I collect these little predictions that are given to me and store them so when they prove to be right or wrong, I recognize whom said what. And so far you’re batting zero, my friend. — NOS4A2

Two months is a very short time, NOS. But I think the largest issue is the intentional unraveling of the alliance system that the US has had. Now, as we are talking about Trump, he could do these incredible 180 degree turns rapidly. For example, he could just gather around all of the US treaty allies and then say that this is the "tough love" to shove them to bear their part in the defense, yet that the US is still committed on it's treaties. That's all that Trump could do.

But when he doesn't do it, then you have journalists really contemplating the possibility of the US taking military action to annex Greenland or even Canada. Now it's still quite hypothetical. Yet it is one thing for Europe to carry more weight in the alliance, a totally different issue is to seek replacement for the alliance. Both situations call for larger defense spending, but in totally different situations. And when you have for example Germany starting a discussion of getting it's own nuclear deterrence, which it could btw. do rather easily if push comes to a shove. (See Germany debates nuclear weapons, again. But now it’s different.)

And let's see if Trump goes ahead with what the tariffs he has promised in a few days from now. Will we have stagflation, recession or deflation because of markets going down? Anyway, the next six months doesn't seem so rosy. That the stock market has gone down, but the dollar hasn't been the refuge is a bit alarming. Gold on the other hand has gone up quite a while. Which actually isn't good news (but something I've invested in for many years now).



The idea that international trade is bad is simply stupid. Yes, globalization has meant that manufacturing has gone to countries with far lower salaries and hence the production has been cheaper. Yes, indeed you argue that it has been an income transfer from the workers to the capitalists. Yet the idea of transforming this by tariffs is strange, because still the labor costs in the US are far more higher and hence it will cost more to produce in the US. Throughout economic history, the argument for trade barriers has been to create an industry capable of competing in global market. Then the attempt has been successful, when the objective is to be do away with the tariffs in the long run. Yet if the policy is to have tariff's and trade barriers to sustain and industry, that is a ruinous policy, which has been implemented a lot in Africa and third world countries.

Simply put it, mercantilism didn't work. But Trump thinks it will.

Yup it's not about the world, but about America first. — ChatteringMonkey

That's the lie that people believe in. The truth is that you are better off with international trade than you are without it. In the end, Trump is just hurting Americans. But this is what Trump has been thinking all his life, that foreigners cheat the US. He will continue with this, now when there's nobody taking the executive orders from his desk that he then forgets.

(Trump's message in the 1980's about Japan)

Ask China. They seem to be thinking of Russia as a stable partner. — ChatteringMonkey

The two countries are neighbors, they have had good relations and Russia desperately needs now China. As you say, they cannot be too picky. And the likely outcome is that Russia will perhaps thank the US for giving Ukraine to it, and then continue with China.

If they take Greenland and Canada, divide Europe together with Russia, then European countries probably don't pose much of a threat to them. — ChatteringMonkey

That's not going to happen. What Trump will do is to alienate it's allies and wreck the American economy. And Russia will be very happy about it.

Now of course I can be wrong here and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Trump can fail even in wrecking the American economy and this can be an era of US mental breakdown, which then turns to normal again.

if they can balance the budget it might just save the government from insolvency — NOS4A2

@NOS4A2 again high on something or dreaming. The budget won't be balanced, not for a long time.

Last year the federal government spent $6.75 trillion and spent far more than it collected, thus the deficit for 2024 was $1.83 trillion. That's 27%, more than one quarter of every dollar that the US spends. Social Security, Health care, defense and the interest on the debt took over three quarters of every dollar spent.

And then there's the accumulated debt and the interest on the debt, which is now a bigger cost than defense spending in the US even with the low interest rates, now averaging about 3,3% for the debt that the US holds:

Net interest has been exploding over the past few years, with payments rising from $223 billion in 2015 to $345 billion in 2020 before nearly tripling to $881 billion in 2024. In 2025, CBO projects net interest will total $952 billion, a near-record 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and interest will eclipse its record as a share of the economy in 2026.

And how volatile this might be, think that 3,3% is quite low in historical perspective:

It could easily be double of this, and that 6% would be a real difficulty.

So just think about that in balancing the budget. Good luck finding well over one trillion in "waste". And notice the effect that such decrease in spending will have in the economy. So balancing the budget is in my view, a fantasy now.

Then there's the Trump tax cuts: "Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. The House budget resolution allows a $4.5 trillion increase in the deficit from tax cuts over the next decade so long as spending is cut by $1.7 trillion."

