FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > US National Security Strategy
US National Security Strategy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Why don't you break it down for those who are not going to read it " America First. What is good for America is good for everyone else. America is the greatest and has the best assets and we need to make sure that we retain those assets and don’t let anyone else get too powerful. Primary focus is on the western hemisphere and making sure that people stay where they are in that hemisphere. Next issue is that China is growing and that has to be contained. Finally get to Europe. It is a basket case and it’s leaders can’t even stop a minor war in Ukraine without help. WTF??? Need to stop the Middle East from kicking off and the rest of the world doesn’t exist. Africa? Never heard of it. | |||
"Why don't you break it down for those who are not going to read it" I'm interested in how other people, especially those on the right who are MAGA fans, react to it without too much prompting from me. This thread might not get many posts but that's OK. I'll eventually give my thoughts in a day or two's time as I think it's an important document. | |||
"It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025)." Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet. | |||
"It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025). Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." Yeah… erm .. about that Of the 319 total objectives laid out in project 2025, 125 have been completed and another 67 are in progress… that would total about 50% of what they are trying to accomplish Gone quiet you say… some of the stuff you may have heard of, or have amnesia… the gutting of foreign aid policy and USAID, the gutting of the department of education, changing policy at the state department (attitude about Europe and support for right wing parties) DHS and ICE ( you know all those raids) HHS and CDC (erm.. JFK jr changing stuff) DOJ and FBI, Dept of defence I can go on……. And on | |||
| |||
"If Starmer had the balls, he would suggest to Trump that Diego Garcia was leased to USA when it was a reliable and fully involved ally. But he lacks the courage, imagination and strategic intelligence to play hardball against the petulant orange sociopath." Well, I am glad you are not the UK PM. Megaphone diplomacy does not work. You may have heard, however, that the UK has stopped providing intelligence in the Carribean because of the US policy of destroying "Venezuelan drug boats carrying fentanyl". The fact that virtually no fentanyl arrives from Venezuela is being ignored. Trump knows that his power in Congress will be gone in 2026. In addition, the Republican attempts to gerrymander the elections have been effectively thwarted, so his only course of action now is to start a war and issue an executive order to cancel the mid-term elections. That is not legal under the US Constitution but the spineless self interested Republicans in the Capitol will do nothing to stop him. We live in increasingly dangerous times. This is no time for the UK to rush forward blindly into the minefield to show it has "balls". | |||
"Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." "Yeah… erm .. about that Of the 319 total objectives laid out in project 2025, 125 have been completed and another 67 are in progress… that would total about 50% of what they are trying to accomplish Gone quiet you say… some of the stuff you may have heard of, or have amnesia… the gutting of foreign aid policy and USAID, the gutting of the department of education, changing policy at the state department (attitude about Europe and support for right wing parties) DHS and ICE ( you know all those raids) HHS and CDC (erm.. JFK jr changing stuff) DOJ and FBI, Dept of defence I can go on……. And on" Interesting. I wasn't aware that stuff was in Project 2025. What I remember from over a year ago is lots of posts saying that Project 2025 was a mandate for a radical Christian state with abortion and homosexuality banned, and mass expulsions of Muslims. I don't see that stuff happening. But I'm interested to hear what else was in Project 2025 that has happened. | |||
| |||
"Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet. Yeah… erm .. about that Of the 319 total objectives laid out in project 2025, 125 have been completed and another 67 are in progress… that would total about 50% of what they are trying to accomplish Gone quiet you say… some of the stuff you may have heard of, or have amnesia… the gutting of foreign aid policy and USAID, the gutting of the department of education, changing policy at the state department (attitude about Europe and support for right wing parties) DHS and ICE ( you know all those raids) HHS and CDC (erm.. JFK jr changing stuff) DOJ and FBI, Dept of defence I can go on……. And on Interesting. I wasn't aware that stuff was in Project 2025. What I remember from over a year ago is lots of posts saying that Project 2025 was a mandate for a radical Christian state with abortion and homosexuality banned, and mass expulsions of Muslims. I don't see that stuff happening. But I'm interested to hear what else was in Project 2025 that has happened." You see a lot of the project 2025 stuff tied up in courts as for a lot of it to happen need the widening of the executive branch powers… for example, going around congress and setting permanent tarriffs, birthrights citizenship, going over governors to call out national guard, the president being able to fire people that would have been in independent organisations, going around congress to put in his staff Basically giving the president more power and cutting out a lot of the guardrails…. And because he can’t do that at the moment that is where the use of executive orders come in | |||
"If Starmer had the balls, he would suggest to Trump that Diego Garcia was leased to USA when it was a reliable and fully involved ally. But he lacks the courage, imagination and strategic intelligence to play hardball against the petulant orange sociopath. Well, I am glad you are not the UK PM. Megaphone diplomacy does not work. You may have heard, however, that the UK has stopped providing intelligence in the Carribean because of the US policy of destroying "Venezuelan drug boats carrying fentanyl". The fact that virtually no fentanyl arrives from Venezuela is being ignored. Trump knows that his power in Congress will be gone in 2026. In addition, the Republican attempts to gerrymander the elections have been effectively thwarted, so his only course of action now is to start a war and issue an executive order to cancel the mid-term elections. That is not legal under the US Constitution but the spineless self interested Republicans in the Capitol will do nothing to stop him. We live in increasingly dangerous times. This is no time for the UK to rush forward blindly into the minefield to show it has "balls". " Wrong. Like Putin, Trump is a bully, used to getting his own way for decades. Trump is not used to experiencing the consequences of serious pushback. As a convicted criminal, he should have been jailed, but the US judicial system bottled it and stupidly gave him a stay-out-of-jail card, just because the election denier, insurrectionist and traitor had announced his candidature. Conventional diplomacy does not work with his government of grifters and law breakers. Not with Hitler, not with Putin, not with Trump - all brazen in their criminal intentions. | |||
"Anyone seriously interested in the Trump administration's international policy should read the recently published National Security Strategy document. It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025). The preface by Trump gives you a flavour. I suspect the main document is the work of Stephen Miller as it has his stylistic and political fingerprints all over it. When you dig beneath the jingoistic/bombastic surface it's declaring a major shift in US international policy. Any comments?" I'm not seeing the major shift, the direction of Trump has been clear from day 1. He is clear that Europe has weak leaders, no direction, or control over their borders. He is clear that the US will not prop up other countries to the detriment of the US. China is number 1 worry, with Russia being downgraded to a threat. I tend to agree, this is how the US should look at it. Economically, again no change in US first. As for major shift, it is in direction and there will more than likely be a major shift in direction when the next POTUS takes office (unless it is Vance) | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting – The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over. We count among our many allies and partners dozens of wealthy, sophisticated nations that must assume primary responsibility for their regions and contribute far more to our collective defense. President Trump has set a new global standard with the Hague Commitment, which pledges NATO countries to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense and which our NATO allies have endorsed and must now meet. Continuing President Trump’s approach of asking allies to assume primary responsibility for their regions, the United States will organize a burden-sharing network, with our government as convener and supporter. This approach ensures that burdens are shared and that all such efforts benefit from broader legitimacy. The model will be targeted partnerships that use economic tools to align incentives, share burdens with like-minded allies, and insist on reforms that anchor long-term stability. This strategic clarity will allow the United States to counter hostile and subversive influences efficiently while avoiding the overextension and diffuse focus that undermined past efforts. The United States will stand ready to help— potentially through more favorable treatment on commercial matters, technology sharing, and defense procurement—those counties that willingly take more responsibility for security in their neighborhoods and align their export controls with ours." This is a re-framing of the US's role in NATO as a nation that will now stand back and might offer commercial help, technology sharing and arms sales to NATO members. It's about as far from Article 5 as one could possibly get without openly declaring NATO to be dead. "Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter." This is pretty overt xenophobia with "non-European" being code for non-white. It's saying that the US will have to reconsider whether European nations are worth defending if they aren't as white as they were when NATO formed. " As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states." Note that the policy statement does not agree that Russia is a threat. I'll go into the realignment where Europe rather than Russia is now considered a threat to the US in another post. There are a lot of different elements to the 2025 National Security Strategy that I'd like to discuss but I'm pretty busy so I'll stretch it out over a period of time as I can't see this thread becoming full. I recognise that many people have zero interest in my thoughts of course. | |||
" This is a re-framing of the US's role in NATO as a nation that will now stand back and might offer commercial help, technology sharing and arms sales to NATO members. It's about as far from Article 5 as one could possibly get without openly declaring NATO to be dead. " It does change US's role in NATO but not the way you mentioned. From what's written, it's clear that they want to move from a leader role to a partner role and every country invests their fair share. Europe scrambling around to improve their defense after Putin started his invasion is a clear example of how many European countries have been terrible partners in this alliance. " This is pretty overt xenophobia with "non-European" being code for non-white. It's saying that the US will have to reconsider whether European nations are worth defending if they aren't as white as they were when NATO formed. " The ridiculous assumption you made here is typical of any modern progressive. So I am not really surprised. But the assumption is untrue. UK parliament had 5 independent MPs voted in last elections on sectarian basis. Irrespective of skin colour, European countries have taken lots of people whose priorities are elsewhere. This is what they are saying and they are right. This also links to what Vance said about Europe in his speech. What exactly does Europe stand for anymore? Freedom and democracy? In fact, this is mentioned in the document, which you have conveniently left out - "Creating strife, censorship of free speech, suppression of political opposition, cratering birth rates, and loss of national identities and self confidence". I guess mentioning this would have taken away the opportunity for you to make xenophobia allegations? " As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. Note that the policy statement does not agree that Russia is a threat. I'll go into the realignment where Europe rather than Russia is now considered a threat to the US in another post. There are a lot of different elements to the 2025 National Security Strategy that I'd like to discuss but I'm pretty busy so I'll stretch it out over a period of time as I can't see this thread becoming full. I recognise that many people have zero interest in my thoughts of course. " The opening line here is "as a result of Russia's war in Ukraine". What more do you need to show that they understand Russia as a threat. What comes after this paragraph is damning though - Apparently German chemical companies are building some of the world's largest processing plants in China using Russian gas they can't obtain in Europe. Why would anyone respect these clowns as allies? | |||
