Trump tells Zelensky 'make a deal or we're out' in angry White House meeting
-
I’ve been trying to figure this out for the last 8 years. People here are so fucking stupid and selfish.
-
They are under an obligation to decide what they want to do collectively. If they decide that it was an aggression, then they are under obligation to provide support. It can be exact same"support" that Europe is already providing to Ukraine. That's too say not much of it
-
Man, I want this war over and the US out of it.
But watching our POTUS and VP behave that way on international TV. Even if you support their politics, it's hard for me to understand how all of us are not embarrassed.
I also like that Zelensky didn't just swallow the insults and spoke his peace, because the media is (of course) focusing solely on the preferred Trump narrative.
-
More like the best choice. If you don't want to be invaded, you need nukes. Any country that had nukes and gets rid of them is just asking to be invaded. Libya got rid of their nukes, got invaded, collapsed. Ukraine got rid of their nukes, got invaded, got abandoned by the US. Canada got rid of their nukes, Trump is talking about annexing the country. I guarantee Trump would be a lot more polite to the Canadians if they had something they could point right at Mar A Lago and go "Invade us at your fucking peril".
-
Good job GOP. We lost the Cold War.
-
A united EU against today russia? Doubt will last weeks. But we are too afraid.
-
France and the UK are more than capable of maintaining an article 5 nuclear umbrella. If that's all NATO is worth, it's still enough.
-
South Korea and particularly Japan doesn't need help getting nukes. Japan in particular has never been afraid of showing an advanced space program(for icbm technology) and their immense plutonium stockpile. They could assemble ICBMs in a matter of weeks.
-
France is one election away from Marine Le Pen kissing the feet of Putin.
-
It (once again) showed their loyalty to Putin. In their mind, this was a massive success.
-
Do you think this is new information to me? I don't understand what your point is.
-
You're thinking of article 4.
-
They're not even selfish. They're worse off too, just fucked themselves to spite everyone else.
-
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
-
Wait, really? Imo, JD had that "guy who's been trying to turn a friend into a fuck for three years now" energy for Trump. I'm really surprised anybody saw that as masculine and powerful.
-
Canada and Libya never had nuclear weapons.
Libya tried to develop nuclear weapons but never had them. Also they weren't invaded, there was an uprising that toppled Qaddafi.
Canada was involved with the Manhattan Project, and could have had nukes, but decided against it.
-
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm making a point by driving home what it does for Americans, because all Americans care about is themselves. If I frame it from the perspective of Ukraine trying to defend themselves from invasion, Americans could give a fuck less.
-
NATO was that, but it may very well continue on as something else. Without the US mind you, but nothing says the rest of the NATO countries can't just decide to stay in.
Of course it might also be a good time for them to all make the international equivalent of the No Homer's Club. Either way.
-
How the fuck do we fix this?
The primary issue is twofold:
- Heavily biased information and restrictive media diets
- Democrat Inaction
If you try viewing even a tiny amount of right leaning content on a fresh social media account on any platform, you'll see the type of content that gets perpetuated. People simply become indoctrinated by content recommendations that are practically incapable of showing the other side, not to mention that most mainstream media is entirely corporately captured.
The fact that the Democrats were slow to release official policy for Harris's campaign, indeterminate on Gaza, and had (or really, still have) a very "this is fine, you're just overreacting, but sure we'll fix a few things" attitude towards political messaging, only helped Republicans, because it led a lot of people to just vote for the party that promised the most, and that was the Republicans. All the wars would be over, things would be cheaper, all the "bad" people wouldn't be here anymore, etc.
To a normal person with very little media literacy, those promises sound downright amazing.
I personally think we fix this by at least starting with messaging, since that's what actually leads most people to make a decision on who to vote for. There were literally people deciding on election night who they wanted to vote for, so messaging is highly important.
The left needs to speak to the immediately visible, material needs of the working people directly. While it's important to fight against the right on culture war issues to prevent the ceding of ground on things like civil rights and discrimination, I think a lot of left leaning messaging focuses too heavily on that, and as a result, it can seem to right-inclined people that the left has no economic policy. That needs to change.
See: Bernie Sanders, and how he very consistently addresses specific economic issues people face, and has broader support on the right compared to any democratic congressperson. Hell, even JD Vance said Bernie was one of the people he least disliked on the left, and Bernie's further left than the Democrats. Populist, economic disparity focused, anti-billionaire, pro-worker sentiment is how you change ordinary people's minds in the current media economy.
As an individual, the most you'll likely be able to do in this respect is going to be volunteering for phone banking efforts, donating money to left leaning charities focused on reducing economic inequality, and generally bringing these kinds of talking points up in general political discussion with others.
There's something else that's commonly overlooked though, and that's local policy. Think of a city's "town hall" type meetings that accept public comment. How many people in that city are actually regularly attending a town hall meeting? Think of how few people it really is during a particularly contentious proposal. Now imagine what it's like when it comes to something like "housing and urban development: reducing the rate of homelessness - meeting no. 57" Almost nobody. Get yourself and a few friends down to your local relevant policy meetings, make even a little noise, and the amount of change you can make as a result can be drastic compared to the actual % of the city's population you make up.
Pushing for things like ranked-choice voting in local elections can also be very viable, since it's proven that tends to push voters further left, on average, and it also adds some extra competition that can spur a party like the Democrats into actual meaningful action.