Sorry, but there's only one way this will end sooner or later. With a dollar crisis. Or then you can use that hefty inflation and use the inflation tax. Or then you can just default.

No.

First of all, if you would live in a country with cold winters and snow, you would notice the cold weather. And I've been to the tropics, so I know how different the climate can be on this planet. The reality we are talking about isn't a subjective experience. We have subjective individual experiences, but we do share the same reality. One shouldn't confuse these two.

:lol:

No, actually very apt for our time.

The latest corruption: Trump has pardoned a campaign donor, who's represented by AG Pam Bondi's brother:

Trump pardons Nikola founder Trevor Milton

Milton and his wife together made contributions last October to President Trump's reelection effort totaling over $1.8 million, federal records show. — Relativist

This is what Trump's America is.

The proper term in English is “cession”. — NOS4A2

Assuming the Kingdom of Denmark gives away Greenland. If not and Trump takes it anyway, that is an annexation.

Given the constant shift towards totalitarianism in Europe at the present moment — NOS4A2

:snicker:

Perhaps in Hungary, something like that indeed...

It's from the horse's mouth. — Hanover

Good.

There's a lot of that in our world today. (And refraining to put some whacky picture of a horse's mouth here)

The main concern is quality. Embedding YouTube without original content will get it deleted. — Benkei

I'd hope at sometimes when the actual primary source is a Facebook posting or heck, a Signal-posting, then the actual source could be referred than to a news article concerning this. I find it good that moderator discretion is used.

For example, if Trump announces that the US is leaving NATO in a post in X with Elon applauding the act, would it still be OK to post this?

I totally understand the concern of dis/misinformation and usually I try always check everything I refer to that it's not fake. And I try to put at least the link to the source, even if it's very easy simply to copy paste the quote and find the actual link.

And if something is deleted, OK, fine. Hope that doesn't mean that people will be banned.

I've seen this pattern too, people just posting videos (sometimes hours long videos) without explaining anything about why they're posting it, how it's relevant to the topic, anything. — flannel jesus

This naturally shouldn't be done. And if you have a video, please explain in written just what it says or tells or what is the meaning for you to post it. If it's a longer one, good way is to give actual time when somebody says something that you think is so important.

So why are you worried about a little bit of global warming? — Agree-to-Disagree

I've participated in the thread far longer that you have been a member, and I'm one of the ones that is an optimist here... if optimism means that you don't believe in the end of the World.

We are extremely adaptable and our societies are far more capable of handling environmental challenges than earlier societies in history. Things what for them caused famine and possible destruction of the society are for us inconveniences. Yet those inconveniences will affect your and my life. Or are already affecting.

And that being said, global warming or climate change has to be taken seriously. It is already having adverse effects and it does create then political instability, crises and wars. The link is just hard to see.

Should one be worried about it? Well, define being worried. I'm also worried that Europe is going closer to a war especially if Russia wins in Ukraine. Do I lose sleep over that idea or that climate change will have negative affects around the World?

No, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real threats to us.

And I think the proper thread where these issues have been discussed is the Climate Change denial -thread.

Science denial seems nonsensical. Where do go from that, if it's not just climate denial?

Reality denial?

And anyway, the world will end, as I stated on the first page of that Climate Change denial -thread in the most positive way:

No, the sun will not kill all life on this planet for some 5 billion years or so. The future after that is bleak for life on our planet. — ssu

His gamble didn't pay off, but then there would probably never have come a better moment... I think it was pretty calculated. — ChatteringMonkey

Yet the fact is that Putin is a gambler. He did gamble with the annexation of Crimea and that worked well. He gambled with Syria and lost. He gambled again with Ukraine with the invasion in 2022 and that didn't go so well. But if he can snatch victory (thanks to Trump), why wouldn't he gamble more?

I think you are giving Trump to much credit, the Greenland to Panama Canal idea of total security for the American continent has been floating around for a long time. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice the huge difference: Trump talks of annexation, of enlarging the territory of the US. That is totally different from the usual neo-imperialist playbook. It really is 19th Century imperialism. In neo-imperialism you make regime changes and focus on the trade and security agreements, not the territorial expansion of your own country. This is what makes this so strange and the war in Ukraine so different.

I think it does make sense if you see the global liberal democratic order, NATO, as a problem in itself that needs to be dealt with... — ChatteringMonkey

So now the US is the enemy?

