Political Posts

[73 Reds]

11 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I have no issue with Israel’s not participating  in US led wars - when Korea took place, Israel wasn’t even really established yet and during the Vietnam war, Israel had their wars to fight. I do think it’s right to point out that we are measuring with different yardsticks here.
 

By the way, the MAGA ultra right makes this argument as they hate Jews.

Respectfully you are the one who brought up the issue and your yardstick is broken.  Israel is the size of the State of New Jersey and historically has been fighting enemies on all sides. That is the correct yardstick.  But when Trump dominates one's mindset yardsticks become tapeworms.    

Edited August 20, 2025 by 73 Reds
missed line

[cubsfan]

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Actually Cubs, you're the one that is incorrect here.  

 

Canada and Greenland (Denmark) are U.S./NATO allies.  Yet, Trump blusters to his allies as potential sovereign takovers...whether they were bluffs or actual threats don't matter.  It was politically a stupid thing to do.

 

Russia is a Communist regime that actually invaded Ukraine and has made threats of using nuclear weapons if European countries became involved.  

 

You're the one that should wear the badge of honor or shame...and it's certainly been your choice on how you wear it!  Cheers!

 

Dude - I have no idea what you are referring to. I said nothing about Greenland, Denmark or Canada.

 

I said European leaders jerked around Ukraine by cheering on a meatgrinder for years, all the while blustering about sending troops to fight with Ukraine. That's what I said.  

 

They are all talk with no intention of fighting.

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

8 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

Thank you for the articles and your contributions.  I find that media outside of the US have different viewpoint on the same topic and are worth paying attention to, especially if the topics are political only within the US.  This forum has a lot of members that are outside of the US, and that really adds a lot of value.

If possible, can you share your "strategy" to gather information for decision making (political or otherwise)?

[Luke]

1 hour ago, whiskybravo said:

Europe’s aggressive pivot toward renewables, paired with its rejection of nuclear and failure to secure alternative energy supply lines, has created dangerous dependencies — particularly on Russian gas.  This a self-inflicted vulnerability, leaving the EU strategically weak amid geopolitical turmoil.

 

 

 

A pivot to renewables did not “cause” Europe’s energy vulnerability. Supplier concentration did. Since 2022, renewables growth, demand reduction, and supply diversification have reduced both emissions and geopolitical exposure. New nuclear is neither cost-effective nor timely as a primary hedge this decade, while its long-tail liabilities remain large. A sovereign European energy strategy that Varoufakis could defend would double down on fast-deploying clean capacity, system flexibility, and public financing to secure resilience without sliding back into fossil or slow, high-risk megaprojects.

 

 

 

 

[Luke]

29 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

Dude - I have no idea what you are referring to. I said nothing about Greenland, Denmark or Canada.

 

I said European leaders jerked around Ukraine by cheering on a meatgrinder for years, all the while blustering about sending troops to fight with Ukraine. That's what I said.  

 

They are all talk with no intention of fighting.

Trump is still also supplying and supporting the meat grinder while having endless phone calls with putin that lead to nothing except "peace will come soon i am sure". Even worse, trump is using the desperate situation of ukraine to get a few very wealthy american cooperations access to minerals in ukranian land, truly a disgrace and everything but patriotic or friendly as an ally.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Luke

[whiskybravo]

35 minutes ago, Luke said:

A pivot to renewables did not “cause” Europe’s energy vulnerability. Supplier concentration did. Since 2022, renewables growth, demand reduction, and supply diversification have reduced both emissions and geopolitical exposure. New nuclear is neither cost-effective nor timely as a primary hedge this decade, while its long-tail liabilities remain large. A sovereign European energy strategy that Varoufakis could defend would double down on fast-deploying clean capacity, system flexibility, and public financing to secure resilience without sliding back into fossil or slow, high-risk megaprojects.

