U.S. Tells Europe To Handle Its Own Defense
The U.S. is no longer willing to subsidize prosperous countries that won’t defend themselves.

The Trump administration's foreign policy gambits can be baffling: Why rename the Gulf of Mexico? What is this fixation on annexing Greenland? Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate? But the president is right that allies have been allowed to shift the costs of their defense to the United States for decades, and they've relied on the U.S. to resolve what are largely European problems. With the U.S. government spending far beyond its means, it's time for our NATO allies to step up, as U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently suggested.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Blunt Word for Europe
"The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe, full stop," Hegseth, who served as an infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking high-profile roles with Fox News and then with the Trump administration, commented last week at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group held in Brussels. "But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency."
Hegseth went on to say that any security guarantees negotiated for Ukraine after almost three long years of war between that country and invading Russian forces "must be backed by capable European and non-European troops," but only "as part of a non-NATO mission….To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine."
But what really brought the message home for attendees was when the U.S. defense secretary emphasized that America has security obligations throughout the world, particularly regarding China. That means, with NATO, the U.S. would focus on "empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security." To that end, Hegseth urged U.S. allies to exceed the 2-percent-of-GDP target for defense spending set by the alliance—which most fail to meet—and to aim for 5 percent.
Hegseth's speech threw "the world's biggest military alliance into disarray," according to the A.P. But the message wasn't unanticipated, nor was the reality of competing demands on American resources entirely unappreciated. France's President Emmanuel Macron quickly called a meeting of European leaders "to discuss European security." NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed Europe and Canada "have not paid enough over the last 40 years…. The U.S. is rightly asking for a rebalancing of that."
Poland, which has historical reasons to fears Moscow's intentions, is already near the 5 percent target for defense. Last March, Poland's President Andrzej Duda praised the U.S. role in defending Europe and supporting Ukraine, but asked other NATO countries to join his country in building military capability.
Unequal Commitments to Defense
At least since the end of the Cold War, most European countries have skated by on minimal military expenditures, counting on the United States to handle any threats that might emerge. That situation continued even after Russian troops poured into Ukraine.
"The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe's biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces," The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2023. "France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle."
NATO's last annual report revealed the U.S. represents 53 percent of the GDP of all countries in the alliance. But the U.S. makes 67 percent of alliance defense expenditures. NATO sets a goal for members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Even with rising tensions, only 11 of the alliance's 32 members hit that benchmark in that report (the next report should show more meeting the goal).
Among the countries not hitting the 2 percent mark are Canada, France, and Germany—all wealthy countries that could significantly contribute to the alliance's defense. Germany claims to have hit the 2 percent target in its latest budget. But Canada's government reportedly told NATO that it "will never" hit the target. Writing about that admission, The Washington Post's Amanda Coletta noted that "nearly all of Canada's 78 Leopard II tanks 'require extensive maintenance and lack spare parts.'"
In supporting Ukraine, European countries gave somewhat more than the U.S. But Europe emphasized financial and humanitarian aid, so the U.S. has offered slightly more military assistance at €64 billion ($67.1 billion U.S.) compared to Europe's €62 billion ($65 billion U.S.), according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
The U.S. Can't Afford To Continue as Europe's Protector
As Hegseth emphasized in Brussels, the U.S. has security concerns around the world, especially in the Pacific with China, while European worries are more regional. But the U.S. has another big concern: The federal government spends far too much. After entitlements, defense spending is a major recipient of tax dollars—or, more accurately, of money borrowed from the future given the massive deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2025 is $1.9 trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit grows to $2.7 trillion by 2035." Debt will also soar if the gap between spending and receipts continues.
Last year, the Cato Institute broke down federal spending, showing that Medicare, Medicaid, and other health entitlements make up 28 percent of the federal budget, Social Security is 22 percent, defense and income security account for 13 percent each, and net interest on the debt is 11 percent. Everything else makes up the remaining 13 percent. It's going to be very difficult to balance the federal government's books without addressing entitlements and defense spending.
Undoubtedly, with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) turning its attention to the Pentagon, loads of waste, fraud, and abuse will be uncovered. But it's impossible that so much financial mismanagement will be uncovered as to make up for trillions in deficits all by itself. Some priorities will have to be rejiggered to get spending controlled.
So, Hegseth's blunt reminder to Europeans that their continent is their responsibility to defend is justified. Countries that together almost equal U.S. GDP and are mostly clustered together should be making more serious arrangements for their own defense.
Not all Trump administration pronouncements were so well-considered. The U.S. reportedly plans to meet with Russian envoys to discuss Ukraine's future—without inviting Ukraine or European allies. That's presumptuous and runs the risk that Ukraine just won't stop fighting if it doesn't like the terms.
In response, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the creation of an "armed forces of Europe" to defend the continent. French President Macron's security meeting suggests Europeans are thinking along similar lines.
That could work out for everybody except the Russians. If Europeans assume greater responsibility for defending their continent and for supporting Ukraine, Washington, D.C. would likely be very happy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hegseth's speech threw "the world's biggest military alliance into disarray," according to the A.P.
Not to mention the Biden family’s 401k.
And all the graft of the Atlantic council.
HOW CAN WE HAVE A FREE MEDIA UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR IT?!?!?
I KNOW, RIGHT? IT'S FREE IF IT'S PAID FOR!
"according to the A.P."
How long until the AP and Reuters USAID funds run out and they have to find new clients?
Maybe China can sponsor them.
Maybe China can sponsor them.
I'd bet it's already happening.
. . . for a couple decades.
How long until Reason realizes AP has become a huge joke? Like Yglesias.
The latter even adjusted his contrast and color scheme to push the narrative Hegseth was drinking whiskey instead of water.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1890801108500545955
How long before we realize that Reason has become a joke? Like AP.
Around 2012?
There were signs, but it wasn't too bad then. The trajectory was more clear by 2014 with Obamacare and postmodernist defenses. 2016 is when I'd say they abandoned logically formulated arguments.
Trump 1.0 broke so many people. COVID mania kept the psychoses warm. Now Trump 2.0 can finish the job.
Maybe the whole government-assisted suicide thing is necessary.
I've been around these parts since before Obama's first term, and it's gone downhill since the day I joined. Some of their more recent hires have actually caused a slight upwards trend but it's not enough to offset how far they fell before now.
At least Dalmia isn't writing for them anymore and I haven't seen anything from Shackford in about a year. Winning, I guess.
..and it's gone downhill since the day I joined.
I blame it on you!
Correlation is not causation!
not all the time but perhaps here lol ... studies required ... could just as easily been me
Needs more testing.
2015ish.
2020 was the deathlnell
I'm more here to read you guys/girls than the Reason writers
Only in Matt’s mind would that necessarily be a bad thing.
Personally, I love the idea of SecState sipping a single malt and telling Eurotrash to get fucked.
Yeah, my response to Yglesias was that I thought that would be pretty bad-assed. Though I'd advocate for a fine Kentucky Bourbon. Got to keep it New World, after all. 😀
Nice.
Mark Suckaturd can provide the cash.
Occam’s razor.
Wrong spot
Zelenski is irrelevant. Trump will meet with him at some point but he has no choice except to take the deal. He's burned through all of his military age cannon fodder. He refuses to stand for election. The Europeans can try to keep the bloodshed going but they're already broke. Without US support Ukraine will never survive this war.
They met in September of last year at Trump Tower and have talked via videoconferencing a few times since.
Not to contradict you, just adding info.
sounds impeachy
I said this last week. Ukraine is dependent on US aid, ergo, they have two choices, go it without US aid (which means a quick defeat) or accept whatever compromise they can get. They're already basically on the precipe of collapse, militarily, even with our support. They've ran out of manpower, and are steadily being pushed back on all fronts. Eventually they're going to completely collapse, a la Germany fall of 1918.
Same analysis on all points apply to Russia, which has had to import tens of thousands of North Koreans. Russia has economic sanctions while Ukraine has none and continues to get large amounts of non-military aid from European countries.
Not even close to being the same analysis.
First of all, Russia isn't using North Korean troops because they've ran out of military age males. Ukraine is so desperate for manpower that they are literally kidnapping men off the streets to fill their ranks. Russia is using North Korean troops because they are already trained, and they don't have to use Russian troops then, not because they're desperate for fighting age males. Additionally, Russia is winning, Ukraine isn't. Russia may be purchasing ammunition from its allies, but they're also producing a far bit of their own. Russia has aircraft, armored vehicles etc, to spare. Russia has a far larger economy, and the sanctions have not really hurt them at all, they just shifted from selling to the west, to selling to Asia. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
Also, for 70 years, the main export of North Korea has been it's excess population. For the most part, they get sent to China as virtual slave labor. I'm betting the Russians are actually paying less per North Korean soldier than they'd pay for their own troops. And North Korea has a ton of soldiers to use as cannon fodder, so the Russians have a ways to go before they have to dip to far into their own reserve of military age males. (Also, Russia hasn't even come close to using its full military might against Ukraine).
Just FYI, the entire Russian Army alone, active and reserve troops is approximately 3.5 million troops. Of that, only an estimated 600,000 are in Ukraine. That's only about 1/6th of the Army.
The Ukrainians can poison the well by arming the entire population and becoming ungovernable. They'd have ready resupply from the west that would be near impossible to cut off. Due to asymmetrical factors, it would take several times as many troops as guerillas to suppress a guerilla war on foreign soil. The Ukrainians could turn Ukraine into even more of a graveyard for Russian soldiers.
If Ukraine is smart, they'll start selling land and mineral rights to finance the war without reliance on the U.S. So long as they are financed and have access to resupply, they could hold out forever. It takes more troops and armament to invade than to defend.
No, Ukraine can't hold out forever. They've basically ran out of military age males. The well is dry. Besides, Russia doesn't really want to control the whole country, directly. The provinces they've already conquered are largely populated by Russian speakers, and won't really prove to difficult to manage as a result. Ukraine on the other hand is on burrowed time.