How does that benefit the US?

If you want a less globalized world and reduced involvement of the US, Russia could be a more stable partner in a multi-polar world. — ChatteringMonkey

A more stable partner? Did you notice how stable it was when Prigozhin made his coup attempt? Did you notice that the prior leader Yeltsin had to fire with tanks his Parliament? A country where in the last 125 years one and only one leader of the country has normally retired from office without being deposed or killed or then died at old age while still in office. That you call a stable government?

And oh yes, we naturally want less globalized world, less prosperity, less wealth for everybody. Because trade is bad according to Trump. What a wonderful objective for the World.

I suspected someone has told him it’s not going to happen. — Punshhh

In polls, 70% of Americans don't want to annex Greenland and 84% of Greenlanders don't want to join the US. Notice that even our own MAGA-follower here hasn't come to defend Trump's great ideas of annexing Greenland tells how the MAGA people think about this subject. It's not what they voted for Trump to do and spend time on.

How delusional can this get?

JD Vance put up his best effort to portray this enormous brainfart as being something logical. Yet that US officials went house to house looking for someone that JD and Usha could visit, and nobody would welcome them, tells what a disaster this has been. And the Greenlandic travel agency, Tupilak Travel, that at first agreed to host the couple, issued the following statement:

“When the American consulate called yesterday to ask if the wife of the U.S. Vice President, Usha Vance, could visit our store on Friday, we replied that she was welcome. After all, everyone is welcome in our store.

“However, upon further consideration, we have now informed the consulate that we do not wish to host her visit, as we cannot accept the underlying agenda and do not want to be part of the media spectacle that will inevitably follow,” it read.

“No thanks to [a] nice visit… Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,”

So Vance avoided a really nasty photo-op with frightened and angry Greenlanders demonstrating against the couple. Because last time when Trump's son was in town, the whole visit came as a surprise and the local drunks from a bar happily joined a photo op.

This actually simply shows the bizarre ineptness of the Trump White House.

Trump comes up with these brainfarts and the people closest to him, his own family members and the vice president, try to do something about it. Does he somehow use his State Department or the CIA to organize a scheme to get Greenlanders on his side? No. Trump is genuinely interested in the American flag flying over Nuuk, not Greenland to be an independent state with very close ties to the US, which would be something even more an irritant to Trump as the few Greenlanders could defend their country even less than Iceland can.

Hence this is a non-starter. Unfortunately this isn't the only brainfart that Trump has. His hatred against international trade is even more dangerous.

I don't think that scaremongering and exaggeration accompany those views. — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok.

If anything there is reassurance that things don't need action and understating any possible risks. — Agree-to-Disagree

What exactly you mean by this?

Here are the questions:

Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?

Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?

Why are these scientific facts true? — Agree-to-Disagree

? ? ?

What?

Sorry, but as @Punshhh said above, this sounds very strange.

I do live in a country that even still has snow and cold winters. And yes, without clothes, you would freeze to death if being outside in the winter, which wouldn't happen in the tropics. Yet the human race has adapted to a cold climate well for a very, very long time.

Yet what does this have to do with climate change?

No. It's just a hobby. — Agree-to-Disagree

What's your real point?

I accept that climate change is happening but I don't like the scaremongering, exaggeration, and bigotry that usually accompanies it. — Agree-to-Disagree

As if that doesn't happen with the those who argue that a) climate change is not happening or b) if it's happening, it's not man made?

They the more tolerant side here that are far more open for discussion?

****************************************
Science denial. Is it one step more from the definition of "climate-denial"?

Listened to JD Vance's speech in Greenland.

To me it seems like an acknowledgement that the delusions of Trump of annexing Greenland are in fact truly what they have seemed to be: totally delusional fantasies. And now the message from JD Vance is that "Denmark hasn't done enough for the defense of Greenland" and that "Greenlanders, if they choose sovereignty, should come closer to the US".

OK, let's just think this through.

For starters, if Greenlanders opt for sovereignty, that means that they aren't going to be part of the US. And what Denmark can say is the following: "We hear you loud and clear, we will put more to the defense of Greenland". And that's it. They'll put more resources to defend Greenland. What can the US say if a) Greenlanders don't want to be part of the US and b) Denmark reinforces the defense of Greenland?



Nothing.