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ." Nothing about burden-shifting or aligning export controls. It's also worth remembering that the only time that Article 5 has ever been invoked was by the US in 2001 to get other NATO member to help the US. And I haven't "conveniently left out " anything, I explicitly said "I'll go into the realignment where Europe rather than Russia is now considered a threat to the US in another post". | |||
" Nothing about burden-shifting or aligning export controls. " When it comes to defense alliances, the expectation is that all the participants invest their fair share. If Europe is going to avoid spending money on military, US isn't getting anything out of this alliance. Trump is just doing what any politician who prioritises the interests of their own country would do. " It's also worth remembering that the only time that Article 5 has ever been invoked was by the US in 2001 to get other NATO member to help the US. " What US did then was a mistake, something which even Trump admitted. " And I haven't "conveniently left out " anything, I explicitly said "I'll go into the realignment where Europe rather than Russia is now considered a threat to the US in another post"." This is not what I was alluding to. The document clearly stated what they meant when they say Europe was becoming non-European. You conveniently left that part out just so that you can make those ridiculous xenophobia allegations. | |||
"This is not what I was alluding to. The document clearly stated what they meant when they say Europe was becoming non-European. You conveniently left that part out just so that you can make those ridiculous xenophobia allegations." As I said, I'll handle the anti-Europeanism later (as the NATO aspects are worth discussing in isolation first) but it's pretty obvious that "non-European" was referring to hard-right nativist concepts about civilizational erasure, immigration, falling birthrates and loss of national identity as that's what the document actually says"... "But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. " | |||
" but it's pretty obvious that "non-European" was referring to hard-right nativist concepts about civilizational erasure, immigration, falling birthrates and loss of national identity as that's what the document actually says"... " It's "obvious" only in your own head. If you read the paragraph fully, you can see that they were speaking about values of Europe. Immigration, fall in birth rates and loss of national identity are what's causing Europe to lose its values. You are doing some ridiculous mental gymnastics to link that to nativist concepts. | |||
| |||
"Before criticising Trump for what's happening Ukraine, people must read what Trump said in his first term. In 2018, Trump warned Germany not to work with Russia on a gas pipeline deal. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/11/politics/trump-germany-russia-captive-nato "Trump went on to complain that the United States is expected to “defend them against Russia,” despite Germany making “billions of dollars” in energy payments to Moscow." In 2018, Trump also asked NATO allies to increase their defense spending: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/11/donald-trump-tells-nato-allies-to-spend-4-of-gdp-on-defence European politicians were either too naive or outright in the pockets of Putin that they decided to jump straight into Putin's trap. Trump also warned about Europe's immigration policy also during his first term. Europe's current situation is totally down to the European politicians. If I were to point fingers at one person, it's Angela Merkel. Most of the problems in Europe can be traced back to her decisions. Trump did his best to warn about this in his first term. No one heeded his advice. Now he has had enough. " Interesting spin…. 2 issues though At the point where he suggested/ demanded that countries in NATO spend 4% of GDP, the agreed line was that countries spend 2.5% The other issue is that some countries do spend 4% … namely the Baltic states, so when asked if honour the article 5 commitment if any of those countries were attacked by Russia, he refused to answer So back to the initial document…. I think that Europe and the Americas are being pushed by 2 different sets of people…. Europe is being pushed by trump/vance/miller where there is a white nationalist undertone in the policy With regard to Venezuela, that is more being pushed by Rubio where they tie the leftist regimes to Cuba ( there is no coincidence in that the tanker they seized was apparently bound for Cuba) | |||
" Interesting spin…. 2 issues though At the point where he suggested/ demanded that countries in NATO spend 4% of GDP, the agreed line was that countries spend 2.5% The other issue is that some countries do spend 4% … namely the Baltic states, so when asked if honour the article 5 commitment if any of those countries were attacked by Russia, he refused to answer " It's a fact that many countries did not even meet the 2% target, especially Germany and France, two of the biggest countries. In 2018, Trump warned Merkel that them getting into a gas deal with Russia was a terrible idea. He was ignored. He was right in pointing out the stupidity of asking US to be a defensive partner against Russia while Germany was giving billions to Russia. Merkel dismantled the nuclear reactors in Germany and made them over reliant on Russia. This is also something Trump criticised but he was ignored. Merkel also started the whole open border policy that Putin is exploiting by sending more migrants through Polish and Finnish borders. Europe brought all this misery on themselves. They strengthened Russia economically, made themselves dependent on Russia and also more vulnerable. Trump warned against all these idiotic things that Merkel did but his words weren't given heed. " So back to the initial document…. I think that Europe and the Americas are being pushed by 2 different sets of people…. Europe is being pushed by trump/vance/miller where there is a white nationalist undertone in the policy " There isn't. I have seen zero evidence for this. | |||
"It's "obvious" only in your own head. If you read the paragraph fully, you can see that they were speaking about values of Europe. Immigration, fall in birth rates and loss of national identity are what's causing Europe to lose its values. You are doing some ridiculous mental gymnastics to link that to nativist concepts." It's hilarious that you are apparently so politically illiterate that you don't understand that the conjunction of "civilizational erasure, immigration, falling birthrates and loss of national identity" perfectly describes the far-right white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory. As for mental gymnastics you've gone so far down the right-wing rabbit hole that you are supporting an ideology that is against non-European migration even though you are a non-European immigrant. The Trump administration is not supportive of European values. They oppose the progressive liberal ideas that most Europeans share. Trump calls European leaders weak but in reality he thinks they are too strong. Trump and Putin have a shared goal of trying to destabilize the EU as they see it as too powerful and a threat to their ambitions. That's why they encourage the "patriotic" hard-right parties in Europe - they hope that by supporting them they will divide and weaken Europe. | |||
| |||
"l It's hilarious that you are apparently so politically illiterate that you don't understand that the conjunction of "civilizational erasure, immigration, falling birthrates and loss of national identity" perfectly describes the far-right white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory. " It's hilarious to see you being so blinded by your political ideology that even after they have clearly explained what they mean, you prefer making ridiculous jumps of conclusion to link it to the great replacement theory. Most progressives aren't rational thinkers anyway and love linking random things to racism. So I am not really surprised. " As for mental gymnastics you've gone so far down the right-wing rabbit hole that you are supporting an ideology that is against non-European migration even though you are a non-European immigrant. " Yet another comic statement with zero evidence. Again, not really surprised that a progressive is making such a remark. " The Trump administration is not supportive of European values. They oppose the progressive liberal ideas that most Europeans share. " Liberal ideas like arresting people for burning a religious book? Voiding election results because they don't like the results? " Trump calls European leaders weak but in reality he thinks they are too strong. Trump and Putin have a shared goal of trying to destabilize the EU as they see it as too powerful and a threat to their ambitions. That's why they encourage the "patriotic" hard-right parties in Europe - they hope that by supporting them they will divide and weaken Europe. " If Trump's goal was to destabilise Europe, why did he ask Merkel not to get into a deal with Putin and send him billions? If Trump's goal was to destabilise Europe, why did he ask Merkel not to shut down nuclear reactors and become more reliant on Russia? Europeans have elected a bunch of loons over the past couple of decades who acted against Europe's interests. Instead of looking at these politicians and asking them the hard questions, they are pretending like Trump is the biggest danger for Europe. He is not. European politicians are. | |||
| |||
"Didn’t Trump literally last week say something out loud last week that he denied he said last time he said it…. Why do we allow immigration from “shithole countries”… why don’t we import people from places like Norway and Sweden instead! But you deny there is anything “subversive” about that at all… right! " What's subversive about it? Sweden and Norway are rich countries. Trump launched the gold card visa a few days back. Was it limited to people of any race? Anyone with that amount of money can apply. It would be good for you if you stop blindly consuming what the left wing propaganda machine feeds you and look at these facts instead. " But Pennine is right about one thing… the trump administration is trying to destabilise the EU… " That's exactly what the European media said during his first term when Trump asked Europe to avoid getting into gas deals with Russia, avoid taking down nuclear reactors and spend more money on defense. Many people in Europe blindly agreed with that idiotic spin of facts, apparently they still do. | |||
"Didn’t Trump literally last week say something out loud last week that he denied he said last time he said it…. Why do we allow immigration from “shithole countries”… why don’t we import people from places like Norway and Sweden instead! But you deny there is anything “subversive” about that at all… right! What's subversive about it? Sweden and Norway are rich countries. Trump launched the gold card visa a few days back. Was it limited to people of any race? Anyone with that amount of money can apply. It would be good for you if you stop blindly consuming what the left wing propaganda machine feeds you and look at these facts instead. " Did you contort yourself whilst writing that? Can you do me a favour….. if you are going to write something this funny in future at least warn us first…. I almost gagged on my lemon squash The gold card excuse you are using would have a lot more merit if he had not said the original quote….erm looking at notes…. 8 years ago! 
