Big J

Another point worth considering is that with the withdrawal of international aid and development, that the US loses what can reasonably be considered it's most valuable asset - soft power. Until Trump 2.0, the generally esteemed international position that the US held was largely as a result of the development programmes that it supported in the world's poorest communities. Much like the Chinese, the US sought to influence the development of economically emergent nations by way of USAID, and other agencies. It wasn't just a one-way flow of cash with nothing in return - it was mutually beneficial, even if it wasn't immediately apparent. On that note, international development aid is also one of the most effective ways of keeping people in developing countries in their own countries. If you withdraw the support that they were dependent on, they are much more likely to become desperate and try to emigrate to a more economically developed country. So, Trump's anti immigration agenda would actually be served very well by supporting those prospective immigrants to stay put. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As a completely unrelated point, I was just thinking that the most amusing outcome of the Greenland issue would be if the Greenlanders decided that yes, they wanted to secede from Denmark but that they would like to hitch their wagon to Canada. I cannot think of a more effective F**k You to the US than that, and actually might make sense too as Canada is a fellow arctic nation and unlike the US administration, the Canucks aren't a bunch of self-serving, self-important, egotistical c**ts.

So Trump's definition of "the best friend each of those countries has ever had" is a country which starts a pointless and harmful trade war, whilst all the time alienating and disparaging them and siding with autocratic mutual adversaries? With friends like America, who needs enemies?

Surely someone's head has to roll for this? It's an egregious and unforgiveable mistake in the first place, but denying it so brazenly is just outrageous. I bet Hillary Clinton is pissing herself watching this unfold. Whatever transgression it is she committed regarding her emails is precisely nothing when compared to this.

This thread and the topic that it discusses is now beyond depressing. It's not like you can really even parody or satirise what Trump et al are doing now as it's so extreme, so debased and so divorced from reality that there is no way to exagerate it for comedic effect. Comparisons to 1930s Germany are not without merit. As Trump and Musk ignore the judiciary, as they remove or disempower the checks and balances of executive power, as they contravene democratic rights, as they undermine the economic grounding of the poorest whilst furnishing themselves with unimaginable riches, it's difficult not see the value of historic comparisons, as well as fear for the direction in which the US is heading. I find it really frustrating that on this thread, that those on the right of the political debate very rarely actually engage in attempts to rationalise or justify the actions of the Trump administration (see how I resisted the temptation to call it a regime? I almost didn't even mention the word regime!) and rather lower themselves to name calling. It would be really nice to see more compassion towards those that are being directly negatively affected by Trump's policies, like the auto workers in the US who's livelihoods are being jeopardised by this needless trade war that he's started with Canada. Or, more broadly, every single person in the lower four quintiles of the economic strata, for whom tariffs represent a significant tax rise. Less name calling, more reasoned and reasonable debate please. As adults with (I assume) positions of responsibility, we should be capable of that.

It's very dry and sunny here too. Barely had any rain in 8 weeks - only 5mm precipitation recorded in February. These photos were taken on my way home from work a couple of days ago, and this is what it's been like for a couple of weeks now:

Well I think all religion is fundamentally stupid, destructive and harmful. Some more than others, but they're all in the same ballpark. You're born, you live, you try not to be a prick*, you die, you're wormfood. Such is life. *Well, some of us 😁

All those veterans that fought alongside those "countries that haven't fought a war in like, 30 or 40 years"

You still haven't substantively provided any justification for any of Trump's actions towards Ukraine. You just resort to insults, over and over again. If you want to make a case for his capitulation and deference to Russia, I am all ears. If all you are going to bleat on about is liberal tears, Trump Derangement Syndrome and woke agendas, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Trump, in undermining the military, intelligence and negotiating position of Ukraine has only strengthened the possibility of wider war. It has increased the likelihood of more death, not less. To cap it all off, the vast majority of the funding that the US offered Ukraine directly benefitted the US. Old, obsolete arms were donated, instead of having to pay to dispose of them. New arms were manufacturered in the US, directly supporting US jobs. And not to forget that Ukraine is fighting a war on our behalf. If we (as in the West) roll over and allow Russia to take Ukraine, Putin will not stop there. The parallels with Hitler and 1938 are stark.