As there is not even an Astroturf movement in the US for annexing Greenland, so this is a nonissue after what JD Vance said. Just one of those brainfarts of Trump, which he won't let to be. The US could perhaps engage the Greenlanders on having sovereingty, but that doesn't make sense. They could easily do the same thing with Denmark and the end result is that Greenland won't be a part of the US. If it's either independent or part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

So here the promise from the Inaugural address of Trump won't happen: that the territory of the US will become larger.

It still might happen in Panama.

Here is where I disagree. Deterrence is not messaging on its own. It's messaging with the threat of actual military force to back it up. I think Putin has a reasonably good idea of what we are capable of without the US, and probably knows we would have a hard time pushing back Russia on our own. In poker they say, you can only bluff or represent a hand that you could reasonably have considering how you played up to that point... we haven't exactly shown a lot of strenght up to this point. — ChatteringMonkey

If Putin is so reasonable, why did he attack Ukraine? Why did he think it would take only a few weeks? The fact is that he thought and what was briefed to him was that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight back, that it would be like Crimea all over again. Or Czechoslovakia in 1968 again.

We should show that strength, and appeasement isn't that.

There's not much pressure from the US now, that's right. From the point of view of Europe that is a fact we need to deal with. Maybe we could have tried to convince the US with a more coöperative and less antagonistic approach, but it would likely not have mattered much considering the ideological hate they seem to have for Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

This actually is the real problem, because Trump actually doesn't see any value whatsoever with NATO. He doesn't seem to understand that he is giving the ultimate prize to Russia and China by crippling US power himself. It's quite evident that Trump or his supporters don't realize how much prosperity the US gets from the dollar being the reserve currency, and it's role isn't because the US is so economically awesome.

The only "logical" reason I come to is that Trump truly sees things as personal matters and while business with Russians have been so important to him, why he had these ideas of building hotels in Russia. He also likes autocrats. Then he hates the democrats, the liberals whining about an rules based order, he truly sees all this as a great opening to improve ties with Russia. Just like Canada being the 51st state or the US annexing Greenland. Both of these ideas start to be fantasies of a delusional old man. Yet deals with Russia might be personally very lucrative for Trump, just as is dealing with the Saudis and Gulf State leaders. No EU leader will start talking about issues like this, because it would be their ass on line if they tried to bribe Trump.

Yet geopolitically it doesn't make sense. NATO without the US is still over 600 million people and surpass in every measure (except nuclear weapons) Russia. Furthermore Russia isn't the Soviet Union.

then what were preventing these tendencies in the past (prehistoric times) if there were no police, law enforcement, or laws protecting their livelihoods?

That would only be the imaginary part? — Shawn

It's a mistake to believe that before modern police and law enforcement or written laws there was just total anarchy without any laws. The benefits of having rules is evident in any society, be it family, a tribe or a larger entity of people. Protecting your property and your family members or members of your pack is obvious, actually even with animals.

(A lion pride is very effective both in hunting and in protecting the cubs... assuming there's plenty of food to feed everyone.)


With humans, this develops very quickly to much more than a mother protecting her offspring from predators or a pack taking care of it's members. If you went to steal cattle or a wife from some village, likely the villagers would form a group to take back the stolen property or people. This develops quickly to organized responses, which we would call warfare.

Coming back to the subject, just look at the history of "the police" and how it has evolved through time. Modern police evolved basically in the 18th and 19th Centuries, even if Sheriffs and similar offices had been around for far longer. It was Michel Foucault who wrote that the contemporary concept of police as a paid and funded functionary of the state was developed by German and French legal scholars and practitioners in public administration in the 17th and early 18th centuries. You do have earlier nightwatches etc. and hence there is no radical transformation from earlier times.

And what is totally normal behavior universally is that if the police lose their authority, lose the ability to keep the peace, then vigilante groups take their role quite quickly fill in the void. This can be seen from many examples when countries have fallen into civil war. This fact just shows that a society without a functioning police will quickly form something to fill this void. At worst, the vigilantes can easily turn into criminal gangs simply from the fact that the members have to be paid for their service. Taxes become a protection racket. Or then organized crime takes over.



I would say that historically the institutions and the control over people was far more weaker than today, which then is shown just how strict the laws were back then. Notice how in the legal systems hundreds of years ago, you could get from many offenses the capital punishment.

Trump has zero interest in balancing the budget, by all projections the national debt will balloon under his proposals. I'm not going to respond point by point, other than to say that I think the Trump Presidency is an absolute disaster for both America and the world, and that Trump and Musk between them are doing terrible damage to fabric of society. If that's 'hyperbolic' then so be it. — Wayfarer

:100: :up:

Or the limit concept. — jgill

Exactly.

