Very strange - from the Left? For me, the ruling elites are in full collaboration with the Left in Europe (before Trump, in USA too). — Linkey

Yes. Just look at history. Just look at what Marxist-Leninists actually wrote. Here's some Soviet propaganda:



(Capitalists of the World, unite!)


Then we can look back just how many millions of it's own citizens the Communist system killed in Soviet Union or in China.

To see the wrongs is easy, yet what radicals purpose to solve those wrongs is the crucial part that people don't notice. Or with Trump, he just says he'll do it, and the Maga-crowd believed him.

The real rulers of the USA and the Western world in general (financial elite) do not allow smart and honest people to start a serious political career, because a smart politician can become a threat/competitor for these rulers. So only bad candidates can participate in elections, and so the voters do not have a good choice. — Linkey

I'm not so sure about that. Many see how disgusting the politics is, think of what there family would be through if they would become politicians. They take other professions. Do perhaps some voluntary work etc.

No, the problem starts from the ground roots. Ask yourself, how many of your friends and those who you work with or share a hobby are politically active, are in for example in communal politics? When's the last time when you have talked with a political representative of your country (Parliament member / member of Congress)?

If ordinary people don't participate in politics, what is the chance really for democracy to work?

Well, basically the reference was "to the first shots". But you are correct.

In the US, we're about to explode because 2 people were murdered by ICE. That's actually a good sign about the health of rule of law. — frank

The positive sign here is that Minneapolis isn't literally exploding. The injustices aren't an excuse for burning up stuff and for looting. That is really positive. Also, earlier a think tank/study group made a study just how civil war would break up in the US and the scenario was just as what has happened in Minneapolis. The city was just wrong. In that scenario two government agencies, on controlled by the executive and one controlled by the state start shooting at each other. I think that this "Fort Sumter"-moment has passed for now. Even if ICE is still roaming the streets in the city, some kind of dialoge, even if weak, is done. Above all, the White House has backed down and now the Trump people are blaming each other. Stephen Miller, the father behind the immigration strategy, is now backpedaling and saying he got wrongful information and Noem is telling that she was only following orders.

That should immediately tell every ICE agent just on how thin ice the whole organization is on now, when looking at the future. It's quite likely that there's going to be quite a reform and organizational restructuring as now ICE has turned into Trump's own Sturm Abteilung.

Developments in the US and in the world in just the two weeks makes in my view the OP even more important.

Where are the libertarians, the neoconservatives and the old republicans? Seems to be that not many are with Trump MAGA crowd. It might be just the algorithm that US policy commentaries that I read from conservatives are highly critical of Trump.

Hey bud - can you say what you mean here? — AmadeusD

Earlier Presidents didn't have badly trained agents actively roaming the streets for possible illegal immigrants and stopping people who look to be foreigners.

And when the police fucked up, they didn't go with such blatant lies of the killed people being domestic terrorists.

It's totally different when you come into the airport from an international connection or come to the border crossing and have to represent your passport (visa in some times) and have to tell just what you are doing in the country to you walking on the street or driving home and your stopped by the border guard.

These simple differences, like abiding with laws, having the law enforcement working together. Or things like not locking up 8 year olds for six weeks and then let them back to their family.

Why was there few if any protests over Biden and Obama's deportation numbers (~5 million each) yet mass protests for Trump (~2 million)? — BitconnectCarlos

Because both Biden and Obama did not go with it as Trump has done.

And the first thing to understand is that WHEN there's democrats in power, it is percieved by immigrants, legal or illegal, that the US is more open to immigration while people understand that Trump is hostile towards immigration. Now tourists from Europe are afraid to come into the US. Then during Obama and Biden the border control performed it's ordinary duties at the border, not patrolling through US cities.

And what has specifically Trump done wrong, I earlierly commented on this, but here it's again.

It's really a concept of how to really fuck everything up:

1) Rapidly enlarge one particular force disregarding a vetting process and training.

2) Take literally the political rhetoric of "tough on illegal immigration" by disregarding formal standard police procedure, perhaps as "pinko-liberal weak" obstacle for the process. — ssu

(This is literally true: @Punshhh made an apt comment about this here: )

3) Have totally ludicrous "quotas" ordered by the White House that simply cannot be achieved as the country's tough stance on immigration has already diminished the actual size of illegal immigration.

4) Have no cooperation with local law enforcement and basically treat the local authorities as part of the problem. Have the actions of this government force heavily politicized.