It's been said by a great many people that have worked with him that he has absolutely no interest in or knowledge of history. He doesn't read anything. Everything he says and does is from impulse and gut feel. Some misconstrue this as him being genuine, ballsy and blue collar when what he is really is an uneducated moron from unbelievable privilege. Another quote I heard recently is that Trump is the wrong answer to the right question. So some of the issues that he's highlighted are absolutely valid (like Europe's dependence on US defence), but his approach is categorically wrong in almost every instance. Like realising that the decor in your house needs an update and deciding that burning down and starting again is most logical.

Fortunately, I don't really ever have to share environments with other people where music might be played. If ever I travel with family and friends, I only ever put music on my mutual consent, and I usually ask to switch off 'background' music if I'm in other people's cars as I can't concentrate on a conversation if it's on. I recently read about a spectrum of conditions called APD (auditory processing disorder) and I suspect it's something I have. I have really sensitive hearing in a quiet environment, but struggle to single out a conversation against background noise. I always just assumed I had some hearing loss from punk gigs as a teenager, but my hearing remains very good. APD is often a complication or comorbidity of ADHD (which I am also fairly sure I have). Either way, music is something that is very personal. I listen mostly to punk from about 20-30 years ago or classical. I don't like a lot of other music (especially anything in the mainstream) but equally, I don't assume other people will like what I like.

I really don't think it's any coincidence that this period of history looks to repeat itself precisely as the last of the WW2 generation dies. What collectively short memories we have.

People are mostly awful, I've found. One of the reasons I really enjoy living in the middle of nowhere in Sweden and not really having to talk to anyone Showing my naivity, I honestly thought that the world was beyond this sort of imperialistic shite. We're in a period of regression.

Just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean that the solution is total capitulation. But if I were in any kind of position to influence negotiations, I would (as I said recently) suggest that Ukraine exchange Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk for an immediate end to the war and EU and Nato membership. Russia cannot be trusted not to regroup and invade again, and in theory, NATO membership ought to discourage that. But given that Trump is exhibiting little to no interest in Europe or world peace, the chances of him honouring Article 5 are very small indeed I realise that it's an idealistic stand to take, but countries ought to be able to exist without the threat of other countries invading them. I do not think that being against such actions is unreasonable.

But the actions of Trump and his cronies are not going to improve the situation in Ukraine in any way. He is obviously gunning for the Nobel Peace Prize, but his idea of how to obtain it is total capitulation to Russia. In withdrawing military aid and intelligence support, he's effectively serving Ukraine up on a plate to Russia. Correct me if I am wrong, but I shall make a series of statements that I regard as being unambiguous: * In 1994, the Bucharest memorandum was implemented so that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and security from the US, the UK and Russia. This agreement should have guaranteed that Russia wouldn't invade, and failing that, that the US and UK would protect Ukraine. * The US withdrawal from European security and probably Nato is deeply hypocritical given that the only time that Article 5 was invoked was by the US after 9/11. Nato troops from all nations fought and died on behalf of the US. * Vance's comments about "20,000 random troops from countries that haven't fought wars for 30-40 years" is absolutely disgusting. Not only have they fought wars, but they've fought US wars. * Trump's demands for concessions from Ukraine are enormous and do not provide Ukraine with any security. The only demand he's made of Putin is that he stop killing Ukrainians. * If Russia stops fighting tomorrow, the war is over. If Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no Ukraine. In light of that extremely brief and by no means exhaustive list, how can it be right that Putin is allowed to get everything that he wants and Ukraine has to simply accept it? There has to be some sort of global moral standard and Trump and Putin are definitely far from reaching it.

@Johnsond and @GarethM - neither of you are presenting your case coherently at present. Both of you are falling into the trap of personally insulting those that you are disagreeing with in addition to continual 'what-aboutery'. If you want to make a case for how you feel that Trump's actions over the weekend are a positive thing, why not make that argument? It would be far more persuasive than simply saying "classic 'insert lefty Arbtalk member's name here' left nonsense", or saying 'what about when Keir did this and Blair did that etc etc. I'm genuinely interested to hear an ambitiously persuasive argument rather than recycled Maga talking points