So go on…. I’m sure you can come up with something more plausible | |||
"Why don't you break it down for those who are not going to read it I'm interested in how other people, especially those on the right who are MAGA fans, react to it without too much prompting from me. This thread might not get many posts but that's OK. I'll eventually give my thoughts in a day or two's time as I think it's an important document. " MAGA don't read... I hope you're sitting whilst you wait. | |||
" Did you contort yourself whilst writing that? Can you do me a favour….. if you are going to write something this funny in future at least warn us first…. I almost gagged on my lemon squash The gold card excuse you are using would have a lot more merit if he had not said the original quote….erm looking at notes…. 8 years ago!
"Why does that matter? According to you, Trump is trying to promote white nationalism. Your evidence is some of his quotes which have nothing to do with white nationalism which you have laughably misinterpreted to align with your ideology. If he wants to promote white nationalism and did not make that statement about money, why is the Gold card visa open to everyone? " So go on…. I’m sure you can come up with something more plausible " So go on... Try to come up with a rational explanation. I am not keeping my hopes up though. | |||
| |||
" So go on... Try to come up with a rational explanation. I am not keeping my hopes up though." Okay I know it probably different there on “planet lost” but here is what is happening here… After the heinous attack by the Afghan let into the US for helping the CIA and the FBI what is the reaction to that…. I know… attack Haitians… again! I mean… same part of the world I think ( I’m being really facetious) So when attacking Haitians didn’t quite work.. next stop… attack Somalis!!! Getting closer to that part of the world… I mean.. it’s not Afghanistan… but heck! So when attacking Haitian and Somali people wasn’t enough…. He then stopped all immigration proceedings at whatever point they were at from 19 different countries He also paused the TPS (temporary protected status) program which was set up to protect people who fled countries because there lives could be in danger…. Well.. he stopped the program except for one specific group of people…. White Afrikaners ( this is where you spout the far right theory that there is a white genocide happening in South Africa, I call BS with proof the stuff trump tried to embarrass the South African president with was fake.. I’ll save you that time!) Trump said finally said in his politico interview the quiet bit out loud that the national security documents alluded to… he is going to actively meddle in European politics and elections, he will endorse candidates and parties like FN in France, AFD in Germany, probably reform in the Uk You think he might have learned a lesson by meddling in Canadas election.. and losing, and Australias election, and losing So When Moscow says the national security document aligns a lot with the Putin world view and they welcome it… you might want to go in and have a read rather than blindly throw out terms you think gotcha… but on this planet.. are actually cringe worthy But yes … trump gold card…. You never did get back a give an excuse for 8 years back And you never answered the bit about protecting Baltic states under article 5 even though they are spending what he wanted on defence ( don’t think I let you claim amnesia on that) | |||
" After the heinous attack by the Afghan let into the US for helping the CIA and the FBI what is the reaction to that…. I know… attack Haitians… again! I mean… same part of the world I think ( I’m being really facetious) " Trump's rhetoric against Haitians began even before the Afghan's attack. So not sure why you are rambling on by linking the two. " So when attacking Haitians didn’t quite work.. next stop… attack Somalis!!! Getting closer to that part of the world… I mean.. it’s not Afghanistan… but heck! " Again, nothing to do with Afghanistan. " So when attacking Haitian and Somali people wasn’t enough…. He then stopped all immigration proceedings at whatever point they were at from 19 different countries He also paused the TPS (temporary protected status) program which was set up to protect people who fled countries because there lives could be in danger…. " How is stopping immigration of poor people same as racism or white nationalism? " Well.. he stopped the program except for one specific group of people…. White Afrikaners ( this is where you spout the far right theory that there is a white genocide happening in South Africa, I call BS with proof the stuff trump tried to embarrass the South African president with was fake.. I’ll save you that time!) " Sure that was clown town. But again, he also reduced the maximum asylum admissions count from any countries to 7500. Hardly makes a dent in the racial composition of a country. " Trump said finally said in his politico interview the quiet bit out loud that the national security documents alluded to… he is going to actively meddle in European politics and elections, he will endorse candidates and parties like FN in France, AFD in Germany, probably reform in the Uk " Like how Labour supported Democrats? " So When Moscow says the national security document aligns a lot with the Putin world view and they welcome it… you might want to go in and have a read rather than blindly throw out terms you think gotcha… but on this planet.. are actually cringe worthy " Of course, Putin would be happy. But the blame lies with European politicians for giving billions to Putin, helping him fund the war, taking down nuclear reactors and not funding enough their defense, thereby making them vulnerable to Putin. Many European countries have been terrible allies to the US. " But yes … trump gold card…. You never did get back a give an excuse for 8 years back " What's there to say? He has made it clear that he doesn't want immigrants from poor countries with high criminality. Hence he introduced the gold card visa now. There being 8 years gap from the time he made the original quote doesn't disprove that point. " And you never answered the bit about protecting Baltic states under article 5 even though they are spending what he wanted on defence ( don’t think I let you claim amnesia on that) " You said that he refused to answer when asked if he would get into war if they were attacked. What do you infer from a US president not saying that he would get into a war in a hypothetical situation, in public? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The reason why Trump doesn't want Europe to buy gas from Russia has nothing to do with altruistic concern about European energy security, it's because he wants Europe to buy US LGN instead. The nuclear thing is about Trump's attachment to nuclear. He loves it as much as he hates wind and solar. That's why he's deregulating the nuclear power industry in the US and wanting to quadruple nuclear generation. The DOE are even providing a $1 billion loan to restart Three-Mile Island - rebranded as the Crane Clean Energy Center. " The mental gymnastics here is mind-blowing. On one hand, Trump wants to make Germany buy energy from US. On the other hand, Trump also doesn't want Germany to dismantle their nuclear reactors which would make them more self sufficient? Oh by the way, Trump also was on Putin's side though both the things he suggested would have negatively impacted Russia. Schrödinger's Trump I guess 😉 You do this much mental gymnastics to go against Trump. And yet do nothing to question the European politicians like Merkel who weakened Europe from within and made the countries vulnerable to Putin. These are people who actively made policy changes many of which helped Putin. Do you think it's because of incompetence or outright malice? " The US administration doesn't give a toss about democracy and free speech - there's no criticism whatsoever in the document of the lack of these in Russia, China or Middle Eastern countries. The reason that Europe is singled out isn't because Trump loves European values, it's because he wants the US tech companies to be able to operate freely in Europe without any pesky EU rules like the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. " The reason he didn't mention the other countries is because they aren't US allies. About the regulations you mentioned, they caused more damage to Europe than America in the longer run, except maybe the Digital Markets Act which was written by EU to to specifically target American companies. Amazing allies! ♥️ | |||
"Your don’t do answering points very well.. so let me link it together where you decided to interject…. " If you lack comprehension skills, it's not my problem " 1 and 2…. Why the attacks on Haitian and Somali communities in the wake of the attack by the Afghan…. Funny enough, Rachel Scott of ABC News literally asked that question to trump in one of his news conferences… The answer in return…. Fake news… nasty woman for asking that question .. obnoxious… terrible reporter " As I explained above, his rhetoric on immigrants from Haiti started even before the Afghan's attack. Not sure why the two have to be linked. " 3 … what do the other 18 countries have to do with Afghanistan ( especially since person was working for CIA and the FBI)… and you jumped forward a bit by asking about white nationalism by asking before I mentioned the one group of people they are specifically still letting in! " The reasons for choosing those 19 countries were also publicised. Number of people from these countries who overstayed their visas, the ones who wouldn't accept deportees. Even Mahmood in UK said that she is going to impose visa restrictions on Angola, Congo and Namibia because they weren't taking back deportees. Is that also racist? " 4…. Labour supported the democrats… bit broad that accusation, so again let’s narrow it down to the actual provable facts Some Labour supporters…. In there own free time… unpaid… took there own annual leave to go and help I know that isn’t as sexy and flashy and sensational for you… " Oh you sweet summer child... So if a bunch of Republican supporters, in their own free time, travel all the way to UK during the election and campaign for reform, you would argue that it's not election interference right? " 6… the trump gold card…. Well he made the original comment in jan 2018! Last time I checked the president between January 2017 and January 2021 was….. Donald J Trump, I mean… man of conviction trump would certainly have made that proposal then? Right? It’s only an EO anyway " It's almost like there we're any bigger issues in 2020 and 2021. Plus that visa alone can't come in isolation. He had to put many other visa restrictions before publicising that visa to create a narrative. " 7….. the Baltic states and article 5 I think it’s funny you call it hypothetical, because wouldn’t the simple answer just be “the us will comply with all of our article 5 obligations” It’s not really hypothetical if Russia attacked them first with no provocation (just like they did Ukraine)" If you think that decisions like these can be made and publicised in front of reporters on the spot, it just shows your political naivety. If someone asks Macron if he will get into the war it Russia attacks Poland, do you think he will publicly say that yes he will attack? | |||
