7 ms·

They definitely shouldn't be after this. This is the waking point, I've read article today that we could ramp up some serious defense within 5 years on old cont

by jajko 2y ago

They definitely shouldn't be after this. This is the waking point, I've read article today that we could ramp up some serious defense within 5 years on old continent, skillset and money are there. This would massively boost parts of our economies, just like US did in WWII. Use russian assets, use green deal money that is beyond useless effort at this point and most costs are covered. At the end this may be good for us, since Germany's stance has been pretty much retarded re defense to keep things polite. 4 superpowers instead of 3, albeit maybe Hungary and Slovakia should be kicked out to not sabotage it from within. It seems an era is ending. Just like it did with 9/11, even outside US. All due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will but he is a symptom of current times IMHO, not a cause.

ryoshu 2y ago
~30% of voting age Americans voted for the current president. ~29% voted for the other option.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  Look we're all grateful for the Americans that do care about The Alliance but we've seen the political trends in America and it looks bad. You can't elect Trump twice and say it doesn't represent America. Trump's politics isn't going away. The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. Until they do or Trump makes massive blunders we don't have a hope that the old America is coming back.
  - hypothesis 2y ago
    It’s a grave mistake to assume that some “old” America is ever coming back.
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - wwweston 2y ago
    Everything you're saying about the international trust American voters have betrayed and thrown away is pretty reasonable. But this: > The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. is false. Democratic policy has done plenty to benefit average citizens, in a long tradition (at one point bipartisan) going back to WW2. And it's never been centered around any idea more "radical" than taking seriously the words of the declaration of independence about equality, inalienable rights, and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for people who are doing something others think is weird. It's even pretty clear that Democratic policies have strong electoral popularity: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-trump-on-the-issues-whose-policies-do-voters-prefer https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-t... https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/22/harris-can-win-swing-voters-by-emphasizing-populist-economic-policies-and-protecting-freedoms https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/22/harris-ca... But "swing" voters (assuming they really exist in any form as popularly understood) among others are often not really clear on who supports the policies they prefer. My suspicion is that this comes from Democratic underinvestment and poor investments in media and culture while their opposition has been doing this aggressively, which allows others to define them as radical.
- xico 2y ago
  When people choose not to have their vote represented, for whatever reason, when the outcome was so clear in advance, then there is practically, legally, morally and philosophically no distinction between not voting and voting for Trump.
- dangjc 2y ago
  We (Americans) can’t be relied on. Yeah most Americans are still supportive of Europe but our political system produces whipsaw foreign policy. The end result of all this is America is weakened on the global stage as our allies lose faith in us and start working around us. Why should Europeans boycott China, sanction Iran, support Israel, isolate Cuba, intervene in another Iraq? These are American priorities, not European ones.
  - etc-hosts 2y ago
    The US has successfully created a system that integrates the US economy with Europe, limiting Europe's choices and greatly enriching the US for decades... and then last week JD Vance in Munich yelled at everyone and claimed the EU was somehow stealing money from the US. A++ gaslighting, great job.
    - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
      The really funny thing is: Vance is ~right that the Europeans "steal money" from the US. What I do not get is why that is a bad thing. A "trade" nowadays basically always involves one side getting something tangible that they want, be that goods or services or commodities. And the other side getting something intangible claims or money. If I can get something inherently valuable for essentially nothing but an empty promise? That's an extremely comfortable position to be in..
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    Because they are a part of NATO and have basically zero military to speak of on their own. There's a reason all of their proposed plans to support Ukraine include an American backstop: because they can't stand on their own and have relied on US military spending for decades to prop themselves up. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no significant mutual defense treaty with America. We intervened nonetheless, to protect Europe. I think we should continue intervening, but I also think it's ludicrous for the EU to threaten to not support America, when they've allowed their military infrastructure to rot away at our expense.
    - 2y ago
- LadyCailin 2y ago
  And how many were too apathetic to even bother voting?
- vladgur 2y ago
  Thats not an insignificant number. This election had the second highest turn out in recorded history(2020 was slightly higher) https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...
- grandempire 2y ago
  This is normal turn out. Anyway voting is not about recording a talley for every 18+ year old human with a pulse. It’s citizens selecting a leader and policy from their community. Getting your people out to vote is part of the event.
InitialLastName 2y ago
> voted by >50% americans Nobody in the last election got over 50% of the vote tally.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Correct. Trumps final vote tally was 49.7% and somehow is enjoying nearly unchecked power.
  - jachee 2y ago
    49.7% of the 30% of Americans who voted. Still nowhere near 50% of Americans.
    - Uvix 2y ago
      63.9% of the voting eligible population voted. Meaning the other 36.1% voted for "whoever the 64% pick", giving Trump 67.7% of the total vote.
      - jachee 2y ago
        That’s some creative mathematic gymnastics you’re doing there. “Anyone who didn’t vote chose the one who gamed the electoral college best.” But that still does NOT mean anywhere near half of Americans actively chose the current situation. To say so is wholly, maliciously, egregiously disingenuous. EDIT - Showing my work: US Census in 2020 - 331,449,281 2024 Trump votes - 77,284,118 Even skipping any possibility for growth since 2020, 77.3mil/331.5mil is not “>50% of Americans” by any possible mathematical definition.
        harshreality 2y ago
        Nobody gamed the electoral college this election. Trump won the popular vote too. Many voters are voting for the lesser of two evils; they don't like either candidate. Non-voters are simply taking that to the next level: they can't decide between two evils strongly enough to value casting a vote. Bikeshedding over the difference between active vs passive votes in a single-winner first-past-the-post election is fruitless.
roenxi 2y ago
> ll due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will... Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a remarkably easy decision to understand - people go to WWII because every single war since then has been a disaster for US interests and outcomes (I think every single, certainly most). The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. Since then all the warmongering has made America poorer, they don't achieve anything good and generally make the US worse off. They made a call that they don't trust the military industrial propaganda and they want to see some peace happening for once. Pretty solid decision too; if we can all have normalised relations with the US after Iraq then we can stomach Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. Escalating a land war in Europe is stupid and its been a mistake every other time the Europeans tried it; even in WWII where they claim to be justified. The blood-lust left everyone closely involved broken and it'd have been better if they found a more peaceful route to ending the violence. The fact that they failed to negotiate something doesn't mean it was impossible.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?
  - LAC-Tech 2y ago
    Wouldn't have happened. A series of impressive military victories early in WWII looms large in peoples heads, but there's no getting away from the raw numbers of how outclassed Germany was wrt material and manpower against the USSR. Barbarossa was launched on very limited, low quality intelligence, and even when more accurate numbers came in regarding Soviet division numbers in 1942, the top brass refused to believe it.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Who can tell what would have happened? It sure would not have been easy without US support: "... Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars. Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical."