And actually the case of the troublesome infinitesimal, which both Newton and Leibniz could quite well describe to be calculated, still was so problematic that we got the concept of limits (even if we have today non-standard analysis). Yet then it's typical that the limit approaches infinity.

I would argue that this is a case of us having the ability to use the math, but not having the philosophy behind it.

Your losing it, because that's nonsensical babble.

Fucking trollery, nos4. — tim wood

Yes, many say the same thing and question why we feed the troll.

But that's how the MAGA-crowd feels like. They are like the Brexiteers, who also cheered as they ruined their country and believed that once freed from the shackles of EU bureaucracy, they would enjoy the fruits of prosperity that "freedom" would give them. In a similar fashion the MAGA-crowd will be cheering all the way to the economic recession.

Best portrayal of the MAGA-mind has been alt-right cartoonist Ben Garrison, who depicts well the Trump worship and how the cult hates liberalism and democrats and that stuff.

How Garrison sees the Trump-team:


And what Trump is building:


And how rotten the Ukrainians are:

Then if you’re going to make such an accusation, quote one of them or describe how one of these three were disrespecting the military and the intelligence services. — NOS4A2

A military serviceman or an intelligence officer using Signal-app to forward timetables of future military strikes, an issue obviously classified in any sitution, would be severely punished. Likely that serviceman or officer would lose his or her job because of his or her recklessness of not following opsec-rules.

That these people don't give a fuck about such issues is the disrespect here. They can pray for the troops as much they want and hold up the flag, but such actions show actually how much they respect following orders.

By far, the most newsworthy statement in the whole chat? — NOS4A2

Wasn't it how to make Egypt and Europe pay?

Actually, it was Biden that didn't think there would be any need to form an international coalition to protect the Red Sea straights and Gulf of Oman from Houthi attacks (as was done dealing with Somali pirates). So the French deployed their own warships separately to defend maritime traffic. It was a great chance to build an alliance to contain Iran and it's proxies, but the US isn't in the business of forming coalitions anymore.



Since the US is had it with having any allies (except Israel, I guess) and just wants to cozy up with Russia, what is us to do other than rearm and think our security over?

I think probably you're missing that a great number of people do not think your take on his policies are that way. I mean, I can see objectively that some are vindictive, by definition, but that doesn't actually make them bad so people are open to interpret a bit differently. — AmadeusD

This is correct. And the obvious idea for the supporters is that because nothing would happen otherwise, Trump needs an Elon Musk, to go through "the waste" by a chainsaw, even if accidents happen. They don't care that this isn't how the Constitution says how these things should be done.

And some can indeed see just from two impeachments, the lawsuits and so on that there is the "deep state" and the opposition that is without reason going after him. Especially the Clinton supporters made the similar argument of the impeachment of Clinton. But then, we have to remember that Obama wasn't impeached. Biden wasn't impeached. Totally fabricated issue won't go anywhere further in court. That's the hope, at least. The US doesn't have theatrical show trials yet as in Stalin's Russia.

That said, I think its pretty obvious populism is what people do. There is something to the notion that people crave strong leaders. And most people are not that smart (shame, but true). — AmadeusD

Juxtaposition is easy. The use of "us and them". Populism succeeds if the "other", the "evil elite" is small. If it is just the few modern day robber barons, that doesn't brake up social cohesion. But once those "evil people" who are against the ordinary people are a larger group, then it get's truly ugly and becomes a monster as it tears apart the fabric that holds a society together.

I've said that when these populists go on with things like talking of annexations of territory, it's like summoning up the devil. Nothing creates so much anger than offending people like that. That's why Putin is such a threat when he says that some countries are "artificial" (as not only Ukraine is artificial according to Putin).

Take the rationals in [0,1] and form the union with the irrationals in [0,1] and you get a continuum. They are complementary in the complete interval - which itself is a complete metric space with the usual metric. — jgill

But that doesn't answer the questions we have about infinity. If we have countable infinity and then uncountable infinity, Cantor argues there's this hierarchial system of larger and larger infinities (from aleph-0 to aleph-1 and higher). Is that really how it goes? And the Continuum Hypothesis is a hypothesis, it's not a theorem.