 

 

 

 

While supplier concentration played a role, Europe’s energy vulnerability is fundamentally rooted in its failure to maintain sufficient, reliable domestic energy production.  Renewables despite their promise, remain intermittent, systemically expensive when fully accounted for, and inadequate as a sole foundation for energy security. True sovereignty requires energy abundance, not just diversification of import sources. Nuclear power, though politically contentious and slower to deploy, offers unmatched energy density and reliability with relatively modest trade-offs. Any strategy that excludes nuclear while over-relying on variable renewables risks undermining living standards, grid stability, and Europe’s geopolitical autonomy.

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

European leaders jerked around Ukraine by cheering on a meatgrinder for years, all the while blustering about sending troops to fight with Ukraine

 

There's enough blame to go around for the meatgrinder in Ukraine.....before the above European AND US cheerleading (under Biden)..... the United States most notably in the 2014 period (heping to overthrow President Viktor Yanukovych) had a fun time playing out their liberal nation building dreams on Russia's doorstep.

 

The history of small countries in the shadow of large ones that start play footsie with that large countries geopolitical rivals and then bring untold and unnecessary misery on their people is long.....Ukraine is the most recent one and shame on the United States (both democratic and republican administrations) to lead them down that primrose path....Hamas in Gaza is another...to which you can add from the past Cuba, Georgia, Yemen, Hungary (1956), Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1955–1975; 1979), Laos (1964–1973), Cambodia (1969–1973), Cyprus (1974).

 

Simple lesson.....if you live under a tall tree......dont do anything that might bring that tall tree down on top of you...you dont need to be a puppet state.....but you are deluded if you think that you have infinite sovereignty to do whatever you want and partner deeply with whomever you choose.......it means that you live in a world of pragmatism not idealism.....

 

Edited August 20, 2025 by changegonnacome

[Luke]

9 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

While supplier concentration played a role, Europe’s energy vulnerability is fundamentally rooted in its failure to maintain sufficient, reliable domestic energy production.  Renewables despite their promise, remain intermittent, systemically expensive when fully accounted for, and inadequate as a sole foundation for energy security. True sovereignty requires energy abundance, not just diversification of import sources. Nuclear power, though politically contentious and slower to deploy, offers unmatched energy density and reliability with relatively modest trade-offs. Any strategy that excludes nuclear while over-relying on variable renewables risks undermining living standards, grid stability, and Europe’s geopolitical autonomy.

nuclear power is neither economical nor scalable in the timeframe of the climate crisis. New builds consistently turn into financial disasters: Olkiluoto-3 in Finland was supposed to cost €3 billion and be ready by 2009, but it opened more than a decade late at triple the cost, and France’s Flamanville reactor is now at €19 billion with no completion in sight. Unlike most technologies, nuclear gets more expensive with each project rather than cheaper through scaling. Without massive state subsidies, it is commercially unviable.

Even if costs were ignored, nuclear cannot cover more than a niche share of global energy demand. At present, it supplies only about 4.3 percent of the world’s primary energy. To replace fossil fuels, around 15,000 new reactors would be needed. Given that the entire planet currently runs just 441, such a scale-up is unrealistic, especially within the next decades when action is needed. Uranium reserves would also be exhausted in just over a decade if nuclear were used at that level.

And then there is the waste problem. Storing highly radioactive material safely for up to a million years is not just a technical challenge but also a financial one of almost unimaginable proportions. No country in the world has yet solved it. The long-term costs of securing waste dwarf any supposed economic advantage nuclear might have in the short run and push the burden onto countless future generations.

Reliability is also relative. The risks of catastrophic accidents, unresolved waste storage, and the inflexibility of large reactors in balancing modern grids remain unresolved. Small modular reactors, often touted as a future solution, are not new at all. They have been discussed since the 1950s without ever becoming viable.

By contrast, wind and solar are not just “intermittent.” They are proven, rapidly scalable, and already the cheapest sources of new electricity worldwide. The real task is to accelerate storage technologies and grid integration. Unlike nuclear, these are solutions that can actually be deployed within the critical climate window.

