Why is that a legit move? Why can't you do this move with the uncountable as well? — Gregory

Where would you start?

First of all, do you know what's the difference between countable and uncountable here?

Basically, the "legit move" is that you can make a bijection with the set of natural numbers (1,2,3,4,5,...) and the set you are thinking about. This means that you basically can write the numbers you are talking about in a way that you get every of them and don't miss any number (if you would have infinite time a so on...). If you can't do this, then it's uncountable.

If I don't make my point clear, just go and look at this site: Countable and Uncountable Sets Remember to look at the proofs.

A koch snowflake has a finite area but an infinite boundary. Odd, that. Very nice. — Banno

The koch snowflake is just sending a finite boundary into infinity. It can't exist. -Mathematical infinity swallows itself and there's nothing that save it. — Gregory

A circle has infinite amount of tangents, yet in every place of it's circumference it has just one.

In Mathematics, infinity exists. Clear and simple. We just don't understand everything about it. Hence we have things like the Continuum Hypothesis. Yet our ignorance doesn't make it illogical and false. In Mathematics, it's as real as a finite number or the circle is. Or a Koch snowflake etc.

More reasons why Musk is so fond of Putin also and why the turnaround of dumping the former allies and going to bed with Russia would be lucrative for Elon.

Russia will ‘undoubtedly’ discuss future Mars flights with Musk, Putin envoy says
Proposed talks would again put Musk, a senior adviser to Trump, in outsized and largely unaccountable role in international politics

Russian officials expect to hold talks with Elon Musk soon about space travel to Mars, Vladimir Putin’s international cooperation envoy said on Tuesday. The envoy’s comments, which Musk has not confirmed, also stated that Russia wanted to expand its cooperation with the US on space projects.

“I think that there will undoubtedly be a discussion with Musk [about Mars flights] in the near future,” Kirill Dmitriev said at a business forum in Moscow, going on to praise Musk’s efforts to push the boundaries of human achievement.

The proposed talks would once again put Musk, the world’s richest man and a senior adviser to Trump, in an outsized and largely unaccountable role in international politics. Musk has joined in on White House calls with international leaders since Donald Trump’s re-election, and prior to his new role in the administration reportedly was in regular contact with Putin.

At this point anyone who's still supporting the Republican party ought be considered in the same light as an outright supporter of a fascist regime. — fdrake

MAGA hats might be viewed in a different light in twenty years from now, but that doesn't mean a thing today.

Notice how easy it seems to be to put the lid on for example the university students.

First it was Trump posts and fear from the "libtards":

The guidance is especially timely after an early morning Truth Social post from President Trump threatening to stop federal funding for “any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” and proposing that “agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came.”

“It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly. We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU and co-author of the letter. “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.”

According to the ACLU, the White House is attempting to pressure university officials to target immigrant and international students, faculty, and staff, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Then it was actual deportations and the university faculties doing just as Trump wanted them to do:

On Sunday, Brown University sent a campus-wide email advising faculty, students and other community members on visas or permanent residency status to postpone personal international travel for spring break, which runs from March 22 to 30. Columbia University and Cornell University released similar guidance on their website this past week. At the end of last year, several institutions warned international students to return to the U.S. before President Donald Trump took office.

"We understand that many in our community are feeling a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety as news media share reports of federal deportation actions against individuals who are non U.S. citizens," Russell C. Carey, executive vice president for planning and policy and interim vice president for campus life at Brown, said in the email that was shared with USA TODAY by the university.

I assume that this above is the consequence from the deportation of Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese physician.

Of course, when it comes to terrorism and drug trafficking, the harsh "due process" is already there. But the fact really isn't to go with the "due process" stuff, but show just how quickly something can be done and judges and "due process" can stand away. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, stated this attitude quite well.

It think the problem with this line of thinking is that we are in fact weak. — ChatteringMonkey

Why do you think so?

There's far enough resources, technological ability and I would say unity to defend the union. Going on in out of the area peace enforcing or other stuff isn't going to be popular, but the simple fact of defending the member states from outside aggression is an reachable goal.

Look, my country wasn't part of NATO, was left totally to the sphere of Stalin and yet we had enough deterrence to stay independent. Why now would we have less deterrence when we are in an alliance and when Europe is pouring 800 billion into defense procurement?

And to be strong you need to have a good economy, and for that you need cheaper energy... — ChatteringMonkey

Nonsense. We are talking of military strength and deterrence. Just look at what a basket case is Russia itself. And look how poor actually the Chinese are compared per capita to us. One has to understand that the NATO countries (minus US) spend more than China and Russia COMBINED in defense. It's really a simply an issue of having will here to really to put serious investment into defense.

