalidated at a moment's notice. Only bad deals to be made, so why would any reasoned entity agree to those. World will not take threats seriously any more, and will defend themselves.
Maybe missions in Venezuela, Iran etc. was accomplished so easily, that it blurred the judgment of what could be done. But those countries are different than a conglomerate of 450 M people / 27 countries. And now military and economic thinking/domains/threats were also mixed. "Weak EU leaders" can and are now forced to unite as one strong resistance.
Yeah, I see it as a kind of "jumping the shark" moment. There is simply no way to compromise with a neighbors territorial sovereignty to avoid tariffs. It is not going to happen. We may as well regard the US as a black hole that we no longer trade with.
Useful for context (individual submission was flagged):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_hybrid_warfare_agains...
Didn't they already have tariffs ? Also, why should we care, what do the US have that's made domestically ?
We do. This would presumably be added on top of the existing ones. The only communication so far comes from a Trump Truthsocial post with its typical lack of clarity. Lots of bed ads though.
Funny, we are are beginning to think the same, why do we need you? (The truth, of course is that everyone wins when trade is open/free.)
It seems he is really desperate for media to avoid Epstein discussion.
So more financial burdens for US citisens? Poor Americans. Why did they vote for this lunatic?
Americans wanted change so they didn't want establishment politicians. When this usually happens the far-right and far-left come into view and typically what happens is that the far-right get first dibs because they always promise the impossible so their proposals are at first glance more attractive to the electorate. In the case of this election, the Democrats didn't even allow the progressives to contest the election so there wasn't really a choice at all.
Oh look it's that pathetic thing that some Americans do where they blame the Democrats for Trump being in power.
Maybe I'd feel worse for thinking that the party failed if they had, like, let me at least vote in a primary...
I'm not American but I really with the Dems had run a competent, middle of the road candidate.
They did. Harris was a competent candidate and was so middle that she pissed off the left wing.
No she wasn't. She wasn't a good speaker, not charismatic, no clear policy or opinions on things, just overall no.
Why is it so hard to admit? Nobody really liked her except for the fact that she ran against Trump...
Second most left wing in the senate https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4816859-kamala-harris-i...
The 'pissed off the left wing' thing is a bit of an issue. The Dems really need to return to representing the average american, not the extra woke. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of the far left.
Liberal and left are not synonyms.
He won because he promised to deport illegal immigrants. His voters thinks he is delivering.
Some voted for him for that reason, some for other reasons d. For example, I’ve heard several women voted for him because he said he’d make ivf more available/affordable.
The bigger question is why would anyone believe anything he says, especially if it was going to benefit regular people.
It appears to be a combination of racism, “crabs in the pot” mentality, tribalism and in group motivations, and people looking for another group to look down on because they have no opportunity ahead of them between now and death. Happiness is reality minus expectations.
His supporters still say “It’s not great but I’d vote for him again.” Well, the unfortunate news is he’s near end of life and they footgunned their own economic opportunity light cone. The global economy is going to route around the US accordingly, because it cannot be trusted to trade as an adult vs a bully. They will continue to have their vote and mental model regardless of rationality and logical reasoning. All you can do as a nation state counterparty is defend against military action and disconnect economically.
Same vibes as "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." —- LBJ
(derived from first principles)
No they didn't - they voted for him because he claimed he would end the affordability crisis. The numbers are in and they're not looking good.
Trump did racist dog whistling, and the US mass media has been captured by oligarchs, so it wasn't reported honestly or completely. A surprising large portion of the US electorate is racist, and the US voting practices amplify exactly those voter's influence.
It was a bad election cycle for incumbents worldwide. Many Americans are hurting from the cost of living and wanted a change. I know many who are definitely not racist (in interracial marriages/relationships even) who voted for Trump just on the hope for an improved economy.
I will have to agree you on this one even as a trump hater because i do feel like somehow people imagined that trump's gonna make all things affordable somehow (the same people now turning to mamdani see maga for mamdani movement no jokes)
i do feel like this is a pipeline
Disagree with some aspects of democrats? boom you are a republican
Disagree with some aspects of Republicans? boom you are a democrat
It's just picking the less worst candidate and media influence as such values a lot in the perception of "loss"
Obviously trump has been the more worst candidate in comparison and there were already tell tale signs of it
It's a shame that bernie sanders hasn't been an American president or the bias you see at democrats because of it regarding bernie or not pushing bernie at times.