Then the Russians are only likely hold what they've already taken.
Ukraine population ~35,6000,000
Fit for service ~12,700,000
Active duty ~900,000
Reserve ~1,200,000
Paramilitary ~100,000
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=ukraine
Draft age in Ukraine is 25, which could be lowered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Ukraine
If the Ukrainians arranged pullbacks to defendable positions, they could make it very very expensive for the Russians to advance. Combine that with ambushes and guerilla actions, and the Ukrainians could hold the Russians pretty much where they are right now using aid available to them from the Europenises or by selling off resources.
Ukraine population ~35,600,000 not 3,6000,000
Then why are they being pushed back on all fronts?
Lack of ammo and resupply, probably. The Ukes may need to recruit or draft some more troops. How far back they'll be driven, only time will tell. But with adequate resupply and troop replacements, they'll hold. It'll still be difficult for the Russians to push much further than the Donbas. Only time will tell.
No matter how many guns or bullets you have, you are going to lose if you don't have someone to pull the triggers.
Read my post above regarding available Ukraine manpower.
Hey, soldiermedic76, were you a 91Bravo? I was decades ago.
91B and 91C
Yeah, 91Charlie. Respect to you. 91 Charlies were almost like doctors in Vietnam. Nowadays, 91Bravo is a 68Whiskey.
I served in infantry back in the day (1st/27th Inf 25th Inf Div '70, 3rd/503rd inf 173rd Airborne '71), colors my perception of warfare, serving in a guerilla conflict. Takes a lot of resources and manpower to root out and kill guerilla or defending forces.
What the hell, give Europe to Russia.
We can see if Russia can afford all those immigrants.
Europe would be migrant free in one year.
Why do you hate ethnic rape clubs?
Except for North Koreans.
they're so ronerey
Ship all the Muslim migrant sin Europe to Russia. That would solve many problems, and also be entertaining for us to watch.
Why rename
the Gulf of MexicoMt. McKinley ?You misspelled the gulf of america
You didn't see the word rename.
There's no Gulf of America. The Gulf of America is a fictional place where unicorns swim.
Not so. It's located right directly below the southern coast of the United States. Need me to take you there, Bruce?
Been there. Padre Island near Galveston. Nah, that's the Gulf of Mexico. If there was a Gulf of America, it would likely be mistaken for the Caribbean Sea since the Caribbean spans both North and South America.
The Gulf of Mexico is contained within North America only. So if there was such a place as the Unicorn Sea i.e. Gulf of America, it couldn't be the Gulf of Mexico because the Gulf of Mexico is in North America only. The Unicorn Sea would have to be the Gulf of North America to be mistaken for the Gulf of Mexico. There is no Gulf of America. I think you have it confused with the Unicorn Sea.
Google maps show the Gulf of America - I guess that settles it...
Google's inaccuracy. Mapquest is more accurate, and correctly has Gulf of Mexico.
Because skin color is the most important thing?
CRT thinks so.
They're deadnaming the Gulf!!!
Why rename the artist formally know as prince?
Because he's a douch
Because we shouldn’t name shit after the worst people, US Politicians?
Renaming Denali after a President who never went to Alaska was dumb and Obama was right to restore it's name.
Did he get permission from Congress?
Did Trump?
Well I guess then we're all good now! Next prez can keep the name or name it Mt. Gonzo.... its not a virtue contest its just a nod to the law of "winners get to name things".
Democrats did it first, so it’s ok!
Fuck off, nobody knew the locals called it Denali when the cartographers started calling it "McKinley".
In fact "Denali" is only one name local tribes had for it. Different groups called it different names. Just how the gulf has had dozens of different names.
You expect that brain dead lefty shit Godiva to have any knowledge at all about what s/he posts? That's like expecting turd to be honest.
No doubt Cuba calls it "The Gulf of Imperialist Aggression".
And really, who cares?
I'm still voting for the Gulf of Columbus.
Gulf of Trump.
Gulf of Bruce. Maybe Gulf of Woodchip.
How 'bout, America's Toilet?
That’s Mexico.
America's soup bowl.
Cultural appropriation is good again?
Changing the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America and then abusing journos who don’t go along with it, to me, is hilarious, ironic performance art because it’s playing off something libs did to the public in 100s of instances with zero awareness that was no less ridiculous.
But mollydumbass says Obama did the right thing when he did it!
Why rename the Redskins? Or the St. John's Redmen? Or all the streets that became MLK Blvd. Why tear down all those statues?
These people are such hypocrites.
Every time I see that name, Hegseth, my brain fumbles with it possibly being Hesgeth. One of these days, some writer will get it wrong too, and I doubt I'll notice. It's probably already happened a few times.
Makes sense, as the way our brains read is by recognizing the group of letters together, and not necessarily as reading the order of the letters of a word. Here is one example I found just now:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Thast why spelilng is hard .
For me, it's "though" vs. "through." I routinely read the other when I'm going quickly.
Yeah, that was a good study. It is, however, at least partially an artifact of the complexity english spelling rules. You do not see the same trend so strongly in languages that have a more strict correlation between spelling and phonetics. I'd love to see that study repeated on English speakers who used the Shavian alphabet.
Rob's Words on Youtube had a recent episode on 5 alternate alphabets for the English language. What I found annoying about all of them is that they are phonetic, so different accents and dialects spell things differently. One of the things I appreciate about English spelling is that writers feel free to mess with spelling to simulate accents and dialects, to emphasize stress and emphasis, and we are so used to haphazard spelling that it doesn't faze us at all.
I read Spanish and French in high school, took a Japanese reading and writing class after I got out of the Navy, and I don't remember any of that. But that was limited exposure. It would be interesting to hear from native speakers how much that matters in peasant literature.
The French Academy gets so het up about "le weekend" and "le hot dog", and I thank the Babylon gods for not having those idiots for the English language.
Rob's Words video on "egg corns" was fantastic. I even watched his in-video ad as he sprinkled egg corns throughout it. A must-watch for anyone interested in English linguistics.
the Shavian alphabet
I was pleased to learn today that there are people even more ridiculous in their obsessions than I am. 😀
That proves the opposite of what is usually asserted. It would NOT be possible to read that for people who don't know how to spell.
If you are so bad at spelling that you don't even know basic spelling, sure.
My comment was tautological. It should have read, "If you are so bad at spelling that you don't even know most of the letters in a word, sure."
That describes the average high school student these days.
Fair enough
The short version: we in America have had it with all you freeloading bums over there. Better start looking for a job because we're kicking you out of the house!
It’s going to be tough for these heavily socialist nations to actually pay for their own defense.
We actrually hamstrung their defense by defending them. It is the very premise of their stupid outrage !!!!!
Now they have internal enemies due to idiotic immigration policies. Let them die at their own hand at least .
If that Munich violence turns out to be Muslim, my point stands unassailable. The money, lives, public cost could have been directed to extternal enemies.
Manufactured dependency is always the wrong answer.
Sowell has been trying to make this point for years; LBJ and the "War on Poverty".
Expected and intended consequences
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".
You wonder what American teat milk tastes like? The American Teat can feed you, too. You get a teat. And you get a teat!
Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate?
No! Gods no!
That means, with NATO, the U.S. would focus on "empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security."
As we should have done thirty years ago.
But it's impossible that so much financial mismanagement will be uncovered as to make up for trillions in deficits all by itself.
That's optimistic of you, to think there isn't that much financial mismanagement.
Irrefutable. Social Security is its own scam, but since it's essentially a return of tax dollars (after years of confiscation, waste and graft, of course) I'll set that off to one side.
I'd be shocked if every other area of spending isn't roughly 50% waste / inefficiency / fraud. We know that's the case with Medicare and Medicaid. And God knows half of what we spend on the military should be cut or at least redirected to equipment we actually need.
I think a good starting point would be a mandatory day in federal prison for every taxpayer dollar stolen or openly wasted. The $600 hammer wouldn't be so funny if you knew it would cost you 2 years in prison. Since they're all "public servants", I know they'll be more than happy to sign off on this agreement.
Just for the record, the reason that hammer is costed at $600 is to get $550 to clandestine operations.
Even worse than that. Majority of the costs is due to over engineered requirements coming from the government side to ensure nothing bad can happen.
Hammer shatters in space, the parts can get into equipment, as an example.
Even simple circuit cards operate in much different environments than your phone and can't have the circuitry go into low power mode due to heat or not operate in cold.
A lot of the costs is the specified requirements then purchase of the item on low scale, meaning IRAD gets spread over fewer sales.
If you don't add Quebec, who is grossly overrepresented in Parliament's house and the senate, Canadians would track politically for the most part like Ohio.
Though Quebec only actually votes Liberal because they give them free stuff and employ the population.
If you don't add Quebec, who is grossly overrepresented in Parliament's house and the senate, Canadians would track politically for the most part like Ohio.
Glib response: "That's what I'm afraid of."
More serious response: I would be interested in seeing how the provinces outside of Quebec would poll regarding healthcare and gun control. Which are two things regarding which I would very much prefer the US not become more like Canada, at least as it is federally at this time..
Every time the Conservatives have been in power they've tossed the Liberal's gun control laws because they are incredibly unpopular outside of urban cores.
The Liberal's ban guns for the same reason that the Democrats do. State control.
For an insight into how the provinces view it, Alberta has just added gun ownership to its Provincial Bill of Rights which got royal assent in December. In this matter the Province has control rather than the feds.
It also created a provincial firearms act to push back on federal gun bill
Healthcare is a different story. That's not going away.
Sometimes it's really good, like in Alberta. Other places its horrific, like Manitoba or New Brunswick.
American's often mistakenly think, however, that healthcare in Canada is a federal matter, but it's strictly provincial. Each province has it's own system. There's nothing like Medicare and Medicaid.
So you have hefty provincial taxes relative to federal taxes, unlike the US?
Also, I thought BC would be as liberal as the US west coast. That's only Vancouver?
Get away from the I-5 corridor and both Oregon and Washington are fairly red. Supposedly so is California.