I think these psychological considerations matter a whole lot less that we might think, it's the facts on the ground that matter most, and there Russia is winning. — ChatteringMonkey

Russia isn't winning. Ukrainians can decide if they want to fight for their country or not. It is up to us if we want to give them support. For example: over 70 F-16 fighters have been pledged to be given to Ukraine. Now only 18 have been sent, I guess. We in Europe have to understand that Trump is hostile to us, he isn't our friend.

I don't deny this, they are our adversary now and we should treat them as such for the forseable future. That doesn't mean we can't try to de-escalate and work towards having a less destructive relation. — ChatteringMonkey

How?
By giving into Putin's demands? By sidelining the Ukrainians here, just as Trump does?

This approach was used earlier in history. Then the British Prime Minister stated:

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

And Chamberlain was praised at the time as “the benefactor of the world” while Chamberlain’s critics were “‘war-mongers“. That people "felt a very proper reluctance of sending young men of this country” to war, especially as there were no personal feelings of “ill-will” between British men and “their German and Italian contemporaries.”

The current worldwide rightward trend --- perhaps even in OZ --- may lead to a disaster like Hitler, but somehow the world will find a way to keep-on keeping-on, zig-zagging from left to right and back. Remember the grandeur-that-was-Rome? The path of history, when seen in retrospect, cycles between extremes, yet on average it seems to be on a moderate track, with few points of total anarchy. Even so, like a tornado that fortunately misses my house, Trumpnado may leave a wake of destruction behind. But, don't look to me to quell the storm. :cool: — Gnomon

People may say that, but they don't understand it. The part that there will be destruction around, even if it's not your house that was shredded into pieces.

What Trump is doing goes way over people's heads and thus they don't understand what is happening as it's happening so fast. The US is cutting it's allies loose, surrendering to it's adversaries and basically going against everything it stood for the past 80 years. And domestically it's dismantling it's institutions and becoming more of tumultuous and wavering Latin American state.

Yet listening to the democrat octogenarian James Carville defending Chuck Schumer (74 years) and talking about a smart withdrawal, I think especially these old Washington circle jerks do not understand what is happening. They think this is American politics as usual. It's not.

Ok SSU let me ask you this, what do you think our long term strategy should be towards Russia? — ChatteringMonkey

There's been enough of "resets" and understanding of Putin's Russia. As long as Putin's Russia is as hostile as it is, we should treat it as a threat, just like the West treated Soviet Union. Appeasement now will just show that Europe is inherently weak and can be forced with the threat of violence to give everything up.

We could have a alliance not against Russia, but for European security and involve Russia so it doesn't threaten its security, but also improves its security. — ChatteringMonkey

Please do understand that Putin's Russia wants to dissolve the European Union and hence is a genuine threat to it. Someone that is your adversary really isn't your friend and you won't improve your security by going along with it. China isn't such aggressive as Russia.

Putin is not going to live forever, but Russia is allways going to be there. — ChatteringMonkey

And as long as Russia sees itself as a Great Power that should have it's sphere of influence in Europe, that long it's an existential threat. It can have a revolution and understand that the time of it's Imperial greatness is over, just like the UK understood and even France was forced to understand.

There's not going to be any difference if one siloviki is replaced with another siloviki, like Putin replaced by perhaps Nikolai Patrushev or someone similar. But I guess instantly many will again want to push immediately the "reset" button, even if the "new" guy has been all along with Putin.

So ignoring court orders, threatening to impeach judges they disagree with, deporting green card holders because they don’t like what they say— you know, the “law and order” party. Violating due process and freedom of speech and assembly. — Mikie

Straight from the playbook of Victor Orban's Hungary, actually. Cannot be said anymore that the separation of powers is working in the US.

I'd also add the threats of annexation of Canada and Greenland. Perhaps it's too odd for Americans to understand this, but talking about annexation is really bad. The "nastiest country" isn't taking as a joke Trump's delusions. That Prime minister Carney visited France and UK and Canada is rethinking the purchase of the F-35 is very telling. Now if 25% tariffs are put up on all Canadian exports next month, that will just make this breakup worse.

Looking at the octogenarian Democrats, I think simply they aren't understanding just what Trump is really doing to the Republic. How do they suppose that Trump will be reigned in? But Republicans saying "That's too far"???

(No shit. But that's your response? And Paddle signs?)