5) When all the above points 1) to 4) create popular resentment and accidents of total ineptness occur, like where one ICE team member taking away an holstered gun leads to someone yelling "GUN" and several agents discharge there weapons several times on a victim that was already on the ground and wasn't a threat, THEN LIE ABOUT IT even if there is multiple video evidence from different angles of the incident. — ssu

In fact, by interviewing ICE and border patrol agents, Ken Klippenstein wrote a good article ICE Unloads about how badly the agents themselves see the situation. Worth reading. For those that don't read it all, here's a quote. Klippenstein writes:

Overall, as someone who has been covering this for months, I am struck by how angry homeland security officers are with their own agencies, and their blunt dismissal of the Washington leadership. All of the immigration officers I interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Sagging morale and declining standards are a constant theme I picked up, problems that these sources say have been festering long before the deaths of Pretti and Renee Good (and ones that very much contributed to these outcomes).

More than one ICE agent in particular complained about how Washington’s focus on labeling protestors as “impeding” federal functions (and thus breaking the law), and the vilification of “Antifa” and others labeled paid agitators, leftists, radicals, extremists, and terrorists is confusing the ranks while also distracting everyone from the immigration enforcement mission.

“I can go on and on but overall it’s been a ridiculous experience,” one ICE agent told me. He says that many agents on the ground are just going along with the expanded mission because they are more interested in their away-from-home per diem pay and collecting overtime than whatever the mission is.

Others express the cynicism typical of everyone who toils at the bottom of any bureaucratic food chain, pooh-poohing rapid expansion of the ICE army and shaking their heads over the ridiculous budget increases being fought for in Washington that will have no impact where they work.

“The brand new agents are idiots,” an experienced ICE agent assigned to homeland security investigations told me. This same sentiment was echoed by virtually everyone I talked to, with several conveying the view that Pretti’s death was the fault of some skittish young recruit who panicked when he heard the word “gun” (if that’s what happened).

Hopefully this answered just why Trump's actions are different from the past presidents and just why there is so much criticism.

Action is required. We've seen that the action of committed people in Minnesota has resulted in Trump backing off somewhat. — Questioner

Yet that action can be still done by the rules of the republic, just as the people of Minneapolis have done. Is Minneapolis burning? Is there looting? No. Minnesotans are showing how to deal with Trump.

Why? Because Trump is no Putin. With a guy like Vlad, the US would have already lost totally it's republic and likely a majority would be pleased with the way things are going. Not with Trump as Trump's worst enemy is Donald himself.

And we can already see that the Trump regime is panicking...and blame each other. Democrats are demanding Noem to be fired or face impeachment. And Noem seems to be whisked away "to oversee issues on the Mexican border". Of course the real head that should roll here (because it won't be Trump) is Stephen Miller. His deranged quotas and enlisting of untrained agents with against the law tactics has backfired as it evidently would be. The worst thing of course that the White House went with ludicrous lies of domestic terrorists attempting to assaulting law officers, when everyone can see the trigger happy executions that these goons do.

And of course the second murder really did spoil what should have been Melania's week: her film is coming out, so I guess that she got upset the events in Minnesota and made a rare public announcement. That might actually have made Trump to think that the straightforward lying won't bring him success.

And on the international front, I think the response to Trump has been shown with the actions and the stance that Canadian prime minister Mark Carney has adopted. Trump himself saved the Liberal Party from a humiliating defeat and destroyed the pro-Trump candidates chances by his condescending attacks on Canadians. And people are getting the message: if you accept what Trump wants, he will see it as weakness and will come form more later. Mark Carney gave a great speech in Davos, which likely will be one of the important speeches in this system. Anyway, the damage towards that allies have already been done: even if the US ousts Trump and US leaders will want to strengthen their alliances, people will always remember that Americans voted twice for Trump, and thus can vote populist fascists again to power.

There can be no middle road on this issue. You either support fascism, or you do not. — Questioner

So what do you make of the many people that are disgusted about the politics, but just live on with their lives? Besides, in a democracy you can elect other people after those with fascist tendencies and you don't go after those that did vote for the authoritarian candidate. There are countries that have been capable of this.

