Jump to content

US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Does seem to be two dishonest forces going on here regrading inauguration reporting. To suggest Trump had a smaller than average crowd doesnt seem logical. For ratings we know that the Trump inauguration scored pretty high, higher than anyone but Obama, still beats out Reagan. Pretty unfair to use Obama as the bar, not only a popular candidate but him being not white made it very historically significant as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I really doubt Putin is crazy enough to start a major war that might compel even Trump to commit the US to the fray. And even assuming the US under Trump is willing to break its own alliances with Europe for some reason, all major world powers including the US would still have to ask themselves whether it's in their best interests to let Europe be slowly conquered by Russia.
This is nothing less than a WWIII scenario. With at least three nuclear powers involved (Russia, France, the UK).

I don’t think it’s likely that the US is going to abandon Europe either, even if Trump’s statements are a bit worrying. 

But what if we’re wrong?

Well, as you say, Putin might not be willing to invade Europe anyway.

But what if we’re wrong, and it turns out that the hawks & the nationalists in the Duma somehow managed to convince him that it’s a good idea to invade some of their neighboring countries now that Europe is weak, and that the French and the British won’t make use of their nuclear arsenal if they don’t push too far?

Well, I don’t want to find out, and that’s why I'm saying that we should have powerful conventional forces in Europe that can act as a credible deterrence by themselves (and why the recent string of defence cuts were a bad idea).

Simply put, I think we should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Could there be anything more -- well, goofy? They lie with conviction, but not convincingly.  Thieves and liars who are stupid too. If they were running crimes on the street they'd be in Riker's so fast they wouldn't know what hit them..

Yeah, at least put some effort into it. I think there are examples of coverage of the crowd that was at least somewhat disingenuous. There was video footage of the parade route that was taken hours before the parade that showed empty bandstands and sparse crowds lined up along the route, but that failed to mention the time. They could point to those sorts of reports, but they didn't even bother to craft any kind of viable narrative. Just lazy, meaningless lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump does not learn to pick his battles, his entire term is going to be even more of a clown show than I already expected it would be.  

Who gives a shit about the crowd size, Donald?!  You are the motherfucking president of the United States and you have more important shit to do!

He absolutely cannot resist taking the bait when there is any perceived slight to his ego.  It will be effortless for the media to troll this guy for four years.  The question is how long will it take for the novelty to wear off for those currently making excuses?   

He shouldn't have even addressed this crowd business, it is epically frustrating to feel that I personally possess more wisdom and restraint at 32 than the 70 year old child in charge of this country.  This is only the beginning too, we are going to be subjected to some surreal episodes over the next four years and I don't see any way that it's not going to be for some time afterwards that anyone can take this country seriously again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Commodore said:

The largest annual protest in DC is The March For Life.

It gets virtually no coverage from the news media

Isn't it that this is the largest anti-abortion / anti- Roe v Wade protest by those who wish to curtail women's reproductive and health rights?  But, in actuality it is not the largest annual protest every year?  These are not the same thing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I really doubt Putin is crazy enough to start a major war that might compel even Trump to commit the US to the fray. And even assuming the US under Trump is willing to break its own alliances with Europe for some reason, all major world powers including the US would still have to ask themselves whether it's in their best interests to let Europe be slowly conquered by Russia.
This is nothing less than a WWIII scenario. With at least three nuclear powers involved (Russia, France, the UK).

I pointed this out in the POTUS and the World thread before it was locked, but Russia is not going to conquer Europe as a whole. Even if Putin wanted to, Russia doesn't have the capability. That's not the major concern here. The former soviet satellite states have reason for concern of direct military action, but western Europe doesn't. The threat Russia represents is it's capacity for disruption and unconventional conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Isn't it that this is the largest anti-abortion / anti- Roe v Wade protest by those who wish to curtail women's reproductive and health rights?  But, in actuality it is not the largest annual protest every year?  These are not the same thing. 

 

That is the protest, and it is the largest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I pointed this out in the POTUS and the World thread before it was locked, but Russia is not going to conquer Europe as a whole. Even if Putin wanted to, Russia doesn't have the capability. That's not the major concern here. The former soviet satellite states have reason for concern of direct military action, but western Europe doesn't. The threat Russia represents is it's capacity for disruption and unconventional conflict.

How exactly are Western European countries with depleted armed forces like Norway and Sweden going to keep the Russians at bay, if all we're getting are token reinforcements from the other Euros?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Einheri said:

How exactly are Western European countries with depleted armed forces like Norway and Sweden going to keep the Russians at bay, if all we're getting are token reinforcements from the other Euros?

Apparently, going by discussions elsewhere, by waiting until their whole supply and maintenance systems breaks down a few hundred kilometers past their own borders.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Seli said:

Apparently, going by discussions elsewhere, by waiting until their whole supply and maintenance systems breaks down a few hundred kilometers past their own borders.

 

Exactly. Russia's ability to project sustained force beyond it's immediate borders is pretty limited. Sure, the scandinavian countries might struggle if they were totally on their own but they wouldn't be on their own against a direct military attack.

The concern is that direct military attack is not Russia's MO. They're very good shit-stirrers who can cause a lot of trouble through unconventional and indirect means (see Ukraine). This is not to be dismissed, but it's not an existential threat to western Europe.

Edit: I mean, Russia's economy is significantly smaller than Italy's, let alone the EU's as a whole. They have a lot of immediate warfighting skill and short-term capability, but very little depth or sustainability. Conventional state-on-state wars are usually won by logistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Exactly. Russia's ability to project sustained force beyond it's immediate borders is pretty limited. Sure, the scandinavian countries might struggle if they were totally on their own but they wouldn't be on their own against a direct military attack.

The concern is that direct military attack is not Russia's MO. They're very good shit-stirrers who can cause a lot of trouble through unconventional and indirect means (see Ukraine). This is not to be dismissed, but it's not an existential threat to western Europe.

Thais true. But if they get more people beyond theirs borders it would be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Seli said:

Apparently, going by discussions elsewhere, by waiting until their whole supply and maintenance systems breaks down a few hundred kilometers past their own borders.

 

It's true that it would be difficult and time consuming for them to supply their units over such long distances, but this wouldn't stop them, only delay them, and what good are those delays if the US is taken out of the equation? Like I said, token forces from other Euros is not going to cut it against multiple Russian moto infantry brigades and Naval infantry brigades who has more tanks, artillery and SAM systems to protect them. Norwegian military planners know this, Norwegian government knows, which is why pleasing the US has been Norway's no 1 priority for years now (and now it looks like we'll be kissing Trump's shoes as well) because the rest of Europe has made itself fairly irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...