As far as I understand, in ancient times, the Eastern despotisms dominated the world because they fought better than democratic city-states. — Linkey

I think that even Machiavelli said that city-states raise better armies than monarchs that use soldiers of fortune, the Condottieri.

Simply put it, will to fight and the ability to take the initiative by lower ranking officers, ncos or even soldiers has always been extremely important. Armies of totalitarian societies usually have difficulties to operate once the commanders are out of action or missing. This actually can be seen from just how many Russian generals were killed in the early stages of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Yet Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany did have their Aufstragtaktik, so this can be taught also in non-democracies. Yet in functioning democracies this elan for the troops can be easily created. In dictatorships, showing initiative is crushed and emphasis is usually to follow orders (assuming one doesn't have a warfighting culture that avoids these pitfalls). You are correct that these kind of issue are important, starting from the obvious fact that armed forces are part of a society and hence do have inside them the possible problems that the society has (corruption, lack of social cohesion, people subjugated only by fear of violence etc.).

Again the war in Ukraine has shown that these issues do matter.

2) As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage? — Linkey

Actually, no.

Sweden was quite bellicose especially in the 17th Century and fought quite well above it's weight limit in the 30-years war and against the Danes, the Poles and the Russians. In fact the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus is sometimes called "the father of Modern warfare". In the end, the country simply lacked sufficient manpower. So much actually, that once when a census was made, the state was horrified to learn just how few people it had, it declared the findings a state secret.



And anyway, feodalism wasn't so crushing in Sweden (and the Nordic countries) as it was in Central Europe. In Sweden the peasant class was quite strong and the aristocracy wasn't so powerful as in many other countries. Hence the last revolt in Sweden was when they rebelled against their Danish King (of Kalmar Union time) 1521-1523. After that, there has been no rebellion or civil war in Sweden until this day, which just shows how actually proto-democratic the society has been.

And the successes of the Vikings tell more about the weakness of Europe in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne had forbidden aristocrats to build fortifications, but once those castles and forts were built up, no Viking problem. Or by the Vikings had already settled into the picture (as Normans).

3) If I am not mistaken, the nomadic Mongols had a lot of what can be called democracy. On the other hand, Genghis Khan united them into a single centralized state, and achieved a huge military success. — Linkey

I'm not so sure just how much democracy did the Mongol Horde have. True that after the Khan died, the Mongol invasion machine broke down as to elect a new Khan (something which actually spared Western Europe). Anyway, with horsemen that took literally as warfighting strategy the Roman saying "make a desert and call it peace" I find really little to be similar with democracy or democratic values.

Two thirds of the German Bundestag voted for huge increases in defense expenditure and to allow to take far more debt than the "debt brake" would have allowed. To be voted next Friday in the upper house also.

The defence plans approved today by the Bundestag also allow spending on aid for states "attacked in violation of international law" to be exempt from the debt brake.

That will enable outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz to release €3bn in aid to Ukraine as early as next week.

Actually he said that he knows both Putin and Zelenskyi well.

Yet that promise was understandably in the promises like "Build a wall and have Mexico pay for it."

What really changed everything was the US to truly align with Russia, as Kremlin has acknowledged itself. And then...

- Bully and harass Zelenskyi
- block all support for Ukraine, upgrades to weapon-systems, satellite information, weapons deliveries alreadt been on the way to Ukraine (even if afterwards resumed, naturally without any additional help to be given)
- even at Rubio and Elon belittling the Polish foreign minister when he dared to say that actually Poland was paying for the commercial use of the Starlink in Ukraine.

End result: the US is an untrustworthy ally that likely with Trump at helm won't lift a finger in the defense treaty. Trump may even walk out of NATO, if he would have his wish. Europe has to act and understand just like Canada, that Trump's regime isn't a friend or an ally.

Another terrible day for America first foreign policy. — NOS4A2

Seems that we agree. At least this day.

There have been many terrible days for US foreign policy. Yet many fantastic days for Russia.

Trump’s base is not going to like this and hopefully its unpopularity is enough to push him to stop it. — NOS4A2

How then if there's a war in Panama, Mexico...

Or when there's a war...

And actually, we aren't talking anymore about think-tank researchers or academicians talking about nuclear deterrence. In the case of Poland, the need for a nuclear deterrent has already been talked by the prime minister.


And we can thank Donald & JD for all of this.

What is the time frame given the Ukrainian urgent needs? — neomac

That's the real question. Basically they first have to dip even more into their own equipment. But for example Finland is sending prototype equipment there to be used in real war, which is far more better than the occasional limited testing of a weapon system. Basically something can be done in six months, a lot in 12 months. Basically in six months Ukraine will be in a very difficult position, if the US basically leaves it on the mercy of the Russians. So the question is basically what Europe can do in few months and in a year.