You’re supporting crime. If Trump took out Hitler there would be riots. There was people out there protesting when he took out Maduro. This is what anti-Trumpism leads people to do. — NOS4A2

I don't think there were no riots after Maduro was taken out. In fact even Caracas was quite silent as people were afraid if a war would come. And if there was a protest, pretty small one compared to the response to the execution style murders done by incompetent goons that ICE unfortunately now represents. Anyway, if Rubio tried to make it a case of bringing Maduro to justice, Trump made it quite clear just what it was all about oil by declaring the he would now manage the oil of Venezuela. That's the criticism. What I've noticed is that usually people refer to the fact that Maduro stole the elections and that basically his regime (naturally without him) is still running Venezuela.

Don't live in your own echo chamber, but listen to what actually the critique is about.

So what's your take on the WSJ that Trump has benefitted 1,5 billion dollars in one year of his second term? What do you think about Trump asking 1 billion for a permanent seat on "Board of Peace", where he is chairman for life? Is that Presidential behavior? This from the guy that promised to "drain the swamp".

That is worth reading. Thanks!

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. This works as follows: if a problem arises in society, the financial elite, represented by parliamentarians, passes laws to solve it; but these laws simultaneously serve one more purpose—increasing the wealth and power of the elite. In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it. — Linkey

Democracy doesn't create a paradise, but it still works in some countries. Many people just look at their own "democracy" and assume others are similar. Especially now when the United States is at a political crisis with rampant and unchecked corruption going on, this is a very normal attitude that people will have.

Yet remember that it's the authoritarians themselves who push exactly this rhetoric that you say: that Western democracy is an illusion, that it is totally ruled by the financial aristocracy. This is the classic argument from the left, from the past Marxist-Leninists with the Nazis just adding to the line that the financial aristocracy is controlled by Jews.

But let's look at this from a different viewpoint and just ask yourself: If the above what you say is true, then how on Earth do a lot of countries have a welfare state? How do we enjoy universal health care? Free education including university level education? Having a home being a right of the individual? First a six-day working week and then a five day working week? Labour laws, work safety requirement and trade unions where the vast majority belong to these unions, including military officers?

1) I have seen an interview on Euronews, where it was said that agricultural subsidies in the European Union always help large agricultural holdings more than small farmers; — Linkey

Subsidies are usually paid for production and there obviously isn't a case of the laws having limitations like "If you produce well over this huge amount, no subsidies will be given to you". That would be extremely counterproductive.

And let's remember just how agriculture has changed in the long run and is still changing.

Earlier in the West (just as now in the poorest countries still) peasants were subsistence farmers, land owners or renters, but basically dirt poor against our standards with only a few of the landowners being immensely wealthy. This has transformed into commercial farming, which is far more like modern manufacturing where the economics of scale bring in the real money. When farming is fully automated, the costs of having that modern tractor or the robots that milk the cows and the huge cowpen where the cows wander freely are far higher than the standard farmer working on the farm inherited from his/her parents can afford. So one option is simply to rent the fields and get another job, which is happening in many countries.

(Cows waiting in line for the milking robot. In a modern cowhouse the cows go freely to the milking and wander around freely. You can imagine what an investment this is.)


This leads to simply to the fact that largest producers get the largest subsidies, even if the subsidies originally were to provide for a large number of smaller producers. The loss in the number of smaller farmers is happening because of this transformation basically in every Western country.

ISIS won't create it's Caliphate, but at least they did have a serious attempt.



And people actually did take in the end the franchise very seriously... and are taking it. The situation in Sahel is still extremely volatile. Remember Trump's cruise missile attack in Nigeria. Not so long ago.

There is no dirty trick that is beneath him to ensure he maintains power. We've seen that with what transpired after the 2020 election. — Questioner

After the 2020 election Trump's total ineptness and lack of leadership qualities was shown. The self-coup, which basically it would have been if Trump would have overturned the elections, didn't happen. It was Trump encouraging his voter to go to Capitol Hill (which the did and stormed the place), yet Trump simply went to the White House to watch his supporters invade the Capital. It was simply a mess.

To me the really scary part was when general Mike Flynn advise him to use the military to confiscate the voting machines. That was a direct plan and someone like Flynn would have known that either power or then prison. Only later it seems that Trump has thought that this would have been a great thing to do.

Yet the issue is that on Jan 6th 2020 Trump would have had total strategic surprise. The political system and the Democrats were totally like a deer in the headlights, totally unable to understand what was happening. It would have been unfathomable. And Trump had his followers making it seem to be as a popular revolt. A self-coup would then have been actually possible, but Trump just created a huge mess.