Vancouver and Victoria. Go inside the interior, like Kelowna, and it's pretty... not progressive. I can't say "red" because the colours are flipped in the rest of the world.
"So you have hefty provincial taxes relative to federal taxes, unlike the US?"
Depends on the province, some are less and some are more. Federal taxes are actually pretty heavy, but a substantial portion are handed back out to the provinces as equalization payments. They take money from the "have" provinces, to funnel to the "have nots".
This is a bone of contention for the west as they've handed over hundreds of billions to enable Quebec and the Maritimes continual dysfunction and parasitism.
^^This. Adding Canada to the U.S. would be like adding another California, politically. It'd have about the same number of electoral votes, representatives and senators as California with roughly the same political orientation as California. If the U.S. absorbed Canada, it would tip the U.S. permanently left.
What a game in Montreal this weekend.
Amen. I was watching it at a BWW with a friend, so the volume wasn't on. I missed that the Montreal audience had boo'd the US National Anthem.
I'm thinking the fights that the game started with were planned before the game, but if it was at all ratcheted up because of the disrespect shown by the Quebecois spectators, it's even more impressive.
I normally don't like fights just for the sake of fighting in hockey (such as at puck drop), but I made an exception for this game, and it really sent the message that the US is no longer the little brother to Canada in international hockey. Hopefully, if it is Canada in the Championship Match, we can finish the job and take them out (metaphorically speaking).
They had preplanned it if the booing had occurred, they were booed earlier in the tournament against i believe Sweden.
Thanks for letting me know--I hadn't heard one way or the other.
I think this is the year for USA Hockey. Then again, in the 2010 Olympics, the US beat Canada in the preliminary round, only to lose to them in the Gold Medal game. But I'd argue that this new crop of American players is better than the 2010 group. There were no Tkachuk brothers in 2010. That level of physicality plus elite scoring ability is hard to counter for a speedy team like Canada, as was evident with how the US frustrated McDavid after the opening goal. McAvoy's hit on him at the boards after McDavid entered the off. zone was great. I've watched it on replay several times now.
That was an awesome game. Got chills. Love hockey. I’ll take the international tournaments over the NHL any day, if the NHL players are involved.
That's why we don't take all of Canada. Have Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NW Territories, and the Maritimes join the USA. Ontario, Quebec, and BC can be the rump Canada. Nunavut can join Greenland.
Only if we get to trade New England and New York for the provinces we're taking. Then we can hold onto BC and Alaska can join CONUS.
Yes, please. And send the coastal counties of California on their way.
Give California back to Mexico.
I mean, depends on what part of Canada. Consolidating the current House of Commons delegations into the "Conservative Party of Canada" and "Everybody Else":
Alberta: 30-4.
British Columbia: 14-28.
Manitoba: 7-7.
New Brunswick: 4-6
Newfoundland & Labrador: 1-6
Northwest Territories: 0-1
Nova Scotia: 3-8
Nunavut: 0-1
Ontario: 38-83
Prince Edward Island: 0-4
Quebec: 9-69
Saskatchewan: 14-0.
Yukon: 0-1
Which means if one were to move the western US-Canada border from the 49th parallel to the Manitoba-Ontario line, and made the four provinces on the US side of the move directly into states while keeping the territories as US territories, the US would acquire a bit more than two-thirds of Canada's territory (including full geographic contiguity with Alaska and acquiring the islands closest to Greenland), a bit less than one-third of Canada's population, and pretty much all Canada's oil. In one step, the US-Canada trade deficit would reverse. This would add eight members to the Senate, with the breakdown probably 4 Republicans (Alberta and Saskatchewan) and 4 Democrats (BC and Manitoba).
I mean, I kinda want New York and New England to go join Canada at that point, like they've been threatening.
I guess... sorry, New Hampshire. I dunno how to save that one pocket of semi-sanity, though.
Give them part of Idaho.
That is a hard no!! We have too many left-wing progressives already!!
If only the headline were true. I don't want "our NATO allies to step up," I want the US out of NATO.
That would be an awful idea. The US in NATO serves our national interests. It gives us bases, intelligence, and helps keep Russia at bay. Russia attacking the rest of Europe would be a disaster for the US.
M.
G.
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Yeah - they did so well with little Ukraine! I think even Russia knows they dont have what it takes to take on Europe even if they are all effete cosmo eurotrash.
They would still militarily intimidate Europe. Eventually expanding their borders further and economically dominating them as well. Putin wants his Soviet a union back. That said, the kn,y way we should stay in NATO is if the European members get their shit together and pull their own weight.
Would The Islamic Republic of Western Europe be preferable to a new Soviet Union?
The US in NATO serves our national interests. It gives us bases, intelligence, and helps keep Russia at bay.
Those are contradictory statements.
Why would Russia attacking Europe be a disaster for the U.S.? It's an ocean away. They're all gun-control nations. Why spend any money or risk our troops lives or risk nuclear war to defend gun-control nations?
What is this fixation on annexing Greenland
Do you not understand the importance of Greenland? It's a resource rich, stratigicly it's a necessity for shorter air routs
And if either China or Russia decides they want it badly enough, they're not going to ask politely, they're just going to go ahead take it by force, and the idea that Denmark can defend it by themselves is beyond laughable. And unlike Ukraine, it's closer to us and is in OUR sphere of influence, not theirs.
The idea that China would actually invade Greenland and make themselves an international pariah is what's laughable. The idea that they could then hold on to it is what's beyond laughable.
No shit. That would be as crazy as them building a series of "islands" in the South China Sea and militarizing them to claim sovereignty over the waterways of Southeast Asia. All in plain sight.
Can you imagine what kind of retard would have to be president in 2013 to let this happen unchallenged?
Yeah, cuz Greenland is so much closer to China than the South China Sea.
So they literally created military islands out of nothing in a sea that borders or surrounds more than a dozen other countries, most of whom are US allies. A waterway that has massive military and economic implications, and nobody did ANYTHING to stop them.
But if they set foot in Greenland with its population of 50k sheepfuckers, we're really going to drop the hammer. Mmkay.
WE don't have to , the EU doesn't have to. The logistics will do the trick. You're falling for the same fallacy that Japan could have invaded Hawaii or the West Coast. They did not have the logistics for it. Their carriers lost 29 planes and had another 100+ damaged too severely to complete any more missions, in just two raids. How do you think China could actually get any invasion force so far from home, and then sustain it?
Can't happen.
It could happen if a Democrat administration did nothing about it to help their Chinese partners.
Proving you too have no concept of the logistics involved.
The Democrats would be totally okay with China taking Greenland, don't think otherwise.
Agreed. The Red Chinese would have to go through the North Pacific and through the Bering Straight, both of which the U.S. firmly controls. Then they'd have to cross the Arctic to the North Sea which the U.S. and Royal Navies would easily control.
The other ways they could go would be to go south through the Pacific or Indian Oceans, in which the U.S. Navy reigns supreme, and either go around the Cape of Good Hope around Africa or around the Straights of Magellan around South America, then all the way up through the South and North Atlantic which is close to the U.S. and which the U.S. Navy (and Royal Navy) dominates.
It would be much, much easier for the U.S. to absorb Taiwan as the 51st state than for Red China to even get near Greenland.
So?
Every American aircraft heading to Europe from east of the Appalachians (and Canada, and Mexico) travels across or close to Greenland.
How is it a necessity for shorter air routes?
The air is too cold over Greenland. To avoid icing issues, planes actually drive across Greenland. So we need to own the island to build roads wide enough for the wings. Duh.
LOL
You mean versus Denmark owing it? It's a huge generator of flyover fees for Denmark for one.
A web search tells me there's no charge for civilian flyovers. Can you verify?
That's true but only for private aircraft, who can get an overflight permit for free. Commercial and military still have to pay.
Flying over Denmark itself for commercial is free though, because nobody is using their infrastructure in the minutes it takes to cross. With Greenland however they charge commercial aircraft fees for overflights, including route navigation facility charges.
Yeah, and that's so lucrative that the US is going broke paying for it and China will turn us into slaves if they start collecting it instead of Denmark.
So these aren't as bad as the tariffs you scream about? Lol.
Weird how different your stances are for different topics despite the same overall effect.
Weird how you conflate everything which doesn't make your point.
Thank you, ML.
We live on a globe.
Retarded Magazine: MUH OPEN BORDURZ! GLOBULIZASHUN IZ GOOD!
Also Retarded Magazine: WHYCUM PEOPLE TALK PURCHESS GREENLAND?!
Starmer is advocating British troops in Ukraine. How desperate they are.
Gotta keep the global slush fund rolling. And if we have to pull everyone in WW3 style, all the better apparently.
How many people have their hands in this money pot I wonder.
How many people have their hands in this money pot I wonder.
Put my hands in the “out” column.
The same amount as NGOs had in USAID.
Newly released emails are showing direct coordination between Treasury and NGOs which is why democrats and jeffsarc are freaking out.
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/biden-treasury-dept-emails-show-coordination-left-wing-orgs-tax-policy
Europe keeps pulling us into their little squabbles despite the fact the United States was formed to get away from their bullshit.
Of course, our politicians continue to allow that or even worse actively participate in getting involved.
It's not likely that the EU will survive long term anyway absent any external threats. Their member states mostly hate each other with centuries old animus and the only thing really keeping them together is redistributed wealth and Russians.
Blame Wilson. If he had actually cared about the US he would have called out Britain for it's illegal blockade (much like Jefferson and Madison did, but in 1914 we were a lot closer to being on par with Britain). Not saying declared war but made it abundantly clear that we weren't going to honor their blockade as a neutral party. Either that or we cut off trade with England to, if they wanted to stop our shipping.
Dammit. I agree with you this time.
^^Agreed. U.S. involvement in WW1 was the granddaddy of U.S. foreign policy mistakes.
Europe keeps pulling us into their little squabbles despite the fact the United States was formed to get away from their bullshit.