The money is there, but now it's a question of sending equipment and production bottlenecks.

Non-US users of the F-16 have pledged 85 flyable F-16s for Ukraine, which 18 have been sent. I guess at least one has been lost. Before, Biden's US trained the pilots, gave ALQ-131 ECM pods and so on.

European replacement (or addition) is an aircraft like Mirage 2000, which is now in service with Ukraine. What is notable that these can fire Storm Shadow missiles and are far more survivable than the old SU-24 fighterbombers that Ukraine has used as a missile platform. In the future, one really good fighter would be the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, which would fit the needs of Ukraine perhaps better. But even few Mirage 2000-5F do make a difference to nothing.

The initial batch of Mirage 2000-5F jets touched down in Ukraine after a six-month training program for Ukrainian pilots and technicians, conducted at air bases in eastern and southwestern France. Lecornu announced the arrival on social media, noting that the aircraft, flown by Ukrainian crews, would now contribute to defending the country’s skies.

While the exact number of jets delivered remains undisclosed for security reasons, a French parliamentary budget report from late 2024 indicated that six of the French Air Force’s 26 Mirage 2000-5F aircraft were earmarked for transfer. The delivery aligns with a timeline Macron outlined in June 2024, when he pledged the jets during a visit from Zelensky commemorating the D-Day landings.

Since their arrival, the Mirages have been integrated into Ukraine’s air fleet, joining F-16s supplied by nations like the Netherlands and Denmark, as part of a Western effort to enhance Kyiv’s aerial capabilities.

Evidence suggests the Mirage 2000 jets saw combat action shortly after their arrival. On March 7, 2025, Ukrainian officials reported that the French-supplied aircraft participated in repelling a large-scale Russian air attack involving missiles and drones targeting cities across the country.

(Ukrainian Mirage 2000 shooting down a Russian missile)

The Baltics and Nordic Nations Should Discuss Acquiring Their Own Nuclear Deterrent with Poland
https://balticsentinel.eu/8207598/finnish-researcher-the-baltics-and-nordic-nations-should-discuss-acquiring-their-own-nuclear-deterrent-with-poland — neomac

This is the logical outcome of what Trump has put rolling. Trump simply hasn't understood the effects of what he has just done. But this (nuclear weapons, going off the non-proliferation treaties) is still behind closed doors and something that likely politicians aren't ready to market people. For now, it's just something that researchers can talk about.

But it is quite evident is that the US wouldn't go to WW3 over the Baltic States. At least with Trump at the helm. So this is a real issue. Poland takes this dead seriously. Sweden would have the capability, they already did produce nuclear weapon, yet there would have to be huge discussion about this. Or then things would have to get a lot more worse.

An European nuclear weapons crash program wouldn't take many years to do. It would be something done very rapidly. The real issue is to make the people accept a nuclear program. The option of just sticking one's head in the sand and repeating that the US will be there (and France's nuclear weapons are enough) is very tempting denial.

Of course. Trump wants to overthrow Orban because... 4D Chess?

Article explaining the Putin strategy in reference to the peace talks. He is using the talks to drive a wedge between the European alliance and the U.S. While the European alliance is frantically trying to keep the U.S. with Europe. — Punshhh

For Putin the first objective is to destroy NATO, the secondary objective is to destroy the EU.

OK where else should Europeans buy weapons for Ukraine from? — neomac

Unlike Saudi-Arabia, which has money but no industry or professional workforce, EU can make everything that they need, if they just want it. Including yes, starting from nukes.

You do understand that when European NATO countries agree to raise their defense spending, that spending will go mainly to their own defense industry and NOT to the US defense industry.

A little thing that Trump doesn't understand...

It seems it was a normal mission, hence Elon didn't get his additional mission:

The Crew-10 mission is part of a normal crew rotation happening at an unusual time for NASA's ISS operations - rather than a dedicated mission to retrieve Wilmore and Williams, who will return to Earth as late additions to NASA's Crew-9 crew. Musk says SpaceX had offered a dedicated Dragon mission for the pair last year as NASA mulled ways to bring the two back to Earth. But NASA officials have said the two astronauts have had to remain on the ISS to maintain adequate staffing levels, and that it did not have the budget or the operational need to send a dedicated rescue spacecraft.
Having seen their mission turn into a normal NASA rotation to the ISS, Wilmore and Williams have been doing scientific research and conducting routine maintenance with the other five astronauts.
Williams told reporters earlier this month that she was looking forward to returning home to see her two dogs and family. "It's been a roller coaster for them, probably a little bit more so than for us," she said.