[Gregmal]

28 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

There's enough blame to go around for the meatgrinder in Ukraine.....before the above European AND US cheerleading (under Biden)..... the United States most notably in the 2014 period (heping to overthrow President Viktor Yanukovych) had a fun time playing out their liberal nation building dreams on Russia's doorstep.

 

The history of small countries in the shadow of large ones that start play footsie with that large countries geopolitical rivals and then bring untold and unnecessary misery on their people is long.....Ukraine is the most recent one and shame on the United States (both democratic and republican administrations) to lead them down that primrose path....Hamas in Gaza is another...to which you can add from the past Cuba, Georgia, Yemen, Hungary (1956), Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1955–1975; 1979), Laos (1964–1973), Cambodia (1969–1973), Cyprus (1974).

 

Simple lesson.....if you live under a tall tree......dont do anything that might bring that tall tree down on top of you...you dont need to be a puppet state.....but you are deluded if you think that you have infinite sovereignty to do whatever you want and partner deeply with whomever you choose.......it means that you live in a world of pragmatism not idealism.....

 

Yup. Best post on the subject Ive seen in years. 

[whiskybravo]

28 minutes ago, Luke said:

nuclear power is neither economical nor scalable in the timeframe of the climate crisis. New builds consistently turn into financial disasters: Olkiluoto-3 in Finland was supposed to cost €3 billion and be ready by 2009, but it opened more than a decade late at triple the cost, and France’s Flamanville reactor is now at €19 billion with no completion in sight. Unlike most technologies, nuclear gets more expensive with each project rather than cheaper through scaling. Without massive state subsidies, it is commercially unviable.

Even if costs were ignored, nuclear cannot cover more than a niche share of global energy demand. At present, it supplies only about 4.3 percent of the world’s primary energy. To replace fossil fuels, around 15,000 new reactors would be needed. Given that the entire planet currently runs just 441, such a scale-up is unrealistic, especially within the next decades when action is needed. Uranium reserves would also be exhausted in just over a decade if nuclear were used at that level.

And then there is the waste problem. Storing highly radioactive material safely for up to a million years is not just a technical challenge but also a financial one of almost unimaginable proportions. No country in the world has yet solved it. The long-term costs of securing waste dwarf any supposed economic advantage nuclear might have in the short run and push the burden onto countless future generations.

Reliability is also relative. The risks of catastrophic accidents, unresolved waste storage, and the inflexibility of large reactors in balancing modern grids remain unresolved. Small modular reactors, often touted as a future solution, are not new at all. They have been discussed since the 1950s without ever becoming viable.

By contrast, wind and solar are not just “intermittent.” They are proven, rapidly scalable, and already the cheapest sources of new electricity worldwide. The real task is to accelerate storage technologies and grid integration. Unlike nuclear, these are solutions that can actually be deployed within the critical climate window.

While nuclear projects have faced cost overruns and delays, these failures are primarily the result of regulatory bloat, political sabotage, and lack of consistent industrial deployment—not inherent flaws in the technology itself.  Successful programs like the UAE’s Barakah reactors or South Korea’s nuclear buildout serve as evidence that nuclear can be delivered on time and on budget when political will and industrial discipline are aligned. On scalability, no serious decarbonization plan can ignore energy density, and nuclear remains the only non-fossil source capable of producing reliable, 24/7 baseload power at scale without land- and material-intensive tradeoffs. The waste argument has been technically solved but politically stalled.  Volumes are small and stable when compared to the diffuse environmental impacts of renewables and fossil fuels. As for uranium supply, fast breeder reactors, thorium, and reprocessing are underutilized solutions.  While renewables have a role, betting solely on wind, solar, and not-yet-commercial storage to power an industrial civilization is a high-risk gamble detached from energy reality, and that any strategy that dismisses nuclear outright is not serious about decarbonization or energy sovereignty.