by jajko 2y ago

ryoshu 2y ago

~30% of voting age Americans voted for the current president. ~29% voted for the other option.

Sabinus 2y ago
Look we're all grateful for the Americans that do care about The Alliance but we've seen the political trends in America and it looks bad. You can't elect Trump twice and say it doesn't represent America. Trump's politics isn't going away. The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. Until they do or Trump makes massive blunders we don't have a hope that the old America is coming back.
- hypothesis 2y ago
  It’s a grave mistake to assume that some “old” America is ever coming back.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    [flagged]
- wwweston 2y ago
  Everything you're saying about the international trust American voters have betrayed and thrown away is pretty reasonable. But this: > The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. is false. Democratic policy has done plenty to benefit average citizens, in a long tradition (at one point bipartisan) going back to WW2. And it's never been centered around any idea more "radical" than taking seriously the words of the declaration of independence about equality, inalienable rights, and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for people who are doing something others think is weird. It's even pretty clear that Democratic policies have strong electoral popularity: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-trump-on-the-issues-whose-policies-do-voters-prefer https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50802-harris-vs-t... https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/22/harris-can-win-swing-voters-by-emphasizing-populist-economic-policies-and-protecting-freedoms https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/22/harris-ca... But "swing" voters (assuming they really exist in any form as popularly understood) among others are often not really clear on who supports the policies they prefer. My suspicion is that this comes from Democratic underinvestment and poor investments in media and culture while their opposition has been doing this aggressively, which allows others to define them as radical.
xico 2y ago
When people choose not to have their vote represented, for whatever reason, when the outcome was so clear in advance, then there is practically, legally, morally and philosophically no distinction between not voting and voting for Trump.
dangjc 2y ago
We (Americans) can’t be relied on. Yeah most Americans are still supportive of Europe but our political system produces whipsaw foreign policy. The end result of all this is America is weakened on the global stage as our allies lose faith in us and start working around us. Why should Europeans boycott China, sanction Iran, support Israel, isolate Cuba, intervene in another Iraq? These are American priorities, not European ones.
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  The US has successfully created a system that integrates the US economy with Europe, limiting Europe's choices and greatly enriching the US for decades... and then last week JD Vance in Munich yelled at everyone and claimed the EU was somehow stealing money from the US. A++ gaslighting, great job.
  - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
    The really funny thing is: Vance is ~right that the Europeans "steal money" from the US. What I do not get is why that is a bad thing. A "trade" nowadays basically always involves one side getting something tangible that they want, be that goods or services or commodities. And the other side getting something intangible claims or money. If I can get something inherently valuable for essentially nothing but an empty promise? That's an extremely comfortable position to be in..
- reissbaker 2y ago
  Because they are a part of NATO and have basically zero military to speak of on their own. There's a reason all of their proposed plans to support Ukraine include an American backstop: because they can't stand on their own and have relied on US military spending for decades to prop themselves up. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and has no significant mutual defense treaty with America. We intervened nonetheless, to protect Europe. I think we should continue intervening, but I also think it's ludicrous for the EU to threaten to not support America, when they've allowed their military infrastructure to rot away at our expense.
  - 2y ago
LadyCailin 2y ago
And how many were too apathetic to even bother voting?
vladgur 2y ago
Thats not an insignificant number. This election had the second highest turn out in recorded history(2020 was slightly higher) https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...
grandempire 2y ago
This is normal turn out. Anyway voting is not about recording a talley for every 18+ year old human with a pulse. It’s citizens selecting a leader and policy from their community. Getting your people out to vote is part of the event.