That being said, what trump is doing so abhorent that Its literally killing the nation so I feel like some blame should be placed in its voters.
I genuinely just hope that you guys re-evaluate your two party system. You need a grass roots movement of independent to take on the system from within with the promise of changing the voting system to some better more independent or similar.
But looks like America's not gonna have mid term elections (Trump joked about it just as how he joked about greeland)
How does one fuck up a country that I used to admire a few years back into something that even I am comparing it to Iran & in many cases worse.
I do feel like Histories being written in front of our own eyes tho, Historians are also gonna analyze the average opinion on what's happening and we are gonna witness something in decades to come, "but why didn't they take action when all of this was happening, surely everyone could agree it was wrong" (this was my first thought reading about slavery/ pre-french revolution)
Now I understand how it feels like.
So right now's the perfect time to call bullshit on trump and impeach him or support the idea in the time being even you may've voted republican.
I do feel like America's gone to the point of no return but the only thing America can do right now is risk mitigation because chances are, war does feel more real now.
I am not american but first and foremost, whether or not if you are a democrat or republican, you all are american so why are some of you still defending a country which is breaching or trying to breach the sovereignity of another country and a guy who looks like hes all hell bent on breaking the ideas America was established on.
Cut the losses of the survivorship bias and do what's right. The world's watching.
That goes to the exact point about the media. Trump trashed the economy during Covid with trillions in new dollars so that that all important Line would continue to go up rather than reflect the reality of a global pandemic. The Biden administration did a decent job getting the price inflation from that under control, but rather than giving credit where credit is due, the oligarchic media continued to agitate against the incumbent who wasn't all-in on corporate rule. Cue a whole bunch of low-information voters for the New York con artist on vague "hope" for improvement, when everyone using at least half their brain knew that the policies Trump was promising would be highly destructive to our economy.
Biden has his flaws but I feel like he wasn't trying to appear strong, he did what he thought was right for his country ie. give power to those who could help the nation but somehow he got projected weak because of it even if numbers were doing good
Trump's doing the literal opposite. This is why Trump wants to trashtalk Biden so much
Somehow getting "projected weak" is the oligarch owned media, isn't it? It's the media reporting truthfully, but framed in a pro-Trump way, or just not reporting on Trump very emphatically. You could read bias into the oligarch owned media because of thar.
Do you know what they call the dumbest person at the polling place? A voter.
[dead]
> Why did they vote for this lunatic?
The policy isn't decided by one person or one party or the two parties for that matter. Trump is just an actor going thorough the script, as much as he can make it.
My biggest grievances with the current way is that China's gonna get more powerful because of it.
As an Indian, I don't like it
I hope that Europe realizes that the problem isn't america (although it kinda is as well), its the fault where if one party relies on another party and they go rogue. (I do feel as if America might have gone rogue)
China's Authoritarian too about tiannmen shows that it can go rogue as well.
My point is a new geopolitical order of net neutrality should be taken place all over the world.
I am saying this because I have read both Indian and American history and geopolitics and Something like this happened with India during its time to create a nuke (which now feels like being the biggest factor for security)
The point of the nukes aren't to do agression but rather to protect one in cases where its sovereignity is being undermined by oppression.
I can go on about this for hours but we have this saying from the people who remember the past grievances (its usually the older people more geopolitically well versed but some of those are being passed down to newer generations)
"to be an enemy of US can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."
We are probably gonna shift to a new world order now that America's trust is eroded effectively impacting its finance sector the most imo. Companies are simply gonna pull all the money and bonds out of America
that being said, once again I wish to point out that the solution isn't to rely on any other country just as Europe or the world did on America. its simply to be in a multi polar world where relationships and treaties are between countries and the reliance on a single country is tried to be minimal
We will probably see EU cozy up more to India (recently got a trade deal which does hurt India more than not) but India's willing to sacrifice some parts of this because India also wants to not be reliant on America.
I have been both pro America and skeptical of it but never in a million years I expected something like this.
I just feel sympathy for American businesses because some people voted because some of these people and businesses are genuinely good and they are gonna have a hard time in the future. My sympathy to both American families (if they get impacted by what might come in the future because of things like this) & the European nations effectively being bullied by America.
I feel like a lot of Europeans might feel the same way right now where we aren't American businesses or families but what America as a country is doing itself & its becoming a matter not of nationalism but of national sovereignity.
