Forums / Discussion / General

Tbh I didn't watch it. I didn't see much value in watching a geriatric man ramble semi-coherently until his handlers lure him off the stage, and since it apparently didn't go very well, I suppose this was the right decision. I'll catch a recap of it later.

However, I have heard highlights from the grapevine, so it was at least eventful. Threatening SCOTUS isn't a good event, but it's an event nonetheless.

"With all due respect, justices, women are not without … electoral or political power" – Biden during the State of the Union.

Seeing as you yourself admit you didn't watch it, I figure I'd show the full quote instead of whatever you heard in the American Right grapevine. For a bunch who love threatening others, just stating this obvious thing seems to have upset the GOP.

Now, I can repeat back a threat you said to me in another context, back to you. Women and anyone who doesn't want Christian Nationalism are also people (in the populist sense), and that they can use guns just as much against a theocrat. Now that's a threat, except … I've been told it would just be an explanation of what happens when an unjust authority overreaches in power and it shouldn't even count as a threat.

I find it hilarious that the GOP are both saying that Biden is mentally gone, but also rude and too aggressive, with how Trump's geriatric ass muttered threats to the rest of NATO for the benefit of Russia.

Really proves the points I made last page about double-standards and hypocrisy.

"With all due respect, justices, women are not without … electoral or political power"

That's almost what he said. Excluding a minor misspeak that doesn't alter the meaning whatsoever, he followed this up by saying "You are about to realize just how much".
This is, of course, not an outright threat, if only because it's so fucking vague that it's basically meaningless. Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court isn't directly elected, and is instead subject to oversight by the Executive and the Legislature, there's four possible interpretations:
1. It literally means nothing. He lost his train of thought halfway through the previous sentence and tried to follow it up with something that sorta made sense.
2. He's claiming that women will vote for politicians who will, in turn, support bills to make abortion legal federally (aka, what should've been done in the 49 years that Roe v. Wade was in play). This didn't happen in 2022, and probably won't in 2024.
3. He's claiming that something similar to the above will happen, but with politicians inclined to try and remove justices from office. Alongside the same issues with (2), this would require success at both impeachment and removal from office, and with only some scant flimsy evidence, this would further require either some massive newfound discoveries (unlikely) or a big enough majority to ram it through anyway (requiring more than one election to acquire).
4. He's saying that, if he gains enough support for it, he'll try and pack the court until it stops disagreeing with the Democratic party.

I think it's most likely (2), but the other options are also plausible.

I find it hilarious that the GOP are both saying that Biden is mentally gone, but also rude and too aggressive

You do know that those aren't mutually exclusive, right? Agitation and anger associated with Alzheimer's and other dementias is well recorded, and the animal kingdom proves that you don't need much in the way of mental ability to get aggressive (see: koalas). Not to say that Biden is a koala; I doubt he eats leaves or is able to climb trees.

with how Trump's geriatric ass muttered threats to the rest of NATO

Right, his "threats", of demanding that NATO members follow the agreed charter and actually fund their militaries, because it's absurd to expect America to do everything for them.
He also said that it was a dumb idea for Germany to be so reliant on Russian natural gas, which later turned out to be true.

Really proves the points I made last page about double-standards and hypocrisy.

You didn't really, you just prattled on about an assortment of buzzwords.

That's almost what he said. Excluding a minor misspeak that doesn't alter the meaning whatsoever, he followed this up by saying "You are about to realize just how much".
This is, of course, not an outright threat, if only because it's so fucking vague that it's basically meaningless. Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court isn't directly elected, and is instead subject to oversight by the Executive and the Legislature, there's four possible interpretations:

Hey, at least you're now actually looking at the speech instead of going through word of mouth of what pundits are saying.

He's claiming that women will vote for politicians who will, in turn, support bills to make abortion legal federally (aka, what should've been done in the 49 years that Roe v. Wade was in play). This didn't happen in 2022, and probably won't in 2024.

I believe it's this interpretation, although each person can decide. It's also anyone who doesn't want to make abortion federally illegal, or who hasn't pushed for restrictions for abortion in cases of rape and risks to life. Or even want IVF, considering how the full legal ramifications are still in question.

Let's put the full context here.

Seeing the failure in the "Red Wave", and the numerous time it has cost them voters, it's not a question of 'if', the GOP has already lost voters on this.

You do know that those aren't mutually exclusive, right? Agitation and anger associated with Alzheimer's and other dementias is well recorded, and the animal kingdom proves that you don't need much in the way of mental ability to get aggressive (see: koalas). Not to say that Biden is a koala; I doubt he eats leaves or is able to climb trees.

