Self sufficiency is smart thing to prepare if there is crisis and the sea routes for trade are blocked. If you're self sufficient in food production, your people won't starve if there is a war or another crisis that cut those important sea routes.



But that's it. Really, nothing else.

Perhaps it's really difficult for Americans to understand this, because there are 340 million of you, but the truth is that is your prosperity is dependent of global trade and you being a part of it. For us Finns, which there are a puny 5+ million, it's very easy to fathom: the World give a shit about us if we don't engage with the billions of people that make the rest of the planet. Our prosperity, is dependent on trade with other countries. And actually, even if many deny it, so is yours.

The MAGA people can live in their dreams that Trump can make the US independent of the rest of the World thanks to the "liberation" of tariffs! But if your industries don't have to compete on the world stage, then you will simply fall behind.

Self sufficiency is smart thing to prepare if there is crisis and the sea routes for trade are blocked. — ssu

Tell that to Thoreau.

I think he's not among us anymore. And people who think like him don't run the World.

I mean really, how many people live like him, seriously?

It's this myth that people think they want to live like.

Yea, well your culture sucks too.

If a woodchip floats from upstream, time to move further away into the wilderness.

Is Finland on fire?

No. Don't you notice agriculture from the old times (even if it's used still today in India or Latin America)? They are creating a swidden. Very popular in especially Eastern Finland earlier. Make some land that you can cultivate for some time and then move on. Just thinking of being independent and close to nature. A lot of hard work but hey, you are totally independent. No need for any trade or government.

We have tractors.

Quiet here, considering what's happened in the last FOUR DAYS :yikes: (although there is discussion in other threads.) But DJT seems to have been on a tear the last four days - whipping Iran and Israel into truce, blowing up the Iranian nuclear program (about which there are caveats) and convincing the Europeans to vastly increase their defense expenditure.

I will say one thing. Trump has kicked Netanyahu’s ass. This is progress. Now he needs to kick Putin’s ass. Then at least he might have a chance of getting that peace prize.

Trump has kicked Netanyahu’s ass. — Punshhh

:lol:

Good lord. How exactly did he do that? Before or after Netanyahu got everything he wanted?

I (still) find this puzzling. We're talking people's health, not their favorite toy store. Some people will listen to or trust the administration rather than much else, plus the crap will fuel all kinds of nonsense, and that makes the administration recklessly irresponsible.

Democrats challenged RFK Jr. on vaccines. Fireworks ensued. (— Carmen Paun, Kelly Hooper · POLITICO · Jun 24, 2025)

RFK Jr grilled on vaccine policies and healthcare fraud in bruising House hearing (— Joseph Gedeon · Guardian · Jun 24, 2025)

Schrier says RFK Jr. should be held responsible for 'every death from a vaccine-preventable illness' (— PBS · Jun 24, 2025 · 4m:48s)


I'd hold the administration accountable, not just RFK Jr. Ordinary trust in any administration is (further) eroded. US citizens aren't beneficiaries. It's not about us-versus-them or Democrats-against-Republicans.

Another US brokered peace agreement, this time between the Democratic republic of Congo and Rwanda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0ggw7d43o.amp

None of this stuff will net him a peace prize, of course, because he doesn’t have the gift of hopey-changey rhetoric which the chattering class falls for.

The Trump autocracy makes another leap towards totalitarianism with today's Supreme Court ruling. It effectively neuters the ability of judges to halt the enforcement of executive orders on legal grounds.

What can individual federal courts immediately do when the president issues a blatantly unconstitutional order? The Supreme Court gave its answer on Friday morning: Not much.

In an astonishing act of deference to the executive branch, the Supreme Court essentially said that district judges cannot stop an illegal presidential order from going into effect nationwide. A judge can stop an order from affecting a given plaintiff or state, if one has the wherewithal to file a lawsuit. But if there’s no lawsuit in the next state over, the president can get away with virtually anything he wants. ...

But if the courts can’t stop illegal activity in the White House on a national basis, what good are they? That was the point made by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in two of the most fervent dissents in recent memory. Both were clearly incredulous that the majority was willing to stand back and let Trump undermine a fundamental principle of citizenship in place for 157 years. Sotomayor, joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, said the Trump administration knows it can’t win a decision that its order is constitutional, so it is instead playing a devious game: applying the order to as many people as possible who don’t file a lawsuit. “Shamefully,” she wrote, “this court plays along.” — The Supreme's Court's Intolerable Ruling

So having neutered Congress by purging it of any non-MAGA members, Trump has now successfully neutered the judiciary, the last bastion against his plainly totalitarian impulses.

Shame, America. Shame.

You know when Trump used the f word about Iran and Israel not knowing what the f*ck they’re doing, last week. When the Israel, Iran ceasefire was broken, by Israel before it had even begun. Israel had put out a statement that their planes were in the air to retaliate against the so called violation by Iran. Trump was very angry and said they’re turning the planes back, the ceasefire will hold. He must have told Netanyahu in no uncertain terms to call those planes back. And Israel must have obeyed his command, because the ceasefire did hold.

So having neutered Congress by purging it of any non-MAGA members, Trump has now successfully neutered the judiciary, the last bastion against his plainly totalitarian impulses.