Exactly. There was zero reason for us to have gotten involved in either Serbia or Libya, which were both NATO operations. And in fairness, there was zero reason for Europe to keep providing troop deployments to Afghanistan for 20 years, in a conflict that stopped concerning them at all the second Bin Laden got domed.
We'd be far better off divesting ourselves from NATO, both militarily and economically.
There was no reason for us to get into WWI, or Iraq I or II either.
The limey's can do what they want. Count US out.
Peacekeepers, as part of a peace deal.
Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission. He joined the organization in April 2019, making him one of only two serving British MPs to have been a member.
Although the Trilateral Commission was ostensibly started by David Rockefeller, it was CIA since the beginning, and is where CIA directors, Chief National Intelligence Officers and such go to retire.
The Trilateral Commissions paws have been all over Ukraine. Larry Fink of Blackrock, which is getting paid billions to rebuild Ukraine is a member for example. Weirdly enough, Jeffrey Epstein was also a member.
Epstein could pull young chicks for those guys.
Meanwhile that ponce kweer Stammer jails anyone who dares speak out against importing more turd world savages into Britain.
The iceberg on which the Europe will crash (and the US a decade or so later) is entitlements. Requiring the Europeans provide for their own defense has the added benefit of forcing them to deal with the cradle to grave, blank-check social programs they all know are unsustainable. If they're smart, they take the political cover offered and blame the heartless US for forcing them to abandoned their dream of a net zero, socialist utopia under the security umbrellas provided by US taxpayer dollars A welcome development.
Yup.
Free health care (that no one can even access) and no questions asked living-on-benefits welfare ("too sick to work") is a lot easier when you dont have to provide significant defense and hell, the US will just take care of it and prevent war.
Fuck the EU, they can pay their share. We should just get out of NATO and let them fend for themselves. Most of them have all but surrendered to the Islamic calaphate that is rolling in, through doors they purposefully and gladly opened for them.
Let them drown in it, they created it and bragged about how wonderful it is
There was a price for that health care.
It was basically having to soak bullets and bomb fragments if the Warsaw pact decided to move west.
If Europe had been the main ones deciding on NATO expansion - they wouldn't have expanded. They would have taken the peace dividend. It's the US who chose to expand east for empire reasons - then pissed off a 'newly' (but unsurprisingly) revanchist Russia - who then creates a menace for Europe.
Germany - the most notorious freeloading PoS - has reduced its military spending from 4.9% of GDP in 1964 (its peak), to 2.5% of GDP with reunification in 1989 to 1.1% at its trough in 2005.
It's the story of all military alliances. They look for enemies. If enemies aren't there, they create enemies.
Even more reason for the US to withdraw from NATO.
IDK why that is 'reason for US to withdraw from NATO' - US creates Russia as the new enemy and then runs away when Russia becomes the enemy - but if we do, the US will be seen, correctly, as a country whose word ain't worth a shit. Which we've always known and has (almost) always been true.
The U.S. didn't create any enemies. That's entirely on NATO. Pulling out simply means that we've had enough of NATO's foolery. No one should look down upon us for doing that.
"...US creates Russia as the new enemy and then runs away when Russia becomes the enemy..."
JFucked invents a strawman and expects to be engaged.
Fuck off and die, asshole. There's your engagement.
Not to worry. The WEF has a plan. They still offer a comprehensive nanny state socialist entitlement plan. But the standard of living will revert to serfdom. Economic win!
Even Judt (who is no 'capitalist tool') made clear in "Post War" that model is only workable if the Euros can pass off costs to others, and Uncle Sam has been more than happy to use your and my money to subsidize them.
Don't you wish you knew someone as generous as you?
The only European countries who are in the same public finances boat as the US are Greece and Italy. Everyone else pays for their social welfare programs with taxes. They don't have 'entitlements' that are a problem because they are ignored for generations. Europe does PAYGO which creates a much lower future liability - and which creates regular political kerfuffles but those do resolve themselves.
Further, the US ain't reducing military spending in order to cover social spending or 'domestic threats'. We're just going to spend that money elsewhere. R's will never ever ever reduce military spending. It is the US - not Europe - that has never addressed its 'end of empire' and reduced global footprint.
Europe has to face a huge wake up but realistically their biggest military need is to reinstate active conscription. Well - and coordination. Europe does not see NATO as an alliance to expand liberal democracy to the world. That's the US motivation. From a security perspective, Europe only cares about Europe/Mediterranean - and conscription works for that. The drum beat to 'spend more' has been nothing but the US trying to force Europe to buy US military tech. The Euros have instead wasted a shit ton subsidizing their own military tech to US standard. Once they wake up (and the US has now forced that - maybe) and realize that their military need is to counter Russia - not satisfy the US - then the tech/MIC need is much much lower.
If the US is no longer going to provide a nuclear umbrella, then various European countries will go nuclear. Which could be a problem
Let them arm themselves, then. We're sick of wasting money.
"If the US is no longer going to provide a nuclear umbrella, then various European countries will go nuclear. Which could be a problem"
Not for the U.S. U.S. cities would no longer be subject to nuclear retaliatory risk.
It does not matter how much equipment each individual country has, it matters the total that the whole EU NATO has.
In a real war, the EU NATO countries will pay a heavy price because their land will be ruined and their people killed. All the US has to do is pay money and have our Navy and Air Force help out from a safe distance.
They can use their own goddamn money. I’m tired of those stuck-up assholes demanding money. Fuck em.
Agreed. Fuck 'em.
Agreed. Fuck 'em. False-righteous gun-control Europenises.
How will the US continue to piss around in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the places we like to play empire? Those bases and hospitals in 'NATO' have never been used for NATO purposes. The US uses them for empire purposes - and everyone in NATO knows that. It's why our past 'threats' have been seen as empty. Whether these threats are empty too - well I dont know but I suspect either we are serious this time or we will be viewed as serious by Europe
How will the US continue to piss around in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the places we like to play empire?
Is that question rhetorical? If we don't have to spend resources on foreign adventures, we can actually reduce defense spending.
You're acting like us having to cut that shit down would be a bad thing.
Another Neo-con with a tiny war boner.
The US is NOT going to cut that shit down. There is zero interest by the US in reducing its global footprint. This is about trying to get others to PAY. Same as saying Mexico will pay for the wall. No they're not. Period. The US is going to have to pay for their own wall. Just like the US is going to pay for their own 300 military bases abroad. If the US decides to stop paying, then it will simply shut those bases down. Not babble on and whine about someone else paying.
Sounds like the EU should be motivated for providing their own defense then.
All the US has to do is pay money and have our Navy and Air Force help out from a safe distance.
Feel free to write a check.
There is no “safe distance “.
Hey, Molly, since EU Nato has 4 times the population and 10 times the GDP of Russian, what the fuck are they doing to be so "vulnerable"?
Their vulnerability is their laziness. Compared to Russia (the only threat to Europe):
Russia - 1.1 million active military, 1.5 million reserves
NATO Europe - 1.4 million active military, 2.7 million reserves
re manpower - the lazy free loader shithole countries are Canada and Germany. Only one of which is Europe. NATO doesn't train seriously but the main problem is logistics and coordination
Equipment:
Russia - tanks 12,600; aircraft - 4200; AFV - 150,000; Arty - 8200; Navy 600
NATO Europe - tanks 3,200; aircraft - 5200; AFV - 250,000; Arty - 2100; Navy 600
A clear doctrine mismatch but not a lack of spending. Which is also the US problem. Compounded by a silly notion of 'spending % of GDP' as a metric since that merely encourages excess spending on the latest aircraft tech and MIC boondoggles rather than bulk artillery/ammo. IDK if this problem gets 'fixed' with Europe ignoring the US and instead focusing on Russia/threat - but it sure doesn't get fixed with more decades of BS about '% of GDP'
How old are those stats on Russia? My understanding is that they've gone through most of the Soviet Union stockpile of tanks and other armored vehicles. As I understand it the difference in tank numbers was deliberate - NATO tanks were allegedly designed to be higher quality capable of handling multiple Soviet tanks, who in turn relied on quantity over quality.
Seems drone warfare and precision guided munitions are the tools to have on hand for future wars. Until the next tech advances come along to obsolete them.
I suspect those are old. Here's the source. That said - Russia is also massively outproducing both Europe and the US on artillery and ammo - with nothing changing in sight. Dumb ammo and sheer firepower has always been a Russia strategy. It doesn't seem to be leading to much in the way of advance - but it still shreds offensives and is prob the best metric re how quickly an economy can switch from peace to war if necessary. I agree that drones are still not measured well.
The lessons of US trying to rescue Europe twice now are lost on you. Third time's a charm? Is that what your "well versed in a wide variety of subjects" "highly specialized" PhD taught you?
M.
G.
Is.
Still.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
All the US has to do is pay money and have our Navy and Air Force help out from a safe distance.
Molly doesn't give a fuck about the tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians that will die so Raytheon can fill its pockets while the US takes potshots from a distance.
Tell us you don't know how the Navy and Air Force work and have no idea what an army is without saying so.
We’d be more than happy to sell them equipment.
With European money, of course.
And that is the last thing Europe should be doing at this point. One of the reasons they have resisted raising % of GDP is precisely because buying that equipment from the US is overkill. Another is because no legitimate country ever buys most of its weaponry from another country - esp not from one that is not a very reliable ally.
"And that is the last thing Europe should be doing at this point...": JFucked.
It's beginning to look like the first thing they're going to have to do, regardless of your bullshit bleatings.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
We did that once. Okay, fooled me again so we did it again. Third time's the charm maybe?
Fuck off commie.
Once again you prove how big a fucking idiot you are. You know nothing about the military, and you just proved it. Also, as in the words of Napoleon, the best enemy is a coalition. All NATO forces combined, minus the US, don't equal what we have in troops and equipment. And it takes quite a while to build up a military. It took the US nearly 3 years during WWII, and we were a hell of a lot bigger manufacturing country at the time, and the equipment used was a hell of a lot simpler (compare the M-4 to the MIA2Sep3 or a P-51 to a F-22 or F-35). And we supplied over half of the supplies used by our allies to in WWII. The British couldn't even supply their own Army, and had to rely on lend lease to make up the difference. Far better to have it on hand than to try and build it up after the balloon goes up. France, Germany and England combined don't have enough tanks to create a single division (about 230 tanks plus armored fighting vehicles and artillery). So, no Europe is fucked if they actually have to fight a war and it would require extensive US ground troops to make up their shortage.
