• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

I’m having a hard time accepting that the US military will in any way make or take hostile moves against Greenland or Denmark. If an occupation is forced, it will be through the use of a private force likely associated with Russia. And what’s up there that the US simply can’t buy. It’s all very strange.
 
Cloud Cover said:
I’m having a hard time accepting that the US military will in any way make or take hostile moves against Greenland or Denmark. If an occupation is forced, it will be through the use of a private force likely associated with Russia. And what’s up there that the US simply can’t buy. It’s all very strange.
Click to expand...
Greenland could be the price that the US puts on NATO for its continued membership.
 
Harris said:
Anyone taking bets that the first one off the slips is named after Trump (Assuming he hasn't been otherwise taken out of the picture by natural causes). And it will have a "Command" chair all in gold? View attachment 97344
Click to expand...
He said he's going to have a hand in the design because he is "very aesthetic" and previous naval designs were ugly.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Greenland could be the price that the US puts on NATO for its continued membership.
Click to expand...
Even simply putting that ultimatum out there in the first place would confirm the U.S.’ utter unreliability as an alliance partner.

If Putin attacked the Baltics tomorrow, who here still has absolute confidence that the U.S. would actually join the collective defence, rather than finding some BS pretext to sit it out?
 
Greenland could be the price that the US puts on NATO for its continued membership.
Click to expand...
Trump is all for giving up the Ukraine to Putin, thus Putin is all for allowing Trump to take Greenland.
Putin is all in for NATO to disintegrate.
 
brihard said:
Even simply putting that ultimatum out there in the first place would confirm the U.S.’ utter unreliability as an alliance partner.

If Putin attacked the Baltics tomorrow, who here still has absolute confidence that the U.S. would actually join the collective defence, rather than finding some BS pretext to sit it out?
Click to expand...
I agree with your logic and rational, but you and I are playing with a full deck, Trump et al are not. Their rational and logic does not line up with ours.
 
brihard said:
If Putin attacked the Baltics tomorrow, who here still has absolute confidence that the U.S. would actually join the collective defence, rather than finding some BS pretext to sit it out?
Click to expand...

Poland, France and perhaps Germany, would do something. The Poles are just looking for an excuse to pay Russia back for the Katyn forest…

At this point, it’s safe to assume that the US has institutionally forgotten (erased) other NATO nations coming to support its historically unique Article 5 declaration.
 
Good2Golf said:
Poland, France and perhaps Germany, would do something. The Poles are just looking for an excuse to pay Russia back for the Katyn forest…

At this point, it’s safe to assume that the US has institutionally forgotten (erased) other NATO nations coming to support its historically unique Article 5 declaration.
Click to expand...
The Poles would welcome the chance to smack the Russians. If the Russians didn’t have nukes or if Poland did have nukes, they might have already gone this route.
They would love to remove Kaliningrad and Belarus from being issues along their border.
 
RangerRay said:
Here is part of the 60 Minutes report the Trump Administration did not want you to see. Bari Weiss, whom I used to have a lot of respect for, had the report pulled at the last minute because the Administration refused to comment, despite the opportunity given to do so. If this is a new editorial standard, then subjects of embarrassing news stories can just refuse to comment, vetoing the publication of embarrassing stories.

Anyways, the story in question was posted on the Global Canada app before it too was deleted. Here is a part of that story, which is horrific.
Click to expand...
Bari Weiss, who has delayed the story, has plenty of credibility. Sharyn Alfonsi, the reporter, has not very much.

Weiss is doing the stuff that agencies used to do and which earned them their reputations as "trustworthy" (for those which had it). If Trump's overturning of some rules and practices has upset people so much that they no longer want other rules and practices restored, there's nothing to prefer between him or them.
 
brihard said:
Even simply putting that ultimatum out there in the first place would confirm the U.S.’ utter unreliability as an alliance partner.

If Putin attacked the Baltics tomorrow, who here still has absolute confidence that the U.S. would actually join the collective defence, rather than finding some BS pretext to sit it out?
Click to expand...
I am confident the US would join. I have less confidence in some other members of NATO. I have confidence the US contribution would be meaningful, if not immediately decisive. I have less confidence some other members of NATO will provide very much other than political solidarity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV
Brad Sallows said:
Bari Weiss, who has delayed the story, has plenty of credibility. Sharyn Alfonsi, the reporter, has not very much.

Weiss is doing the stuff that agencies used to do and which earned them their reputations as "trustworthy" (for those which had it). If Trump's overturning of some rules and practices has upset people so much that they no longer want other rules and practices restored, there's nothing to prefer between him or them.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that Sharyn Alfonsi doesn’t have much credibility? That s quite a blanket statement . Care to pull back the blanket and let us see what’s under it?
 
Brad Sallows said:
I am confident the US would join. I have less confidence in some other members of NATO. I have confidence the US contribution would be meaningful, if not immediately decisive. I have less confidence some other members of NATO will provide very much other than political solidarity.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think Luxembourg, Iceland and other such smaller nations would struggle.
 
Czech_pivo said:
I agree, I think Luxembourg, Iceland and other such smaller nations would struggle.
Click to expand...
I think he was referring to more significant NATO partners dragging their heels. I'm looking at Turkey, Greece and Spain... Basically all of Southern Europe minus Italy.
 
Brad Sallows said:
False claim that she reasonably could have known was false.

Michael Schellenberger on X summarizes.
Click to expand...
Friend that’s a mighty thin blanket you pulled back.
First, did Publix or DeSantis sue 60 Minutes for their story?
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Your comments/opinion making rational on this is might thin, given your background I’d except a lot more empirical evidence before jumping to this conclusion.
 
Lumber said:
I think he was referring to more significant NATO partners dragging their heels. I'm looking at Turkey, Greece and Spain... Basically all of Southern Europe minus Italy.
Click to expand...
I’ve never expected them to do much over the last 50yrs.
Sadly they are like those distant relatives that your parents insist on having to invite to your wedding with you knowing full well that they won’t attend, even though they reside a block away from the reception hall.
 
FJAG said:
A Wikipedia snapshot of her credentials for those who want to make up their own minds.
Click to expand...
Not a peep about arguably her most controversial mistake, if not deliberate misrepresentation. Wikipedia at its gate-kept best.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Friend that’s a mighty thin blanket you pulled back.
First, did Publix or DeSantis sue 60 Minutes for their story?
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Your comments/opinion making rational on this is might thin, given your background I’d except a lot more empirical evidence before jumping to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
The truth or falsity doesn't hinge on whether anyone sued. What matters is the claim was false, and it had been earlier openly stated to be false. If it matters, you'll notice Moskowitz is a Democrat.

The most charitable explanation is no-one doing that story knew about the prior Miami Herald story and resultant counter-claim. Otherwise in increasingly discreditable order, someone at the time knew and didn't mention it, or it was mentioned and they decided to ignore it.

When sub-par work has been produced in the past, it's reasonable to take safeguards against sub-par work in the present. It's well-known (at least among US media and a lot of the related commentariat) that Weiss's hiring and appointment is controversial among staff. It's not hard to figure out that the "controversy" is that she proposes to tighten up standards. It's harder to slide out misleading narratives in that kind of environment.

What the WH does or doesn't say in response to questioning is irrelevant to my point. The essential facts of the reported story can be as the segment alleges and the claims about Weiss and her motives can be entirely wrong.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Second, ‘the person’ at the White House, lol, like that has a lot of credibility. This ‘person’ could been a washroom attendant for all we know.
Click to expand...
Of course. File that one away for the next time "anonymous" sources are cited by anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top