Both Presidential candidates are also old men, I'd like to point out. That's part of the beauty of it, attacks on this aspect always end up hypocritical.

Perhaps, but an animal can't be both a sloth and a honey badger at the same time. Frankly, watching the SCOTUS recently the man seemed pointed in his criticismes, and I've watched both SCOTUS and other speeches in recent months. In terms of agitation, anger and confusion, it seems like projection to me. Biden isn't the one who's confused on who the current President of the US is, to name one incident..

It adds to the delusional aspect, it's easy for me to see the obvious of who's a better speaker between the three of them, beyond just politics. Try comparing them, side by side.

Right, his "threats", of demanding that NATO members follow the agreed charter and actually fund their militaries, because it's absurd to expect America to do everything for them.
He also said that it was a dumb idea for Germany to be so reliant on Russian natural gas, which later turned out to be true.

Don't gaslight me, we're talking about telling the NATO members "[Trump] would tell Russia to attack them".

Also, do "what" exactly, apart from threats and demand for cash to them? Do jack-shit in Ukraine as of right now? As someone who has some of the same problems with Germany, fuck off. They're a better ally than the American Right, because at least they're contributing against Russia, they're sending aid at least. Even Luxembourg & Japan is. They're all doing something.

You don't get to use that early 2016-2017 argument anymore, because to repeat:

During the last presidency there was a dichotomy where a lot of Western Europeans hated the GOP and the Eastern Europeans were not necessarily a fan of the trade wars, but were still willing to trust them on NATO (certainly more than Western Europeans with their tendency towards flakiness and under-powered militaires, and I can't even blame them for that). A lot of the American Right knew that and reveled that they still credibility somewhere, that it was just a problem with the Westerners.

This has changed.

Some of the Central & Eastern Europeans are particularly pissed with the GOP's sabotage, and how their flakiness on collective defense in NATO has shifted to outright threats, with maybe the exception of Hungary because everyone has noticed the little dealings between Orban's Hungary and the American Right (and Orban being Russia's little Trojan horse…). Anecdotally, I was talking to a Polish friend just yesterday (we think alike so there might be bias), and he's even more pissed than I was (maybe I should ask him if I can transcribe his arguments). Reputations shift.

See, that's the trouble with recycling talking points. When a war happens we're no longer talking about preparation, but those actually doing something, and right now? For all the big-talk of being the ones "carrying the alliance", there are no lies, or spins or delusions or resentments that can hide the fact that when the crisis happened, the US broke first, because of the American Right.

You didn't really, you just prattled on about an assortment of buzzwords.

Yeah, yeah.

If you don't care to read, than don't respond. I didn't get on MacrPrice's case for apathy or for not caring for either, I got on you for making claims.

"The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk critizising U.S. Republicans for blocking a bill containing billions in military assistance for Ukraine. (Different Sources 1 – 2 – 3)

Not sure if the multiple sensors are necessary, but I can post more and from different officials of different countries and different people if that's what it takes to drill this through someone's skull. I just like to mention Poland, because of their status in NATO.

Also:

Fact-checking Trump’s comments urging Russia to invade ‘delinquent’ NATO members

Thank you for posting multiple articles to really cover the bases. Though I won't lie, hearing the name Donald Tusk made me think for a second it was some kind of satire or joke. Especially in the context of US Republicans.

Thank you, and you're welcome. I think I'll use this format from now on.

I just wanted there to be no doubts, because I'd say it's one crossing of a red line that will remembered, not something that will be covered up with more scandals as part of the media cycle. We're not repeating 2016, especially if reputation in NATO (that the American Right no longer have) is going to be used as a launch-point for an attack by them.

Yeah, Donald Tusk, my favourite Donald T.

Hungary's PM Orban supports Trump after Florida meeting, and vice-versa (1 – 2 – 3 – 4 )

Read the quotes, if you can stomach Trump lavishing praise on another wannabe dictator again. In times of peace, the liaisons between the GOP were seen with distrust, but were not well-known or ignored. They had a lot of in common after all, in similar blueprints for a slide to a Hybrid Regime ,but that's internal politics.

With the war on, and with Orban having been a direct liability in sanctions, aid and getting Sweden in NATO, the Democrats seem to be noticing, and the Europeans are less forgiving. The only ones who're pretending this isn't happening, are the American Right themselves and I'm no longer in a mood to not press them.

Even the French Far-right had distanced themselves from Orban's Hungary.

Also, for those who aspire that the American Right be "tough with China" (as if GOP's first trade war with the CCP didn't end in a failure of a trade agreement, because the Chinese screwed those idiots ) it should be known that their buddy Orban is set to have Chinese police set to patrol alongside Hungarian officers.

