US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[Martell Spy]

Thread is full. Please continue. There you go larrytheimp.

 

Trump, Price and Hill GOP at odds on Obamacare
Trump's pick for health and human services secretary had an early Obamacare replacement plan that some Senate Republicans aren't excited about.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-tom-price-republicans-obamacare-233605

 

 

[Einheri]

An EU military alliance could function similarly to the current NATO, main difference being that it no longer includes the US and Canada (and maybe Columbia if they succeed in their application for membership). Multinational forces and multinational command centers are already in place all over Europe, so the transition from NATO to pure EU defence organization wouldn't be that drastic. Also, efforts are already being taken to ensure standardization within the European Armed Forces (the next EuropaPanzer or Leopard 3 is currently in development for the French and German armies, for instance, and it will almost certainly be adopted by the rest of Europe as well), though it will take some time. European armies also train together more frequently, and there will several large multinational military exercises over the next years..

As for Norway, I can with certainty state that we'll lift a finger and more to defend our fellow Europeans because - as you point out - we have promised to do as much as members of NATO. And if it's replaced by a purely European defence org, which we would probably join as the policy of neutrality was given up after WW2, then the answer is the same. 

At the end of the day, I believe that we Europeans have the potential to take care of our own security, and that by strengthening our own defences we can significantly reduce our reliance on the US, meaning that we can pursue a more independent foreign policy, and not get ourselves involved in whatever adventure the US has set its mind on. I used to a fervent supporter of the US in the late 90s/early 2000s, but now I no longer believe that it's in our interest that Europe's and US's fates are intertwined.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Columbia is joining NATO?

[Einheri]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Columbia is joining NATO?

Apparently, they're in talks about joining NATO: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/12/26/Colombia-to-start-talks-with-NATO-angering-Venezuela/4031482772513/

[Savannah]

30 minutes ago, Einheri said:

An EU military alliance could function similarly to the current NATO, main difference being that it no longer includes the US and Canada (and maybe Columbia if they succeed in their application for membership). Multinational forces and multinational command centers are already in place all over Europe, so the transition from NATO to pure EU defence organization wouldn't be that drastic. Also, efforts are already being taken to ensure standardization within the European Armed Forces (the next EuropaPanzer or Leopard 3 is currently in development for the French and German armies, for instance, and it will almost certainly be adopted by the rest of Europe as well), though it will take some time. European armies also train together more frequently, and there will several large multinational military exercises over the next years..

As for Norway, I can with certainty state that we'll lift a finger and more to defend our fellow Europeans because - as you point out - we have promised to do as much as members of NATO. And if it's replaced by a purely European defence org, which we would probably join as the policy of neutrality was given up after WW2, then the answer is the same. 

At the end of the day, I believe that we Europeans have the potential to take care of our own security, and that by strengthening our own defences we can significantly reduce our reliance on the US, meaning that we can pursue a more independent foreign policy, and not get ourselves involved in whatever adventure the US has set its mind on. I used to a fervent supporter of the US in the late 90s/early 2000s, but now I no longer believe that it's in our interest that Europe's and US's fates are intertwined.

 

EU militia would have absolutely nothing to do with Norway. 

Even if the Eastern Europe was  left out of NATO on the pretend of a similar EU militia (trust me, there are second thoughts on including the Baltics) Norway would remain with NATO. 

Why would any of the NATO states in Europe that are with EU want to replace that alliance with a hypothetical EU alliance without the UK and the US?

Of course the northwestern Europe could very well take care of herself, it's just that she won't, not as a whole at least. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

<snip>

 

Booyah!

[Zorral]

Way off on the numbers a latter poster in the previous thread put up as to bus permit requests. So for the second time I put this info up here:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/314415-three-times-as-many-bus-permits-requested-for-womens-march-than

And the above is late -- this AM there were 1800 bus parking permits for the Women's March requested.  He's a total loser.  The country hates him, except for the real haters, who can't imagine how he's going to screw them upside down and sidewise.

Not to mention how busy things are in NYC to protest around the Demon Tower -- to which nobody can get close of course.