InitialLastName 2y ago

> voted by >50% americans Nobody in the last election got over 50% of the vote tally.

nickthegreek 2y ago
Correct. Trumps final vote tally was 49.7% and somehow is enjoying nearly unchecked power.
- jachee 2y ago
  49.7% of the 30% of Americans who voted. Still nowhere near 50% of Americans.
  - Uvix 2y ago
    63.9% of the voting eligible population voted. Meaning the other 36.1% voted for "whoever the 64% pick", giving Trump 67.7% of the total vote.
    - jachee 2y ago
      That’s some creative mathematic gymnastics you’re doing there. “Anyone who didn’t vote chose the one who gamed the electoral college best.” But that still does NOT mean anywhere near half of Americans actively chose the current situation. To say so is wholly, maliciously, egregiously disingenuous. EDIT - Showing my work: US Census in 2020 - 331,449,281 2024 Trump votes - 77,284,118 Even skipping any possibility for growth since 2020, 77.3mil/331.5mil is not “>50% of Americans” by any possible mathematical definition.
      - harshreality 2y ago
        Nobody gamed the electoral college this election. Trump won the popular vote too. Many voters are voting for the lesser of two evils; they don't like either candidate. Non-voters are simply taking that to the next level: they can't decide between two evils strongly enough to value casting a vote. Bikeshedding over the difference between active vs passive votes in a single-winner first-past-the-post election is fruitless.

roenxi 2y ago

> ll due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never will... Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a remarkably easy decision to understand - people go to WWII because every single war since then has been a disaster for US interests and outcomes (I think every single, certainly most). The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late. Since then all the warmongering has made America poorer, they don't achieve anything good and generally make the US worse off. They made a call that they don't trust the military industrial propaganda and they want to see some peace happening for once. Pretty solid decision too; if we can all have normalised relations with the US after Iraq then we can stomach Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. Escalating a land war in Europe is stupid and its been a mistake every other time the Europeans tried it; even in WWII where they claim to be justified. The blood-lust left everyone closely involved broken and it'd have been better if they found a more peaceful route to ending the violence. The fact that they failed to negotiate something doesn't mean it was impossible.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?
- LAC-Tech 2y ago
  Wouldn't have happened. A series of impressive military victories early in WWII looms large in peoples heads, but there's no getting away from the raw numbers of how outclassed Germany was wrt material and manpower against the USSR. Barbarossa was launched on very limited, low quality intelligence, and even when more accurate numbers came in regarding Soviet division numbers in 1942, the top brass refused to believe it.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Who can tell what would have happened? It sure would not have been easy without US support: "... Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars. Trucks were also vital; by 1945, nearly a third of the trucks used by the Red Army were US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical."