Remix.run Logo
xp84 12 hours ago

> weaponized against us

I take a more optimistic stance here. Trump can only live so long, and everybody except basically Trump and John Bolton knows that the majority of his idiotic tariffs (and nonsensical belligerence like pretending NATO control of Greenland doesn't meet all our defense needs) are wealth-destroying on net, as well as wealth-destroying for at least 10x the number of people than they help (many of them I'd say 100-1000x as many). When Trump leaves the stage, those who replace him will either be Democrats sprinting at full speed from all his policies to demonstrate how not-Trump they are, or Republicans who want to grow the economy. Either way, the stupidity in a lot of his policies is a temporary condition.

Note that I'm not saying everyone should give the US a pass or maintain as much economic and defense dependency on the US. But I think it's hyperbolic to make all your long-term plans assuming something as stupid and self-defeating as his worst anti-ally policies are a new normal, because they harm the US at least as much as they harm everyone else, and everyone but those two knows this.

kettlecorn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The decades long level of trust in the US and its institutions was unprecedented and built off of the tremendous goodwill and momentum post WW2.

It was an unusually high degree of trust, and now it's unusually low. Even if the US reverses its policies it will take a very long time to rebuild trust, and even then the historical warning marker of the Trump admin will be studied as a reason to never return to the prior level of trust.

Without total trust software products are a natural target for any country that's thinking more about how to defend its own sovereignty. Policies and subsidies for locally built software that previously would have seemed frivolous or wasteful now seem prudent and badly needed.

Ravus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

One should not overlook the human/emotional aspect. Decision-makers are not immune from it.

Hegemony comes with a certain degree of humiliation. Socially, it means accepting that a foreign language being taught in elementary schools becomes synonym with intelligence and eloquence, or protecting a copyright/taxation regime that go against your interest, or accepting that manslaughters perpetuated by troops stationed in foreign military installation on your soil will go unpunished, and so on. There's always been creeping resentment towards the US in any given European nation.

However, resentment is not a concern when "adults are in the room", even if not explicitly in charge. Economic prosperity is great, no one wants to break a good deal. But now those safeguards are failing on the US side. There's suddenly room to rationalize any hostility.

Sure, the extent to which this is a factor vs rational analysis is arguable... but I don't find it mere coincidence that France is the nation spearheading this.

mmasu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yesterday in an article here on HN i read a wonderful dutch proverb:

“trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback”

seems it’s applicable to this case too. Sad to see decades of work being tore apart in a few months.

mlrtime 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

Where does money land on that proverb?

Meaning people have very short term memories when some sort of financial incentive is inserted.

balamatom 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well, ask yourself where'd it get the horse

kitd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My fear as a Briton and European is that even when Trump departs, the distrust remains so long as the US continues to be so politically divided. The chance of Trump being replaced by someone similar or worse will make most European politicians (incl UK ones) throw their hands up in despair.

ajjahs an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

Propelloni 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Note that I'm not saying everyone should give the US a pass or maintain as much economic and defense dependency on the US. But I think it's hyperbolic to make all your long-term plans assuming something as stupid and self-defeating as his worst anti-ally policies are a new normal, because they harm the US at least as much as they harm everyone else, and everyone but those two knows this.

It is debatable if everyone but John Bolton and Donald Trump knows this. After all, according to the last NYT poll the current POTUS commands an approval rating of 41 % in the USA. The number of people I meet who do not understand how tariffs work, for example, is staggering.

Anyway, it is smart policy to expect the worst and plan for it instead of being surprised by another insane president voted in by the people of the USA. Call it risk management if you like. It would be negligent of the leaders of the EU and its member nations to not account for that. The EU has to reduce dependence on unrealiable trade partners, this is true whether we are talking about warmongering Russia, dictatorial China (probably the most reliable of the three!), or unpredictable USA.

So, let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst. The EU can't change it if preparation harms US economic interests in the long run. That's on Trump.

dillydogg 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For those who haven't looked at the results, I find them more depressing:

>What emotion best describes how you feel about Donald Trump’s presidency so far?

Of Republicans:

40% Satisfaction

24% Enthusiasm/pride

6% Hope

5% Relief

They are loving this.

xp84 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course they are, they haven't seen or thought through any consequences yet. Wait and see how they feel in 2 ½ more years.

esafak 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It does not work like that. Look at countries with similar leaders, past or present: they remain popular. The masses don't experience an epiphany.

backpackviolet 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They won't. This is the same line of people that voted for Reagan and Bush II. I used to be one, most of my family still is. Whatever Democrat gets elected (if we have reasonable elections) will get the blame from them and it will be used to fuel the election of the next populist.

This is the mistake a lot of people made with Bush II and Trump I, thinking that "this will all go away" when the man at the center goes away. It won't, no man rules alone, they represent a large population of anti-intellectual isolationists who are not going anywhere. At best you can hope that the intellectuals will govern in a way that helps everyone next time they get a chance, leaving less fuel for the next populist wave.

dillydogg 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suspect if what has transpired doesn't make them concerned, they will only be emboldened.

jesterson 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Would you enlighten us about how we are supposed to feel in 2.5 years?

balamatom 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

Very, very happy, or else

xp84 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> After all, according to the last NYT poll the current POTUS commands an approval rating of 41 % in the USA. The number of people I meet who do not understand how tariffs work, for example, is staggering.

For sure -- the bottom 41% of economic literacy are so misinformed that they have no clue what they're talking about. But those voters aren't picking the nominee for President from among a circus of general morons, the party elites are, and the Republican Party elites are rich dudes who don't want to screw ourselves back to the stone age. Without Trump just flailing around like an idiot, they'd be content to do things that preserve the status quo in a lot of areas. They pander to the unsophisticated Trumpists where needed, but it's lip service, since a lot of them, for instance, love open borders because of how it depresses wages and gives them a compliant workforce. They talk a big game about the debt or the deficit, and also work to make sure we increase defense spending and funnel as much healthcare spending as possible through a bunch of private insurers who add a huge margin to our healthcare costs.

tempestn 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't know, one might argue the US primary system is closer to the circus.

bgilroy26 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This ignores the career of Rush Limbaugh

backpackviolet 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the Republican Party elites are rich dudes who don't want to screw ourselves back to the stone age.

They said that about Trump I. The Republican Party elites have power, but they don't have all power on the conservative side of American politics. They contend with the Religious elites and various conservative cultural elites and the libertarians and so on. Trump didn't get elected by accident, there are a lot of people who love what he is doing, what he represents. They will happily vote for "the next Trump" when the time comes, and their elites will bend the Republican or the Democrat elites with tax cuts just as easily as they did for Trump.

beloch 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

MAGA will likely not die with Trump, and the Democrats have done their fair share to shaft Canada too. (If Jimmy Carter were still alive you could ask him about his family tree farm and what he thinks of softwood lumber tariffs.) As our PM recently said in Davos, the U.S.-led rules-based world order was a bit of a sham from the get-go. Certain countries were more equal than others. The rules were always flexible and they bent in favour of the U.S. most of all. Canada and other middle powers got an okay deal nonetheless, so we went along with it. That's over now, and "Nostalgia is not a strategy.".

Now that we're always going to be four years or less from the next potential bout of American insanity, it's time to build a new order that is less vulnerable to big powers and more equitable for everyone else. An order in which the rules are applied more consistently and have teeth. That doesn't necessarily mean breaking out the feather quills and having a big shin-dig at Versailles though. It's doing lots of little things that shift our dependence to like-minded middle powers whenever and wherever possible.

e.g. The white house has threatened other countries (including Canada) with tariffs in order to deter regulation or taxation of american software giants in non-U.S. jurisdictions. That makes dependence on these companies an exploitable (and already exploited) weakness. This is why governments, like France, want alternatives.

willhslade 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Wasn't Carter a peanut farmer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

beloch 6 hours ago | parent [-]

His family farmed a few things, including trees. Carter was on the record as a fan of soft-wood lumber tariffs, even though his term had come and gone by the time the softwood lumber dispute arose.

There are democratic presidents who have done worse things to Canada than Carter. I singled out Carter because, today, he seems to be viewed as left-leaning (for a POTUS) and un-Trump-like.

tempestn 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems optimistic to me at this point that he could be replaced by a Republican not largely crafted in his image. It's possible, but I certainly wouldn't take it for granted.

Der_Einzige 9 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

backpackviolet 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's something of an open question whether MAGA will follow him or not. I would bet against it, for the same reason few of them followed Jeb after George. I would bet on some in-fighting between Don Jr, JD and some of the others, and a new MAGA champion will emerge (maybe not for a decade) who we aren't really paying too much attention to right now.

shermantanktop 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Vance has zero of the charisma that Trump has for his voters.

I can’t explain the charisma. I can’t even really describe it, but it’s real. Others have tried to replicate it with no luck.

terminalshort 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Neither did Biden, and he won. Neither did Clinton and she didn't, but still got more votes than Trump. And the Republicans are leading on the issues: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/poll-americans-trust-rep.... In an election between a boring Republican and a boring Democrat, the Republican probably wins.

mapt 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Vance will "have the charisma" of being the focus of the palace cult (around a quarter of the country) while Trump's corpse is still warm.

These people aren't people anymore, they're cultist NPCs. They have suspended personal agency and independent reasoning about their interests in favor of the vibes, in favor of the grift, and in favor of arbitrary Strong Executive Leadership. They will say literally anything Fox News et al tells them to say.

Vance's job was always to end democracy by replacing Trump with somebody more subservient to capital who could stay on-script, while seeming less crazy to liberals. He was practically raised for this. MAGA has been trained to water at the mouth when somebody jangles their keys, and will happily transfer their utter loyalty and devotion to somebody else who can jangle keys.

ropable 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump has done/is doing generational harm to the perception of the US worldwide, to say nothing of US soft-power influence. It's going to take decades to rebuild that trust after he's gone, and we still have a couple of years of his term to run yet.

mlrtime 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> It's going to take decades to rebuild that trust after he's gone

I see this over and over again, wish there was some way to bet on it. But it would be difficult in 10 years to say cause and effect.

People have short term memories unless harmed very specifically / directly. Not indirectly affected.

womitt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Rebuild? Never Failing empires rarely peak twice...

ndsipa_pomu an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Given that a sizeable percentage of U.S. people seem to still support Trump, I don't think trust is going to be rebuilt. There's also the massive issue of the U.S. political system that has been shown to have a fatal flaw - that would have to be fixed along with the broken two party system.

I liken it to Germany rebuilding trust after WWII.

tsimionescu 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that your outlook on US politics and future leadership is naively optimistic (though I very much hope to be wrong).

First and most importantly, I don't think it should be considered a given at this point that there will be a democraticly elected successor to Trump. It's clear from past attempts and current declarations and actions that the Trump regime will try to maintain power instead of ceding it at future elections - whether they will succeed or not will depend a lot on American institutions and the power of the people.

Secondly, your assertion that only Trump and Jon Bolton agree with the current policies seems deeply wrong. First of all, the VP (with a real chance to be President, given Trump's age and apparent health), seems very much on board. Secondly, much of Trump's policies are based on the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 document, including at least some of the foreign policy decisions. Thirdly, a desire to re-orient US foreign policy away from Europe (and thus NATO) and towards China exists in a large part of the traditional foreign policy establishment. Fourth, the leaders of the Democratic Party seem to have learned entirely the wrong lessons from the last election, looking more at which of Trump's policies they should adopt rather than what alternative solutions they can promise to the American people.

xp84 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Every official or aligned pundit in the GOP is obliged by Trump's universally-known vanity to make a show of supporting literally every dumbass thing he does, knowing he'll purge them if they even question things. So I will say we can't actually get a read on what they truly think until Trump is gone, preferably by passing away peacefully of old age rather than hanging around live-tweeting his takes on the next administration's actions. Of course this means I'm speculating as well, and I admit that.

I just think that I've never seen anyone approaching the Trump levels of pettiness, vanity, and most of all, what looks to me like pure foolishness. Including even his inner circle. Most of them are single-issue extremists.

I actually agree that re-orienting foreign policy and military toward China is just plain smart. But it's idiotic to do that by picking fights with allies, and anyone less dumb than Trump can accomplish a pivot to China while at minimum not causing hostility across the Atlantic. Ideally the West should instead be firming up our alliance and working together to counter Chinese influence, plus, it'll be better to have NATO intact leading up to a potential hostilities with China when they invade Taiwan. Of course, China is working hard on amplifying and promoting division inside the US to destroy NATO in the hopes that Europe will run to their arms economically and thus be unable to oppose China. Kind of like how much of Europe has/had dependencies on Russian petroleum which complicated their ability to respond to Crimea and the rest of Ukraine invasion.

> leaders of the Democratic Party ... looking more at which of Trump's policies they should adopt

I haven't witnessed any adaptation at all from the DNC. It seems that all their beliefs are still summed up as "We ran a perfect candidate and she ran a perfect campaign. It's the voters who are the problem!"

I can't emphasize enough how collossal the DNC's screwup in 2024 was. We have a system that has been running for hundreds of years where the idea is a primary election gets you two candidates who are at least spitting distance from electable, and then we have to pick one of those two in the general election. It's wildly imperfect in that it entrenches exactly two parties at a time. But the DNC in 2024 took this system and operated it with utter incompetence by just installing the biggest loser of the 2020 primaries as the only alternative to Trump. Many people were so disgusted they stayed home. If they've admitted this, it hasn't been publicly.

the_gipsy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You're missing the point: she was a woman.

globalnode 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

trump disappearing isnt going to restore trust now the world has seen how broken american politics is.

dleslie 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think every American needs to understand this quote:

> "We will never fucking trust you again."[0]

It doesn't matter that Trump will eventually no longer be President, and it doesn't matter that there are still members of the American political establishment that support the old way of doing things. Trump does not act alone, and there is rapid attrition of those older bureaucrats who valued the USA's allies. Trump's allies in the GOP will continue to be in power, and perhaps worse, the partisan appointees that have inundated the public service will remain.

The USA has burned its bridges. There is no more trust to be found.

0: https://www.readtheline.ca/p/matt-gurney-we-will-never-fucki...

xp84 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks for that excellent link. I suppose I have to remain optimistic here, but I think that you and I disagree on one really important thing and time will prove one of us right (I think we both probably hope I'm right): I think that Trump is too different from the others, even people he's ushering into the administrative state. That's my opinion because Trump seems to govern from:

- 1 part petty corruption: stupid stuff like deals that enrich Kushner, his Trump company itself, and that of his close personal allies

- 1 part vanity: stupid stuff that serves no purpose but to exact revenge against people who humiliate him. And let's throw in silly stuff he says just to 'troll the libs' to this group too.

- 1 part just pure inexplicable stupidity. Things like pointless tariffs, or the idiocy around Greenland, that hurt nearly everyone and especially the US itself. Honestly some of this may be just the petty corruption part, where someone who stands to make a fortune from the chaos has cut him in on a deal we don't know about.

I simply don't see that same motivation triad coming from anyone else, even among Republicans. Other Republicans are driven more by political ideology, their own goals, their own ideas about the culture, their belief that X policy makes the economy stronger, etc. So, while you should judge us by what we do in the future, and bearing in mind that more idiots of his caliber may be discovered, I think and hope that you'll find out that Trump was simply the perfect storm of moron, and can never be repeated.

tempestn 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is a pessimistic take on that too though. What if the next guy gives you all the corruption and cruelty, without the vanity and stupidity?

dleslie 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That sort of corruption is endemic to the American political establishment. They profit from their inside knowledge of congress, wielding their insider knowledge to make themselves wealthy; not all do it, but enough do that it's nigh impossible to pass legislation to deal with it.

What you refer to as vanity I consider vindictiveness, and as evidenced by his continued support is something that appears strongly associated with Trump's supporters. Vindictiveness is the point, and it's what they voted for.

And stupidity, well, PISA performance doesn't bode well for most nations. There's a steady decline witnessed the world over.

terminalshort 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Germany elected Hitler and we pretty much trusted them again in less than 20 years.

microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes and no. West-Germany was not trusted enough to allow them to make nukes or to make a powerful-enough army. For a long time, Germany has pretty much been a vassal state of the US. I cannot see that happening the other way around (given the relative powers of the militaries).

Besides that, living in a neighboring country, the generation of my parents and grandparents had a deeply-rooted aversion towards Germans. They would communicate with Germans politely, but when no German was around, they would often use not-so-nice names or jokes. Luckily that aversion is gone with later generations.

When I was young (early 90ies), we would often go on holiday to Czechoslovakia (before the split) and the Czech Republic. The staff at restaurants and shops would be cold and distant until they discovered that we were not German, then they would be very warm and kind. At some point, we would always start the conversation in English. At the time most staff would only speak German, but we would use it as a signal that we were not from Germany.

This kind of distrust can stretch many decades. I think we have mostly healed as Europeans, but it took a damn long time.

hardlianotion 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

After blasting them to their knees, completely disbanding their society and writing their constitution for them. You up for that?

ArnoVW 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. After having flattened it and occupied / denazified it for a bunch of years. The Germany after WW I was not trusted.

enaaem 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The EU was meant to pacify Germany. Also a lot of effort was done to denazify the country.

Germany is now allowed to remilitarise again, and that’s going to be interesting. I believe we should never underestimate a remilitarised Germany.

arjie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is a sound point. I don't think your comment should be grey. In practice, I don't think geopolitics is played in the style of "Yurusenai!" that a lot of online commenters make it sound like. The world wasn't in some benevolent kumbaya between the various players involved here.

America perhaps pioneered the mutual-defense agreement as an expansion of de-facto borders. America can attack you if you attack any of its mutual-defense treaty partners - e.g. Japan or NATO. This places an encirclement on other unaligned world powers: Russia and China. Smart, but they picked up on it, which is why mutual-defense agreements with nations near world powers are now fraught with danger.

But Europe is not an innocent led to her subjugation. Europe has always attempted to extract their side of the deal: they will buy American weaponry and host American bases but they will expect America to pick up the defense bill, including for things like access to the Suez Canal which is primarily (though not exclusively) a European risk and concern in that alliance.

Other powers have always used the push and pull of changing demographics and waxing and waning power to jockey for more control or more trade concessions, or lower spending on defense for higher spending on welfare and so on. The reason that Western Europe vacillated on Ukraine isn't that they were unsure who the good guys were. It's that it wasn't clear where the balance of power was and ensuring they were well aligned was their priority. Likewise, the participants who benefited from NS2 going up in bubbles were Ukraine and the US and one or both of them likely did what they needed to.

It is true. Germany did elect Hitler. It is also true that that Germany committed vastly greater crimes than Trump's America has. And it is true that Germany the country is not a civitas non grata (if you will) though one could argue that this was offered at the end of a gun (the persistent US bases). I think this point (delivered tersely and risking Godwin) is actually very strong.

I think Western bloc leaders are well aware of the strength of the Western coalition of Europe and the US. They are also well aware of their waning will to wage war as their population ages. I don't think Trump has a sound head on his shoulders - Americans will probably carry the memory of the danger of aged leaders at least one generation - but it is clear from the texts he has leaked of the other world leaders that they are pragmatic and intend to preserve the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen, and the resulting prosperity it has endowed its constituents with.

Any pressure will immediately be relieved if no actual irreversible damage (e.g. withdrawal from NATO or Anpo) is done and everyone knows it. But to make sure we get there, everyone has to apply just enough pressure to not break the machine. We can only hope they have the skill at diplomacy.

All this "Americans must realize you are now PARIAHS and will NEVER BE TRUSTED AGAIN" business will seem novel to people today, but this was true when I was younger and America had just invaded Iraq right after Afghanistan. People were talking about how they pretend to be Canadian and so on. America was supposedly a pariah then, which makes any threat of "you are now a pariah" not particularly meaningful.

So long as Europe benefits from America and America benefits from Europe and both can put in changes that cement such commitment in the future, I think we will return to a powerful Western bloc - which I (personally) think is good for all humanity.

holowoodman an hour ago | parent [-]

> All this "Americans must realize you are now PARIAHS and will NEVER BE TRUSTED AGAIN" business will seem novel to people today, but this was true when I was younger and America had just invaded Iraq right after Afghanistan.

Nobody really cared about Iraq or Afghanistan. Sure, it was fashionable to pretend to care, to get on a high horse and tell the USian rabble how immoral they were. But at the same time, people on their high horses also were glad that there was no Saddam Hussein anymore and that the Taliban were beaten (seemingly, back then).

It's different now because the US threatened to invade the Kingdom of Denmark, a supposedly very close ally. Even the threat of doing that is a red line that will be very very hard to uncross after Trump.

arjie an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes, and I'm sure that the next time the US does something against European interests it will again be the case that the last time was just pretense but this time is real. The thing with terminal declarations is that there is no pathway back. If the US was never to be trusted again after the Iraq War, we are never to be trusted again now, so telling us that we are never to be trusted now is not of any significance. We're now post that declaration. That's what the word 'never' means.

The US-Europe military-economic bloc is a strong structure, but of the two Europe is weaker and the participants in Europe stand and fall according to weak ties. Without NATO, it isn't even clear if Poland will have allies. Each of the constituent countries have leaders aware of this. And I'm sure they'll attempt to keep the structure intact. If they fail, they fail but all these dramatic declarations won't have been significant either way. The declarations themselves are just emotional outbursts without even the semblance of even self-interest.

I mean, think about it. If the US has no pathway back to normalcy in relations ("never be trusted") then the cost for all future Presidents to militarily intervene is low. After all, trust is at its minimum value and guaranteed not to rise. If Greenland is core to US interests and Denmark has decided there is no pathway back to normalcy, invasion is on the table for all Presidents, Democratic Party or Republican Party.

Essentially, once you decide that you will never normalize relations, then you're just an adversary: not even a potential future ally. And those who pitch themselves as guaranteed adversaries had better find allies quick.

holowoodman 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

I didn't say "never", just "very very hard".

Just think of the relations the US has with the British. Back in the day, after the independence war, I'm quite sure that there were quite a few people in the US who said something like "never will we have cordial relations with the Kingdom of Britain"...

arjie 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, you did not say that, but that was the context of the conversation.

> I think every American needs to understand this quote:

> > "We will never fucking trust you again."

suddenlybananas 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump already left the stage once. This is something deeply wrong with the US that can't be explained away as a phase.

mg794613 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, Trump is the brainchild of American mindset. Not the cause, but the result.

And now that even the Americans see it themselves, it's too late. They will _never_ gain the same trust again.

11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
aucisson_masque 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Americans elected trump not just one time. They did it twice.

They all knew who he was by the end of the first mandate yet they still elected him again.