Now it's totally different.

Now everybody is ready for the dirty tricks. Trump seizing power is not unfathomable. And now the limits of Trump's outrageous actions are seen. Just like with Greenland, Trump has to withdraw from the most insane denials of Pretti having attacked the ICE agents. Bovino, the nazi-like commander who has lost all credibility, seems to have been sidelined.

Yet now Trump does have his yes-men (and yes-women) in prominent positions who know that they likely won't last even if the next president would be a Republican. Such people can have the determination to go with Trump's dirty tricks, unlike people in the Trump's first administration.

Let's hope that the US crawls back from this pit it has fallen into.

An electoral commission would naturally be the first thing an autocrat wants to control. But there are many other entities, simply called the separation of powers. When people don't think that this separation of powers are needed and assume that actually nothing works because of the separation of powers, then you get these populist autocrats. Strong men that promise to correct everything and make things better... and end up making things better only for themselves and their cronies.

Quite a lot of my predictions have come true.

Like how it was laughable to think that someone like Trump "would end the forever wars" and "focus on America itself", and obviously that this guy "would drain the swamp". And he did move on Greenland, obviously got only scared when the stock market took a hit.

And Kash Patel btw. seems to be exactly the kind of guy I thought he would be.

That's true, but there's always going to be a question: If local law enforcement co-operated, the way they did under Obama, there wouldn't be the need for ICE to be carrying out these raids and there would be no media-driven (and, as much as you might think this is fine) a concerted, semi-violent effort to impede, harm and hamper not just the enforcement, but agents themselves, the temperature wouldn't be so goddamn high. — AmadeusD

Exactly. First of all, ICE or any government agency wouldn't make an operation without approval of the state in normal times. And then it would be low key, simply marketed as totally normal police stuff. Just ask yourself: was it really in the news when the highest number of illegal immigrants were sent away during the years when we had Democrat Presidents? You have to have a serious political crisis when for example the Military is put into a state without the acceptance of the state leaders. It's not something that hasn't happened, for example President Eisenhower put the military escort black children to school:

Trump's offer to remove the ICE army if Minnesota hands over the voter rolls shows that. — Questioner

And this tells what really is here the issue.

The whole immigrant issue is just the smoke and mirrors here, just like "Chinese or Russian warships off Greenland" or "Canada sending Fentanol to the US" or whatever bullshit Trump says. But it's something that the MAGA crowd likes and keeps them fantasizing that Trump is actually doing what he promised to do. In reality this is all about a power play.

Seriously, if a Presidents gets over one billion in wealth in one year with even the Swiss bribing him, does anyone think seriously that this guy will just give away power and face the consequences? Trump does control the Justice Department and people like Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem do know that they are on thin ice without Trump/Vance team in power.

The insurrection act cannot change the timeline for federal elections. That is down to your congress. The 20th Amendment sets an absolute end to a presidential term on January 20th, with no exceptions for emergencies or ongoing challenges. — Banno

You assume Trump will uphold the Constitution — Questioner

I think Trump just declaring himself a President for life won't happen. But I think that Trump will try to fake an election win so that at least the Senate is in GOP hold. Trump isn't worried about the next presidential elections, he is worried about impeachment after the Midterms. And what better for him to do this, when all of his stellar political career it's been about the democrats having large scale election fraud. After that, if he would be shrewd, he'd do the Yeltsin thing: pick a Putin, who will let him be safe from investigations and possible jail time. Is JD up to it? Well, he surely is on the Trump boat.

Election fraud is a real possibility, because then people can say that everything is normal and we have seen already this dumpster fire. Not holding elections and oh boy, Trump is for a real ride. It's a move that even US "former?" allies won't accept. And hopefully the American people.

The real issue is of course is that Trump is a simply a disaster. The Greenland deal ended in disaster. As some put it aptly, NATO secretary general had to tap Trump on his back to get Trump from the whole he had dug himself with Greenland and gave him a fictional win. Trump is his worst enemy.

In the end Trump will have his supporters. These people will think that everything is just a lie and badmouthing of Trump. And if Trump will break the rules, he's breaking them because his opponents will do the same thing. Hopefully many will see that this man is really not well and not for the job that he holds now.