The fraught relations of Hungary really exploded the past few days. Now, following the meeting with Trump, Orban revealed Trump's plan to quickly end the war: Capitulate.

“He won’t give a penny to the Ukrainian-Russian war. This is why the war will end, because it’s obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own two feet,” Orbán said.

(Source 1 – 2 – 3 )

Good news at least, is that the American Right has already pulled that trigger, so Orban's prediction was false from the moment he said it. The fear now is mainly that they'd sabotage even more.

With Hungary engaging in rhetoric which even China shies away from, and the willingness to ignore what Hungary & it's collaborators is doing gone, the American ambassador & administration backing him hasn't minced words in calling Orban a dictator. It's pretty unheard of in diplomatic circles to be that blunt, to quote Ambassador David Pressman:

“Orbán, who on one hand baselessly claims that the United States government is trying to overthrow his government, publicly calls for the political defeat of the president of the United States and actively participates in US partisan political events"

“Hungary advocates for electoral candidates around the world from Poland to Brazil, all while decrying foreign interference here at home… Who leads the United States government – or any government – is a question for the people of that country alone to decide.”

“Now Hungary’s allies are warning Hungary of the dangers of its close and expanding relationship with Russia. … If this is Hungary’s policy choice – and it has become increasingly clear that it is, with the foreign minister’s sixth trip to Russia since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with his next trip to Russia scheduled in two weeks, following his engagement with Russia’s foreign minister earlier this month, and the prime minister’s own meeting with Vladimir Putin in China – we will have to decide how best to protect our security interests, which, as allies, should be our collective security interests.”

(Just excerpts, this is the full speech )

None of this is new by the way, it's just starting to be acknowledged:

1. Orban being a Trojan Horse for Russia.

2. Hungary trying to sabotage the EU response against Russia (for once, I'm grateful that the EU is more akin to a confederacy than a federal state, so it can't be paralyzed as easily by a Trojan Horse).

3. The relations between the American Right & Orban's Hungary. I think I even mentioned the CPAC in Hungary here a while ago. Everyone can see it.

4. Trump & the American Right quite clearly throwing Ukraine under the bus. It's why I found criticism of Biden's foreign policy there to be without merit (and if the average republican voter does care, maybe that could show up in the polls) and any pretensions that the GOP have any right to make demands of NATO laughable.

> Trump & the American Right quite clearly throwing Ukraine under the bus. It's why I found criticism of Biden's foreign policy there to be without merit (and if the average republican voter does care, maybe that could show up in the polls)

The American (and Canadian) working class doesn't care because they themselves have been thrown under the bus. That makes it easy for the Republican party to throw Ukraine under the bus in turn, by invoking the "why are we spending billions on wars in another continent while doing nothing for our own" and then doing more nothing for the working class. But I don't blame people for voting that way because the centre-left isn't even trying for the working class vote any more in North America and the hard left has taken the bait and become controlled opposition.

If I were 15 years younger and didn't have a disability I'd be considering emigrating to somewhere that wasn't still on stage 2 of the stages of grief over the death of the good times when the middle class actually existed, because we have to let the promises of the old die before we can organize for better. American (tbh Anglosphere) exceptionalism is a hell of a drug, we thought we had another few decades to right the ship but it's clear it's going down and we need to hit rock bottom first to kill our hubris before we can reinvent ourselves.

The American (and Canadian) working class doesn't care because they themselves have been thrown under the bus.

That's the bulk of it. Also, do note that Ukraine is not a NATO member, a major non-NATO ally, nor a member of the European Union. We've just been giving Zelensky money and guns because he's fighting the guy we don't like.

Further, I'd like to add that whining about Putin and Russia has been a persistent presence in American politics since 2016 at the least (when some chose to blame Putin for Hillary Clinton's electoral failures). Over seven years out, it's really getting stale, so even if the economy at home was fine, enthusiasm for funding an endless war between two Presidents-for-life would be wearing thin.

That makes it easy for the Republican party to throw Ukraine under the bus in turn, by invoking the "why are we spending billions on wars in another continent while doing nothing for our own" and then doing more nothing for the working class.

This is because the Republicans and Democrats are the effectively two wings of the same party, with different bases of support. "Not letting a third party gain too much support" stands higher on the totem pole than "FUNDING EVEN MORE WARS", but also well above "actually doing anything for your constituents".

Speaking of struggles within democracies… To very quickly summarize, parties in Germany are conspiring to circumvent democracy in an attempt to "preserve democracy". It's a bad enough idea that even the New York Times is skittish about it. Think of it this way: arbitrary rule changes made to exclude a specific political party are made with the assumption that those aligned with the ruling coalition will remain in power forever, and that nobody else will get to exploit them or the precedent set in the process of making them. Granted, there aren't any good options when it comes to trying to exclude a party not approved of by the state apparatus from the process of politics; the only other "idea" is to ban them outright, which would be considerably worse.