The bigger question here is what happens after ISS to human spaceflight.

I’m still curious, though, why have an EU parliament if you don’t want them to have any oversight? — NOS4A2

It has oversight of the European Union itself and makes EU legislation. So you have these members of European Parliament, who focus on what the Council and the EU institution itself do. From their website:

The Parliament acts as a co-legislator, sharing with the Council the power to adopt and amend legislative proposals and to decide on the EU budget. It also supervises the work of the Commission and other EU bodies and cooperates with national parliaments of EU countries to get their input.

Defense is actually more a question of national budgets and national decisions how to improve the armed forces etc.

I actually don't want that the Finnish Parliament wouldn't have the power to make laws in Finland, that everything would be decided by the EU Parliament. This would be catastrophic. Then I would agree with the view that Finland (and other member states) wouldn't be anymore sovereign states. As I've said, it's an union, that basically is a confederacy made up of independent countries. That's why it always looks so weak.

You’re thinking like Biden now. — NOS4A2

Changing the space flight program by adding missions may be beneficial to SpaceX, but is it to the taxpayer less costly? That's the question.

Did they add a mission? I don't know, actually. (Now I'm the ignorant here)

. That means Biden just left them up there. Evil. — NOS4A2

ISS is manned and can have astronauts there, even longer. I think this was just basically a cost cutting decision not to create a new flight, but just follow the time table, because nobody needed an evacuation.

And is cost cutting evil? Ask your DOGE.

I could care less, to be honest. — NOS4A2

I've noticed.

I agree. — NOS4A2

Great! That's positive that we agree on something.

Ok, so when we understand that the reserve currency is a political decision and the reason for this political decision are the alliances that the US has had, why then brake these alliances?

The obvious question here is for the EU countries to think: "Wait a minute, why do we pay for our oil and liquefied natural gas in dollars, that doesn't come from the US? Shouldn't we pay in euro?" This would help the euro bond market, because people would need euros. And if Europe has this row with Russia, it doesn't have that with Brazil, India, South Africa and China. Those countries would do happily also without having to have US dollars for trade that isn't with the US.

Now is the time to fan the flames of discontent! — BC

Yep. Trump is continuing to pour fuel on the flames, so the task ought to be easy.

Elon's fortune is of this ilk. — Banno

Basically the is Tesla stock would fall -50% from today, when it has already fallen -50% from it's high (meaning a -75% fall in total), it still would be high priced. Other car manufacturers aren't facing this kind of negativity.

Perhaps Elon should cut it loose and just have SpaceX and government contracts.

It's not a counterargument. I agree that not much else is happening than old man Bernie getting crowds to listen to him.

How old was Bernie?

3) It shouldn't be an alliance against Russia, because all of the reasons I have been harping on about in previous posts. — ChatteringMonkey

Ok, for this I have to make some comments.

Defense treaties aren't established when is there is no threat. And alliance isn't formed that then goes look for possible adversaries. That's the way it never happens. There already has to be a real reason.

Secondly,

As Trump has repeatedly question the sovereignty of Canada, the Canadian-US border and made hinted even to use military force to annex Greenland from Denmark. Why wouldn't the US the be then as hostile or even more hostile than Russia?

The reason is that all above is basically statements of Trump, who says a lot of things. Yet the US military isn't training in large scale exercises to invade Canada. US military personnel aren't talking about annexing Canada. US television isn't having television shows how Canada or Greenland would be invaded. The US isn't jamming Canadian GPS system or it's receivers. The US doesn't see that it's in a proxy war with Canada. And The US hasn't declared Canada to be it's enemy.

That's the difference. All of the above is actually the hostility that Russia shows to it's Western neighbors.

The actions being taken by the present administration are so detrimental to the well-being of citizens that people want to talk about it. It does not mean that these people will suddenly want a form of polity that Sanders has championed during his career. — Paine

Bernie could easily go to talk to the MAGA crowd. The rednecks, the hicks, and so on in the fly-over country where they have voted for Trump.

That’s not what the head of the European People's Party said. I guess he knows very little about the EU, according to ssu. — NOS4A2

Do you understand the difference and the different roles of the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of each member state? And when it come to national defense, it's the member states that decide this. Ursula can simply talk about EU budgeting agreements etc. Another thing is what the countries actually do.

Let’s see what happens to Europe when the reserve currency is the Yuan. — NOS4A2

You know that the USD being a reserve currency was a political decision made in Bretton Woods. There's no "natural" reserve currency. The most natural things is to have it like it has been for hundreds if not a few thousand years: you have different currencies and if you are handling international trade, then have a basket of currencies.

