• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics the 2025 trump presidency thread

What I find interesting is that the US mostly sent weapons close to their expiary dates. They would have had to be decomissioned which has it's own costs. So the cost-calculations were inaccurate because it was politically expedient to say so. But with ATACAMs, GIMLRs and the older IFVs, do you consider a 20 or 30 year old example to be worth as much as a new one?

I accept it was not cost free - but it served a purpose. The Soviet Union and then Russia made a practice of keeping it's older systems far, far longer than other nations. So the war in Ukraine has done a sterling job in destroying a large amount of Russian inventory and has exposed Russia's inability to produce new systems at any scale. In essence, the US may officially have supported Ukraine for moral reasons, but it strikes me that it's served to disarm Russia.

If China chose to take back Outer Manchuria on the basis that it's 'historically Chinese', I do wonder what Russia could do?

Water is a key problem facing China and lake Baikal is the largest freshwater lake in the world. China did try to do a deal with Russia to obtain water but Putin refused. But with it's military depleted, China may decide it can use the same justification as Russia did when it invaded Ukraine.

Geopolitics is complex. But are we sensing a theme?
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
What I find interesting is that the US mostly sent weapons close to their expiary dates. They would have had to be decomissioned which has it's own costs. So the cost-calculations were inaccurate because it was politically expedient to say so. But with ATACAMs, GIMLRs and the older IFVs, do you consider a 20 or 30 year old example to be worth as much as a new one?

I accept it was not cost free - but it served a purpose. The Soviet Union and then Russia made a practice of keeping it's older systems far, far longer than other nations. So the war in Ukraine has done a sterling job in destroying a large amount of Russian inventory and has exposed Russia's inability to produce new systems at any scale. In essence, the US may officially have supported Ukraine for moral reasons, but it strikes me that it's served to disarm Russia.
Click to expand...
Fascinating observation that makes a lot of sense. Russia's rich in some resources and very very poor in others. I believe they even irradiated one of the largest fresh water sources on the planet during the rush to use nuclear weapons for geoegineering - something the US also did through Project Ploughshare...

This was a program that explored using nukes to move mountains, create canals, etc. for various non-military pursuits. It's also created covert disinformation which blossomed into the UFO movement, NSA/CIA psyops which fed false information to useful idiots in the UFO culture, using aliens as a guise for things like radiation testing of cattle which required largescale cattle slaughter and lymphnode extractions. These actions were "leaked" to the UFO movement by government agents as being part of an alien conspiracy that sought to create a human-alien hybrid in underground bunkers in the US - all as a diversion from these radiation tests, and early future weapons tech like UAVs (drones) that often looked like what people who reported UFO sightings would describe, during a time when drones were not something most people were even aware of. The conspiracy seeding that took place is what laid the groundwork for things like QAnon and the modern conservative conspiracy culture that saturated AM radio in the 80s and 90s, created the XFiles, and later blossomed into cable news and things like the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the 2000s. It undermined a monoculture allowing for enough large-scale manipulation of interconnected 'believers' that increasingly follow individual media influencers rather than accountable news organizations with ethical standards.

Currently, these same facilities that these projects were based out of are involved in researching anti-drone activities, and drone swarm behavior (such as the sightings in 2020 in Colorado as well as the sightings of drones along the east coast last year).
4DQSAR said:
If China chose to take back Outer Manchuria on the basis that it's 'historically Chinese', I do wonder what Russia could do.

Water is a key problem facing China and lake Baikal is the largest freshwater lake in the world. China did try to do a deal with Russia to obtain water but Putin refused. But with it's military depleted, China may decide it can use the same justification as Russia did when it invaded Ukraine.

Geopolitics is complex. But are we sensing a theme?
Click to expand...
Yes - the EU is no longer a major player as NATO begins to erode in favor of American expansion into Mexico, Canada, and Greenland while Russia and China expand into the middle east and Africa. Water is the most valuable finite resource we have, and one that is the most susceptible to the deleterious effects of pollution, radiation, and contamination through oil extraction like fracking. Contamination to water also adversely impacts cognitive functioning in large swaths of populations, making them more susceptible to manipulation.
 
It's worth noting that the US is also suffering with limted warer supplies in certain regions. One executive order was concerning the matter and guess what? The plan is to allow private water companies to provide the much needed water.

I might add that the UK privatized water decades ago. The result has been a massive cost increase to consumers and vast amounts of untreated waste water being dumped into the seas.

In many issues the UK has decades of experience and I feel it worthwhile for BLers from the US to examine the long-term outcomes for the people. Obviously the rich elite are the ones who own the shares in the water companies so their dividends more than make up for the increased costs.