@| || || |_

First of all, I'm relieved someone at least admits that. It contradicts what Chewybunny says however, so I'll have to see how the American Right base are truly are like on Ukraine.

The American (and Canadian) working class doesn't care because they themselves have been thrown under the bus.

In the interest of taking apart another talking point used commonly in 2016, and keeping in mind to be respectful about the hardship of the citizens of another country, and I'm sorry, but I refuse that the discourse be the same way the second time-around:

By whom? And how? This has been said for years now, but looking at what has happened since than:

and then doing more nothing for the working class.

(And I acknowledge you've said this, but I want to go further).

A) There's been a mix of economic policies who have only hurt workers and enforced inequality with slashed environmental and labour protections. A lot by the American Right, who are the same people who want to discourage aid to Ukraine.

B) The US launched a damaging trade war on it's neighbors and the EU. At one point the EU was alone against the US, before Trump decided to go against China and the EU at the same time.

I will always remember Trump supporters who when told that it would cost them, that "they didn't care, the US would crush the EU economically" (to paraphrase it from the multiple times it's been said, but not by much). Of course, the EU adapted the usual strategy of hitting the red states and the effort crumpled, and even after everything the trade deficit has only increased. How did that help the working class?

If it was truly about livelihood, why the agressive actions? Why do the MAGA wing waste so much of their money throwing it at Trump (or buying his over-priced sneakers).

No one in the world is doing well right now. The UK, Germany & Japan are in full-blown recession and it didn't stop the former at all (and they get a well-deserved dig at how the EU in the bargain). The Eastern Europeans have even less. If anything the US is currently doing the best economically (for what it's worth), so most of the issues seem to be internal (and they always were).

It's just that after the big-talk about loyalty and pulling your weight in NATO…

The nice thing about forums, is that it's easier to track arguments. It's harder to switch like in other social media.

@Spaghetto

That's the bulk of it.

No, it isn't.
This was your position:

Right, his "threats", of demanding that NATO members follow the agreed charter and actually fund their militaries, because it's absurd to expect America to do everything for them

Also, do note that Ukraine is not a NATO member, a major non-NATO ally, nor a member of the European Union.

One, you do not get to use the excuse of Ukraine not being NATO, when you defended the threats against NATO.

Two, you castigate for more while at the same failing at upholding basic principles.

between two Presidents-for-life would be wearing thin.

Who are you referring to?

Also as for why one should care about Ukraine, does "defending a democracy against an autocracy" ring a bell to you? No, I suppose you don't have the faintest concept of it because:

Germany

The same party which the Trump administration's Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell tried to support

But of course, after all you were also 'concerned' about the EU finally acting against the GOP's buddy, the little dictator in Hungary weren't you? Very interesting.

Well to condense objections:

A) It's Germany, they have a reason they don't allow far-right parties who've committed the actions to have to be unimpeded. It is not arbitrary.

B) With the Christian Nationalist segment in the US, and the breakdown of law and order, and the sliding in indexes on freedom and democracy, you can't talk.

C) You in the American Right are trying to use the Germans as your media punchbag like in 2016. Again.

This is because the Republicans and Democrats are the effectively two wings of the same party

No, if this whole topic can be about anything, it's that at least in foreign policy they aren't.

(And if you take into account everything else that has been brought up about secularism, labour and environment…).

No, it isn't.

I mean, yeah, it is.

One, you do not get to use the excuse of Ukraine not being NATO, when you defended the threats against NATO.

Again, one of the major guidelines of NATO is for member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending (in any sense, including pensions). It's not a "rule" or "requirement", per se, but everyone agreed to it just fine in 2014. These "threats" you keep talking about happened in 2018, correct? In 2018, the German GDP was around 4,550 billion USD. From what data I can find online, their defense spending that same year fell at around… 46 billion USD, so a bit over 1%. Currently it's higher, but still below what's recommended by the guidelines.

The actual threat to NATO is European complacency.

Who are you referring to?

I'm being facetious. Ukraine is, of course, more democratic than Russia… however, suspending elections indefinitely doesn't exactly inspire confidence, understandable as it may be.

Also as for why one should care about Ukraine, does "defending a democracy against an autocracy" ring a bell to you?

Calm down, Senator Bloodfeast. That same carrot has been dangled in front of the American public since the 1950s.