Because Trump is 80, and he’s deeply unpopular. They’ll get wiped out in the midterms, beyond a doubt, and then Trump is out of office forever. — Mikie

The way things are going look very sinister to me. Even now when the GOP is enjoying a narrow margin in Congress, Trump isn't going the actual way of having laws pushed through the Congress, but just goes on with more whacky executive orders even if those. Just messages in his Truthsocial! Declaring that he is in charge of Venezuela and then the income from oil from the seized tankers ends up on a bank account in Qatar. And (was it WP) it's been reported that he has made now over a billion dollars in his first year of his second term. He bloody well knows what he will be facing if (when) the democrats are in control.

You really think that after the peculiar attempt on Jan 6th, now with having total control of the Justice Department, FBI and with those ICE goons around, that Trump will respect democratic elections that would be devastating for him?

So what do you do when he just postpones the elections? Trump has said publicly that "we shouldn’t even have an election". What if he does what he has said? Or when they aren't free and fair? Alzheimer kicking in or another Trump having another stroke might take time. Just look at what he's done or attempted to do in one year.

Guess just carrying a gun legally is enough to get you shot 10 times. Look forward to applying those standards in the future. What goes around comes around. — Mikie

It's really a concept of how to really fuck everything up:

1) Rapidly enlarge one particular force disregarding a vetting process and training.

2) Take literally the political rhetoric of "tough on illegal immigration" by disregarding formal standard police procedure, perhaps as "pinko-liberal weak" obstacle for the process.



3) Have totally ludicrous "quotas" ordered by the White House that simply cannot be achieved as the country's tough stance on immigration has already diminished the actual size of illegal immigration.

4) Have no cooperation with local law enforcement and basically treat the local authorities as part of the problem. Have the actions of this government force heavily politicized.

5) When all the above points 1) to 4) create popular resentment and accidents of total ineptness occur, like where one ICE team member taking away an holstered gun leads to someone yelling "GUN" and several agents discharge there weapons several times on a victim that was already on the ground and wasn't a threat, THEN LIE ABOUT IT even if there is multiple video evidence from different angles of the incident.

What's the worse that can come from this? First steps have already been taken on a very dark path, if this path will be followed. Look at this picture:



Above are Minnesotan National Guard giving donuts and warm coffee to people. They have yellow vests on deliberately to make them visually separate from roaming ICE teams in Minneapolis. It looks like an innocent picture, but it tells very unsettling things of how downhill things are going in the US. First, there are basically now two government armed groups following orders from separate leadership that are totally at odds with each other. States might really start to think just what is their relation to Trump's regime now. Just like NATO countries are thinking now what the future holds for them as the US is what Trump has made of it.

Yes, now it might really be a stretch that you would have these two entities, Donald Trump's ICE versus local law enforcement and National Guard shooting each other. Perhaps it is as remote as Greenland being invaded by the US. Yet this is extremely alarming just what is happening with the US.

I admire, and envy, your optimism. IMO, the liklihood of Trump being impeached, and removed, is maybe 5%. — Relativist

If Trump would be just an ordinary president, it would be after all 5% (or well, with an ordinary prez I guess the percentage would be 0,05%), but he's not. Greenland, Minneapolis, mocking the NATO members in Afghanistan... it's not going to end there.

I think in reality Trump getting impeached or being sidelined is about 11%. Him dying (of natural causes) is more like 20%. Alzheimers runs in the family. All those tests he brags of doing tells something real.

In reality, there may also be the "Biden moment", when he is just put aside when he is totally incapable of ruling. If the Dems did it to Biden, it can indeed happen to Trump. He just needs to be in a worse condition.

In fact,

My little country which thinks it's a good democracy had an experience of this. A President that had basically destroyed the opposition and had the backing of the Soviet Union, simply got too old and demented. And then it wasn't great political drama, but a small announcement that he has retired for health reason. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

(Last moments of Urho Kekkonen as the President of Finland, here assisted by the Iceland's President, Vigdis Finbogadóttir and his Finnish army adjutant in August 1981 in Iceland, next month the president "took" sick leave and then died in 1986.)


Trump's health simply going down is a real possibility. If Alzheimer takes hold, then the "ouster" is quick and easy.

Trump's action, giving him control of this money, is unConstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the sole right to allocate funds. In a fair world, Trump would be impeached and removed from office for this. But partisanship rules, and the net result is near-dictatorial power. — Relativist

And what do you think happens if after the Midterms Trump and the GOP would lose both the House and the Senate majorities? It is a possibility.