Why wouldn’t they find another « trump like » when trump goes away ? Vance or someone else, the list is long.

I see no reason for things to change and that’s if the USA doesn’t become an autocracy in the meantime. Trump already did so much in a year, that’s fascinating. He just need to boil the frog a bit longer but everything is in place.

ryandrake 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly. Trump is just a symptom. If he disappeared tomorrow, the people who elected him are still here, and they still want the same things: Belligerence, Cruelty, Isolationism, and lots of other terrible things. When Trump is no longer in the picture, they'll find a new candidate who offers this.

andrewflnr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, the isolationism is dubious. Trump and his followers (with a few exceptions, granted) seem happy to throw isolationism to the wind as soon as there's a chance of wielding power over a defeated enemy.

xp84 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You don't have to convince every Trump voter. The margin who swung from Biden to Trump and elected Trump aren't all those things. They just don't want what the Dems were selling in 2024, specifically: the dems' adopted ideology surrounding gender, plus using race and gender to pick who gets jobs and into schools, rather than merit. If they removed just those two planks from the DNC platform, (1) Harris would have never been nominated, and (2) Trump couldn't have won.

testrun 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think immigration was the killer for Dems in 2024.

shermantanktop 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the logic of running to the middle. And yet moderate candidates do poorly these days.

Worth noting who gives this advice and to whom.

terminalshort 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Who was the moderate candidate? We had Trump and a candidate who wanted to continue the open borders policy and racial quota system in hiring and university admissions.

JCattheATM 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Moderate/smoderate. There was an insane choice, which people chose to vote to the detriment of most, and a sane candidate, which people rejected due to misinformation and bigotry.

mlrtime 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

>misinformation and bigotry

Please don't keep repeating this, this is why Democrats lost. Being out of touch.

watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They just don't want what the Dems were selling in 2024, specifically: the dems' adopted ideology surrounding gender, plus using race and gender to pick who gets jobs and into schools, rather than merit.

Except that, none of this is true. Democrats did not run on such policy at all. They heavily tried to appeal to center.

Republicans run on culture war. And won, because it literally did not mattered what democratic party run on - republican lies won. And they will win again with the same tactic.

zo1 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think we conceptually live in the same universe if you think those things about the democratic 2024 messaging. I just don't understand how you and your opposing commenters can have any meaningful discussion if you're so wildly differing in interpretation of such a public topic.

watwut a minute ago | parent [-]

It is simple, what "opposing commenters" are talking about, is what REPUBLICANS said that democrats are saying. You know, what Trump, Vance and the rest of Fox news were accusing democrats of. I would note that these are not exactly notorious truth tellers.

The person I responded to likely never listened to or cared about what democratic politicians are saying.

joe_mamba an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

DFHippie 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is what you were told the Democrats ran on, not what they ran on. You got all your information from partisans who lied about the other party.

joe_mamba 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

>This is what you were told the Democrats ran on

It's straight from the horses mouth mate.

Der_Einzige 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

SanjayMehta 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The damage Trump has done to international relations will last much longer than the three years that he has left in office.

It was an open secret that the USA was a transactional unreliable ally, now it's just common knowledge.

Even the most ardent "look West" politicians have stopped talking about avoiding China.

ycombinary 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

slifin 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The real thing that's changed here is that the US gets no benefit from defending Ukraine or Europe

European politicians need to wake up NATO was really an exercise in helping the US with its proxy wars their support will not be reciprocated

Not with trump and not with his successor

ben_w 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The US may believe the US gets no benefit from defending Ukraine or Europe, but that belief is false.

Even with greedy short-term thinking: The economic connections between the US and Europe are a big part of US wealth, and failing to protect your market and your investors is bad for business.

Ukraine… Europe supports Ukraine to keep Europe safe. Ukraine is not in NATO, nor is it covered by the EU treaty's mutual defence article.