American geopolitics have been super depressing recently that I had to avoid most talks about geopolitics after tariffs but there are so many points where one is almost forced to speak because of the insanity behind thngs and thats been so frequently basically being every news nowadays.
Is there seriously any more further escalation which can take place except from a full scale war? Perhaps raising more tarrifs I suppose from 10% and I am pretty sure if things dont go out that way we might see this too & this violates NATO's article 2 as well so I don't know what's left aside from a full scale escalation of war.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46659651
Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, the UK, the Netherlands and Finland to face a 10% tariff beginning February 1. Trump said tariffs will be in place until "a deal is reached" on Greenland. [...] Trump added that if no resolution is reached until June 1 this year, the tariffs will jump to 25%.
These are most of the countries that sent military forces to Greenland during the past two days for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance. The US was also invited.
As I Swede, I must say this list of countries are the countries I love the most in Europe (well, I like the weather in Spain and Italy, but I mean politically).
I would like our countries to integrate more, maybe with a common army. In the Nordics we already have begun to integrate our Air Forces to a common Nordic Air Force. Why not extend that to UK, France, Netherlands and Germany? These countries together could form a quite powerful army, air force etc. that could safeguard Europe against external threats.
Same, though, as a Dane, I must express preference for Norway, Sweden and Finland (and Iceland), obviously :)
I hope his antics do nothing except push us closer together.
At the same time we need to realize that the US actions are clearly meant to tear the EU apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance
The Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto found the operation superfluous and ridiculous, calling it a joke, and urged that it be carried out under NATO coordination.
It's just that I also want that split (north vs south, sort of). The EU of today is dysfunctional, largely because of this immense cultural split.
Now I want to delay this split though. At the moment we need EU unity.
Oh absolutely, I adore most every country of the EU, maybe except Hungary and recently... Slovakia.
But in principle, I think the EU, some voting forms, and a federal army is necessary if we desire any degree of self-determination.
> At the same time we need to realize that the US actions are clearly meant to tear the EU apart.
Generally true with one small but very important correction - the US actions are clearly meant to bait the EU into breaking itself apart.
> It's just that I also want that split (north vs south, sort of).
You've been had. Trump is smarter than you, you've bitten his bait and you're hanging on his hook... and you were doing so well initially.
> The EU of today is dysfunctional, largely because of this immense cultural split.
There's no cultural split, there are only politicians on varying levels of corruption and the leading EU countries are in the center of it all. That's the problem that needs addressing.
I wanted to do this before Trump first won in 2016.
Trump didn't invent this game, it's quite old actually, he's just its latest salesman.
You guys are all really purist with your shade of white.
> You guys are all really purist with your shade of white.
A lot of the nationalist theatrics you see in political space lead to inflaming the small differences between similar peoples and getting them at each other's throats. That was clearly seen in the run-up to the tragic war between Russia and Ukraine.
It's telling that I don't see any politician in the EU addressing that threat. You'd think EU politicians would know better given the long history of bloody intra-European wars.
P.S. I reformulated my previously downvoted comment in order to make it more precise and less stingy. That will also help me understand the reason for the explanation-less downvoting - is it the truth in the content or the blemishes in form that caused it.
What do you mean?
> You guys are all really purist with your shade of white.
That's the major goal of all the theatrics you see in political space - to have very similar peoples get at each other's throats. It was wildly "successful" in provoking the idiotic war between Russia and Ukraine.
It's telling that I don't see any politician in the EU addressing that threat. You'd think EU politicians would know better given the long and bloody history of idiotic intra-European wars.
Well there is NB8 and JEF, of which I (Estonia) are also part of.
A two-tier Europe would deepen the divide that already exists.
As a Brit, I agree!
Maybe something like a constitutional republic of independent states?
The only way to ensure one political party doesn't seize full and complete control over the entire thing and bend its will to exclusively their goals.
Yeah maybe some system with checks and balances.
Willful misunderstanding of NATO. The US is committed to defend Greenland as it is now or if it’s theirs. So, I guess, they’ve left NATO just didn’t leave a forwarding address.
Time to tell the bully to do quaint anatomical actions with mobile baked goods.
I don’t understand where Denmark’s claim to Greenland comes from in the first place.
Can someone who is unhappy about this fill me in on why Denmark should have it?
