Knight Of Winter

Ok, unintended (foreseeable or nonforeseeable) consequences are bound to happen, and that's to put it mildly. Most obvious one being that money for increased military spending has to come off somewhere - and in Europe's case, in means cutting down on all of social spending or benefits, free healthcare and education and bunch of other cool stuff that European countries are proud of. Living in European country where our Minister of Defense proudly announces huge increased into military budget...yeah, it doesn't make me particularly filled with optimism. And that's not even going into all the other potential consequences such a move could cause. Still, I may be thinking it's the least of two evils. While I don't know nearly about Japan to comment on them, I'm sad to admit that even someone like Trump was unfortunately right about how utterly ineffective and prone to exploitation European military/economic strategy has been for the last couple of decades. European countries relied a lot on importing Russian gas, all right. However, they still perceived Russia as a thread but were unwilling to do anything to prepare against them, choosing instead to rely on goodwill of its American allies. And now, with Russia having warmongering leader, and US seriously unhinged and unpredictable one - this strategy unceremoniously crashed and exposed Europe's weak position for everyone to see and exploit. Best case scenario - Europe takes this as a wake-up call and starts quick reforms aiming to achieve greater military and economical independence, and it's not that European leaders are unaware of this problem. Their willingness and ability to act, on the other hand, leave much greater room for doubt.

Isn't this exactly what happened? Prior to attacking Soviets, Germany already conquered/incorporated Austria, Czechoslovakia, half of Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark and Norway (possibly I missed something). Surely with such a significant plunder they would be bankrupt no more and could continue financing importing e.g. Soviet wheat and oil ? Yeah, I admit my hypothetical hinges on more sensible Hitler or different leader entirely being at Germany's helm.

Here's a scary one: what if Germany and USSR never went to war against each other? What if - like West and USSR during the Cold War - they carved up entire Europe into their spheres of influence areas to conquer without other's side interference? What if both of them were not necessarily allies, but happy enough with that arrangement that they never thought about provoking each other into serious conflict? How would rest of the world go about defeating nacism then - that's a question to ponder.

[ Not directed at you, more at Netanyahu, Trump and people who support their idea ] : "voluntary emigrate" to where exactly? Gaza borders with 2 countries only: Israel and Egypt. And while Israel is obviously out of the question as destination for Palestinian refugees, less obviously: so is Egypt. Arab countries have been, so far, very unwilling to accept Palestinians - and Egypt has kept its only border crossing towards Gaza closed and under strict control. Seriously, even putting aside the morality of what is basically ethic cleansing, do any of these people even have a plan of where to relocate few millions of Palestinians to? And by "plan" I mean "realistic plan", for this whole alleged "we'll make Lybia take a million of Palestinians" is somewhere in category of "we'll build a huge wall and make Mexico pay for it" as far as sensibility goes.

Who would you say is the favourite in second round? I assume Trzaskowski is the better candidate in terms of quality, however seeing how you describe third and fourth place as fascists - unfortunate conclusion is that their 21% of voters are much more likely to support PiS candidate than a centrist.

Seconded thoroughly. I remember being critical of Democrats, their messaging and their overall approach in the 2024. election and expressed skepticism in their ability to change for the better. If more of them had McBride's insightfulness and her levels of introspection, sound judgement and critical thinking - their future would be much brigther indeed. Let's hope people like her are heeded and listened to.

It does sound really bad, to the point one would wonder why would Ukrainians ever agree to such a give-all-take-none deal. More precisely, they would: - give up a portion of their territory to Russia - give up Russian territory they conquered - give up hopes of foreign peacekeepers - and worst of all, give up any assurances that Russia would not invade again in a few years And in return, they would get...pretty much nothing. In fact, accepting such a deal would signal a desperation on Ukraine's (and not on Putin's) part.

A digression, but your description also reminds me of Putin-Medvedev relationship.

Fair enough. I apologize if misunderstood butterbumps's argument. Of course it sucks and no, of course it's not good. I don't think it's a trend though: I'm so used to politicians and their cronies lying and being assholes towards other people is not news at all: it's their expected mode of behaviour. It generated at least a page a heated discussion, pushing all the other topics to the background for a time. If I claim it's obviously not of tertiary importance (in this thread), I think you'll see (thought not necessarily agree) where I'm coming from. I seems I misundestood point youe were trying to make and for that I'm sorry. The way that you were raised. Your family. Your friends. Your peer group. And most of all - your internal moral compass. People have been raising their kids since time immemorial in much worse conditions than USA under Trump. Good and honest people were raised in times and war, widespread corruption, slavery, and generally societies in every shape, way or form worse than ours. You're unhappy about ethics of your country under Trump and Musk? - most people live in societies where politicians like Trump - or worse - are the norm and representatives of continuity, rather than news. I live in such one country, and will be raising my soon to be born daughter in it (not that I'm complaining - more than half of countries have it worse). Sigh... out all all ways other posters have responded to me - they were polite and their responses have substance in them. Leave it to DanteGabriel to chime in with needless toxicity and name calling, having nothing productive to say. Sometimes I disagree with HOI, and sometimes I agree with him. Sometimes when I agree, I make a post - because this a a public forum and people post stuff here. I don't usually post when I disagree with him, because other posters are already making the same argument I would be making in their place; and I don't see much point in repeating other people's points and contributing nothing new to the discussion. It's not that difficult concept to grasp.