The US is already falling into austerity and again, we have had in for 25 years. The rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer.

Donald Trump is not on a left<--->right spectrum. As I have previously noted, the closest example I can find is ancient Rome where the patricians made up the senate but in essence, the emperor (ceaser) held imperium (if you don't know the term - it's worth reading the definition). The elite form the curuleum, praetorships and consulships but those are entirely a gift from the ceaser. I'm not saying it's a perfect fit, but I stand by the basic division of 'the elite' and 'the people'. The latter ending up with no power to the point where there votes were essentially useless. Removing voting rights was the way ancient Rome moved from a democracy to an oligarchy.

BTW Ukraine is a rich source of rare earth metals that I mentioned yesterday. THAT is what Donald Trump wants. Oddly, that actually hands more power to Ukraine. If China were simply to use the export controls on rare earths, the US would have to rely on Ukraine and if they decide to continue fighting, that could leave the US with a severe problem.

Isn't geopolitics fun. If just one tenet of the current model fails to occur, the entire model fails.
 
Looks like I was right about Trump and tariffs - this is quite reasonable. This is a tweet today from Trump:

On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!

For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.

For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!

 
fairnymph said:
Looks like I was right about Trump and tariffs - this is quite reasonable. This is a tweet today from Trump:

On Trade, I have decided, for purposes of Fairness, that I will charge a RECIPROCAL Tariff meaning, whatever Countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them - No more, no less!

For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff. Sending merchandise, product, or anything by any other name through another Country, for purposes of unfairly harming America, will not be accepted. In addition, we will make provision for subsidies provided by Countries in order to take Economic advantage of the United States. Likewise, provisions will be made for Nonmonetary Tariffs and Trade Barriers that some Countries charge in order to keep our product out of their domain or, if they do not even let U.S. businesses operate. We are able to accurately determine the cost of these Nonmonetary Trade Barriers. It is fair to all, no other Country can complain and, in some cases, if a Country feels that the United States would be getting too high a Tariff, all they have to do is reduce or terminate their Tariff against us. There are no Tariffs if you manufacture or build your product in the United States.

For many years, the U.S. has been treated unfairly by other Countries, both friend and foe. This System will immediately bring Fairness and Prosperity back into the previously complex and unfair System of Trade. America has helped many Countries throughout the years, at great financial cost. It is now time that these Countries remember this, and treat us fairly – A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS. I have instructed my Secretary of State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States Trade Representative (USTR) to do all work necessary to deliver RECIPROCITY to our System of Trade!

Click to expand...


But neither Mexico nor Canada impose tarriffs on US produced steel or aluminium (as far as I know).

I think lesson 1 is not to believe what ANYONE says uncritically. Especially not if someone has a good reason to be dishonest. But I am certain millions of people will ASSUME those nations already placed tarrifs on the US. Prejudice is a powerful tool.

They have now introduced tarrifs, but only in response to the US. If people imagine it's going to result in cheaper steel or aluminium, they are very much mistaken. Canada has huge iron ore reserves that are accessible, Mexico has much lower production costs. So in essence, the tarriffs are an attempt to make US made steel/aluminium competitive but it simply costs more to produce. The result is the same - it costs 25% more.

Someone asked how inflationary tarrifs would be - well, by slightly more than the tarriff since checking imports, calculating and collecting the money does incur a small cost in and of itself. So think of any product that uses steel, aluminium or (as seems likely) rare earth metals.

I predict what Donald Trump will do to overcome this is to reduce taxation on many products. But do we think that consumers will see prices drop or do we think that the elite will simply increase their profit-margin? I say this because we saw costs drop on certain products in the UK but manufacturers didn't reduce prices. Psychology - people aren't used to prices dropping any more and will accept there simply being no increase as being acceptable - because you have no option to do otherwise.
 
Last edited:
jasperkent said:
Trump and hia MAGA goons are taking hypocrisy to outrageous new levels. Every accusation is an admission-- and then some.
Click to expand...
It is not sustainable. Making deals with the devil never is. The snake is starting to eat its own tail. I mean if no one responds to MAGA hate then they will go after each other. It is law. Natural law.

Bannon and Musk. lol I agree with Bannon on this one issue since my job was taken by someone from India at 1/20th the cost. It is not fair to the people of India and I almost call outsourcing racist. Put Americans back to work by how? Creating unemployment? If so pay the India guy the same amount. Never thought I would EVER agree about anything with Bannon. But glad he has a hard on for Musk. It is funny.
 
Last edited:
JackARoe said:
It is not sustainable. Making deals with the devil never is. The snake is starting to eat its own tail. I mean if no one responds to MAGA hate then they will go after each other. It is law. Natural law.
Click to expand...