 

Europe’s unilateral sacrifices to achieve net zero, while the rest of the world ramps up fossil fuel use, are not just ineffective — they’re strategically self-destructive.

 

Climate goals pursued in a vacuum — without securing reliable, affordable domestic energy — amount to virtue signaling at the expense of economic competitiveness, geopolitical influence, and social cohesion. As Europe de-industrializes due to high energy costs, countries like China, India, and much of the Global South are building new coal and gas infrastructure at scale, prioritizing growth, stability, and energy security over carbon targets. This trend isn’t a failure of global cooperation — it’s a predictable outcome of ignoring energy realism.

 

Europe’s willingness to impose self-limiting regulations, ban local fossil fuel production, and resist nuclear expansion, while importing energy-intensive goods from countries with far higher emissions, is both hypocritical and futile. Rather than meaningfully reducing global emissions, this simply offshores them — along with jobs, capital, and strategic resilience.

 

Ultimately global emissions are a planetary problem, but energy policy is local and national, and any credible response must start with strengthening domestic production using all viable technologies — including nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels — while pushing innovation through pragmatic, not ideological, policy.

Edited August 20, 2025 by whiskybravo

[cubsfan]

39 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

There's enough blame to go around for the meatgrinder in Ukraine.....before the above European AND US cheerleading (under Biden)..... the United States most notably in the 2014 period (heping to overthrow President Viktor Yanukovych) had a fun time playing out their liberal nation building dreams on Russia's doorstep.

 

Oh, you are so right on...+1

[cubsfan]

15 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

While nuclear projects have faced cost overruns and delays, these failures are primarily the result of regulatory bloat, political sabotage, and lack of consistent industrial deployment—not inherent flaws in the technology itself.  Successful programs like the UAE’s Barakah reactors or South Korea’s nuclear buildout serve as evidence that nuclear can be delivered on time and on budget when political will and industrial discipline are aligned. On scalability, no serious decarbonization plan can ignore energy density, and nuclear remains the only non-fossil source capable of producing reliable, 24/7 baseload power at scale without land- and material-intensive tradeoffs. The waste argument has been technically solved but politically stalled.  Volumes are small and stable when compared to the diffuse environmental impacts of renewables and fossil fuels. As for uranium supply, fast breeder reactors, thorium, and reprocessing are underutilized solutions.  While renewables have a role, betting solely on wind, solar, and not-yet-commercial storage to power an industrial civilization is a high-risk gamble detached from energy reality, and that any strategy that dismisses nuclear outright is not serious about decarbonization or energy sovereignty.

 

Europe’s unilateral sacrifices to achieve net zero, while the rest of the world ramps up fossil fuel use, are not just ineffective — they’re strategically self-destructive.

 

Climate goals pursued in a vacuum — without securing reliable, affordable domestic energy — amount to virtue signaling at the expense of economic competitiveness, geopolitical influence, and social cohesion. As Europe de-industrializes due to high energy costs, countries like China, India, and much of the Global South are building new coal and gas infrastructure at scale, prioritizing growth, stability, and energy security over carbon targets. This trend isn’t a failure of global cooperation — it’s a predictable outcome of ignoring energy realism.

 

Europe’s willingness to impose self-limiting regulations, ban local fossil fuel production, and resist nuclear expansion, while importing energy-intensive goods from countries with far higher emissions, is both hypocritical and futile. Rather than meaningfully reducing global emissions, this simply offshores them — along with jobs, capital, and strategic resilience.

 

Ultimately global emissions are a planetary problem, but energy policy is local and national, and any credible response must start with strengthening domestic production using all viable technologies — including nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels — while pushing innovation through pragmatic, not ideological, policy.

 

The Party of Davos really doesn't care much about their own citizens.

As long as they have their private jets and noble causes, the people are bound to suffer.

 

But there is this movement called "populism" that taking hold and sweeping away many of these retards.