In the meantime, the pooter and demon's dream of the new white world fortress order, feh. As Josh Marshall at Politico notes:

My own view is that Trump and Bannon greatly overestimate America's relative economic power in the world. Their view appears to be that no European country will feel it is able to be locked out of trade with a US-UK trade pact. An America eager to break up the EU seems more likely to inject new life into the union

This is the same playbook that the CSA slaveocracy by which they thought they were directing the entire world after secession: "We will embargo our cotton to Europe until Europe recognizes us, gives us aid and assistance and does what we say!" -- which included expanding the African slave trade and slavery everywhere. That worked out so well for them that in 1862- 63 they were begging any and all in Europe and Russia to help them out and nobody showed up, even after they suddenly began weeping that secession was about tariffs, not slavery . . . . 

Now they're back at overt race war and think they can pound our heads against that brick wall again.

Really, in the USA?  Filled with the demographics we got? It's like shutting the barn door after the cattle left, except really it's like closing the gate to the corn field when the cattle are already in it.  Europe too, fairly the same.  Demos are against ya fellas.

But there is going to be unbelievable suffering here and elsewhere because of these people -- don't forget, Eric Prince and the Demon are collaborators, so the Demon thinks he doesn't need the US Armed Forces even.  He'll just make we taxpayers pay for his private army.  Corporate globalisation here we are!  Yippeee! Ride 'em cowboys!

Will the planet survive these jerk offs?

 

[Einheri]

43 minutes ago, Savannah said:

EU militia would have absolutely nothing to do with Norway. 

If NATO disappeared, and it was replaced by a EURO defence organization Norway would join it in a hearthbeat. Simple as that. Also, Norway already contributes to the current EU army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battlegroup

Even if the Eastern Europe was  left out of NATO on the pretend of a similar EU militia (trust me, there are second thoughts on including the Baltics) Norway would remain with NATO. 

I'm not sure if I understand what you’re saying here. Of course, Norway would remain with NATO as long as the organization is still relevant, and if Eastern Euros should leave for some bizarre reason, then yes it’s unlikely that Norway would send troops to those countries as it no longer has any obligation to do so. That’s the point of a defence organization. We all agree to help each other out, no matter what.

Why would any of the NATO states in Europe that are with EU want to replace that alliance with a hypothetical EU alliance without the UK and the US?

To become more independent from the US. Also, like I said earlier, it’s very likely that the UK would want to join a European defence alliance if that’s all we have. The UK is still very much committed to European security, and has troops in both Eastern Europe and in Norway.

Of course the northwestern Europe could very well take care of herself, it's just that she won't, not as a whole at least. 

Europe in its entirety can take care of each other if we truly commit to it. It’s a matter of will as you say, but I believe we’re getting there.

(Also, I don't want to seem like an asshole, but this is the second (and third) time you’ve used the term “militia” to describe a military (or defence organization as I’m proposing). A “militia” is typically used to describe a fighting force of ordinary citizens with low standards as far equipment and training is concerned. Think WW2 Volksturm or those nutjobs in the states who believe that the gubbermint is out to get them.)

[Werthead]

Quote

 

European Union army is never going to happen. 

Sweden would not bleed for Finland any more than Germany would for Estonia. 

The idea is absurd. 

 

I don't see there being an appetite for an EU army as it would duplicate NATO and most European nations can't meet their NATO obligations, let alone an EU army one as well.

However, Germany is honour and legally-bound to "bleed for Estonia" as part of its NATO defence obligations. So is the UK, France and the rest of the alliance.

I remember one country thinking that Britain and France would not bleed for Poland. That did not work out so well for them.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I remember one country thinking that Britain and France would not bleed for Poland. That did not work out so well for them.

 

[Savannah]

31 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I don't see there being an appetite for an EU army as it would duplicate NATO and most European nations can't meet their NATO obligations, let alone an EU army one as well.

However, Germany is honour and legally-bound to "bleed for Estonia" as part of its NATO defence obligations. So is the UK, France and the rest of the alliance.

I remember one country thinking that Britain and France would not bleed for Poland. That did not work out so well for them.

They really are not legally bound to do no such a thing I'm afraid. 