Out of all angles to attack Trump and his allies, I confess I think "please think of the children" has to be one of the weirder ones. And frankly, not the one I've been associating with political left, at least so far. Unless your child is living under a glass dome, it will see bad side of human nature on a daily basis. It will see its friends lying. It will see various influencers being dishonest. It will see teachers, coaches and parents having a bad day and behaving in less-than-just manner. It will watch a cartoon where villain plans to enslave or murder people. It will hear stories about corruption, dishonesty, theft and other crimes - either from news, peers or adults in their life. And no, I'm not saying we should all eagerly expose our children to all nasty sides of human nature without any filters; I am however saying that some of it will happen regardless. However - that's where the parenting kicks in. It's a parent's job, among many other things, to build moral character of their kid(s), to support what's good and noble in them and discourage what's not, to teach them about bad stuff that people do - from ignorance, malice, fear, anger, prejudice and such - and make sure they understand why bad things are bad and how to avoid them. But if you're already doing that (and I don't doubt that all of the parents in this thread are doing their damnedest to raise their kids well), I honestly can't understand where does the concern of your child watching one video of Elon Musk doing what looks like a Nazi salute come from? Are you so insecure in your own parenting that you fear that one video of complete stranger (Musk) will somehow trump (pardon the pun) all the opposite messages that the person it knows and loves (you) is sending him? Why not just sit your child down, and explain to them in age-appropriate manner that that kind of salute was done by bad people who did horrible things, and imitating is not cool at all. Will it be easy - hell no. But one thing I think we can all agree on is that good parenting is rarely easy. Besides, it's a ridiculous standard to hold in the first place. Not a single public figure - politicians, music stars, actors, entrepreneurs, TV personalities and such - models their public behavior in terms of its adequacy for children. If Barack Obama, whom I admire and respect, is holding a speech in some kind a political rally, I assure you that "What will the children think in case they see me?" is not among the most foremost thoughts in his mind. Elon Musk, for all his other faults, deserves to be held to the same bar. If you attack him - do so because he engages in despicable manner, not because a child might see it.

Why not? Christ's resurrection is IMO much more compelling, interesting and thought-provoking as a metaphor than as a literal sequence of events.

Fair enough and I get your point. We can agree to disagree here.

In principle, I agree with everything you said: both that change within Democratic Party is possible, and that it's unlikely to be spearheaded by Pelosi or likewise individuals. I'd add an addendum: that for some reason unknown to me, Democrats have been increasingly monolithic and obedient for the last 4 years, which makes any kind of change increasingly difficult. Here's what I mean: four years ago, at Democratic primaries , there was quite a lively mixture of ideas, opinions and candidates. You had old guard (Biden), experienced and respected progressives (Warren or Sanders), young ambitious hopefuls (Buttigieg), new class of potential bigshots (Harris), people with outlandish but somehow interesting ideas (Yang) etc. They well represented variety of currents within Democrats, and their debates and campaigns were truly diverse and vibrant. The way they clashed their opinions and ideas spoke well of entire party and the diversity it apparently nourishes. Now, 4 years later, all of this went away as if swept away by a tidal wave. When Biden announced his candidacy, nobody challenged him (despite some of them surely knowing what kind of sorry cognitive state he's in). Then, when he embarrassed himself on national television, everybody - one by one - turned their backs on him while nobody stood at his side. When Harris was announced as a candidate, nobody opposed her. Nobody even called for an election - every Democrat obediently fell in line and quickly endorsed her. All in all, entire party fell into monolithic obedience far too easily for my taste - and that doesn't bode well for any kind of possible change within its ranks. One thing that I inferred from your post that I was maybe too quick to dismiss an entire party on too short of a time frame. And I agree - some anti-doomerism is in order. What easily went wrong in 4 years time can just as easily be repaired in the next 4 years. Hopefully it will happen - string and vibrant Democratic Party is an asset not only to USA, but to entire world as well. With things such as war in Ukraine or increasingly militaristic China, I don't relish the prospect of Trump having weak and ineffective domestic opposition. Sure, I can answer, but I doubt any of these points will be new to you (or anyone else familiar with online debates and arguments for the last couple of days). So: 1) nominating Biden Harris, of whatever other candidate, would have better chance with proper campaign instead of being hastily presented as an ad hoc option after forced withdrawal of obviously cognitively impaired first choice. If Democrats could force Biden into withdrawing, they should have done so a year ago - and not after the disastrous first debate. By then it was too late. 2) hiding Biden's mental state. At least top brass (Pelosi, Schumer etc.) and people in Biden's circle (Harris, his advisors) had to know that Biden in 2024 will simply not be fit to run for a president. Instead of using this information to find alternative candidates on time - they hid it and then acted utterly bewildered after the first debate. 3) not having any kind of democratic process The party calling itself "Democrats", running against authoritarian figure such as Trump - can't even have a normal democratic process within their own ranks. Kamala Harris was not elected, but coronated. Her nomination was a result of acclamation, rather than election - and everyone just went along with it. Also noteworthy is how they lacked any kind of opposing opinions on important issues within their own ranks - see my answer to Phylum above. 4) not being more open and friendly to potential new groups of voters. That's the TLDR version, long post is here. 5) being self-absorbed and lacking any self criticism. I grant, this is more of post-election than pre-election thing; but it still influences all the future elections. In my experience, when Democrats lose some important elections - they seek someone to blame. Men, white people and bigots are the usual suspects; but seeing how it was minorities who shifted to Trump the most this election - I wonder if someone will have the balls to blame the minorities this time. Or they'll blame Russian interference. Or immigration, or inflation, or something else. On the contrary, not many prominent Democrats have the courage to look inward and ask themselves where did they go wrong and how to remedy that for next elections? 2024 was a painful loss - and most of Democrats are busy either blaming somebody else or absolving themselves of blame; with little to no soul-searching which would lead to long-term improvement. Now - if Democrats fared better on these 5 points: would that be enough to swing the lections? I don't know. Maybe not - it's quite possible it still wouldn't be enough for a different result. But it would still given them more of a fighting chance.