"The mental gymnastics here is mind-blowing. On one hand, Trump wants to make Germany buy energy from US. On the other hand, Trump also doesn't want Germany to dismantle their nuclear reactors which would make them more self sufficient? Oh by the way, Trump also was on Putin's side though both the things he suggested would have negatively impacted Russia. Schrödinger's Trump I guess 😉 You do this much mental gymnastics to go against Trump. And yet do nothing to question the European politicians like Merkel who weakened Europe from within and made the countries vulnerable to Putin. These are people who actively made policy changes many of which helped Putin. Do you think it's because of incompetence or outright malice?" Do you think that Trump doesn't want to sell American LNG to Europe? Nuclear power was phased out in Germany over a long period of time with public concern heighted by the 1986 Chernobyl disater. The full phasing out was announced after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The fate of nuclear power in Germany was settled long before Trump said anything about it to Merkel. I didn't argue that Trump wanting Europe to buy US LNG or his love affair with nuclear had anything to do with him supporting Putin. His bromance with Putin is down to him admiring autocrats and their mutal interest in weakening Europe. "The reason he didn't mention the other countries is because they aren't US allies. About the regulations you mentioned, they caused more damage to Europe than America in the longer run, except maybe the Digital Markets Act which was written by EU to to specifically target American companies. Amazing allies! ♥️" The document does actually say that the US should stop hectoring Middle Eastern countries to change their form of government. I think this was designed to please Saudi Arabia which Trump seems to consider an ally. GDPR has done a lot to protect people's privacy and the DSA and DMA only came into force a few years ago. I'd be interested in any evidence you have for saying that they've damaged Europe. | |||
" Do you think that Trump doesn't want to sell American LNG to Europe? " Sure he wants to sell. But that's not the only reason for him to say so. " Nuclear power was phased out in Germany over a long period of time with public concern heighted by the 1986 Chernobyl disater. The full phasing out was announced after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The fate of nuclear power in Germany was settled long before Trump said anything about it to Merkel. " It was announced then. But it was took much longer to complete it. The decision itself was the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made. " I didn't argue that Trump wanting Europe to buy US LNG or his love affair with nuclear had anything to do with him supporting Putin. His bromance with Putin is down to him admiring autocrats and their mutal interest in weakening Europe. " Again, you haven't addressed those ridiculous self contradictions you were making in your post. 1) You say Trump has mutual interest with Putin to weaken Europe though Trump asked Europe to spend more in defense and strengthen their defense. 2) You say that Trump wanted to weaken Europe even though he asked Merkel not to buy gas from Russia and pay billions to him that eventually funded his invasion. 3) You say that's because Trump wants Europe to buy energy from US though Trump wanted Germany to not shut down their nuclear stations and even coal stations so that they aren't reliant on other countries for energy. How exactly do you make sense of these nonsensical arguments? A much simpler and logical explanation - Trump tried his best in his first term to get Europe to be good allies. Instead, European politicians gave billions to Russia and funded his invasion of Ukraine, made themselves dependent on Russia and also vulnerable to Putin's tactics after REPEATED warnings from Trump. After all this, they want NATO to protect them? European politicians fucked Europe. Europe elected politicians who were incredibly stupid or outright malicious. Hence Trump gave up. Doesn't this make more sense than the illogical fiction that has been fed to you by European media? " GDPR has done a lot to protect people's privacy and the DSA and DMA only came into force a few years ago. I'd be interested in any evidence you have for saying that they've damaged Europe." I have worked for years in tech compliance to regulations from different countries. Why do you think Europe lost the tech race to US? It's these idiotic regulations. Sure there are some good parts in GDPR. But they increased the cost to reach the market, a cost American and Asian startups operating in their own countries did not have to pay, but European start-ups operating in Europe had to pay. This gave a massive advantage to start-ups of other countries who operated in the other countries, made enough profits and then expanded to Europe and ate away the competition. And don't even get me started on the cookie consent pop-ups, thanks to the ePrivacy Directive. The bureaucratic clowns who have zero understanding of tech have ensured that Europe will also lose the AI race by passing the AI act. Europe's enemies are their own politicians who destroy Europe from within and portray America as the evil who is responsible for all bad things happening to them. | |||
" 7….. the Baltic states and article 5 I think it’s funny you call it hypothetical, because wouldn’t the simple answer just be “the us will comply with all of our article 5 obligations” It’s not really hypothetical if Russia attacked them first with no provocation (just like they did Ukraine) If you think that decisions like these can be made and publicised in front of reporters on the spot, it just shows your political naivety. If someone asks Macron if he will get into the war it Russia attacks Poland, do you think he will publicly say that yes he will attack?" Seriously…. Stop making me laugh….. I think macron would answer that question the same way 31 of the 32 countries in NATO would have answered that question which is “My country will fulfill its article 5 obligations “ It does make me wonder if you are arguing just for the sake of being embarrassed you can’t defend the indefensible…. Or you just are to embarrassed to admit you don’t know what the wording of article 5 actually is…. If Trump is playing the of country x isn’t spending enough game… but those 3 countries do already spend what he is demanding, what excuse is he going to use to renege? | |||
"It was announced then. But it was took much longer to complete it. The decision itself was the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made." The plan was to phase out over a long period of time in order to minimise disruption and allow planning. This is normal. ROFL - "the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made"!!! "1) You say Trump has mutual interest with Putin to weaken Europe though Trump asked Europe to spend more in defense and strengthen their defense." Do you think that Trump does not see the EU as competition to the US? It would not make any sense with his zero-sum America First agenda if he wanted to strengthen Europe. Trump assumes that the increase in defense spending will be spent on buying US weapons and that simultaneously he'll be able to pull back from Article 5 commitments saying that other NATO countries have sufficient capabilities on their own. "2) You say that Trump wanted to weaken Europe even though he asked Merkel not to buy gas from Russia and pay billions to him that eventually funded his invasion." Germany wrongly thought after the huge changes under Gorbachev that commercial engagement with Russia in a mutually beneficial G8 configuration would moderate and modernise Russia. Then Putin came along. Buying gas from Russia initially seemed like a good idea. It wasn't. Just as relying on US liquefied gas shipped across the Atlantic probably isn't a good idea. "3) You say that's because Trump wants Europe to buy energy from US though Trump wanted Germany to not shut down their nuclear stations and even coal stations so that they aren't reliant on other countries for energy." Trump is a coal, oil and nuclear guy. When he talks about these things it's not in geo-political terms it's an emotional attachment to things that represented power when he was a young man. He can't understand why anyone else would reject his worldview. "How exactly do you make sense of these nonsensical arguments? A much simpler and logical explanation - Trump tried his best in his first term to get Europe to be good allies. Instead, European politicians gave billions to Russia and funded his invasion of Ukraine, made themselves dependent on Russia and also vulnerable to Putin's tactics after REPEATED warnings from Trump. After all this, they want NATO to protect them? European politicians fucked Europe. Europe elected politicians who were incredibly stupid or outright malicious. Hence Trump gave up. Doesn't this make more sense than the illogical fiction that has been fed to you by European media?" No, a much simpler view is that Trump is pursuing his own interests and that these happen to sometimes overlap with US interests. But the changes he and his friends are making are damaging international relations and will probably reduce the security of the US. While Trump is in power it's unclear whether NATO is an effective alliance. "I have worked for years in tech compliance to regulations from different countries. Why do you think Europe lost the tech race to US? It's these idiotic regulations. Sure there are some good parts in GDPR. But they increased the cost to reach the market, a cost American and Asian startups operating in their own countries did not have to pay, but European start-ups operating in Europe had to pay. This gave a massive advantage to start-ups of other countries who operated in the other countries, made enough profits and then expanded to Europe and ate away the competition. And don't even get me started on the cookie consent pop-ups, thanks to the ePrivacy Directive. The bureaucratic clowns who have zero understanding of tech have ensured that Europe will also lose the AI race by passing the AI act." So no actual evidence. "Europe's enemies are their own politicians who destroy Europe from within and portray America as the evil who is responsible for all bad things happening to them." Gosh, it's a good job that the hard-right with US and Russian support are going to sweep away all our progressive liberal politicians and bring forth a golden age where people like you will be in charge. | |||
" 7….. the Baltic states and article 5 I think it’s funny you call it hypothetical, because wouldn’t the simple answer just be “the us will comply with all of our article 5 obligations” It’s not really hypothetical if Russia attacked them first with no provocation (just like they did Ukraine) If you think that decisions like these can be made and publicised in front of reporters on the spot, it just shows your political naivety. If someone asks Macron if he will get into the war it Russia attacks Poland, do you think he will publicly say that yes he will attack? Seriously…. Stop making me laugh….. I think macron would answer that question the same way 31 of the 32 countries in NATO would have answered that question which is “My country will fulfill its article 5 obligations “ It does make me wonder if you are arguing just for the sake of being embarrassed you can’t defend the indefensible…. Or you just are to embarrassed to admit you don’t know what the wording of article 5 actually is…. If Trump is playing the of country x isn’t spending enough game… but those 3 countries do already spend what he is demanding, what excuse is he going to use to renege? " Looks like you think politics works like how you see in the movies. Politicians don't go around making punch lines to reporters like movie stars when it comes to war. Maybe read actual political documents instead of understanding politics from tiktok? | |||
" 7….. the Baltic states and article 5 I think it’s funny you call it hypothetical, because wouldn’t the simple answer just be “the us will comply with all of our article 5 obligations” It’s not really hypothetical if Russia attacked them first with no provocation (just like they did Ukraine) If you think that decisions like these can be made and publicised in front of reporters on the spot, it just shows your political naivety. If someone asks Macron if he will get into the war it Russia attacks Poland, do you think he will publicly say that yes he will attack? Seriously…. Stop making me laugh….. I think macron would answer that question the same way 31 of the 32 countries in NATO would have answered that question which is “My country will fulfill its article 5 obligations “ It does make me wonder if you are arguing just for the sake of being embarrassed you can’t defend the indefensible…. Or you just are to embarrassed to admit you don’t know what the wording of article 5 actually is…. If Trump is playing the of country x isn’t spending enough game… but those 3 countries do already spend what he is demanding, what excuse is he going to use to renege? Looks like you think politics works like how you see in the movies. Politicians don't go around making punch lines to reporters like movie stars when it comes to war. Maybe read actual political documents instead of understanding politics from tiktok?" I think he's a well read man, not sure if he has TikTok installed; I definitely don't use that. Sadly the Extreme right is blossoming thanks to social platforms, owned by at times loud and/or frequently awkward billionaires. | |||
" 7….. the Baltic states and article 5 I think it’s funny you call it hypothetical, because wouldn’t the simple answer just be “the us will comply with all of our article 5 obligations” It’s not really hypothetical if Russia attacked them first with no provocation (just like they did Ukraine) If you think that decisions like these can be made and publicised in front of reporters on the spot, it just shows your political naivety. If someone asks Macron if he will get into the war it Russia attacks Poland, do you think he will publicly say that yes he will attack? Seriously…. Stop making me laugh….. I think macron would answer that question the same way 31 of the 32 countries in NATO would have answered that question which is “My country will fulfill its article 5 obligations “ It does make me wonder if you are arguing just for the sake of being embarrassed you can’t defend the indefensible…. Or you just are to embarrassed to admit you don’t know what the wording of article 5 actually is…. If Trump is playing the of country x isn’t spending enough game… but those 3 countries do already spend what he is demanding, what excuse is he going to use to renege? Looks like you think politics works like how you see in the movies. Politicians don't go around making punch lines to reporters like movie stars when it comes to war. Maybe read actual political documents instead of understanding politics from tiktok?" What is Hollywood about saying “my country will uphold its article 5 obligations” I honestly have to ask do you know what article 5 actually means? By the way…you used Poland in your scenario….. I don’t know you know if you stumbled on a perfect example… they actually already spend the 4% of GDP on defence spending that trump is demanding So yeah… I have no doubt that 31 of the 32 countries in the NATO alliance would not bat an eyelid in upholding their NATO article 5 obligations Ironic because Trump seems to forget that country 32 are the only country to actually invoke article 5…… and the other 31 countries didn’t bat an eyelid  | |||
" The plan was to phase out over a long period of time in order to minimise disruption and allow planning. This is normal. " They ended up relying on Russia for energy. How is that minimising disruption? " ROFL - "the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made"!!! " It's one of the many decisions that made them reliant on Russia. But that's not the problem here. Evil Trump is the problem. Is that right? 😉 " Do you think that Trump does not see the EU as competition to the US? It would not make any sense with his zero-sum America First agenda if he wanted to strengthen Europe. " Do you think politics works in black and white like this? Yes Trump will put America first. Europe building a stronger defense helps America too because European countries were supposed to be their allies. He felt that it was unfair for US to spend so much in military while the European countries did not. " Trump assumes that the increase in defense spending will be spent on buying US weapons and that simultaneously he'll be able to pull back from Article 5 commitments saying that other NATO countries have sufficient capabilities on their own. " Lol. This definitely is the best fictional work you have ever written. Trump asks European countries to meet the NATO defense spending targets. And according to you, Trump will just sell weapons to Europe and then pull back from article 5? Or.. how about the common sense interpretation? He was pissed off with the so called allies for not meeting their obligations " Germany wrongly thought after the huge changes under Gorbachev that commercial engagement with Russia in a mutually beneficial G8 configuration would moderate and modernise Russia. Then Putin came along. " Merkel approved more deals even after Putin came. Don't try to defend the huge mistakes that European politicians did with these lame excuses. " Trump is a coal, oil and nuclear guy. When he talks about these things it's not in geo-political terms it's an emotional attachment to things that represented power when he was a young man. He can't understand why anyone else would reject his worldview. " If he likes nuclear and coal stations, he would just build them in the US. He said that shutting down nuclear reactors and coal stations while getting even more reliant on Russia was going to make them more vulnerable to Russia. Again, you are coming up with ridiculous excuses to hide the fact that Trump gave the right advise and the idiotic European politicians ignored them. " No, a much simpler view is that Trump is pursuing his own interests and that these happen to sometimes overlap with US interests. " My view doesn't deny this. Let me break this to you - Every country cares about self interests. A stronger Europe was good for America because they allies. " But the changes he and his friends are making are damaging international relations and will probably reduce the security of the US. While Trump is in power it's unclear whether NATO is an effective alliance. " It's unclear if NATO is an effective alliance, not because of Trump but because of Europe. Europe paid billions to Russia, made themselves reliant on Russia and vulnerable to Putin. I have given enough examples of their policies which caused all the problems. Imagine forming an alliance against a common enemy and then strengthening that very enemy. You still think Trump is the problem here? Instead, some serious questions have to be directed at the European politicians who screwed Europe from within. " So no actual evidence. " The fact that Europe lost the tech race and has lost the AI race at the very beginning is good enough evidence. Read the Mario Draghi report if you want. Search for "The economic costs of the European union's cookie notification policy". The total annual cost is determined to be around $2.3 billion. And it doesn't even give much value to users. Over 90% of users don't know what it means and click some random button. If you try to see if cookies are being blocked on websites when you refuse cookies, you are in for a shock to find how many websites don't even block the cookies. This is what happens when you get a bunch of bureaucrats with zero knowledge of tech to pass tech regulations. Just another case of European politicians fucking Europe and pretending to be the nice guys. " Gosh, it's a good job that the hard-right with US and Russian support are going to sweep away all our progressive liberal politicians and bring forth a golden age where people like you will be in charge." I have given enough examples and evidence. The only argument you have is "Trump bad". Maybe try to stop consuming hard left propaganda and look at the facts I have pointed out? | |||
| |||
"Trump's main charateristics are narcissism, ignorance and misogyny. Whether these make him a bad person is for individual people to judge but it's outside the scope of this thread which is about the 2025 National Security Strategy document. Although Trump obviously approves of its content I'm pretty sure the main author is Stephen Miller. I don't think that European politicians are always right - but they are elected by European citizens. You appear to think that these hundreds of millions of citizens have got it all wrong and that Trump is some kind of sage who has the best interests of Europe at heart. I think this is total bollocks. " You just started this post by saying things about Trump. Are you saying that the hundreds of millions in the US got it wrong? Or is it ok to say Trump voters got it wrong but not ok to say that European voters got it wrong. My point is simple. European politicians made bad decisions after bad decisions when it comes to policy. I have already given clear example of what they are and how these decisions turned out to help Putin and made Europe vulnerable. These are clear evidence to how much they screwed up. Trump advised against these idiotic decisions not because he is affectionate towards Europe, but because his European allies getting weaker would put undue pressure on the US. He still had US interest in mind. After trying his best, he gave up because the European politicians just wouldn't listen. In spite of all these examples, the only argument you have come up with is some theory around what goes on inside Trump's mind and some lame excuses to European politicians'incompetence/malice. " I agree about cookies but if you think the tech race is over and the future of AI is cast in stone then your time horizons and mine are quite different. " Are you seriously thinking that Europe is going to catch up in the tech race now? EU is only coming up with more and more idiotic regulations. The AI act is just one such example. You must be living in a fantasy world if you think EU is somehow going to catch up on the AI race now. | |||
"You just started this post by saying things about Trump. Are you saying that the hundreds of millions in the US got it wrong? Or is it ok to say Trump voters got it wrong but not ok to say that European voters got it wrong." US citizens voted for Trump, that's their right. I haven't claimed that Trump is an enemy of the US, although I think the policies promoted by this document will probably weaken US security. You've claimed that "Europe's enemies are their own politicians who destroy Europe from within" and I'm countering with the fact that European leaders are democratically elected and the likelihood that Trump is concerned about the well-being of the EU is close to zero. "Are you seriously thinking that Europe is going to catch up in the tech race now? EU is only coming up with more and more idiotic regulations. The AI act is just one such example. You must be living in a fantasy world if you think EU is somehow going to catch up on the AI race now." You are viewing things from a very short time perspective. Technological races don't have timespans of something like a decade, they are a constant stream of events. Things like AI and quantum computing are in their infancy and will be evolving long after you and I are dead. Regulations such as anti-trust laws can lead to greater competition and help prevent corporate groupthink and hubris. US tech giants swallowing up competitors will lead to them becoming increasingly bloated and inefficient. Another potential problem for the US is a brain drain to Europe and other places where intellectualism is more respected. Also GDP PPP of the EU and US are about the same (roughly £30 trillion) and Europe has a larger population and more diversity. So it's not obvious that the US will lead forever. | |||
" US citizens voted for Trump, that's their right. I haven't claimed that Trump is an enemy of the US, although I think the policies promoted by this document will probably weaken US security. " So you are claiming that Trump will harm US. That's pretty much what I claim about European politicians, only in past tense. They have already harmed Europe hence I said that they are Europe's enemies. " I'm countering with the fact that European leaders are democratically elected and the likelihood that Trump is concerned about the well-being of the EU is close to zero. " And I explained that Trump isn't morally inclined to help Europe either. It's a case of enemy's enemy is a friend. Both Europe and US have Russia as a common enemy and hence formed NATO. Europe went on to pay billions to that common enemy. European politicians took down their nuclear reactors. European politicians decided to weaken their own defense. Trump pointed out these mistakes years back. And you are out here spreading propaganda that this is all somehow Trump's fault when it's clear that it's the idiotic European politicians who made all these mistakes. " You are viewing things from a very short time perspective. Technological races don't have timespans of something like a decade, they are a constant stream of events. Things like AI and quantum computing are in their infancy and will be evolving long after you and I are dead. " Sure if European bureaucrats give up on writing such idiotic regulations and throw their existing regulations into the bin, things would get better. I hope it happens. But it won't happen anytime soon. " Regulations such as anti-trust laws can lead to greater competition and help prevent corporate groupthink and hubris. US tech giants swallowing up competitors will lead to them becoming increasingly bloated and inefficient. " Keep dreaming 🙂 One day, those evil American companies will go down and the world will accept the greatness of the cookie consent prompts. " Another potential problem for the US is a brain drain to Europe and other places where intellectualism is more respected. " It's just a story the left wing Europeans tell themselves to feel that they are better. Every time Trump wins elections, about 1000 people move to Europe and make loud noises about how they are moving because of Trump. In reality, most people would like to earn more and pay less taxes and US is a better place and the only European country equivalent to it in pay and taxes is Switzerland. " Also GDP PPP of the EU and US are about the same (roughly £30 trillion) and Europe has a larger population and more diversity. So it's not obvious that the US will lead forever." Do it per capita and compare it over years and see who is doing better. | |||
| |||
"I'm curious why you came to Europe rather than the US and why you remain here." Multiple reasons. I work in an a field I am passionate about and I have lots of institutional knowledge that makes my job much safer in the long term. If I were to apply for a transfer to the US, I would have to give up on both. I have family connections here. Plus I am not a fan of the American gun culture. I respect them for sticking to it. But just not my thing. | |||
"It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025). Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." Or possibly the world has stopped trying to tell the maga Muppets what the mango maniac is up to but they point blank refuse to see it. Is there a word for that ? | |||
"Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." "Or possibly the world has stopped trying to tell the maga Muppets what the mango maniac is up to but they point blank refuse to see it." The warnings that I remember were that Trump was going to start a Christian crusade by banning homosexuality and abortion. That hasn't happened. | |||
"Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet. Or possibly the world has stopped trying to tell the maga Muppets what the mango maniac is up to but they point blank refuse to see it. The warnings that I remember were that Trump was going to start a Christian crusade by banning homosexuality and abortion. That hasn't happened." As I said…. Gutted us foreign aid policy Gutted the department of education Changes at the DOJ, Changes at the FBI Changes at DHS Power grabs via EO Changes at HHS, gutting the CDC The FAA, The FCC, rolling back huge environmental protections Rolling back protections of native lands, And then there’s healthcare coming (a lot of women healthcare provisions are either being rolled back, or outright eliminated… and that includes abortions in life saving situations) I can go on.. and on.. and on | |||
| |||
"The warnings that I remember were that Trump was going to start a Christian crusade by banning homosexuality and abortion. That hasn't happened." So basically what you are saying is that you couldn't be bothered to do any research on what Project 2025 actually was and are still dismissing the warnings about it because you still can't be bothered to look in to it. | |||
"The problem with the political discourse against Trump has always been the exaggeration and targeting the wrong things. Trump does a lot of stupid things. He is indeed a self-centered narcissist, does too many unnecessary political stunts just to "own the libs", too impulsive like a child, a massive hypocrite and I believe he is corrupt too. There so many valid things you can criticise him for. He flip flopped a lot with the tariffs that reduced the security of US markets and straight up looked like market manipulation. What he did with the meme coins was a clear conflict of interest. The list of people he has granted pardons to also shows that he is blatantly misusing his powers. There are lot more things like these you can tear him up for. But coming up with stories like he is going to make America look like the dystopian society of The handmaid's tale and blaming him for the mistakes that European politicians did over years isn't going to help. It only empowers his supporters to believe that his opponents cannot be trusted as they keep making up these wrong allegations." You really do love strawmen. All the faults you mentioned have been brought up by critics of Trump. And there are elements on the conservative right in the US who do actually have dystopian goals - like birth control being banded. Although they are still on the fringe and hopefully will not get any traction. And for someone who said that Germany phasing out nuclear power was "the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made" and that "Europe's enemies are their own politicians who destroy Europe from within" it's hard to take yoo seriously when you claim critics of Trump exaggerate. With luck this thread will return to some discussion about the National Security Strategy which I believe undermines NATO and plays into the hands of the Kremlin. | |||
" With luck this thread will return to some discussion about the National Security Strategy which I believe undermines NATO and plays into the hands of the Kremlin." Trump doesn't care about NATO and would happily pull out. He doesn't see Russia as a threat, or if it were, NATO would not be particularly useful from a US standpoint. No secrets there. Europe, on the other hand, desperately needs the US. So if he looks like he's undermining NATO, he could probably squeeze more out of Europe (option a) or leave NATO (option b), or just keep it, but with reduced support (option c). Trump is a very poor friend and ally - this has been obvious ever since he left the Kurds to Turkey. | |||
"Gutted us foreign aid policy Gutted the department of education Changes at the DOJ, Changes at the FBI Changes at DHS Power grabs via EO Changes at HHS, gutting the CDC The FAA, The FCC, rolling back huge environmental protections Rolling back protections of native lands," I don't know that any of those things were in Project 2025, or indeed that they've happened, but I'm happy to take your word for it. My point is that none of those things were getting talked about as the dangers of Project 2025. All anyone was talking about was legislation to promote Christianism, banning homosexuality, and banning abortion. So those people doing the warning did a terrible job. Firstly of warning us about stuff that didn't happen, and secondly in failing to tell us about the stuff that *was* going to happen. | |||
"Trump doesn't care about NATO and would happily pull out. He doesn't see Russia as a threat, or if it were, NATO would not be particularly useful from a US standpoint. No secrets there. Europe, on the other hand, desperately needs the US. So if he looks like he's undermining NATO, he could probably squeeze more out of Europe (option a) or leave NATO (option b), or just keep it, but with reduced support (option c). Trump is a very poor friend and ally - this has been obvious ever since he left the Kurds to Turkey." Option C seems to the most likely as pulling out of NATO formally would cause political problems for Trump that he could do without. But what we have at the moment is close to a de facto end of NATO. I'm not entirely convinced that Europe desperately needs the US. If the US administration aren't willing to stick to Article 5 then they are effectively just a shop that sells arms and Europe would be well advised not to rely too much on arms supplied by just one shop. France will make a lot of money out of this as they have maintained an independence from the US completely unlike the UK. Although many people hate Macron, I think he is playing a blinder. China will also benefit. And Russia are loving it. Which leads me to the conclusion that the only country that will lose out as a result of this policy statement is the US. | |||
"The warnings that I remember were that Trump was going to start a Christian crusade by banning homosexuality and abortion. That hasn't happened." "So basically what you are saying is that you couldn't be bothered to do any research on what Project 2025 actually was and are still dismissing the warnings about it because you still can't be bothered to look in to it." That's a bit of a reach just to get a personal attack in. I didn't do any investigation because I didn't care about it. I still don't. And I'm dismissive about the warnings that were given because they have all turned out to be untrue. If there was anyone in this forum warning about changes at the FBI, cuts to education and environmental projections, or any of the other things Fabio lists, then I can't find those posts. The things that people *did* warn about, haven't happened. So I'm comfortable in my dismissal of them. | |||
" You really do love strawmen. All the faults you mentioned have been brought up by critics of Trump. And there are elements on the conservative right in the US who do actually have dystopian goals - like birth control being banded. Although they are still on the fringe and hopefully will not get any traction. " If we are talking about fringe groups, we can also find Democrat supporters who are talking about the US having to pay trillions in reparations. Sure the faults I mentioned about Trump have been brought up too. But for some reason, the conspiracy theories about him having dystopian goals or him being responsible for Europe's problems seem to be louder. " And for someone who said that Germany phasing out nuclear power was "the biggest case of self destruction that a country ever made" and that "Europe's enemies are their own politicians who destroy Europe from within" it's hard to take yoo seriously when you claim critics of Trump exaggerate. With luck this thread will return to some discussion about the National Security Strategy which I believe undermines NATO and plays into the hands of the Kremlin." European politicians taking down nuclear reactors is not an exaggeration. European politicians paying billions to Russia is not an exaggeration. European politicians not caring spending enough on defense is not an exaggeration. Trump warning them not to do so also is not an exaggeration. All these actions resulting in Putin getting an upper hand in the war is not an exaggeration. All these are facts. You doing mental gymnastics to make it look like Trump is the bad guy, instead of blaming the European politicians for this one is exaggeration. | |||
""So basically what you are saying is that you couldn't be bothered to do any research on what Project 2025 actually was and are still dismissing the warnings about it because you still can't be bothered to look in to it." That's a bit of a reach just to get a personal attack in. I didn't do any investigation because I didn't care about it. I still don't. And I'm dismissive about the warnings that were given because they have all turned out to be untrue. If there was anyone in this forum warning about changes at the FBI, cuts to education and environmental projections, or any of the other things Fabio lists, then I can't find those posts. The things that people *did* warn about, haven't happened. So I'm comfortable in my dismissal of them." How was my comment a personal attack given that you've stated that you didn't do any investigation, didn't care about it and still don't? What you seem to be saying is that if something isn't covered comprehensively on an obscure corner of a swingers' website then it's not worth your attention. Why not just read something like the wiki page on Project 2025, then you'll be able to make more informed comments. | |||
"There are lot more things like these you can tear him up for. But coming up with stories like he is going to make America look like the dystopian society of The handmaid's tale and blaming him for the mistakes that European politicians did over years isn't going to help. It only empowers his supporters to believe that his opponents cannot be trusted as they keep making up these wrong allegations." Yes, this. As I'm trying to point out about Project 2025 warnings, the stuff they warned us about hasn't happened. Maybe lots of bad stuff has happened, but no one sees it because they're still looking for the things that haven't happened. Anti-Trumpers making stuff up not only makes them look like liars, it also lessens the impact of all those things that Trump actually has done. | |||
"As I'm trying to point out about Project 2025 warnings, the stuff they warned us about hasn't happened. Maybe lots of bad stuff has happened, but no one sees it because they're still looking for the things that haven't happened. Anti-Trumpers making stuff up not only makes them look like liars, it also lessens the impact of all those things that Trump actually has done." This is called clutching at straws. Ignoring carefully stated criticism of the MAGA agenda by pretending that critics have only ever brought up fringe issues. | |||
"So basically what you are saying is that you couldn't be bothered to do any research on what Project 2025 actually was and are still dismissing the warnings about it because you still can't be bothered to look in to it." "That's a bit of a reach just to get a personal attack in. I didn't do any investigation because I didn't care about it. I still don't. And I'm dismissive about the warnings that were given because they have all turned out to be untrue. If there was anyone in this forum warning about changes at the FBI, cuts to education and environmental projections, or any of the other things Fabio lists, then I can't find those posts. The things that people *did* warn about, haven't happened. So I'm comfortable in my dismissal of them." "How was my comment a personal attack given that you've stated that you didn't do any investigation, didn't care about it and still don't?" You've phrased it as though I'm still dismissing all warnings about Project 2025, because I don't know what's in the document. In reality, I'm dismissive about only those warnings made over a year ago about things that didn't happen. No one has pointed out any warnings made back then about things which subsequently have happened. "What you seem to be saying is that if something isn't covered comprehensively on an obscure corner of a swingers' website then it's not worth your attention." That's in your head. I've not even hinted at such a position. In this case it's not worth my time because the claims made about it over a year ago were obviously untrue then, and they have remained untrue. "Why not just read something like the wiki page on Project 2025, then you'll be able to make more informed comments." Until someone points out something that has a vague chance of happening, and has some sort of impact on my life, I don't see any reason to waste my time reading it. | |||
"As I'm trying to point out about Project 2025 warnings, the stuff they warned us about hasn't happened. Maybe lots of bad stuff has happened, but no one sees it because they're still looking for the things that haven't happened. Anti-Trumpers making stuff up not only makes them look like liars, it also lessens the impact of all those things that Trump actually has done." "This is called clutching at straws. Ignoring carefully stated criticism of the MAGA agenda by pretending that critics have only ever brought up fringe issues." Sigh. No one is pretending that critics haven't made genuinely good points about Trump's actions. It's just that there's much more hysteria about than there is valid criticism. My point, and the other bloke's, is that people tend to ignore the wheat due to the vast amount of chaff in the way. If the anti-Trumpers stopped with the wild hyperbole, the people with short attention spans might have time to listen to the genuine criticism. | |||
"Until someone points out something that has a vague chance of happening, and has some sort of impact on my life, I don't see any reason to waste my time reading it." If you can't be bothered to spend just a couple of minutes reading the introduction on the wiki page on Project 2025 then don't expect anyone to take you seriously. | |||
| |||
"Until someone points out something that has a vague chance of happening, and has some sort of impact on my life, I don't see any reason to waste my time reading it." "If you can't be bothered to spend just a couple of minutes reading the introduction on the wiki page on Project 2025 then don't expect anyone to take you seriously." I've made no comment on the contents of Project 2025, or the political ramifications of whatever might be in it. I don't expect anyone to take me seriously on Project 2025, because I've not said anything about it. All I've said is that those people who claimed that Trump would ban homosexuality and abortion because it was in Project 2025 were wrong. | |||
"I've made no comment on the contents of Project 2025, or the political ramifications of whatever might be in it. I don't expect anyone to take me seriously on Project 2025, because I've not said anything about it. All I've said is that those people who claimed that Trump would ban homosexuality and abortion because it was in Project 2025 were wrong." I think you've posted something like nine comments mentioning Project 2025 on this thread. Yet you have virtually no idea what Project 2025 is, can't be bothered to spend the time it takes to write one of your posts on finding out roughly what Project 2025 is and have said you don't care about it. This seems like strange behaviour. Maybe stop using up bandwidth and talk about the subject of this thread, the 2025 US National Security Strategy document instead. Although on current form my guess is you don't have any interest in that either. | |||
"Maybe stop using up bandwidth and talk about the subject of this thread, the 2025 US National Security Strategy document instead. Although on current form my guess is you don't have any interest in that either." If you're worried about bandwidth, maybe you should stop attacking me for not knowing about something that I've not posted anything about, and have clearly started that I'm not interested in. | |||
"If you're worried about bandwidth, maybe you should stop attacking me for not knowing about something that I've not posted anything about, and have clearly started that I'm not interested in." To be honest I'm not too concerned about bandwidth because we are a long way from being closed due to too many comments, although nearly 14% of posts so far have been you talking about something you say you aren't interested in. I'm not attacking you, I generally find your posts worth reading, but I do find your behaviour on this thread slightly bizarre because I don't understand why you won't spend just a few minutes learning about a subject you've spent so much time posting about not being interested in. Anyway, do you have anything to say about the National Security Strategy document? | |||
"To be honest I'm not too concerned about bandwidth because we are a long way from being closed due to too many comments, although nearly 14% of posts so far have been you talking about something you say you aren't interested in." No, 14% of the posts have been me pointing out that some people were wrong in their predictions (assuming your maths is accurate). Another 14% have been you complaining that I don't know enough about a subject I'm not talking about. "I'm not attacking you, I generally find your posts worth reading, but I do find your behaviour on this thread slightly bizarre because I don't understand why you won't spend just a few minutes learning about a subject you've spent so much time posting about not being interested in." Again, I'm not posting about Project 2025, I'm posting about how some people made predictions which turned out to be incorrect. "Anyway, do you have anything to say about the National Security Strategy document?" No. I've not read it. But I'm hoping that someone will explain why it's important to the average person that lives in the UK. | |||
"If you're worried about bandwidth, maybe you should stop attacking me for not knowing about something that I've not posted anything about, and have clearly started that I'm not interested in. To be honest I'm not too concerned about bandwidth because we are a long way from being closed due to too many comments, although nearly 14% of posts so far have been you talking about something you say you aren't interested in. I'm not attacking you, I generally find your posts worth reading, but I do find your behaviour on this thread slightly bizarre because I don't understand why you won't spend just a few minutes learning about a subject you've spent so much time posting about not being interested in. Anyway, do you have anything to say about the National Security Strategy document? " It's pretty consistent of a trump supporter, plenty to say but says nothing about anything | |||
"It's pretty consistent of a trump supporter, plenty to say but says nothing about anything" I don't know what you've read in this thread that makes you think I'm a Trump supporter, but you're very much mistaken. | |||
"The warnings that I remember were that Trump was going to start a Christian crusade by banning homosexuality and abortion. That hasn't happened. So basically what you are saying is that you couldn't be bothered to do any research on what Project 2025 actually was and are still dismissing the warnings about it because you still can't be bothered to look in to it. That's a bit of a reach just to get a personal attack in. I didn't do any investigation because I didn't care about it. I still don't. And I'm dismissive about the warnings that were given because they have all turned out to be untrue. If there was anyone in this forum warning about changes at the FBI, cuts to education and environmental projections, or any of the other things Fabio lists, then I can't find those posts. The things that people *did* warn about, haven't happened. So I'm comfortable in my dismissal of them." No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned | |||
""It's pretty consistent of a trump supporter, plenty to say but says nothing about anything" I don't know what you've read in this thread that makes you think I'm a Trump supporter, but you're very much mistaken." The other poster can speak for themselves but you do definitely come across as a tacit supporter of Trump. Your first post on this thread in response to my... "It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025)." was... "Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." This gives the impression that you think talk of Project 2025 was some kind of smear tactic that you felt was unfair to Trump. Fabio and I have tried to convince you otherwise but your response is to say you do not want to learn anything about Project 2025 and all you are saying is that some unnamed source told you things about Project 2025 that haven't happened. Finally when I asked whether you had anything to say about the National Security Strategy document your replied... "No. I've not read it. But I'm hoping that someone will explain why it's important to the average person that lives in the UK." So you are putting a lot of effort into posting on a topic that you consider is irrelevant about something only loosely connected to it that you aren't interested in learning anything about. So a reasonable conclusion is that your only motivation for posting is to support Trump. You also put a lot of effort into defending Trump against charges of racism on a previous thread so this doesn't seem to be an isolated situation. | |||