The EU elites are using emergency powers to circumvent parliament in order to push forward with their rearmament. — NOS4A2

This just shows how little you know of Europe.

The European Parliament isn't here important. It's the national Parliaments, because the decisions are rearmament is in the end made at the national level. The European Parliament is an OK talking arena that focuses on what the Commission and the EU bureaucracy is doing and what EU laws are made. That's fine, but this is actually a country-level issue.

It’s interesting to watch what a parasite does when it finds itself without its host. — NOS4A2

Yeah, let's see what happens to Americans when the dollar isn't anymore the reserve currency and the World isn't their host anymore.

I'm in my country I am a conservative. I've voted the conservative party, I support them, I've never voted or supported the social democrats. Still, I think they are reasonable people who do love also this country and can be negotiated with. They won't destroy my country. That's democracy.

In the US, I'd naturally hope a centrist democrat would take over the Democratic party and kick the elderly out of the ruling positions. Or conservatives would take back the Republican party from the MAGA Church after the American Nero has burnt Rome.

But heck, I'm just a puny foreigner. Hence the likely counter movement against Trump's MAGA Church and the oligarchy will come from the left. And as @Paine said, one likely person might be Bernie.

Perhaps Bernie should try get Trump and the MAGA-talking heads to get raving mad. And what better way to do it is to be openly declaring what he is, a social democrat, sorry, a democratic socialist. There's nothing to being a social democrat. Keir Starmer, Tony Blair, Miterrand, all basically are social democrats. But in the US media discourse, that's something that makes Republicans and likely the MAGA media to see red and be really, really angry. The political pundits would laugh at it. Not in the US, the GOP can eat them for breakfast. Yet I think it's important to do something that gets things up from the malaise that the democrat party is now in. Hillary stating that Trump supporters were "deplorables" was the highest moment for MAGA, because that kind of condescending attitude energizes a political movement. Especially made up of from people that think they have not been heard, that the system isn't working for them. Yet simply going against the oligarchs and the corruption would be the way here forward and then to talk how badly things are going.



Move to the right creates a countermove to the left. And someone like Bernie Sanders would still be in the "normal" range of politics. Bernie isn't a Hugo Chavez. The worst possible outcome after Trump would be a leftist populist like Chavez who wouldn't value democracy, actually. Populist are always bad, because they start from the juxtaposition of them being for the people and others being the enemy of the people. Not actually a position that is healthy for a democracy.

Canada was already imposing tariffs on us so I believe Trump's tariffs were retaliatory. — BitconnectCarlos

No, NOBODY HAD TARIFFS against you like idiot Trump has now done.

This Tariff bullshit is ALL OF TRUMP'S DOING. Nobody was so foolish as Trump to think that tariffs would bring prosperity. He had to invent this would be an "emergency", because of the fentanol from Canada, which was a tiny fraction compared to what comes from Mexico, one fucking suitcase.

And just think for example of aluminium. It's basic a metal done with electricity and when producing . Well, Canada has ample amounts of hydroelectricity production, hence it's naturally cheaper to produce aluminium in Canada and the country now produces three times more aluminium than the US.

So now you have this epic wisdom of Trump that let's make everything cost more, so there would sprout more domestic production. Well, what you will be having is just paying the high fucking cost that hopefully then is met by American production that totally is dependent on the trade barriers, because it cannot compete in the global arena. That is just simply foolish!

International trade creates prosperity. Mercantilism, basically what Trump is after, doesn't work so well.

Please, wake up!

↪BitconnectCarlos, you believe so? — jorndoe

I hope he doesn't believe so. But.... I guess you are right.

but I do love what Trump is doing here in the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, so you love also the trade war and the tariffs you'll pay?
Not caring so much about the separation of powers in a republic?

Just asking.

Exactly.

But seriously, even if Trump is a devoted ally of Israel, his delusional ideas don't actually help Israel. And imagine if Trump follows Elon's advice of getting the US out of NATO and the UN. How friendly place will the UN be for Israel without the US and with an Europe alienated from the US?

If there are no consequences, then that's proof the US is a fundamentally corrupt state. Even if we say so, it's not before it's obvious that the people might do something about it. — Christoffer

Never underestimate the strength of denial. People won't admit that they made any errors themselves. So let this all just sink in. Have Americans feel it in their wallet or purse when they go buy food or something else. Let the economy tank as it's doing.