Well, I did undertake to explain how authoritarian popularism works. One key element is to assign all of the faults and problems in a nation to a few specific groups. Then the people take the law into their own hands.

What is worth noting is that the number of specific groups tends to keep expanding - especially any group who attempts to support those targetted.

By the by, religion is commonly used as a commonality so it's entirely possible that members of all but the most common faith end up as targets.

History shows this pattern repeated again and again across nations and across continents.
 
4DQSAR said:
Well, I did undertake to explain how authoritarian popularism works. One key element is to assign all of the faults and problems in a nation to a few specific groups. Then the people take the law into their own hands.
Click to expand...
Part of me believes that humanity is above that but I know I am wrong in ways. We should as a species be wiser than that. But I see that too. At some point that system will fail.
 
4DQSAR said:
Well, I did undertake to explain how authoritarian popularism works. One key element is to assign all of the faults and problems in a nation to a few specific groups. Then the people take the law into their own hands.

What is worth noting is that the number of specific groups tends to keep expanding - especially any group who attempts to support those targetted.

By the by, religion is commonly used as a commonality so it's entirely possible that members of all but the most common faith end up as targets.

History shows this pattern repeated again and again across nations and across continents.
Click to expand...
In the 1930s the targeted religion was Judaism, now its Islam
 
Well, take a closer look at that example. Black, disabled, Polish, Slavs, Roma, gay/bisexual and Jehovah’s Witnesses, trade unionists as well as anyone considered to be at odds with the ruling party i.e. resisting. Putin basically made it a crime to state that anything he said was untrue so we have a more modern example of the pathway it follows. Every itteration is different. Look at fascism in Italy, Spain, Portugal or in many South American nations around the same period. They all chose slightly different groups but the methodology is the same - identify an 'other' as an existential threat.

Take control, make the population fear becoming a target and require said population PROVE it's loyalty by attacking said demographics. Then you can assert it to be the 'will of the people'.

Equivocal language towards modern fascist groups is often a soft precursor. In essence you are giving the nod to people who will, without direct orders, carry out your will.

I might add that this equally applies to authortarian popularism. It's sort of 'fascist light' in that there is a pretence of a democratic process remaining. But a KEY element is to concentrating power into an elite and allow said elite to prosper as long as they ensure that the people continue to support the ceaser.

Seem familiar?
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
Well, take a closer look at that example. Black, disabled, Polish, Slavs, Roma, gay/bisexual and Jehovah’s Witnesses, trade unionists as well as anyone considered to be at odds with the ruling party i.e. resisting. Putin basically made it a crime to state that anything he said was untrue so we have a more modern example of the pathway it follows. Every itteration is different. Look at fascism in Italy, Spain, Portugal or in many South American nations around the same period. They all chose slightly different groups but the methodology is the same - identify an 'other' as an existential threat.

Take control, make the population fear becoming a target and require said population PROVE it's loyalty by attacking said demographics. Then you can assert it to be the 'will of the people'.

Equivocal language towards modern fascist groups is often a soft precursor. In essence you are giving the nod to people who will, without direct orders, carry out your will.

I might add that this equally applies to authortarian popularism. It's sort of 'fascist light' in that there is a pretence of a democratic process remaining.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I was just using that as a primary example. In 1930s Germany they targeted the Polish, unionists, disabled people, etc

Today they're going after South American, Mexican, Indian/Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, etc
 
But as I said, it's important to look at other examples. Fangaism had a founding princible that workers should be unable to take industrial action and if you think about it, that's an element that the elite would most assuredly wish for so I can well imagine first specific professions and then more widely, laws being enacted to prevent protest.

But no doubt the US will provide it's own quirks. I'm uncertain if Donald Trump has a guiding principle beyond considering profit to be the sole metric of success. If it's more efficient to let people die, people will be allowed to die.
 
www.theguardian.com

The new world order is exactly what it looks like. Are we too frozen with fear to name it? | Zoe Williams

The truth is paralysing. But after JD Vance met the far-right leader Alice Weidel in Germany, it is time to be clear about what we are seeing, writes Zoe Williams
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Like calling unto like.

Don't forget to check who OWNS the media sources you rely on for your information. While clearly left-leaning, the one good thing about The Guardian is the way it's funded. There is no shadowy owner who can dicate what is written.
 
Yep - Trump is busy cancelling agreements made with Federal workers. THIS is an absolutely basic stratergy - it profits the elite at the expense of the people.

The trick is to make people fear being part of a demographic blamed for their nations ills - Niccolò Machiavelli identified the fact that more power derives from fear than from love or respect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top