 

[Savannah]

58 minutes ago, Einheri said:

 

 

Ok, let's continue this discussion if the NATO disappears then  

I promise not to use the word militia if that happens. 

"militia

mɪˈlɪʃə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

I can't see how it's inappropriate though. Isn't that basically what Norway has? 

[Mexal]

This has to be posted just for the lols. That and to show how fucked we truly are. When asked about role models, Trump talks about his father, a little but mostly himself.

 

[Sivin]

You guys are plugged in much better than I, and I wonder if anyone could direct me to some realistic literature about how we enlightened folk might combat this overwhelming tide of hate and stupidity. Not to be defeatist, but they have all three branches, 8 senate seats to defend in midterms, and a chocked old on the HOR/ state bodies.

I have read the think pieces and seen the comments here about how the country is rejecting Trump, but I find it hard to put stock in such things considering recent history. The Commodores, Ser Scott's and Altherions are the minority, but they are strategically located and liberals at this point are reduced to an impotent nominally superior investing force with no real power.

Is there any evidence to the contrary?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

You guys are plugged in much better than I, and I wonder if anyone could direct me to some realistic literature about how we enlightened folk might combat this overwhelming tide of hate and stupidity. Not to be defeatist, but they have all three branches, 8 senate seats to defend in midterms, and a chocked old on the HOR/ state bodies.

I have read the think pieces and seen the comments here about how the country is rejecting Trump, but I find it hard to put stock in such things considering recent history. The Commodores, Ser Scott's and Altherions are the minority, but they are strategically located and liberals at this point are reduced to an impotent nominally superior investing force with no real power.

Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Get active locally on the political front. Identify candidates whose ideas you can get behind and support and then do so. Get involved with a local special interest group that you identify with. That's a good way to stay in touch with what is going on. When a protestable moment arises, get involved and show up.

[Mexal]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Get active locally on the political front. Identify candidates whose ideas you can get behind and support and then do so. Get involved with a local special interest group that you identify with. That's a good way to stay in touch with what is going on. When a protestable moment arises, get involved and show up.

And keep calling your congressman/senator.  From everything I'm seeing, the flood of calls and the unexpected masses at the town halls is putting a lot of pressure on them. They're not used to their constituents calling en mass to air their complaints (mainly about taking away Obamacare).

[Yukle]

I really really really don't get the American hatred of universal healthcare.

Even the arguments that it costs money are alien to me. I am perfectly happy to spend money on my health. It's the second-most important reason that I get money, after immediate sustenance.

And even then, universal healthcare is cheaper, as demonstrated by literally every country that has it.

[DunderMifflin]

40 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

 

 

 

[DunderMifflin]

19 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I really really really don't get the American hatred of universal healthcare.

Even the arguments that it costs money are alien to me. I am perfectly happy to spend money on my health. It's the second-most important reason that I get money, after immediate sustenance.

And even then, universal healthcare is cheaper, as demonstrated by literally every country that has it.

Main fear I see is people worry that after they spend these years paying into government healthcare they worry that if they do have something life threatening the doctors may say "oh sorry, that isn't covered, your going to die". This can happen with any insurance but many believe understandably that private cos are much for efficient than government programs. 

 

What I don't get is that there's very little concern for why health care costs so much or how to change it. It just skips right to - it costs too much so let's make people pay for it. There are a lot of shenanigans going on with the cost AND effectiveness of health care and its pretty much ignored in favor of coming up with money to pay them.

[Einheri]

1 hour ago, Savannah said:

Ok, let's continue this discussion if the NATO disappears then  

I promise not to use the word militia if that happens. 

"militia

mɪˈlɪʃə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"

a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.

(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

I can't see how it's inappropriate though. Isn't that basically what Norway has? 

My point was that it’s somewhat off to use the term “militia” when we were talking about a common EU military or a defence organization (of multiple military), not just reserve units or hastily assembled last ditch units or the part of the population who are eligible for the draft.

As for your final question, like most countries, Norway has a military consisting of both standing forces (mix of enlisted troops and conscripts) and reservists (or militia if you want to call them that) who can be mobilized in case of an emergency, and the draft is still a thing over here.