Still, impeachment needs a majority in House and in the Senate a 2/3 majority. Now there's 35 seats in the Senate in election and those 65 that don't have elections 35 are Dems and 31 GOP. So if the GOP get only 10 Senate seats and the Dems (or people willing to impeach Trump) 25, that makes in my arithmetic 60 seats, which is the 2/3 majority. But then, even if the Dems don't get the 2/3 majority, still the GOP senators can see the writing on the wall and do what they would have done to Nixon.

That's why Trump isn't so keen to have the midterms.

And any, even the Venezuela thing hasn't come to an end.

That's not a serious picture or anything, right? — AmadeusD

No. Supposed to be Trump's humor.

But posting maps where countries are part of another one is actually no laughing matter. I just remember the maps that circulated of NovoRossiya after the takeover of Crimea. Or the maps published by ISIS of their future Caliphate.

You're right - we don't know. — AmadeusD

The good thing is that afterwards we will know. History will put these issues into context.

Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure.

What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing. — AmadeusD

Look at the map: US with Canada and Greenland. The US is larger than Russia. And look at the people who Trump is telling these facts. From left to right: Starmer, Meloni, von der Leyen, Merz, Macron, Stubb(!!!), Zelenskyy, Rutte (I guess).

(Yep, it's nice that my tiny country's president is among those European heavy hitters.)

I think he really got excited about Greenland. It was outrageous. It was totally surprising. Totally out of the ordinary. But he assumed it could be done, because he really thinks so little of Europeans. Just the idea of a real estate tycoon finishing his career with the biggest deal of the Century with buying the largest island in the World.

Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words:


Yet let's think about this:
- Denmark wasn't going to sell it
- Greenlanders didn't want to become Americans
- Americans didn't want to buy and especially not to invade Greenland
- The military likely viewed it as an unlawful command as the NATO treaty is actually something as a law when the US has signed the treaty.
- The Republicans in Congress were not so hot about annexing territory from an ally.
- The only ones enthusiastic about this were the Russians.

What cards did Trump have? How is this a great opening?

Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.

Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know.

This idea simply doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that the markets panicked of a sudden possibility of a trade war because of Greenland, and Trump had to quickly back down. And there was Rutte to give the hasty exit for the US president as this wasn't going anywhere.

And now Trump can focus on the "Bored of Peace"-thing.

What we have are ways of talking, language games, a grammar, or a paradigm - whatever you want to call it. Infinity is a mathematical notion that we can use to calculate physical results. It is not an ontology. — Banno

And we do use it. It is, well, essential.

What we don't have is a proof. Or how it fits everything else.

What we have is threads like this constantly coming up. That itself tells something.

Now, am I crazy to argue that there might be something more to be said here? Perhaps I'm annoying in repeating myself, but I think this is a topic worth wile to talk about.

And ontology? Well, what is the relationship of infinity with numbers?

If we define numbers being arithmetic values that represent a certain quantity over all other quantities, what if we skip away the "arithmetic" part? What if we say that infinity represents a certain unique quantity over all quantities also?

For starters, I think we can agree on what space is. What is time and how it relates to space is another question.

One can argue that calculus doesn't solve Zeno's paradoxes as we don't have yet a clear understanding of infinity.

He was against the reckless expenditure when he was the prime minister of NL; now he is pushing for more expenditure just to woo Trump. Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on? — javi2541997

I don't think you are blind.

That talk "reckless expenditure" I assume is before his last years of being a prime minister (2010-2024). The Russian invasion of Ukraine change a lot. Prior I lived in a nonaligned country where nobody was seriously demanding the country to join NATO. It was an possible option in a theoretical future. So a lot has changed.

Well, @AmadeusD, I'm surely not in the Trump-lovers line.

Time will tell, and I have an extremely hard time thinking this is bruise on the US or Trump. That seems an emotional reading. We'll see. — AmadeusD

A bruise isn't something dangerous. An open cut which isn't treated might be. A mortal wound is truly something else. So that for the "figures of speech" here. So I'm not in the camp of declaring NATO to be dead.

Really apprecaite this exchange so far. — AmadeusD

I do too.

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it. — AmadeusD

I think you understood me incorrectly as this has nothing to do with US policy.
In "American racism" you have Caucasians, whites. In European racism you make difference with West-Europeans (Germans etc) and with Slavs for example. Well, Russians and Poles, Czechs etc. are white in the US. This just to show how illogical racism is.