Nope. No more. It's time to start the process of closing ALL foreign military bases in Europe and Britain.
America should not be defending these neo Marxist states. Trump should tell the EU go f***themselves and pull out of NATO.
Western Europe is lost without firing a single shot. Britain has been handed over to Marxists like Kweer Stamer and his illiberal party who celebrate the rapes of young girls by savage turd world subhumans.
Trump should shut down the bases in Britain and leave them to themselves. Bring our people home where they belong; not in Britain, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy or Crackistan or any other place.
Then. let's see how their attitude towards Russia remains.
Mike Lee says it's time to leave NATO. The guy who thought Sam Hyde was the Ghost of Kyiv calls him a dumbass.
https://x.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1891250313161539632
He also does the bitch move of throwing insults at people on Twitter while limiting who can reply to his posts.
He should post his list.
Are you saying Kinzinger is Sarc?
Same style, ignorance, and victimhood mentalities.
Who can reply?
Accounts @AdamKinzinger follows or mentioned can reply
Lol, he got tired of being corrected. He can still probably be community noted though.
sometimes it looks like boehm is sarc
Kinzinger is a Jacob Sullum level retard.
Hmm, I seem to remember another elected official trying to block people and being told he wasn’t allowed to.
Weird.
(D)ifferent.
Funny how that works.
Kizinger had a commission, so he can volunteer to go over there and fight Europe's war for them. He can take my son's and nephews' spot.
'U.S. Tells Europe To Handle Its Own Defense'
Spin the news much? I heard Vance tell Europe that they need to contribute more to defense AND be worthy of support by democratic societies.
When you demand that governments throw more money at something, isn't that an invitation to waste, fraud and abuse?
"Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle."
This makes ex-chancellor Angela Merkel's attitude and bloviations especially infuriating.
Effete Freeloaders of CosPlay Countries.
"Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle."
Switch to bolt action rifles, not as wasteful.
I wonder if they have a stash of K-98 laying around. I also suggest they change their uniform to field gray and go back to coal scuttle steel helmets.
It's not just Merkel and the Christian Dems. The Socialists and AfD and whatever's left of the communists are just as bad. Total freeloaders. Only the FDP and Greens know there's a threat and that they are freeloaders. And that knowledge leads them to call for a round of drinks on the house
Donnie picked the perfect lackey in Neo-Nazi frat boy Hegseth. No real US general would allow Vlad to dictate US foreign policy.
Oh, look, it's the Bushpig pedo!
Apparently the Nazis were well known for not wanting to go to war against Russia for land in Ukraine... oh, wait.
This is how absolutely retarded Buttplug is. Hegseth and Trump are somehow the Nazis, because they're refusing to do exactly what the Nazis actually did.
I used to think Sarc was the dumbest poster here, but Buttplug is getting me to reconsider.
The dictator Vlad/Russia are invading and conquering much like Hitler did. East European experts say Belarus is next and eventually Poland.
The parallel here is between Trump and Chamberlain. Both are sacrificing to appease fascist aggression.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
invading and conquering much like Hitler did
How the fuck is the Russian invasion like the Nazi's? Let's set aside the fact that the Ukraine and Russia were the same country for almost a thousand years, why the hell does Russia need "lebensraum"?
East European experts
You misspelled "neocons", warpig. They're already plotting where to play war next.
He’s so ignorant it’s comical.
re: "The parallel here is between Trump and Chamberlain."
If that's your best historical parallel, it's a pretty stupid one.
You just made Molly and sarc cry.
Shrike is THE dumbest motherfucker to post here. The others don’t even come close (maybe Molly).
I mean seriously, how many times has he posted a link that refutes the thing he is saying? I’ve literally lost count.
I nominate charliehall as at least being pretty close.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Neo-Nazi frat boy Hegseth. No real US general would allow Vlad to dictate US foreign policy
"War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War!"
You're fucking disgusting, Buttplug. You'd see Ukraine filled with blood just so your Raytheon and Halliburton stock goes up a few points.
Do you support US-funded arms aid to Israel?
No.
Absolutely not.
Do you, warpig?
Well, that makes Donnie a warpig too since he supports weapons aid to Israel.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Get out of the way, Sevo, you splooge mopper.
I watching ML squirm.
He has been cornered into admitting Donnie is a warpig.
BTW - there WILL be a joint US/Isreal war on Iran inside two years (which I OPPOSE)
How the hell am I squirming, warpig? Trump wants to stop holding Israel back. Not give it stuff.
Your establishment kept the war in the Middle East going by using arms "aid" to hold back Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and never just let them just settle it. Just picking at the wound for fifty years.
Trump's taking off their leashes. Israel and Saudi Arabia never needed the "aid" anyway.
It'll crush a neocon like you to see the Middle East work things out though, I'm sure. No more eternal war.
Trump Administration Moves to Send $8 Billion in Arms to Israel, Bypassing Some Lawmakers
....
The State Department formally notified Congress of its intention on Friday. That same day, the Pentagon put out two news releases, one saying it was selling to Israel 3,000 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles worth $660 million, and another saying it was sending $6.75 billion of bombs and guidance kits. The Pentagon did not issue a news release for the sale of artillery shells, which as a direct commercial sale did not require the department to put out a detailed statement. U.S. officials also included additional bombs. Together, all the sales are worth $8.4 billion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/us/politics/trump-israel-arms-weapons.html
#Trump=WarPig
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a kiddie-diddler and a lying pile of lefty shit.
And I'm against that, but until Trump puts troops in the Middle East like you and your neocon pals want to do in the Ukraine, the only warpig is you.
You're a liar again ML. I never would support US troops in Ukraine.
You're a liar again ML. I never would support US troops in Ukraine."
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
@Shrike
Trump wants stability in the Middle East. Apparently neither you nor the New York Times understand this.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
He has more flexibility now, like Obama did after 2012.
No one ever knew what that meant.
I mean wingnuts jumped around like monkeys flinging shit but could never say what "flexibility" meant and on what topic he was referring since Obama conceded nothing on our missile defense strategy.
Everyone knows what that meant. You're just compelled to lie about it for your retarded narrative.
But don’t you dare call him a demshill.
Especially since Obama explains to Medvedev what "more flexibility" means in his captured audio with him. You can't be more dishonest than Bushpig2 in claiming no one knew what that meant.
Liar.
Link it.
Real source.
No wingnut news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPMDGLbmdgo
What a fail. A 55 second video that simply records him saying "more flexibility"? That's it?
WE knew that. No one ever disputed it.
But what did it mean? Flexibility for what? No one knows.
And to prove how stupid your take on it was - for FOUR years after he said it the US gave up NOTHING in missile defense.
You people were just barking into the night like a lonely dog barking at nothing.
I'll have more flexibility after the election. I know you're of low intelligence, but even you knows what he's getting at BY MENTIONING THE FLEXIBILITY IS AFTER HIS REELECTION. He didn't just say I'm going to have more flexibility, he predicated it on it being after the election when he doesn't need to run again.
Flexibility to DO WHAT?
"Flexibility to DO WHAT?"
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of TDS-addled lefty shit and a pederast besides
turd certainly is dishonest, but he’s got a heaping helping of stupid to go with his dishonesty. Stupid, lying, despicable steaming pile of lefty shit and proud to be!
turd certainly is dishonest, but he’s got a heaping helping of stupid to go with his dishonesty. Stupid, lying, despicable steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit and proud to be!
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides
No one ever knew what that meant.
Imagine being this fucking stupid; and posting the evidence of it online everyday.
What did he mean, you idiot?
You don't know shit.
Obviously he meant the flexibility to act against Russian interests. Duh.
Haha. What an idiot.
turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.
A pedo and a warpig. Disgusting from all angles.
"...Poland, which has historical reasons to fears Moscow's intentions, is already near the 5 percent target for defense..."
Screw the 5%; defend yourself, even if it takes 50%!
We're tired of being the adult to you're being the child. That bear to the east it YOUR problem, not ours.
Historically speaking, Russia has far more often turned out to be a paper tiger rather than a bear.
Which is even more reason Europe should defend themselves.
Jan. 6 Rioters Argue Pardons Apply to Charges Including Murder Plot, Child Porn
..
On Jan. 27, county prosecutors in Houston announced a manhunt for Andrew Taake, a pardoned Jan. 6 defendant who was being sought on a 2016 charge of online solicitation of a minor. He had been serving a 74-month sentence after pleading guilty to violence at the Capitol. Prosecutors said he sprayed police officers with bear spray four separate times and struck one with a metal whip.
...
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office said it had asked federal prison officials to hold the 36-year-old Taake, but instead he was let out of a Colorado facility on Jan. 20 after Trump’s pardon.
...
A Tennessee jury convicted Kelley in November of concocting a plan—while he was awaiting trial on his Jan. 6 case—to kill law enforcement. A cooperating defendant said he and Kelley planned attacks on the FBI’s Knoxville field office using car bombs and incendiary devices attached to drones, and strategized about assassinating FBI employees in their homes.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/jan-6-released-aftermath-7e8a57a4?mod=hp_lead_pos4
Donnie pardons MAGA terrorists and pedophiles.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
BTW, turd once again doesn't read his own link before lying about it.
Trump pardoned the J6 protesters for the bogus charges of "insurgency", not any other charges leveled against them as they are now asking for.
turd is a fucked up pile of lying lefty shit, ain't he?
A lawyer for David Daniel, a North Carolina man facing child-pornography charges, made a similar argument. Attorney William Terpening said in an interview “pretty much all” of the evidence cited by prosecutors came from a raid on Daniel’s house in connection with the Jan. 6 case.
