7 ms·
Why would it be the last? They have a long and vibrant history of collaboration.
by hhh 2y ago
Why would it be the last? They have a long and vibrant history of collaboration.
- compootr 2y agore: the new administration
- riedel 2y agoThere is claims that the current dutch administration kind of invented their new US counterpart: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-man-who-invented-trumpism-geert-wilders-netherlands-pvv-vvd-populist/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-man-who-invented-trumpis...
- Fnoord 2y agoThat guy ain't doing EO's. He ain't even leading the country; Dick Schoof does. Well, on paper, at least.
- vanderZwan 2y agoThat's… a very naive take imo. Wilders is a far-right populist like Trump, and they have many other similarities, but they also have some very crucial differences. A very important one being that Trump is a figure-head leader but actually a puppet of other forces, while Wilders avoids being prime minister at all costs so he can keep playing the role of a reactionary politician complaining about bad leadership while making everyone dependent on him.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoWho, specifically, do you claim that Trump is a puppet of, and why?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- vanderZwan 2y agoIf you still are not noticing how quickly Trump changes his mind on literally anything depending on who is prepared to pay him, then no "specific" argument I can make will convince you otherwise. So I'm not in the mood to waste either of our time "debating" this here.
- bobxmax 2y agoWilders is also a fair bit more extreme than Trump.
- bluGill 2y agoTrump has a high statistical odds of dieing before the end of his term because of old age. (I doubt anyone will assassinate him, but that is also possible for any leader of a country). There will be more changes in administration - there always are.
- Larrikin 2y agoThere is no statistical evidence of this when compared to presidents and not the general public. Seems like most presidents after World War 2 live a very long time if they are not assassinated. https://potus.com/presidential-facts/presidents-age-at-death/ https://potus.com/presidential-facts/presidents-age-at-death...
- bluGill 2y agoI'm not quite sure how to calculate these statistics, but as I read the charts, it looks like someone his age has about a 25% chance of dieing in the next 4 years. Even in the worst (best?) case, he has near zero change of 25 more years, which means most reading this will outlive him.
- dylan604 2y ago[flagged]
- prmoustache 2y agobut most aren't morbidly obese no?
- InitialLastName 2y agoThe 4 post-WWII ex-presidents who outlived Trump circa 2028 (Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, Carter) were all notable for their health and athleticism, which Trump isn't.
- rafram 2y agoI would not say that Reagan, who famously developed Alzheimer’s while in office, was notable for his health. But he was already fairly old when he took office.
- solumunus 2y agoThe reasons are obvious, you’re clearly playing dumb.
- Fnoord 2y ago> Why would it be the last? They have a long and vibrant history of collaboration. I suppose the FBI ends up being a partisan agency, like all other US government agencies. Regardless, if trust is eroded between countries [1] [2] [3], why would the police of these countries cooperate, and share intel? [1] Threaten those in NATO paying < 5% of annual budget to defense won't be protected by US (the US pays less). [2] Threatening a colony of a NATO partner (Greenland, of Denmark). [3] Threaten all your [now former] friends with tariffs. FVEY is dead. NATO is dead. And any cooperation between US and NL is also dead. However, CA and AU might increase their cooperation with EU.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoWell, I genuinely hope our governments start getting in talks with China.
- rafram 2y agoTo be precise, the NATO target is 5% of GDP. The US spends 13.3% of its budget on defense, but only 3.4% of GDP.
- opo 2y agoWhere are you getting this NATO target of 5% of GDP? >...In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. >...The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=The%202%25%20defence%20investment%20guideline,ensure%20the%20Alliance's%20military%20readiness. https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=...
- terrabiped 2y ago1. I think it’s also fair to say that since the interview, Mark Rutte has come out and said that NATO countries need to increase their spending to be able to protect themselves. Countries like Poland, Sweden, and Lithuania (possibly more, though I haven’t followed this closely) have shared the same opinion. Paraphrasing Tusk's comments, wanting your allies to be stronger can hardly be considered a hostile move. 2. The only thing to add here is that, over time, this has morphed from “not ruling out the use of force” to “threatening the use of force.” Either way, I agree, it’s not a good look. 3. To counterbalance, the EU has been using US tech companies as a piggy bank for many years now, yet that hasn’t hindered collaboration between the US and Europe. NATO isn’t dead but is likely only going to grow stronger. FVEY will probably continue, especially on initiatives where everyone stands to benefit.