And racism is something that every country has, btw. There's ample amounts of those here too.

True. But in-group bias is a Human standard. Racism is a somewhat direct consequence of tribal values. In modern times, we've had the privilege to construct tribes of multiple ethnicities. It wasn't so in the past. — AmadeusD

Racism is extremely illogical and basically is a result of bigotry, hubris of oneself and shows the lack of needed social cohesion in a society. So when the current American-style racism is marketed in Europe, it seems very odd at first, because the classic "Untermenschen" of the Nazis are White Europeans also, starting from the Poles and Russians.

Yet "Tribalism" shouldn't be so negative as we use it now. Things that tie strangers together are actually needed in any society. Just like if religion gives us fundamentalism, we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith.

I completely dislike him. What a twat. — javi2541997

Calling Trump "Daddy" and all that... :razz:
Rutte definitely is always saying that thanks to Trump, NATO countries are increasing their defense expenditure, which is something Trump likes a lot (as Obama wanted also this, but failed).



Well, Denmark might really have increased it's defense spending because of Trump and his actions. But the real reason is naturally Putin's Russia invading Ukraine. That's the obvious reason, which nobody says around Trump. Why get the baby into a tantrum? Just look at what the response was to the Norwegian prime minister, when the baby didn't get his Noble Nobel-peace prize.

I guess he forgot he's European when he changed his NL suit for the NATO one. — javi2541997

Remember what ALL republicans said about Trump, starting from JD Vance or someone like Lindsey Graham before becoming total toadies and yes-men for him. But Republicans just love Trump, just like Americans for some reason unknown to everybody else love to pay the most in the World for health care services and still have a mediocre health care system without universal health care.

Yet Rutte has been straightforward: he publicly repeated that he NEVER will take sides if two member states argue, and that he will follow similar actions that secretary generals made to keep the calm between Turkey and Greece.

NATO's article 1 is actually very important. To have all European countries in an military alliance is there to avoid the possibility that Trump put in front of everybody. Just like the EU started from an union that made rearmament difficult, so has NATO also this effect as NATO armies usually operate with each other. And lastly, NATO is actually an US created organization for US objectives, which the orange idiot never has understood (and basically the American establishment seems to have failed to reason to one part of the American public).

As I've said, without NATO there surely would have been after 1945 a war between Turkey and Greece. And now we saw that even the Trump the lunatic didn't go through with taking Greenland.

Hopefully he plays now with his new Mar-a-Lago based "Bored of Peace" -project and has there other country leaders making him feel important and at center stage.

(Donald just loves to be the center focus. Look at that smile.)

Globalists apparently express such polarity when the intersection and interests of national and regional democracy and tribal values don't facilitate the ease of their projects towards ideologies and abstract social utopia. — Alexander Hine

I wouldn't say that tribal values have to be racist. And being against racism isn't in my view an abstract social utopia.

I think we should consider the fact that Newton and Leibniz didn't invent calculus for the purpose of solving Zeno's paradox, but for describing trajectories under gravity. — sime

No, but the issue in the core of Zeno's paradoxes. And we should note that calculus had problems with the infinitesimals, like the famous critique from bishop Berkeley.

And basically logism and the set theoretic approach hoped to find some rigorous ground for calculus, but the paradox resisted to die with Russell's paradox. And with Cantor's hierarchial system, there's still questions...

I really think that there's more to it than we know now. Math is just so beautiful and so awesome.

Zeno mistook an infinite description of motion for an infinite obstacle to motion. — Banno

Or it was a critique of Plato and other mainstream philosopher's idea of the potential infinite.

We should remember that we unfortunately have lost Plato's original book, where likely the Eleatic school would have made their own viewpoint. Now we have just the texts of those who were against the Eleatic school, the "mainstream" Socratic-Platonic school.

Boy, would that book be nice to resurface. It's said that Zeno had even more paradoxes. Loved to have known what they were.

So next move from Trump is the "Board of Peace", which he has invited countries and Jared, Witkoff, some billionaires etc. to the executive Board. Of course, Chairman Trump is a member for life.

(with Donald, everything has to be golden)


Wonder how many meme's there are about the spelling.

Shouldn't it be "Bored of Peace?" :wink:

Trump lovers will say: "This is the art of the deal!" "4D Chess!!!"
Trump haters will say: "This is TACO!"