...
“Anything that flowed from that case, given the pardon, should be excluded and inadmissible at trial,” said Terpening.
WSJ
Your support of MAGA child predators is consistent.
Pardons for pedophiles? Are you jealous?
Shitty troll is shitty. Aside from the fact that Buttplug is the only person here to have ever linked to child pornography on the Reason website and get his old handle permabanned; how many million times a day are we going to see another Democrat arrested for raping kids?
And yet her pretends like the FBI planting cp on some protesters computer so the WSJ can make a smear, is legitimate.
Why do you need to lie?
Because you can't debate me straight up.
What happened to Sarah Palin's Buttplug 1?
Do you want to tell everyone how you suddenly "forgot" your password for the site you troll every day?
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
So you found one where the cause of the claim is the bogus "insurgency" charge? Why do you support gestapo tactics, turd?
Clarence Thomas supported these same Gestapo tactics in Texas v Lawrence.
Wrongly by the way.
So your dishonesty and idiocy are fine as a result? Eat shit and die, slimy pile of TDS-addled lefty shit.
It's okay because SCOTUS did it first?
SCOTUS got it right. I believe it was 8-1 with Clarence Thomas dissenting with unlimited support for police overreach.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of TDS-addled lefty shit and a pederast besides
Getting a pardon is as easy as pledging loyalty.
I will say one thing - Donnie has learned on the job.
in 2017 he selected "normal" but conservative cabinet members and they all ended up hating him and calling him a "fucking moron" and traitor. Even Pence distanced himself.
This time he has selected boot-lickers exclusively. It will be a wild four years.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Yup. He said the biggest mistake of his first term was not surrounding himself with loyalists. And Vance accidentally admitted that the purpose of DOGE is to fill government positions with loyalists. He even made FBI agents take a loyalty test and fired any who failed.
He requires loyalty to him first, second and third.
We all know what employees disloyal to him did.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/12/16/from-the-i-dont-understand-this-at-all-files-2/
Can you imagine someone working for law enforcement, forging evidence for the purpose of hamstringing the elected boss to whom he ultimately answers?
I never imagined this was conceivable, before I read about this.
I can’t imagine a cop honest enough to not forge evidence to get a conviction, so that doesn’t surprise me.
What does, but shouldn’t, is Trump defenders spitting on the law and the Constitution when it conflicts with his ambitions.
You pretending to care about the law is hilarious. See your comments on immigration law.
Or using the "he cooperated" clause to defend Biden illegally possessing classified docs.
I could go on lol.
You never cease to amuse.
That's (D)ifferent with immigration laws and Biden.
It is funny how he flits between lock up all Republicans and ignore immoral laws.
He's an authoritarian.
Tell us how innocent and brave Officer Byrd was again. A cop just in a hallways shooting blindly. There are cops you seemingly approve of.
$8
I hope you're absolutely devastated by the time President Vance gets sworn in. You're one of the evilest creeps I've ever met.
There will be a political tidal shift again.
One thing for sure - Americans elect Repubs or Dems just to find out how much they really hate them. Then they get thrown out.
Trannie Dancing and DEI will seem like insignicant problems in four years.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
"There will be a political tidal shift again"
Lol, watch and weep, fascist:
ABC’s Jon Karl: Trump’s favorability is now HIGHER than it ever was in his first term.
- 63% want the government to recognize only two sexes
- 60% support deporting illegal aliens
- 60% favor expanding oil & gas production
The only evil I see are those who don’t care if Trump sets up an administration with no regard for the law or the Constitution. That would be you and the rest of his defenders. You’d defend him invading your own country for fuck’s sake you treasonous piece of garbage.
Fuck off and die, slimy pile of TDS-addled lefty shit. Make your family proud.
The only evil I see are those who became anti-semites and warpigs just to spite people they were angry at in some internet comments.
You must be talking about yourself because I praised Trump for not starting any wars and oppose his current military ambitions, while you defend anything he says or does.
That's not what I'm talking about. Mr. Muh 90 Thousand.
You've been reduced to having Tony, Shrike and jeff as your only allies. You're completely broken because of your hatred of random anonymous internet commenters. You're also a coward for running away/muting people that you attack.
Where has he made a clear violation of the constitution?
The only thing I can think of is the Birthright Citizenship EO, and I think that whole issue can be debated by reasonable people.
Edit: And keep in mind that this whole thread was started by shrike, who got his original handle banned, making a claim that isn’t supported by his own links (the pardon was pretty clearly just related to Jan. 6), so Trump didn’t in fact pardon their murder or pedo behavior, no matter what they try to argue.
And also that Bushpig2 didn't chime in in the comments when Biden pardoned a violent criminal, claiming the guy was non-violent.
Like Schiff and Cheney?
Biden pardons CCP spies who are also pedophiles.
Sarc: it's ok because Democrats did it first.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-pardon-chinese-spies-for-prisoner-swap/
On Dec. 18, 2024, several media outlets including the New York Post asserted that, "President Biden pardoned two Chinese spies and the relative of a high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party who was caught with tens of thousands of images of child pornography on his computer."
While Biden did not "pardon" them, it is true that he commuted the sentences of three Chinese nationals: one convicted on child pornography charges and two convicted of espionage-related charges.
Because Biden did commute the sentences of two Chinese citizens convicted of espionage and one convicted of child pornography charges, however, we rate the claim as mostly true.
Biden just let them go, instead of deporting them because "illegal aliens uber alles" or something.
Obama-Era Pedophile Illegal Was Jailed Under Trump, Released Under Biden, Now Charged With Assaulting Kids Again
https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/obama-era-pedophile-illegal-was-jailed-under-trump-released-under-biden-now-charged-with-assaulting-kids-again/ar-AA1zdKLm
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice explained that it did not put Ayala Morales on the register because he was released ICE, which dropped an immigration charge against Ayala Morales five days after he was set free, according to KTRK-TV.
Biden pardoned judge who put 4000 kids behind bars for kickbacks.
Former Pennsylvania Judge Michael Conahan was convicted in 2011 in what was infamously called the “kids-for-cash” scandal, where he took kickbacks from for-profit detention centers in exchange for wrongly sending juveniles to their facilities. The case was widely considered to be one of the worst judicial scandals in Pennsylvania history.
Like all of the other nearly 1,500 people who got commutations from Biden this week, Conahan was freed from prison due to Covid. His house arrest was set to end in 2026.
The misconduct of Conahan and another Luzerne County judge led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to throw out 4,000 juvenile convictions, and the discredited state judges were ordered to pay $200 million to the victims, according to the Associated Press.
Biden pardons Illinois official who embezzled $54M
There was similar fallout in Illinois, after Biden gave clemency to Rita Crundwell, the former comptroller of Dixon, a city of roughly 15,000 in the northern part of the state.
She pleaded guilty in 2012 to a $54 million embezzlement scheme, which was believed to be the largest municipal fraud in US history. She was sentenced to almost 20 years in prison, nearly the maximum, though she moved to house arrest during the pandemic.
Biden (the Joe-Jill entity) is a senile old cunt who at the end hated everyone and used brief moments of consciousness to fuck everyone, regardless of party.
We'll wait a few beats to see how many of the 1500+ pardons Biden's handlers issued in the waning seconds of his administration go on to find themselves in trouble again--and odds are some of them will be pedophiles.
It's OK because Democrats did it.
If the EU was interested in defense, Crimea wouldn't have been seized in 2014.
They didn't do shit then, they won't do shit now.
It also makes one wonder that Ukraine is apparently a bridge too far and yet Crimea was just fine. It's almost like there was something unique about Ukraine, like perhaps dirt on a political family in a country with a large standing military.
Which family would that be?
The Merkel family?
the British Royal Family?
Yes.
Putin is probably annoyed that he is going to have to wait for another Democrat to be the president before he shop around for more territory.
In which case, they can all live under the dictatorship of Putin. I don't care how long they hold their breath; tired of being the adult.
Among the countries not hitting the 2 percent mark are Canada, France, and Germany—all wealthy countries that could significantly contribute to the alliance's defense. Germany claims to have hit the 2 percent target in its latest budget. But Canada's government reportedly told NATO that it "will never" hit the target. Writing about that admission, The Washington Post's Amanda Coletta noted that "nearly all of Canada's 78 Leopard II tanks 'require extensive maintenance and lack spare parts.'"
What's the old Sesame Street song -- "one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong."
France and Germany are on the European continent and have direct proximity reasons to boost their own defense.
Canada is analogous to the US. Literally, half a world away on our own continent. Having 78 broken-down tanks is probably adequate for Canada's defense, despite The Donald's slight rumblings northward lately. Nobody wants to take ground troops into the frozen tundra north of Lambeau Field.
Yeah, plus Canada is the hat of America so if they were invaded it wouldn't be a surprise when American military mobilizes to quash it. It's a shorter drive to Canada than it is from New York to California.
Plus, nuclear weapons deter invasion of Canada. We already saw that play out with Cuba.
Comparing that to countries half a world away where we have no obvious national security angle is baffling. Obviously we have a lot more reasons to protect Canada than, say, Germany. Same goes for Mexico too, for that matter. Curious they didn't bother listing how well Mexico fares in this comparison, as if nobody would possibly think of taking a southern route into the US instead of the northern route.
This is a very eurocentric way of looking at all this, rather than a North American way of looking at it.
It's a shorter drive to Canada than it is from New York to California."
Trillionths of an inch, seeing as we touch for over 5000 miles.
Also, in the metaphorical sense.
Old joke that it's a longer drive into Chicagoland for my rural relatives than it is from Chicagoland to their various houses. Analogously, the majority of Canada is closer to them than New York, LA, or even Chicago.
Yeah, plus Canada is the hat of America so if they were invaded it wouldn't be a surprise when American military mobilizes to quash it.
So we would have our Marines fight our Army? Then maybe our Navy could face off against our Coast Guard on the Great Lakes.
Is Canada a MAGA hat?