 

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

There's enough blame to go around for the meatgrinder in Ukraine.....before the above European AND US cheerleading (under Biden)..... the United States most notably in the 2014 period (heping to overthrow President Viktor Yanukovych) had a fun time playing out their liberal nation building dreams on Russia's doorstep.

 

The history of small countries in the shadow of large ones that start play footsie with that large countries geopolitical rivals and then bring untold and unnecessary misery on their people is long.....Ukraine is the most recent one and shame on the United States (both democratic and republican administrations) to lead them down that primrose path....Hamas in Gaza is another...to which you can add from the past Cuba, Georgia, Yemen, Hungary (1956), Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1955–1975; 1979), Laos (1964–1973), Cambodia (1969–1973), Cyprus (1974).

 

Simple lesson.....if you live under a tall tree......dont do anything that might bring that tall tree down on top of you...you dont need to be a puppet state.....but you are deluded if you think that you have infinite sovereignty to do whatever you want and partner deeply with whomever you choose.......it means that you live in a world of pragmatism not idealism.....

 

You realise Ukraine borders the EU, bigger and more economically prosperous than Russia, less nukes sure but they have smarts and capacity to out produce and outfight Russia in every regard should they want to.  So Ukraine lives in the shadow of two trees, and Russia isn’t even the biggest tree.

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

You realise Ukraine borders the EU, bigger and more economically prosperous than Russia, less nukes sure but they have smarts and capacity to out produce and outfight Russia in every regard should they want to.  So Ukraine lives in the shadow of two trees, and Russia isn’t even the biggest tree.

 

Thank you, @Sweet,

 

I have a perception of some of our fellow CofB&F members living on the Western side of the Atlantic pond has a perception of Europe as a row of countries, that can't find out at all or are able, to do something rational and effectful in this severe situation in cooperation.

 

EU is a lame duck in the situation because of interpartes veto rights,

NATO is a lame duck, because POTUS thinks he can solve it.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Today, I've seen and heard Lavrov talking on television about that any peace arrangements as a condition from Russia have to take basis in a Russian draft from 2022 for a peaceful solution on the whole calamity, including detailed regulation of how security guaranties issued for Ukraine should be regulated and work as a mechanism. Mind you, in that draft Russia in specifically mentioned and specified as a security guarantor! [Nobody can make up such sh*t!, lol!] and to act in cooperation among the guarantors, in all matters, unanimous votes among the guarantors is needed! [Now I'm almost soiling my underwear! lol!]

Edited August 20, 2025 by John Hjorth

[Luke]

1 hour ago, whiskybravo said:

While nuclear projects have faced cost overruns and delays, these failures are primarily the result of regulatory bloat, political sabotage, and lack of consistent industrial deployment—not inherent flaws in the technology itself.  Successful programs like the UAE’s Barakah reactors or South Korea’s nuclear buildout serve as evidence that nuclear can be delivered on time and on budget when political will and industrial discipline are aligned. On scalability, no serious decarbonization plan can ignore energy density, and nuclear remains the only non-fossil source capable of producing reliable, 24/7 baseload power at scale without land- and material-intensive tradeoffs. The waste argument has been technically solved but politically stalled.  Volumes are small and stable when compared to the diffuse environmental impacts of renewables and fossil fuels. As for uranium supply, fast breeder reactors, thorium, and reprocessing are underutilized solutions.  While renewables have a role, betting solely on wind, solar, and not-yet-commercial storage to power an industrial civilization is a high-risk gamble detached from energy reality, and that any strategy that dismisses nuclear outright is not serious about decarbonization or energy sovereignty.

 

Europe’s unilateral sacrifices to achieve net zero, while the rest of the world ramps up fossil fuel use, are not just ineffective — they’re strategically self-destructive.