Oh, of course this isn't the end for Democratic Party - with how deeply polarized American political system and how unviable most of kind of third party/independent candidates are: I'd say that neither of the two major parties is nearing close to collapsing any time soon. With the regards to Democrats being treated differently by the media, I have to respectfully disagree. True, Republicans were rarely called "out of touch with voters"; but plenty of media did call them bigoted, sexist, racist, morally bankrupt, MAGA cult subservient to its leader, irresponsible and others (for the good part that's all correct) - citing these as reasons GOP lost several elections. I can't see how does that constitute preferential treatment for Republicans. But going back to the main point - the thing that I (and I suspect that I'm not the only one) am most concerned about is complete lack of any responsibility or introspection on Pelosi's part. Imagine this kind of behavior in any other sphere other than politics, imagine e.g. car company losing solid portion of its market share, suffering financial losses and getting outdone by its competitors, only to its CEO step forward and say: No, we're doing just ok. There's nothing to worry about. We're proud of our cars. In fact, car buyers are obviously fools for choosing other companies' cars and not ours. Can you imagine anyone reacting favorably to such a statement? Or would this CEO become a laughing stock, while shareholders would hold emergency meeting to find a replacement for this dumbass who prefers to stick their hand in the sand instead of doing their job and addressing the problems the car company is facing. You say that "some events that affect voters are out of a candidate's or a party's control" - which of course they are; but then again some are not. In fact, many of them are not - meaning they were well within Democratic Party's capacity to influence or manage. So concentrate of them, concentrate on those factors that are within your control and you can actually change. Learn something from your losses and make a lesson out of them, to perform better next time. And sorry, but nothing I've seen of Pelosi in this interview suggest that she or the party she's heading are capable of such a mindset, thus ensuring that they'll repeat the same mistakes over and over again, jeopardizing their chances elections after elections. Which doesn't necessarily mean they'll lose, though. We can reliably count on Trump's presidency being a cavalcade of incompetency, corruption and buffoonery with consequences ranging from bad to disastrous. Doubtlessly with will push some voters back into Democratic arms. There's good chance it will be enough to overturn the tide and win them the elections. Here's a thing: if your best strategy is not to change, learn and grow, but waiting for your rivals to screw up more than you ever could - it's not good. It's not good in life, it's not good in business and it's certainly not good in politics. As self proclaimed bastions of democracy, fairness and sanity - Democrats could and should do better than that.

Few days ago, Nancy Pelosi gave an interview and....well, I think that every Democratic voter should be deeply concerned when reading it. There's zero reckoning, zero accountability, zero introspection - just a number of predictable meaningless platitudes like: although Trump is the worst, losing presidency and Senate and House to his party is not that catastrophic in fact, we didn't do so bad we didn't make any major mistakes we're so proud of Kamala Harris US working class just don't realize what we did for them, otherwise they should have voted for us In short: our current system (headed by me and people like me) is good, we didn't make any mistakes, we don't need to change and we'll continue on our present course. Such a mindset from a person in charge is much worse than losing a single election - for it means that Democrats won't learn anything and will continue to make same mistakes in 2026 and 2028 and all the future elections. In fact, best-case scenario is that's all just an act: that she's presenting a calm and non-confrontational facade while having serious discussions behind closed doors with other Democratic leaders about what they did wrong and how to improve for next elections. Hopefully that's the case and hopefully I'm not deluding myself.