Mmm, yeah that could have been written better I suppose. I mean quash any invading force, not the Canadians themselves. Obviously I also don't mean we would battle ourselves.
Obviously such an invasion is tremendously unlikely but it seems the U.S. might have a more legitimate interest in defending Canada than defending, say, Ukraine or anywhere in Europe.
I was just being jokey about the only country in the world threatening Canada at this point would be ourselves.
Ah, that is a fair point. My comment was also poorly written so I just assumed that was the point. I've had coffee since then.
"Yeah, plus Canada is the hat of America"
Pretty crappy hat. Sure won't keep your ears warm.
The only hat that actually lets in the cold.
If Canada will not honor its part of the NATO agreement, why is it even a part of the group and why does it have any say on anything?
Canada just likes being part of the conversation even if everyone is scratching their heads on why they're involved. The same largely goes for Australia too, although they at least had the sense not to be an official member.
At least during the Cold War, it was assumed that any nuclear strikes on the United States wouldn't go well for Canada either so it did make a little sense at the time.
Nobody really cares about Mexico's military, then or now, and during the Cold War they would have been no help and in fact could have been an adversary given various South American communist upheavals. It makes sense they aren't part of NATO for both those reasons. They've been playing both sides for a while, too.
The same largely goes for Australia too, although they at least had the sense not to be an official member.
I was going to make some kind of comment about Australia and the North Atlantic, but I remembered (if you follow college sports):
The Big 12 conference has 16 members
The Big 10 conference has 18 members
The Southeastern Conference includes Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.
The Atlantic Coast Conference includes SMU, Cal, and Stanford.
So never mind.
Maybe not quite so much anymore, but historically, since the Second World War Australia really has been our most dependable ally. And there's a lot wrong with the Australian government but the digger's military is pretty damn good.
Where's the article by Sullum telling us which crimes Trump is committing by having Vance go to Europe and be wrong.
It was Petti: https://reason.com/2025/02/14/j-d-vance-brings-the-culture-war-to-europe-there-is-a-new-sheriff-in-town/
CBS Loses Its Mind
Two days after J.D. Vance's historic address to Europe on speech, CBS and 60 Minutes offer a counterattack
Last Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance shocked Europe with an impassioned address in defense of free speech and democratic choice. If Europe would not stop jailing speech offenders and pulling stunts like last year’s canceled Romanian election, it could no longer count on American support.
CBS and Face the Nation anchor Margaret Brennan first went viral Sunday when she challenged Secretary of State Marco Rubio, saying Vance in Munich “was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” But Brennan’s dingbat equation (speech=Hitler) was just an appetizer.
I wonder if she’s related to that walking piece of subhuman filth John Brennan?
Wait a minute. Are you saying that this woman said, on National TV, that Vance is like Hitler for promoting free speech? That Hitler also promoted free speech when he conducted the Holocaust?
If this is true, Vance should sue the fuck out of CBS.
And then they doubled and tripled down on60 minutes last night.
Trump - dictator, Musk - evil robber baron stealing from us, Germany censorship necessary and good.
I used to watch 60 Mins until "Fake but Accurate". Made me realize how many times I've probably been lied to without knowing it.
The libertarian position is that defending free speech and western civilization is culture warring.
That wasn't Sullum. Even Jacob isn't that stupid...Or is he?
It's not JUST the money! The United States should NOT be "fully committed" to NATO or to the automatic defense of any other country or region of the world.
"Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington, "Farewell Address" - 1796
The United States should NOT be "fully committed" to NATO or to the automatic defense of any other country or region of the world."
100% It's the craziest idea, ever.
>>The Trump administration's foreign policy gambits can be baffling:
Victor Davis Hanson breaks it down in nine minutes so easy even you can understand it go find him
This would make be a good suggestion if they weren’t being baffled on purpose.
true. I didn't bother with the link because
>>"The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe, full stop," ... "But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency."
Pete needs a Conjunction Junction lesson here an and would have driven the point better even with the fake full stop.
At least he didn’t use “that” too many times.
it is a problem for most.
>>Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems.
jfc it's been a month already and we haven't sacked Greenland
>>Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the creation of an "armed forces of Europe" to defend the continent.
might be fun to just sit & watch Russia take Europe once and for all
>>To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.
"well ... I mean ... excepting the ones already there harumph"
Why rename the Gulf of Mexico?
Because things get renamed all the time and because the Left decided unilaterally that renaming things was good, and because Gulf of America makes more sense given that it is a large body of water nestled between North and South America, versus a large body of water that is surrounded by three countries: the United States, Mexico, and Cuba.
What is this fixation on annexing Greenland?
Keeping China from establishing an arctic presence? Did I hear rumors that they were exploring some development there, much like they've done in Panama and large swathes of Africa?
Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate?
Absolutely not. I suspect that this is trolling.
Does anyone remember when military bases were renamed in pursuit of a "racial reckoning"?
Since 2013 every Democrat was scouring the country for public buildings, mountains, parks, roads and lakes to rename, but "Gulf of America" is a step to far.
I mean, all of it is stupid but it's hard not to notice that this is 'stupid as usual'.
Personally it would make more sense to call it the 'Gulf of the Americas' but that's probably beyond the pale for one reason or another.
Actually, the Gulf of Mexico is bordered on the south by Mexico, which is in North America only. Calling it the Gulf of North America would make more sense. Except the Gulf of America (or North America) are already taken by the Unicorn Sea, a place where unicorns swim and fly.
Al Sharpton:
“Can you imagine if Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government?”
he did not.
Twice.
The Colonial government, and the Articles of Confederation
not Tom I'm all over that ... I meant not even Al is so stupid
If it were up to Sharpton, the only thing anybody would ever know about Jefferson is that he owned slaves.
In fairness to Sharpton, that's probably all he knows about Jefferson.
In fairness to Sharpton, it is a partial quote that is not shown as such.
“Can you imagine if Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government?”
v.
“Can you imagine if James Madison or Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government to try and hold on to power?”
That being said, Sharpton is still a ignorant fuckweasel. Jefferson did everything but that to secure his first election. Jefferson was not particularly well suited to power and a very poor loser.
I would just say "Tawana Brawley" or "Freddie's Fashion Mart" every time Sharpton opens his grifting mouth.
Kinda like running into Willie Brown and asking him about Jim Jones. He always has someone on the other side of the room to speak with.
60 Minutes pulled in 2 comms consultants, who were never actual employees of USAID, and presented them as though they were longtime USAID employees who were fired for lack of "loyalty."
“Twelve days ago, people knew where their next paycheck was coming from. They knew how they were going to pay for their kids' daycare, their medical bills. And then, all gone overnight,” says Kristina Drye, who was fired in the USAID shutdown." https://cbsn.ws/3CU2X1y
Pretty sure they also interviewed Betty Boatfoot who had a hard time telling the gas from the brake pedal in her Audi (who should have sued 60 Minutes to within an inch of its life).
Thank god that never happens to guys who work in factories.
Yeah, or construction.
Also, keep in mind, this is nominally under the guise of, e.g., providing aid, as in food, clean water, and medicine to foreign countries; but *actually* performing domestic journalism and LGBTQIA+Troon advocacy abroad.
The guy who shows up to the assembly line to make widgets gets fired when demand for widgets falters. He doesn't show up at the assembly line to secretly try to convince Latinx people to cut their kids' junk off and then complain like "Now who will make the widgets?"
It's like the people in the USPCA commercials complaining about how they lost their job rescuing animals but, really the job they lost was producing (federally-funded) commercials for dog food companies.
HAHAHA! Fuck those guys.
'Income security' is more than 1/8th of the entire federal budget? What on earth is that? It sounds like an entitlement program, but the source no longer exists.
It sounds like an entitlement program
It sounds like UBI.
It secures the income of NGOs and other grifters. 10% for the Big Guy also makes up a significant portion.
Hegseth gets only part of the NATO issue right.
He's right about the Europeans paying for their own defense, but leaves out the part the US should not pay a penny for their defense nor should we send any member of the US armed forces to defend the Europeans.
New Zealand’s Māori interrupted a Drag Queen Story Hour.
Well done, men.
Man, those lefty heads must have been exploding. Does Troon trump Oppressed Indigenous Tribal Member?
"Medicare, Medicaid, and other health entitlements make up 28 percent of the federal budget, Social Security is 22 percent, defense and income security account for 13 percent each, and net interest on the debt is 11 percent. "
So, health, SS, welfare, interest, make up 85% of spending, which is 100% of revenue. Revenue of 5 trillion minus social spending and interest of 5 trillion, equals 0 left for all other functions of govt.
I wish people wouldn't discuss the federal budget as if there were no division between the rest of it and Social Security + Medicare. It makes sense discussing that as a single problem only if you expect Social Security and Medicare to eventually be paid out of general revenue instead of their dedicated FICA. Otherwise you should always discuss fixing each deficit separately.
The old "lockbox" delusion. It just won't die.
Why rename the Gulf of Mexico?
STOP DEADNAMING IT.
What is this fixation on annexing Greenland?
They want this.
Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate?
The LGBT pedo block gets a slightly louder voice in the Legislature.
"But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency."
PAYING ATTENTION, CONGRESS - YOU DESPICABLE BRIBERS AND YOUR FINANCIAL VOTE PUMP AMONG THE ENTITLEMENT CLASS.
At least since the end of the Cold War, most European countries have skated by on minimal military expenditures, counting on the United States to handle any threats that might emerge.
Which means we should just conquer them all. Or at least make them vassal states that pay us tribute in return for protection.
I am dead serious.
Bet they wouldn't have a problem paying for themselves then, would they.
I am dead serious
That doesn't mean you're not an idiot. I agree, European countries should contribute more to their own defence. On the other hand, you can't directly compare US defence expenditures with European, because with very little exception (Britain and perhaps France?) European countries have no need for a defence network outside Europe, and the US's defence expenditures in Latin America or Asia are not relevant.