 

Climate goals pursued in a vacuum — without securing reliable, affordable domestic energy — amount to virtue signaling at the expense of economic competitiveness, geopolitical influence, and social cohesion. As Europe de-industrializes due to high energy costs, countries like China, India, and much of the Global South are building new coal and gas infrastructure at scale, prioritizing growth, stability, and energy security over carbon targets. This trend isn’t a failure of global cooperation — it’s a predictable outcome of ignoring energy realism.

 

Europe’s willingness to impose self-limiting regulations, ban local fossil fuel production, and resist nuclear expansion, while importing energy-intensive goods from countries with far higher emissions, is both hypocritical and futile. Rather than meaningfully reducing global emissions, this simply offshores them — along with jobs, capital, and strategic resilience.

 

Ultimately global emissions are a planetary problem, but energy policy is local and national, and any credible response must start with strengthening domestic production using all viable technologies — including nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels — while pushing innovation through pragmatic, not ideological, policy.

You demand being realistic yet I am. Just because UAE could pull of nuclear reactor building on the cheaper ( a dictatorship) doesnt mean that germany or other highly democratized countries can. Political will is way easier said than done. You ignore the systemic global pattern of delays and overruns in this sector. 

 

How has the waste argument been technically solved? All of it is still in early stages. No large-scale operational solution exists yet. 

 

Arguing that nuclear waste is better than fossil fuels is obvious and wasnt my argument, i am for renewable energy production at large. 

 

fast breeders, thorium, and reprocessing remain unproven or uneconomical at industrial scale. 

 

And again: 4.27 % global energy share, 15,000 needed reactors. Scaling up these many nuclear facilities instead of scaling up renewables is bad policy. Scaling up renewables has to be done at an international level obviously. 

 

 

[whiskybravo]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

You demand being realistic yet I am. Just because UAE could pull of nuclear reactor building on the cheaper ( a dictatorship) doesnt mean that germany or other highly democratized countries can. Political will is way easier said than done. You ignore the systemic global pattern of delays and overruns in this sector. 

 

How has the waste argument been technically solved? All of it is still in early stages. No large-scale operational solution exists yet. 

 

Arguing that nuclear waste is better than fossil fuels is obvious and wasnt my argument, i am for renewable energy production at large. 

 

fast breeders, thorium, and reprocessing remain unproven or uneconomical at industrial scale. 

 

And again: 4.27 % global energy share, 15,000 needed reactors. Scaling up these many nuclear facilities instead of scaling up renewables is bad policy. Scaling up renewables has to be done at an international level obviously. 

 

 

Thanks for the respectful discussion.  Don’t forget the energy demands as rest of world seeks our standard of living.  Maybe we can make some technological breakthroughs on carbon mitigation.

[cubsfan]

22 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

EU is a lame duck in the situation because of interpartes veto rights,

NATO is a lame duck, because POTUS thinks he can solve it.

 

No need to rewrite history and make excuses.

 

Trump has been dealing with this issue for 6 months.

 

Europe & Biden had 3 years to solve it, yet, what was their strategy??

 

- call Putin names and refuse to even talk to him

- threaten Putin multiple times, but rarely follow through on tough talk

 

Well, that turned out to be a fiasco for Ukraine. This war might have been solved 2 years ago when the Ukrainian offensive failed - and little to no progress has been attained in 2 years other than adding enormous casualties. What a strategic failure.

 

Fortunately, now, with a real adult in charge - there actually is a possibility of an end to the conflict - no thanks to the failings of previous leadership.

Edited August 20, 2025 by cubsfan

[Luke]

3 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

Thanks for the respectful discussion.  Don’t forget the energy demands as rest of world seeks our standard of living.  Maybe we can make some technological breakthroughs on carbon mitigation.

Ill meet you halfway: Nuclear energy SHOULD receive RnD and science needs to investigate if these technologies can produce energy while bypassing the storage and recycling issue. If that is solved it might be a usefull technology. But i doubt that we are there yet, the impact on energy markets obviously would be insane because it would basically mean very cheap and almost infinitely recyclable energy. 