Shame, America. Shame.

Yes, indeed, this is a dark day in America’s history.

To rub the salt, DJT made a platitudinous speech about the judiciary being ‘a threat to democracy’, when it is common knowledge that the ‘three equal branches’ of Government - Congress, Executive and Judiciary - are essential to American democracy. As always, Trump projects onto his opponents the very crimes that he is undertaking in his pursuit of unbridled power as he consolidates his grip.

Although David Brooks, a NY Times conservative (but definitely not pro-Trump) columnist, points out that the way it has been, Democrats could pick a Northern Californian judge, or Republicans a Texas judge, to pass judgements which would then have national consequences on the basis of a single judicial decision (interview can be reviewed here.) He says there are still avenues to litigate executive orders through class actions and other means.

So having neutered Congress by purging it of any non-MAGA members, Trump has now successfully neutered the judiciary, the last bastion against his plainly totalitarian impulses. — Wayfarer

Trump did not neuter the judiciary.

Another step toward "The Disunited States of America".

Ok might be hyperbolic but it’s making it much harder to raise lawsuits against executive orders. A dissenting opinion said:

Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” Jackson’s dissent states. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”

Jackson added ominously, the ruling was an “existential threat to the rule of law”.

And that’s from one of the dissenting judges, not a columnist.

Right, it's always been a little intimidating to get a lawyer and claim your rights have been violated. It's dastardly that the executive branch would do this, but other entities do it.

Another US brokered peace agreement, this time between the Democratic republic of Congo and Rwanda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0ggw7d43o.amp

None of this stuff will net him a peace prize, of course, because he doesn’t have the gift of hopey-changey rhetoric which the chattering class falls for. — NOS4A2

WTF peace deal are you talking about? You are basically talking about the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from Congo, but not about peace between M23 and the DRC.

If you would have any interest to look at the actual conflict in Congo, you would immediately notice that this is only a part of the conflict. Yes, Rwanda is a player (along others) abusing the weakness of the larger DRC. But what about M23? That Rwanda agrees to pull out it's soldiers, that haven't been as an major issue like the M23 taking towns, but basically been a humiliating issue for DRC showing it's inability to control it's borders.

Even the BBC article you referred to states the following questions:

Unless and until full details of the signed deal are made public, several crucial questions remain unanswered:

Will the M23 rebel group withdraw from areas they have occupied?
Does "respect for territorial integrity" mean Rwanda admits having troops in eastern DR Congo and will withdraw them?
Would the agreed "return of refugees" allow thousands of Congolese back from Rwanda?
Does "disarmament" mean that the M23 will now lay down their weapons?
Who will disarm the FDLR, after the failure of several previous attempts?
Would the agreed humanitarian access allow the reopening of the rebel-held airports for aid supply?

But yes, now that Trump broke the promises of starting wars in the Middle East by eagerly jumping on a strike done by Israel, naturally he has to now pretend he is this great peace-maker. And what else do MAGA loyalists now uphold than his "peacemaking abilities" after likely quite useless strikes on Iran, which they naturally won't talk anything anymore.

And since Trump alongside others (like Bibi, Putin) have made the UN totally useless, naturally two sides of a conflict want to get some kind international arrangement, then the second best way is to have the US to be involved. Just like in the case of India and Pakistan.

And oh yes! Trump can claim himself to be this great man of peace.

He must have told Netanyahu in no uncertain terms to call those planes back. — Punshhh

So you have no idea what happened. Got it.

Yes, I was talking about the conflict between the DRC and Rwandan-backed rebels. Of course you’d pooh-pooh such efforts because your folk devil Trump is a part of it and, once again, your EU overlords are absent. Sure, it could all collapse, but the penalties are clear enough.

What war in the Middle East? You’re starting to sound like Khamenei. I know you were praying for a war in order to prove to yourself that your utterings were not just the fantasies of routine anti-Trumpism. But no war, one precision strike, and an extraordinary de-escalation brokered once again by the US, while the EU leaders and your failed international institutions did nothing. Trump play in Iran was nothing short of brilliant. Everyone is saying it. Sorry.

Another win in the Supreme Court, this time in regards to birthright citizenship and “nation-wide injunctions”.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna199742

This whole time the rinky-dink lower court judges were abusing their power and acting unconstitutionally, as anti-Trumpists are prone to do. But also Justice Jackson has appeared to pick up the No Kings rhetoric, revealing her own streak of radical anti-Trumpism, which may later prove disastrous for the country.

"Without freedom of speech, we wouldn't know who the idiots are."

Ok might be hyperbolic but it’s making it much harder to raise lawsuits against executive orders. A dissenting opinion said:

Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” Jackson’s dissent states. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”

Jackson added ominously, the ruling was an “existential threat to the rule of law”.

And that’s from one of the dissenting judges, not a columnist. — Wayfarer

Re: the bolded, hasn't that always been the case, though? Someone has to sue if they think their rights are being violated.

Doesn’t this handover more executive power to any administration and is that what you really want?

Trump play in Iran was nothing short of brilliant. Everyone is saying it. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Now he even starts talking like Trump. Hilarious.