Ackshully, you may thank Freeman Dyson for urging the surrender of the only weapons totalitarian communists respect. While Sam Cohen tried to teach Germans to use modern science to balk communist totalitarians, Dyson--good scientist but incompetent strategist--urged them to Freeze, Surrender, and rely on prayer, crossbows and abstinence instead of nuclear capability. There was a sucker born every ten seconds in the 1990s.
Re: Trump wanting to annex Greenland:
They want this.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
I'll see your CBS fake news and raise you BBC and FP.
But you know what, it's really neither here nor there.
We should just take it. For reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Greenland (or Denmark, or even Europe at all). In that context, I'm curious as to what opposition you could possibly have to it - and whether or not you know anything at all about the Arctic power struggle currently going on with us and two of our mortal enemies.
Or perhaps you want one of the latter to win this whole silly game?
I'll see your CBS fake news and raise you BBC and FP.
I didn't feel like wasting my time, so I only skimmed the BBC article, which was relatively short. Nothing in there suggested that Greenlanders want to be taken over by the U.S.
But you know what, it's really neither here nor there.
Right, what's here and there is that you're fucking talking about "taking" some other country's territory, no matter what the people of that territory want. That's my fucking opposition to it, you psycho.
That's a fancy way to say "yes". You're free to leave the U.S. to join one of those two enemies, if you so desire. They'd be thrilled with a propagandist like you.
Non-sequitur. It does not follow that opposing forcible U.S. expansion is equivalent to sympathy for any enemies. In actuality, the strategic importance of Greenland is way overstated. If necessary, the U.S. could take Greenland more easily than Russia or China could hold it.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of shit.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Altruist Totalitarian is standing in for Goebbels in defense of its Fuhrer. Same thing, different day.
I'm very pleased to see that you're making an effort to curb your profanity. That's a big improvement. Congrats.
Comstock girl bullier spoiler votes is profanity? Maybe of a sort, I suppose.
Or you might be thinking of someone else. Just sayin.
In supporting Ukraine, European countries gave somewhat more than the U.S. But Europe emphasized financial and humanitarian aid, so the U.S. has offered slightly more military assistance at €64 billion ($67.1 billion U.S.) compared to Europe's €62 billion ($65 billion U.S.), according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Interesting...I found a fairly complete breakdown of aid for Ukraine by that same organization.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Mainly, though, I'm not understanding the goal of phrasing that sentence in that way. Europe gave "somewhat more" in support to Ukraine than the U.S., but the article Tuccille gets the figures he uses from phrases it differently, saying, "Europe as a whole has clearly overtaken the US in terms of Ukraine aid."
Tuccille also chose not to give the numbers for total aid and only for military aid, though they were in that article.
In total, Europe has allocated EUR 70 billion in financial and humanitarian aid as well as EUR 62 billion in military aid. This compares to EUR 64 billion in military aid from the US as well as EUR 50 billion in financial and humanitarian allocations.
According to those figures then, the U.S. has given Ukraine 2 billion Euro more in military aid to Ukraine than members of the EU, but 20 billion less in financial and humanitarian aid. I would think that it was worthwhile to give the full set of figures rather than just one part of the picture, but then, maybe wanting all of the relevant facts and context is just important to me.
For additional context, I also don't see Tuccille mentioning any of the fiscal burden of caring for over 6 million Ukrainians displaced by the war into Europe. (Germany and Poland bearing most of that cost at 35 billion and 29 billion Euro, respectively.)
Mainly, the war in Ukraine shows us the real error of this isolationist, "America first" thinking, when it comes to NATO and the costs of building and maintaining this military alliance. While western European countries with more wealth can certainly increase their spending, the primary benefit of NATO to the U.S. is that a secure Europe benefits us. The war in Ukraine would have cost us one way or another even if we hadn't sent them a single bullet or spent a penny to help them. We shouldn't need any lessons about the failures of isolationism and appeasement to prevent the last world war. The more that authoritarian states dominate their neighbors, the more difficult it makes it for the U.S. to establish fruitful trade partnerships. The more difficult it makes it for the U.S. to find strategic partners when we do want to prevent those adversaries from crossing lines that have direct negative impacts on our interests.
After all, where did we fight Germany and Italy during WWII? In the Atlantic, in North Africa, and in Europe. Not on our own territory. It has been the understanding of our political leaders of both parties going back to the founding of NATO that it is better, and more cost effective, for us to prepare to fight enemies outside of our own territory, than to have to fight them at home.
It is also worth mentioning, since Tuccille didn't see fit to remind his readers, that NATO's Article 5 has only been invoked once in its history. And that was when all NATO members were called upon to defend the United States when it was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Ukraine froze and surrendered its nuclear weapons to the KGB and Vlad Pootin. It is a sorry sight, but their politicians made that bed and--until all surviving signers of that Budapest Surrender are hanged for treason--they are stuck with it. Nixon tied to do the same thing with the USA, signing an ABM surrender, and was rightly tossed out on his teeth. Stupidity and cowardice are not cured by subsidies. Ukraine ought to be cultivating biological weapons if the idea is to resist Pootin's Rooshia.
I could be wrong, but Ukraine (and two other newly independent former Soviet republics at that time) signed that agreement because a) the nukes were in their territory, but the Kremlin controlled the codes to arm them. Maybe Ukrainian engineers could have gotten around that eventually, but if I am right about that, it was more useful to try and get a guarantee of sovereignty out of them.
You are right in that Ukraine and the others didn't get a guarantee, just "assurances" which were tossed aside when Putin felt like tossing them. And this is part b) - the U.S. and the UK, which also were part of the agreement, had not done enough to warn Putin off of doing that.
You can join Hank in helping Ukraine. Go along and fly over there, you two!
JasonT20 is a slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder of those who do not agree with him.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Now go and help them, Hank. Ukraine could use you.
Nixon would've been at least smart enough to take you there.
I suppose you think the same thing about Israel, then? If anyone wants to help Israel defend itself from Hamas and Hezbollah, they can go there to do it. If you're going to be consistent with your argument, that's what you'll say.
Jason supports murder of those with whom he disagrees. He is a raging asshole, ain't he?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
The Gulf of Mexico really should be renamed to the "Gulf of the Americas" instead of implying ownership by one of the three countries, however this is mostly a symbolic maneuver.
The fixation on Greenland has more to do with keeping China and Russia out of Greenland, however with the under-representation and neglect by Denmark, Greenlanders could do better as a territory and citizens of the United States.
Canada as the 51st state is more of a meme or troll directed at Justin Trudeau than a serious proposal and you are fully aware of this with your insulting question.
The United States can't afford to nor should defend any other country that is not willing to put skin into the game. The majority of Europe is a prime example of countries that rely on the might and power of the United States, while criticizing and undermining the United States at every turn.
While I will not go to the extent of withdrawal of the United States from NATO, the complaints of European countries not meeting their funding requirements is valid. The United States should not subsidize their defense, should not engage in military operations other than training exercises without a formal declaration of war, should not supply or fund weapons to any side of a conflict unless there is a formal declaration of war.
Canada as the 51st state is more of a meme or troll directed at Justin Trudeau than a serious proposal and you are fully aware of this with your insulting question.
And when did it become smart diplomacy to troll the leaders of close allies as if the President is an immature 20-something with no social life outside of social media? If you want another example of the diplomatic skills of our stable genius President, just note how he has already basically conceded to Putin his main two demands: keeping the territory it conquered, and keeping Ukraine out of NATO.
Way to negotiate like a tough guy. Tell the opposing side that they are probably going to get what they want before they concede anything to you.
Jason supports murder of those with whom he disagrees. He is a slimy pile of lefty shit, ain't he?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
I agree that Europe needs to step up & contribute more to their own defense. For the last 3 decades, Europeans assumed that their defense needs were minimal. Putin has made it clear to them that they have made bad assumptions.
Much of the USA's wealth depends on trade. We are, as Sarah Paine has recently discussed in her lectures, fundamentally a maritime power, dependent on trade. People often get confused by the questions surrounding balance of trade. The USA has a trade deficit, not because other countries are taking advantage of us, but because Americans are wealthier than most & have a greater desire for consumption. Much of that consumption is to add value to products & turn them back to the market. The trade deficit is a sign of wealth, not a sign of weakness.
25% of the USA's GDP is related to trade. As an economy that is dependent on trade, it is in the USA's interest to support a world order that honors the rule of law in terms of respect for contracts as opposed to the rule of law in terms of the whims of autocratic leaders. History has demonstrated that Russia in general & Putin in particular, does not honor their treaties & contracts. It is in the USA's interest to contain Putin's influence rather than allowing autocratic rule come to dominate Europe & place in jeopardy, the system for international trade.
At first, I thought you had misspelled Sarah Palin, but the idea of her giving lectures and saying anything in those lectures that might dispute Trump talking points didn't fit. I've seen clips of Sarah Paine's interviews on Instagram reels and on YouTube. I've been impressed so far.
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Jason supports murder of those with whom he disagrees. He is a limy pile of lefty shit, ain't he?
How *dare* we suggest that Europe spend at least 5% of its own money defending itself!
Monsters!
annexing Greenland - This has been explained numerous times. It's to stop China. But talking about it got Demark to actually you know provide support for Greenland now instead of ignoring it.
Why don't you go read what actually Greenlanders have said not the media
Denmark could provide Greenland to the US in exchange for military security. Easy!
Re: U.S. Tells Europe To Handle Its Own Defense, The U.S. is no longer willing to subsidize prosperous countries that won’t defend themselves. J.D. Tuccille | 2.17.2025 7:00 AM
In theory, this sounds reasonable, but what seems to be happening is that to curry favor with Vladimir Putin, the Trump government is giving Russia 20% of Ukraine, meaning that if Europe wants to defend Ukraine it will have to spend even more than what Trump is demanding to help Ukrainians, and if their fail, Russia will see their weakness and eye them for future invasion. This international instability will weaken all including the USA
"...but what seems to be happening is that to curry favor with Vladimir Putin..."
Bullshit. Seek help for your TDS.
About time!