 

I am also against deindustrializing but i take science seriously and the current evidence does not look that favourable in "taking time to wait for new technology".  

 

Cheers man! 

[dealraker]

2 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

The Party of Davos really doesn't care much about their own citizens.

As long as they have their private jets and noble causes, the people are bound to suffer.

 

But there is this movement called "populism" that taking hold and sweeping away many of these retards.

 

Yes and Trump is a populist who will change as circumstances favor him to do so.  Crypto, Tiktok, etc.... no one will correctly predict where he goes but you can be certain he and his in-the-moment support will revolve around his personal gain, political and financial.  He reads his followers incredibly well, they'll go with him wherever he treads.

 

Just be careful before ever thinking anything he's doing is going to be good for you...and your business.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Thank you, @Sweet,

 

I have a perception of some of our fellow CofB&F members living on the Western side of the Atlantic pond has a perception of Europe as a row of countries, that can't find out at all or are able, to do something rational and effectful in this severe situation in cooperation.

 

EU is a lame duck in the situation because of interpartes veto rights,

NATO is a lame duck, because POTUS thinks he can solve it.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Today, I've seen and heard Lavrov talking on television about that any peace arrangements as a condition from Russia have to take basis in a Russian draft from 2022 for a peaceful solution on the whole calamity, including detailed regulation of how security guaranties issued for Ukraine should be regulated and work as a mechanism. Mind you, in that draft Russia in specifically mentioned and specified as a security guarantor! [Nobody can make up such sh*t!, lol!] and to act in cooperation among the guarantors, in all matters, unanimous votes among the guarantors is needed! [Now I'm almost soiling my underwear! lol!]

Yep, too many lame ducks that just quack and ruffle a few feathers but do no more.

 

And  the EU has no military and can’t solve the problem but NATO does.

[cubsfan]

26 minutes ago, dealraker said:

 He reads his followers incredibly well, they'll go with him wherever he treads.

 

Just be careful before ever thinking anything he's doing is going to be good for you...and your business.

 

There is this little thing called Law & Order, which is nice to see restored to the US.

Along with various cultural and educational issues being reset...

 

I've grown weary of the silly schools with their undying support of movements such as "Gays for Palestine", who are so ignorant not to understand the reality of Hamas's desire to throw them off buildings.

 

It's not all about money.

[Spekulatius]

Perfect  example of the political horseshoe theory in action ( Bernie and Donnie want a piece of Intel):
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senator-sanders-favors-trump-plan-take-stake-intel-others-2025-08-20/

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Spekulatius]

5 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Respectfully you are the one who brought up the issue and your yardstick is broken.  Israel is the size of the State of New Jersey and historically has been fighting enemies on all sides. That is the correct yardstick.  But when Trump dominates one's mindset yardsticks become tapeworms.    

Magas yard stick is broken. Countries like Denmark have chipped in and yet get criticized as bad allies and then there is this Greenland thing.

[cubsfan]

3 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Magas yard stick is broken. Countries like Denmark have chipped in and yet get criticized as bad allies and then there is this Greenland thing.

 

Trump is the best thing that ever happened to Greenland.

 

Embarrassed Denmark coughed up $2B to Greenland faster than a speeding bullet once Trump started rocking the boat.  Good for Denmark finally, even better for Greenland.

[John Hjorth]

47 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Yep, too many lame ducks that just quack and ruffle a few feathers but do no more.

 

And  the EU has no military and can’t solve the problem but NATO does.

 

The organically, out of nothing, selfgrown 'coalition of the willings' is the way to go. Together, they certainly have the capabilites to give Putin a lesson he'll never gorget. Just steamroll this nutcase and all his cronies, 'war against terror after 9/11-style'.

 

POTUS meeting this man with a double handshake in Alaska, adressing him 'Vladimir'. It's just nauseating.

Edited August 20, 2025 by John Hjorth