Have you noticed anybody defending Trump's annexations here? Is there a broad movement for all of this? Entanglement in foreign wars was what the issue that the MAGA people hated. So does then a war Mexico, Panama even Greenland go so well with that crowd? Or even with Canada? What threat does Canada be for the US? Nothing.

Yes I totally agree with you about this, this is why I would give back a lot of what the Commission does now back to the countries... because they have lost a lot of their sovereignity to the EU, and are hampered in their ability to implement effective policies to deal with problems in their country. — ChatteringMonkey

Note that the sovereign countries have understood the necessity for integration and for their to be system of having a Commission. They have given some sovereignty over to the EU, but notice that in the end they could take it back (and make a crisis in EU).

I'm talking mostly only about a more permanent centralisation of defence and military because that makes sense in the world we are seeming to be heading to. And really, in practice sovereignity in foreign policy and defence is allready mostly dead letter now because a lot of it is determined by NATO. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, NATO gives a good, realistic, concept to follow here. Only without the US. So you have to have that command structures. In fact, this can happen inside NATO in the way that European NATO members and Canada just start assuming that the US isn't there and start having exercises without the US.

I think we have to understand that the EU is truly an union of sovereign states, which will continue to be sovereign states.

I remember years ago an EU political advisor stating the obvious. One cannot erase the national identity of the people, one can only create a higher level identity that joins the people. Yet this is an absolutely enormous task to do, having a flag and anthem simply won't do. The creation of people being British shows that this is possible, the example of being an Yugoslav or a Soviet shows this can utterly fail.

What is essential to sovereign nation states is the shared collective feeling about them. Patriotism, the love of your country. Love isn't something that you rationally and logically conclude.

Many Finns get tears in their eyes when the national anthem is played and the Finnish flag is raised. It's not because of the Finnish having paying a price, it's what they have experienced, what their own family, their grandparents and now great grandparents went through to keep the country independent. That's the thing that ties history to oneself and makes it personal. Nothing of this kind of happens when we have the EU flag and the nice peace from Beethoven is played. Here the EU has failed and is failing. It could do a lot more.

The "man of peace" is wanting the Pentagon (or more accurately SOUTHCOM) to draw plans on taking Panama. I guess with this madman, it wasn't enough that the company taking care of harbours became an American company.

(March 13th, 2025) President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon to prepare plans for carrying out his threat to "take back" the Panama Canal, including by military force if needed, two U.S. officials familiar with the situation told NBC News Thursday.

According to the outlet, the officials said that U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is drawing up potential plans that run the gamut from working more closely with Panama's military to a less likely scenario in which U.S. troops invade the country and take the canal by force. They also said that SOUTHCOM commander Adm. Alvin Holsey has presented draft strategies to be reviewed by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is scheduled to visit Panama next month.

The officials explained that the likelihood of a U.S invasion depended on the level of cooperation shown by the Panamanian military.

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out use of military force to seize control of the vital U.S.-built waterway, as well as Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

Last week during his joint address to Congress, Trump proclaimed that "to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal," but his administration has not clarified precisely what "reclaiming" entails.

The Republican president says the U.S. needs to retake control of the Panama Canal to enhance "economic security," and has falsely claimed that the waterway is "operated by China."

Of the wars that Trump is lusting to have, this is the second likeliest war that Trump will have. He definitely wants the war against the Mexican cartel with armed drones swirling there... at some time. When he remembers that.

You don't invent yourself these issues. Mandatory Palestine existed and then people there were called Palestinians. And once Isreal was formed, these ex-Palestinians became Israelis. So easy.

The point I wanted to make is that if liberal democracy and the values that come with that, are very difficult to implement in these countries, maybe we should be a little bit more understanding of that fact that it isn't feasible for them to adhere to all of those values we have declared as universal. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the reasoning here is that the democratic republic, the needed functioning institutions, are difficult, but not unobtainable. India has been a democracy. Many Third World countries have been democracies and, at least, try to be democracies. We can see just how long that takes, especially with the example of South Korea. It has finally gotten to be a democracy, it's prosperous. And then, the leader tried an auto-coup.

In fact comes to my mind a very prosperous and large advanced country, that tries to be a democracy, but seems to have problems with this.... :snicker:

Yes for sure I don't want empire either, we should build in enough checks and balances to prevent that. — ChatteringMonkey

One reason in that Europe is so diverse. Spain and Finland are different, just as Greece and Ireland. That makes the EU to function like an Empire extremely different. There is no leading country, as there would have been if either Napoleon or Hitler had succeeded. And how long those Empires would have lasted? I'm not sure.

So why I think this could work, i.e. having a more centralised defence and foreign policy, is 1) it would enable us to defend Europes interests better on the world stage, which would be a net benefit for all countries and 2) it would prevent European countries from fighting among each other. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, there is now one unifying reason: Donald Trump.

If the US would, just like Obama and Biden and the presidents before them, stand with Europe, Russia wouldn't pose a threat. Now when Trump is in Putin's pocket, Russia is an existential threat. Add there the trade war. Add there the territorial annexation agende of Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

True unification usually happens with an outside threat. That is there now.

The term is also essentially meaningless these days. Anyone living in historical Palestine is technically a Palestinian. — BitconnectCarlos

Was a Palestinian. But then, you know, some people there formed Israel and those people are called Israelis.

I also quite plausible that Putin will wring further concessions out of Trump and the deal for Ukraine changes. — Echarmion

We surely will here after Trump talks more to his friend, Vladimir, how understandable Putin's line is and how much Putin and Trump want peace. But it's that damn warmongering Zelenskyi!!!

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for a western democracy to give something. Yay for free stuff. — Benkei

I would correct that:

Russian negotiations tactics: demand something ridiculous, don't move an inch and wait for Trump to bully and pressure to give it over to Russia. Because this is "realpolitik". Yay for free stuff.

Canada as much as Ukraine may respond to imperialist aggressions the way they see fit, but then they have also to be ready to pay the consequences. If there are no peace agreements, then they have to fight it out. Besides, given the issues I’ve spoken about: the burden of overstretch and the pivot to Asia, I find it unlikely the US will start a conventional war with Canada to occupy and annex it as Russia did with Ukraine. — neomac

And that's why Canada can see the total bluff of Trump. If the US might be so delusional to occupy Greenland and it's 50 000 inhabitants, then face the consequences. But this Canada thing is demented, delusional and silly. If there are any Americans here, just ask them how many American soldiers they are willing to have killed for Canada and how many Canadians they want to be killed in the process. How much better would they feel about their country? Because that's what you would need to do. They simply aren't given their land without a fight, and especially a non-military fight. So a war of invasion? Would the American troops go through with this kind of nonsense? I'm sure that Trump wouldn't get it through Congress.

But here's some people actually talking about these loony ideas of Trump:


If people have been against the Vietnam war or something... how much would they be against this. With a Trump recession and Trump invading Canada... yeah, I could see a civil war in the US.

Anyway, You can already see what this insane bullshit from Trump is leading the US. There's a global recession starting and the dollar is weakening. Usually in times when there is fear of recession, the stock market sinks and the dollar goes up as people put into safety their investments. Now the dollar is sinking. And that is new.

And those thinking that this isn't because of the political situation, they are wrong. The whole status of the US dollar being a reserve currency was a political decision. And when Nixon ended the Gold standard, the dollar continued it's role because oil was sold in dollars.

Where's the flight to safety?

No they just have another order of values. They think stability comes before rights, which I would argue makes some sense — ChatteringMonkey

I think that everybody thinks so. Without stability or in anarchy, the first "value" is simply one's own safety. This has been seen so many times. If the government stops working, then the first thing that happens is that people in the society take on the mission on what the police has had. Either it's by armed militias or gangs, or then local politicians become warlords. Societies with strong social cohesion simply wouldn't have their governments become incapacitated. The social cohesion means that people won't turn to arms.

Liberal democracy isn't allways something that works because of the circumstances some countries find themselves in... just look at all the failed attempts of the west to install these kind of regimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and then you get violent anarchy like in Irak for instance, or Lybia, or Syria. — ChatteringMonkey

In the case of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the road to a liberal democracy is extremely hard, and if there are enough warlords or armed ethnic groups that want their own independence or do not want liberal democracy, it simply won't work. And with outside powers financing the different groups the outcome is that liberal democracy isn't happening.

The US attempt in Iraq makes this evident, you cannot have a functioning liberal democracy if you don't have political resolution of the of power-sharing between the Sunni's and Shia's or what to do when the aim of the Kurds is independence. Just assuming to have elections and those kind of issue will be solved is naive and basically foolish. George Bush the older understood this and took the advice of his Arab allies and didn't continue into Baghdad after liberating Kuwait.

You can never devellop a consistent longer term strategy like that I think, which is what all other blocs are doing... you will end up being a leaf in the wind on the geopolitical stage. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't want the EU to be an Empire. It can have a defense, but not be offensive. There's always going to be some Hungary around, but also so many the sovereign states won't start something extremely stupid. At least some countries will come to the conclusion that "this would be stupid".