Fairly simple really. Greenland decided they wanted it and that they still want it. They are sovereign and free to decide otherwise. It is not a claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_and_the_European_Uni...
Okay China decided they want Taiwan and they still want it, but for some reason they don’t have it.
I think your framing may not model how territory ownership actually works…
What does the Chinese civil War have to do with this?
China (PRC) wants to be one with China (RoC)
I don't think China decided they want to be a part of Taiwan.
Ha, I misread because what was written made even less sense than flipping the order.
Greenland is clearly not sovereign! What does that even mean? They are a colonial territory of Denmark.
Did you follow the link?
“Greenland joined the then European Community in 1973 with Denmark, but after gaining autonomy in 1979 with the introduction of home rule within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland voted to leave in 1982 and left in 1985, to become an OCT.”
It is very easy to read about Greenland gaining autonomy also in more detail. I don’t know what is happening on your end that you have trouble with it?
Yes, absolutely.
Even more on it but Greenland right now is unsustainable and funded by Danish govt. who is willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area
But its still Greenland's which is sovereigen/autonomous. Trump/America right now are the opposite of it.
Also all the points trump makes is bullshit and danish govt and everyone is always willing to help since they dont want russia either in the area but yeah I do feel as if this is just a smokescreen.
> willing to fund it because it sees potential in the Area.
This is a very transactional point of view that you put on them. I would rather guess that Denmark funds Greenland because the citizens are part of the kingdom. Not because the "see potential".
Not everything is about money. Money is just means.
I am not saying that they are doing it for the money. Of course the national identity is something which can't be expressed within words but my point was that Greenland and Denmark have a healthy relationship (unlike other colonies) and Greenland is happy being part of Denmark for multitude of reasons and Denmark's happy too.
So if the sovereign people of Greenland chose denmark and think its right for their country (and they are given autonomy as well by Denmark)
I just don't see how America gets any right in Greeland and wanted to debuke the claim that Denmark can get the claim as well.
Y'know the thing is America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark but they still don't think its worth it to get into the mess, that's how happy Greenland is with Denmark and prides themselves to be part of Dane culture and neither is Denmark interested in selling Greeland (quite the contrary)
In all of these cases, as such America got literally zero argument ever and that was what I was trying to say. It's got the same argument as that of "mine" or just bullying
Denmark has sold virgin islands to America once and also for greenland, they could've gotten complete support of Danish govt/Greenland govt to make bases/mineral deals even in diplomatic ways and they literally tried to say that
Up until now. I don't see why America would want to do such a blunder not unless they just want to have the flag show Greenland as part of America just for the sake of it which is such a crazy thing when you think about it.
Also Greenland's as close to Denmark (around 2000 miles) as it is to America, so saying its in America's backyard because the map makes one think so is a crazy statement too.
Are we 100% sure that these guys didn't just look at mercator map and decided all this stupidness in it with 0 reason? This seems so silly even a teenager can tell this so much.
> America effectively tried to bribe the average Greelander to get away from Denmark.
When did they do that? Since I believe approaching individual citizens to pay them for opposing the country they belong to would be seen as an act of war.
It was settled by Scandinavians in 986 and with a bit of reorganisation Norway transferred it to Denmark in 1933.
They signed an agreement with the US in 1951, that the US military could freely use and move between defence areas, but was not to infringe upon Danish sovereignty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
The Danes should ask Trump if they get the Virgin Islands back if Trump renegs on the Treaty.
Check out the treaty of the Danish West Indies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
Why should USA have Hawaii or California?
You can read up on it yourself.
Well personally I don’t think the USA has a strong claim to Hawaii. It’s basically a strategic military outpost that got retconned into being a state after the war.
It’s kind of weird, like sure Wikipedia articles exist but it’s not as if people who have some position are basing their position entirely on the Wikipedia article and I can infer the structure of their position from the Wikipedia article. So I’m asking about what people think, and all I hear back is “reeeeeee”.
It caused reactions because it was the wrong thing to ask in this thread.
"Woman raped" - Tell me again why did she like mini skirts?
"American citizen kille by ICE' - Tell me again why did he look like he came from Nicaragua?
By themselves the may have been somewhat ok, but in this context, asking these questions give them a whole different meaning.
That would only justify Greenland‘s independence but not Trump’s bullying to get Greenland.
What next? Sicily?