"No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned" I don't remember those, but I've already said that I wasn't digging into the details. I'll take your word for it that those things were said here. To me this highlights what has become a common problem with hyperbole. Nowadays people who are against a thing seem to wildly exaggerate the dangers to make their case more compelling. They often get caught out in this 'lying', and then the opposition just stop listening. That means that the actual dangers don't get discussed as they weren't as exciting as the imagined stuff. Trump is an expert at throwing mad ideas out there just to get the opposition shouting, making themselves look silly when nothing bad happens. | |||
"The other poster can speak for themselves but you do definitely come across as a tacit supporter of Trump." I think that's just you putting your bias on things I say. I do occasionally say that Trump is good at some things (like manipulating the press, negotiating deals, monopolising the news coverage), and I think that you are so anti-Trump that you can't accept he has any abilities at all. You see my failure to condemn him as a sort of support. Just to be clear, it's my view that Trump is the worst president that the US has had in my lifetime. The man is vain, manipulative, self absorbed, and calamitously bad at economics. But he is good at getting what he wants. "Your first post on this thread in response to my... "It takes about an hour to read so maybe not for everyone, but it's far easier to digest than Mandate for Leadership (AKA Project 2025)." was... "Oh yes, Project 2025, that evil manifesto that Trump was quite definitely going to implement as soon as he got into power. All the people that were warning us about that seem to have gone quiet." This gives the impression that you think talk of Project 2025 was some kind of smear tactic that you felt was unfair to Trump." I've been very clear that I was deriding some people's claims that Project 2025 wanted to ban homosexuality and abortion. I'm not supporting Trump at all here, I'm attacking the ridiculous claims that were made by the opposition in the run-up to the election. Having a go at the foolish predictions of some loud Democrats is not the same thing as supporting Trump. "Finally when I asked whether you had anything to say about the National Security Strategy document your replied... "No. I've not read it. But I'm hoping that someone will explain why it's important to the average person that lives in the UK." So you are putting a lot of effort into posting on a topic that you consider is irrelevant about something only loosely connected to it that you aren't interested in learning anything about." I'm not putting any effort into the topic of the National Security Strategy, other than to say that I don't find it interesting every time you ask me why I haven't read it. "So a reasonable conclusion is that your only motivation for posting is to support Trump." Do you honestly think that my taking the mickey out of some people that made a silly prediction, and not being interested in US internal politics, is solid proof that I support Trump? You don't think you might be over-reaching there? "You also put a lot of effort into defending Trump against charges of racism on a previous thread so this doesn't seem to be an isolated situation." I can't answer that without knowing which thread you're talking about. I suggest that you put it in your mind that I'm neutral, and then go and re-read that thread. See if my words contradict the idea that I'm neutral. | |||
"T No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned " All the things you mentioned were things Trump already talked about in public. They were part of his election campaign. Project 2025 was in news for other things which were supposedly mentioned in the document but Trump doesn't openly talk about. | |||
| |||
"As you have virtually no knowledge of Project 2025, or how much of it has already been implemented by the Trump adminstration and seem weirdly intent on keeping yourself in the dark about it, then it looks like wilful ignorance rather than anything to do with a distaste for hyperbole" It is willful ignorance. I've already said that it just doesn't interest me. "If you don't want to learn anything about Project 2025 then fine, but that means your opinions on it are meaningless." You said this previously, and I pointed out that I haven't given any opinions on Project 2025. I still haven't, because I know very little about it. "I have been curious about why you can't even be bothered to spend two minutes reading the introduction to the wiki page on Project 2025." Partly because I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on any political subject, but mostly because I'm just not interested. No one has said anything that makes it sound like it's an interesting subject. Given that I've said nothing about it, and have no opinion of it, why are you so keen for me to do some investigation? | |||
"Given that I've said nothing about it, and have no opinion of it, why are you so keen for me to do some investigation?" Because you post on this forum about US politics and it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about. Basically it would raise the standard of debate. | |||
"Given that I've said nothing about it, and have no opinion of it, why are you so keen for me to do some investigation?" "Because you post on this forum about US politics and it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about." I do? Show me where I've given an opinion on US politics. | |||
""Because you post on this forum about US politics and it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about." I do? Show me where I've given an opinion on US politics." FFS man, this is a thread with the title "US National Security Strategy". | |||
""Because you post on this forum about US politics and it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about."" "I do? Show me where I've given an opinion on US politics." "FFS man, this is a thread with the title "US National Security Strategy"." It is, and in it I have posted no opinions on US politics. Despite this being a thread about US National Security Strategy, you keep asking why I won't read up on Project 2025, which is a different thing. I'll ask again. Why do you keep encouraging me to read up on Project 2025, even though I've made it clear that I'm not interested, and it isn't the subject of this thread? | |||
| |||
"T No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned All the things you mentioned were things Trump already talked about in public. They were part of his election campaign. Project 2025 was in news for other things which were supposedly mentioned in the document but Trump doesn't openly talk about." 317 proposals are in the project 2025 125 have already been implemented in one way or another… 37 are in the process of being implemented So almost 50%…. And trump tried to distance himself from project 2025… claiming he didn’t know or have a clue … because those were more hardline | |||
"T No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned All the things you mentioned were things Trump already talked about in public. They were part of his election campaign. Project 2025 was in news for other things which were supposedly mentioned in the document but Trump doesn't openly talk about. 317 proposals are in the project 2025 125 have already been implemented in one way or another… 37 are in the process of being implemented So almost 50%…. And trump tried to distance himself from project 2025… claiming he didn’t know or have a clue … because those were more hardline " Again, all the things he has implemented are things which he has openly told he would do in the campaign. Project 2025 wasn't in news because of them. | |||
"T No offence but gutting and abolishing the department of education… no national standards, rolling back of Policies encouraging DEI for students, more power over what they perceive to be liberal institutions including power to decide over what could and couldn’t be taught, ect and the rollback of environmental protections (the rollback of EV encouragement, drill baby drill, withdrawal against from climate change agreements) They were spoken about a lot…. If you decided not to listen, that’s not on those who warned All the things you mentioned were things Trump already talked about in public. They were part of his election campaign. Project 2025 was in news for other things which were supposedly mentioned in the document but Trump doesn't openly talk about. 317 proposals are in the project 2025 125 have already been implemented in one way or another… 37 are in the process of being implemented So almost 50%…. And trump tried to distance himself from project 2025… claiming he didn’t know or have a clue … because those were more hardline Again, all the things he has implemented are things which he has openly told he would do in the campaign. Project 2025 wasn't in news because of them." His campaign was run from policy basically written by the heritage foundation No…. Project 2025 was in the news because it was co authored by 45 members of his past administration, of which nearly all of them are in his current administration! Trump was on the record as supporting project 2025, and when the more extreme bits came out he tried to disavow himself of it The lead person, russ voight is now the head of the office of budget and management… the one big beautiful bill with all the cuts in healthcare and other public sector bits to fund his tax cuts for the richest… it all went through him! He was the person who was going to use the government shutdown as an excuse to slash the public sector servants before the courts told them that would be illegal | |||
"T Again, all the things he has implemented are things which he has openly told he would do in the campaign. Project 2025 wasn't in news because of them. His campaign was run from policy basically written by the heritage foundation No…. Project 2025 was in the news because it was co authored by 45 members of his past administration, of which nearly all of them are in his current administration! Trump was on the record as supporting project 2025, and when the more extreme bits came out he tried to disavow himself of it The lead person, russ voight is now the head of the office of budget and management… the one big beautiful bill with all the cuts in healthcare and other public sector bits to fund his tax cuts for the richest… it all went through him! He was the person who was going to use the government shutdown as an excuse to slash the public sector servants before the courts told them that would be illegal " Again, everything that has been implemented so far were things Trump was openly supportive of. Has any of the extreme bits in project 2025 that Trump said he didn't support been implemented? To put it another way, if a socialist party implemented 50% of communist manifesto, will you say that the party is going to be full on Marxist? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Returning to the official Whitehouse document, can anybody explain what "Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations" might mean in practice?" It means they are going to put pressure on European countries to restrict immigration numbers… it doesn’t take into account that those countries may have historically links where the us doesn’t | |||
"It means they are going to put pressure on European countries to restrict immigration numbers… it doesn’t take into account that those countries may have historically links where the us doesn’t" I guess it depend on exactly what "Europe’s current trajectory" means. Ignoring the fact that many US citizens are either immigrants or the recent descendants of immigrants (including the Trump family), let's say you are right. How would that pressure be applied? The most obvious answer, given the talk of patriotic European parties, seems to be that the US government is going to give financial and/or other kinds of aid to political parties like the AfD, National Rally, Vox, Reform etc. Which seems extremely hypocritical given the Monroe Doctrine on steroids approach they are pushing where they claim the entire Western Hemisphere as exclusively theirs and where there can be no European interference. | |||