End result: The US alliance system got a really a beaten and bad bruise which cannot be hidden and Europeans won't forget this, that Americans can attempt to annex territory from their allies and impose tariffs or other sanctions if this annexation is imposed.

Speaking of idiots, the Danes are sending troops to Greenland, ready to die for their monarchy and the last vestiges of their colonial empire. — NOS4A2

No.

They're hosting NATO exercises, which guarantees the actual safety of Greenland.

Which Trump seems to go with now Rutte.

Your a bit off here. Trump already caved in. For the time, at least...

And now, finally.

I think this absurd thread will like be ending soon as Trump finally gave in. For now. Until someone asks him if he is still thinking of buying Greenland, to which he will say "Of Course..."

And then this continues... But now:



Sanity seems to have prevailed. :smile:

American Presidents will choose always later inflation from losing the next elections. If there hasn't been a dollar crisis yet, perhaps there isn't one in the next two years.

Both Biden and Trump have been very consistent on this.

But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this. — AmadeusD

Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. Huge win might get finally an impeachment that goes through. That's why he wants the economy to be fine, and what better would be is to lower interest rates. Nevermind the inflation later. So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of Iceland Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table.

It's estimated that the future Fed chairman will be perhaps between two Kevin's:

Kevin Hassett, a long-time conservative economist and key Trump economic adviser, is seen as a top contender to succeed Powell.

A Trump loyalist, Hassett, 63, served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during Trump's first term and now leads the National Economic Council.

Hassett has been a stalwart defender of Trump's economic policies, downplaying data showing signs of weakness in the US economy and repeating allegations of bias at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Or then it might be Kevin Warsh:

The 55 year-old economist, a fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution who serves on the board of UPS, had also been considered for Fed chair during Trump's first term. He briefly overtook Hassett in prediction markets this month before falling back to second place.

"I think the two Kevins are great," Trump told the Wall Street Journal this month.

Warsh has been an outspoken Fed critic, lambasting everything from the central bank's heavy reliance on data to its use of assets on its balance sheet. He has escalated his rhetoric since emerging as a contender for the top Fed job this year, calling for "regime change".

Warsh had a relatively "hawkish" reputation as Fed governor, meaning that he tended to favour higher interest rates and focused on concerns about inflation.

But he is now seen as a voice that would support lower rates in the near term. He has argued that the Fed should shrink its balance sheet in order to bring down short-term interest rates, though some have questioned that logic.

"He thinks you have to lower interest rates," Trump told the Journal. "And so does everybody else that I've talked to."

Let's remember that Trump has wanted to oust the present chairman for a long time.

Indeed. Well, he got Iceland and Greenland mixed up. But he promised he won't use force to take Greenland. They way I see it, the US military wouldn't have been so crazy. He just got too excited about the successful Maduro kidnapping perhaps.

Simply put it: Danes have to keep the heads cool. Trump is a demented idiot and people around him will repeat everything what he says, but the US establishment aren't made of demented idiots. It's something we never should forget here.

Let's just wait if Trump really puts on tariffs to Europe in the end of the month ...or he has forgotten it then.

$850 billion is the highest it’s ever been. It’s only gone up. — Mikie

First, there's inflation (as @Tzeentch noted). Secondly, the defense expenditure has been a far higher percentage of the GDP during the Cold War. Let's remember that also the armed forces were back then larger. There were more men, more ships, more aircraft and more ...nuclear weapons. A way lot more.

Correct.

In fact, payments on the national debt are now larger than the defense expenditure. During the Cold War the spending was far higher.

? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working. — AmadeusD

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? What international investments and trade simply needs is stability. Think about, if someone really plans to do large investments to the US, plans building a factory etc. it takes basically years to build one and locks the company for many years onward. If you don't know what is happens, that there's the possibility of some politician making Trump angry and then all your plans go bust, then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines.

Or make deals with China as Canada has done now. Earlier, when the US was an ally to Canada, the country basically didn't allow Chinese electric cars on their market (as Biden wanted). Now the Canadian market is open for Chinese electric cars.


Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable. — AmadeusD

Political instability isn't good for the economy. Just look at how gold is doing.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore. — AmadeusD

Is he really dominating the international landscape? What really is the benefit of this domination? What are these interests? That he himself gets vast amounts of money? How is that helping actually the US? He definitely is in the spotlight, sure. It's really a global reality show around him, which he obviously likes.