Set theory, which can be viewed as the foundations of mathematics, simply takes infinity as an axiom. That's not a proof and that's the problem. The questions that have been around for thousands of year, things like if there is either a potential or an actual infinity are still puzzling. That's why Zeno's paradoxes are talked over and over again, even if we do understand that Achilles brushes past the tortoise in reality and we do have the math to calculate it, the foundational question are still there.

As I have stated before in this thread, we don't have a similar debate about of "Are all numbers rational?". Nobody is saying that they would be so. No, we can prove that there are irrational numbers. Above all, we can understand that there are and have to be irrational numbers. There wouldn't be this kind of over and over repeating debate Zeno's paradoxes, if we fully would understand the infinite or infinity.

Putin has no reason to stop because he is winning. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. I would just say that he's not losing. It's a stalemate, actually. But that's OK for Putin.

A cease-fire is tactically not advantageous for the party that is winning, because it gives the losing party the time to regroup and/or rearm, and thus level the playing field. What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe. That is why I would push for a peace-deal now while the US is still involved. — ChatteringMonkey

And you said it yourself: "What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe."

Again this is my point. But the fact is that there's not much pressure if any, and some could make the argument that the US is putting pressure only on Ukraine, which it can pressure. The US doesn't want to pressure Russia, Putin isn't a bad guy (as Witkoff explained to us).

Threat's of new sanctions if the partial cease-fires aren't held. That's the pressure? Where's the part of putting real pressure on Russia?

Russia is winning as it stands. — ChatteringMonkey

Not exactly. It's been a stalemate. But if the US shuts down intel, ceases weapon shipments and at worse, starts to bully European countries that are supporting Ukraine, then Russia will prevail. That's the reality.

Why would appeasing them now mean we will never have any credible deterrence? — ChatteringMonkey

It's the messaging you send. Deterrence is messaging. It's the whole point. When you falter already when there is no actual or only little pressure, who would think you would have this turn around when a push comes a shove, or a blow? Already you are caving in.

You see, something like a treaty alliance or defense of the sovereignty or territory of a nation isn't credible, if you start with "but in this issue we will cave in or that territory we won't defend". That will just break the credibility. That will hurt morale: if you don't stand up for this, what else won't you stand up for? And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team.

No it's not the same because Urkraine is not an ally, we have no alliance with them. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, if Ukraine would be in NATO, we would already be in WW3. Yet where do you think the alliance will be once Putin has carved up what he wants from Ukraine and has a puppet regime in Kyiv? Or should we then say Kiev, as in the Soviet times.

Fair enough, but these people are all former military — NOS4A2

Again, nope.

Marco Rubio hasn't served.
Steve Witkoff hasn't served.
John Rattcliffe hasn't served.

And we heard from the DNI Tulsi Gabbard that no classified information was discussed. And then this:



So that you think is taking full responsibility?

None of that happened though, and I doubt this sort of leak or the use of the Signal app will continue given these concerns. — NOS4A2

One would hope that.

But even if Hillary Clinton didn't send similar information, still, I think this all just shows the utter disrespect of the political leaders towards the military and the intelligence services, who for a reason take these issues dead seriously.

And how about the lies that there wasn't anything top secret said in the messaging?

Now we all can be a judge about that:

(Atlantic) At 11:44 a.m. eastern time, Hegseth posted in the chat, in all caps, “TEAM UPDATE:” The text beneath this began, “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.” Centcom, or Central Command, is the military’s combatant command for the Middle East. The Hegseth text continues:

“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”

The Hegseth text then continued:

“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
“1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.”
“MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)”
“We are currently clean on OPSEC”—that is, operational security.
“Godspeed to our Warriors.”
Shortly after, Vice President J. D. Vance texted the group, “I will say a prayer for victory.”

No, sorry, telling even half an hour when you launch the aircraft is by all means crucial secret information. If intercepted, you do have time to people to take shelter, disperse, bring on the air defenses. And then people like Tulsi Gabbard deny everything.

I think you need to focus on something else for a while. — frank

That Canada would join the US? Or annexed to become one state of the US? That wouldn't be delusional? Or NATO might be crumbling down?

Well, actually there's a nice talk about infinities going on the ordinary PF site, where I'm participating. Yes, mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics is one of my favorites.

You can see why we're so desperate to have Greenland. It's too crowded here! — frank

What he said in his inaugral speech is something that he wants to do. He wants to enlarge the territory of the US. That's it. Let's really think about this. Because with Canada and Greenland the US WOULD BE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. The new US would surpass Russia in size. Heck, only Greenland is bigger than Mexico.

This is the delusional and sick ideas that a person for whom power has gone to the head can dream about. It has NOTHING to do with security or 4D Chess. In the international order based system territorial sovereignty is one of the most sacrosanct issues, but if people want independence, it can be accepted. And naturally in the case of Greenland, former national security advisor John Bolton, who actually had to look at this when he was in the first Trump administration, stated the obvious: Greenland would become independent (that's what the Greenlanders want) and the US would protect Greenland.

But this isn't what Trump wants. Trump genuinely wants the territory of the US to be larger.

The absolute insanity of this can be seen that the Republican party is AGAINST having Puerto Rico as the 51st state or giving the people Washington DC a vote because they fear how Puerto Ricans and people of Capital would vote! Well, what about 40 million Canadians, who don't want to be part of the US?

And if we put aside the Greenlanders, the Panamians and the 40 million Canadians, who in the hell in the US wants this? Who voted for Trump to have this? This is the total insanity here. Russians have been prepared again and again for supporting the imperial aspirations, but the US? Really? Right from the start, the whole issue with the Philippines created criticism.

What is wrong is in this World is that we understand that when it comes to Canada, Trump is hallucinating, but when it comes to Panama, that is something the US could really do. There is the historical example, and we wouldn't be so outraged in our cynicism if Trump did invade the country, unfortunately.

NOS got it wrong, it wasn't general Schwarzkopf, as I've explained. It was when the French didn't go along with the Iraqi invasion of 2003 with Dubya Bush.

That was the time that "French Fries" were to be called "Freedom Fries" and when the French were "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", a quote from the Simpsons.

It reminds me of the Schwarzkopf line “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.”. — NOS4A2

Incorrect. Don't trust some stupid "Brainyquote" to get things right, NOS4A2:

Whenever the U.S. favors military action that France opposes (such as the disagreement in April 1986 that saw France denying U.S. F-111's overfly permission on their way to a bombing mission against Libya), jokes and sardonic comments about the prowess and fortitude of the French military inevitably ratchet up several levels in the American media. Hence the latest pithy anti-French quote making the rounds, this one emphasizing American frustration with France and expressing the attitude that having French support in military ventures is ineffective and irrelevant — "going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

These words were spoken by Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, during a 30 January 2003 appearance on the political talk show Hardball. The full comment (offered during the course of a discussion about differences between U.S. and European policy towards Iraq) was: " . . . you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

(See here)

It wasn't Schwarzkopf, it was a puny undersecretary pushing the war that even Trump hates now, the invasion of Iraq.

This just reminds me that general Schwarzkopf actually had a full division from the French army that he went to war with. The French division "Daguet" secured the flank of the 82nd Airborne Division and of the whole combined army group:




But for people like you, @NOS4A2, one of the greatest American battlefield victories with least losses that the US ever suffered, the fact that it had French, British, Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi, Gulf State units fighting alongside Americans doesn't matter. All fucking parasites for you! So keep on hoping to destroy all the alliances that made the US actually great. Putin will be happy.

Here's the talking head, a Republican of course, that you referred to:

Or eaten by a polar bear. That would be the story for the MAGA conspiracy theorists.

So JD Vance is going too into Greenland and his wife has erased meeting with any actual Greenlanders as she won't go to Nuuk and the Dog Sled competition. National Security Advisor seems to have been cut out of the entourage.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told Danish media it was "positive that the Americans cancelled their visit to the Greenlandic society.”

“Instead, they will visit their own base, Pituffik, and we have nothing against that,” he said.

If someone doesn't know, Pituffik Space Base (renamed former Thule Air Base) is in the middle of nowhere even by Greenlandic standards, 1500 km or so north from Nuuk. One of the remotest places where US servicemen are deployed, who likely will give a warm welcome to family Vance.

OK that makes sense seeing it like that rather than the muddle I wrote. — Moliere

Yep, it's an easy way to understand the whole thing.

It's still a concept that confuses the hell out of me, but this gives direction if ever I'm tempted to talk on it again ;) — Moliere

If your smart and observing, it should!!! It is confusing.

Because then you get to the really awesome question: OK, if we have countable and uncountable infinities, what is the relationship between these two infinite sets?

Cantor himself gave us the Continuum Hypothesis as an answer. But what does it mean? And what actually the whole idea of there being larger and larger infinities mean, because the only thing we have shown is this "uncountability" of the reals.

(Oh btw, I think Moliere-numbers sound very cool. You might really think that there are Moliere numbers)

:snicker:

Ummm....

Yes, they were indeed derelict in using Signal.

And if it wasn't Waltz, but "hackers", is it really better?

JD and JG typo can happen, it's a possibility.

Look, this is the kind of things similar to speaking on a normal phone and not on a secure line secrets that shouldn't get public. Just ask Victoria Nuland. :wink:

Michael Waltz screwed up. There's no evidence of anyone else doin:grin: g anything nefarious. — Relativist

Apart from going through attack plans on Signal, before the attack was implemented. Perhaps simple Waltz mixed up "JD" and "JG" and nobody of them noticed anything. Too hard for anybody to check who is on the Signal-group! :grin:

You simply don't do that. It's just a sign of utter carelessness and indifference to security protocols. It's the attitude that only "little people" face dire consequences for these kinds of breaches, but not the Trump team. You see, it's so much easier to talk these issues by the Signal app, than you the cumbersome approach of going into a secure room, leaving your mobile away and then speaking there.

Jesus* man, can't you see how extreme your position is? What is it that makes you so imperivious to all reason on this topic, do you hate them so much? — ChatteringMonkey

No, you truly don't seem to understand it:

Putin will stop the war, when continuing the war is possibly a worse outcome than having a peace.

That's it.

Putin could stop the war when he wants! If Putin now says that "OK, we'll have a cease-fire", you think Ukraine would say no? Of course not! Ukraine is OK for a cease-fire. They have shown their willing to accept a cease-fire. It's their call, Ukrainians have to decide that. Russia isn't bombing your country, so why on Earth would you make the decisions on behalf of Ukraine?

Why cannot you get this? You seem to have no understanding how Russia and it's military doctrine works at all.

If you start with your the attitude: "We have to appease now Russia", then you haven't any credible deterrence whatsoever. Never, in anything. Because Russia isn't even pushing your country much. If you appease them now, you will appease them anytime.

At worst, it's like if your country would be attacked, then you "allies" would say to you: "Do not fight! Do not defend yourself, but listen to the attacker what they want and accept that, because that would be better for us."

That's what you are proposing.

For example, do you negotiate with terrorists? At some time, yes. Do you tell after a terrorist attack, "Oh, we will fight them a bit until we negotiate with them" or even say "These terrorists have killed our civilians, so we have to negotiate with the small group now and listen to what they want". So when next time ISIS or somebody attacks people in your country, please urge the people then to listen to the demand of ISIS. That's not what you do.

I think your problem is that for you these conflicts are just forever-wars, something that you can choose to participate and if you participate in something, there's no negative issues. And you can later just withdraw. That might be the problem here.

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. — ChatteringMonkey

But you would be OK that actually no ally will come to help you. So what's the point of talking about an alliance?

Hybrid attacks are not the same as a conventional invasion. — ChatteringMonkey

Hybrid attacks shouldn't be tolerated. If you turn a blind eye to them, you don't have deterrence. There isn't going to be the time that you will change your posture from appeasement.

And I'm also not saying we should keep appeasing Russia as a general strategy going forward, just that at this particular moment that makes the most sense — ChatteringMonkey

:roll:

Just that at this particular moment...

Obviously you don't have any idea how deterrence works.

But then the set "Even numbers" is defined by whether or not they are divisible by 2. So if we have the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even natural numbers then, if there's a 1-to-1 correspondence, we ought be able to lay out a function like the above -- such as f(x) = x * 1 million — Moliere

And there's a 1-to-1 correspondence:

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,...)
(2, 4, 6, 8,10,12,14,...)

But if you're willing to continue....

How could we show that Moliere-numbers are uncountably infinite? — Moliere

OK, basically how Cantor showed that real numbers are uncountable is the way to do this.

Basically if you have a list where all the Moliere-numbers would be and then you show that there's a Moliere that differs from the first Moliere-number on the list, differs from the second Moliere-number on the list and so on. This way you show that there's a Moliere-number that isn't on the list. Hence there cannot be a list of all Moliere-numbers. The conclusion is a Reductio ad absurdum proof.

That's not misuse, nor is it a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

But it does puzzle us still. Because if you think that we know everything about mathematical infinity, then I guess there should be an answer to the Continuum Hypothesis.

The problem is in Zeno's application, when things like distance, and time, are assumed to be infinitely divisible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do get that point, sure. But do actually notice that Zeno belonged to the Eleatic School. Platonists were on the camp of infinite divisibility. The Eleatic School was different.