The same party which the Trump administration's Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell tried to support

If you read the article this article is about, you'd know that's not what actually happened. He spoke generally about a "resurgence" of conservatism in Europe, and specifically mentioned the chancellor of Austria, not any politicians or parties in Germany. Your article just made up a bunch of shit and tried to use random Twitter people as justification.

A) It's Germany, they have a reason they don't allow far-right parties who've committed the actions to have to be unimpeded. It is not arbitrary.

Which actions, exactly? Existing, holding wrongthink? I understand that Germany has a fervent, deep-seated desire to be nothing like the Nazis in every way except the most literal (like drinking water), but compromising democracy out of fear that someone else will do the same is… not good. Let me quickly summarize two reasons why:
1. If it succeeds, congratulations! You've successfully subverted democracy out of fear of the popular will.
2. If it fails, congratulations! Any actual wannabe dictators will have an easier time circumventing democratic protections, because you already did so.
There's no good outcome from this… if you're looking at it from the lens of the claim of "safeguarding democracy". If you look at it, instead, as an attempt by entrenched aristocrats to hold onto power as long as they can, it makes a lot more sense.

you can't talk.

"Things aren't perfect in your country, so you can't criticize anyone for their problems". How riveting. How bout I do, anyway?

the breakdown of law and order

You'll never believe who's been spearheading this.

the sliding in indexes on freedom and democracy

Jokes on you, I made up my own index that says America is the least shit country in the world.

You in the American Right are trying to use the Germans as your media punchbag like in 2016. Again.

Ragging on just the British all the time is tiring. There's a whole continent of governments doing stupid things!

I'm splitting off a post digging into Hungary, because this is probably already near the post size limit.

the little dictator in Hungary weren't you?

You know, I've never actually challenged your claim that Hungary is some form of de facto dictatorship. I am, explicitly and unambiguously, asking you for your explanation, but I should look into it myself.

For starters, it can't be because Orbán has been elected many times, or been in power for too long; in both metrics, he ties with or is beaten by former German Chancellor Merkel, and I suspect that you like her.
It's probably the 2011 constitution. Changing the constitution to benefit you and your party isn't an uncommon tactic (Chávez and Morales did it), but making a new constitution isn't damning in of itself; such a move was likely inevitable, since the constitution up until then was enshrined by Soviet puppets, albeit with some heavy alterations since the fall of communism.

Ah, I found it: word one, line one, the constitution says "God". I'll be looking deeper, but I know you well enough to know that a constitution that doesn't enforce state atheism is contentious in your eyes.

Let's see… the government should serve the people… seems they accept Horthy's endless regency as legitimate, but no government between then and the fall of communism… I don't think I'll find anything actually meaningful, from a governance standpoint, in the preamble.

Nothing interesting in the "Foundation" either. Article II under "Freedom and Responsibility" protects the right to life and human dignity of embryonic and fetal life, which reinforces my initial suspicion that you're taking issue with religiousness. There's also right to self-defense, complete freedom of religion, opinion, and assembly… shit, there's nothing in here except the religious stuff at the beginning. There's no clear roots for dictatorship, which suggests one of a few possibilities:
1. It really is the religion thing.
2. It's because Orbán and his government don't walk in lockstep with the rest of the EU.
3. It's some law nobody talks about (and I'm not sifting through every law added or amended since the new constitution)
4. It's because "dictator" is a convenient way to dismiss a leader you dislike, accurate or not.

By the by, and I'm going to take a quick detour back to the whole "dissident parties" issue here, did you know that North Korea has elections? You're free to vote for whoever you want, as long as they're in the ruling coalition. Democracy™!

@Spaghetto

Ha.
You finally did it, you finally went and defended Orban. Democracy™.

I'll probably answer more and in detail to everywhere else later, but I think that confirmed something for me.

These "threats" you keep talking about happened in 2018, correct?

No, I posted it, and don't worry, you can have amnesia about it all you want. I can bring up this subject as many times as it's needed.

Fact-checking Trump’s comments urging Russia to invade ‘delinquent’ NATO members

Although if I you want we can talk about the on Article 5 thing in 2018, here's the link

The actual threat to NATO is European complacency.

Pretty sure that's Russia, but the weakest link is the one who won't even commit at all. That's the GOP.

One, you can't hide under maintaining responses strictly to NATO when the American Right have questioned collective defense, and to the EU when the American Right have been some of it's most agressive opponents up to repeated failed trade wars against it.

Second, Europe as a whole has surpassed the US in aid to Ukraine. France has pretty much built up it's military a long-time ago, but even if the Germans had nothing, it's not part of an article to peace out of the whole arrangement. After all, as I already said, it's the people like in Poland who are really getting stabbed in the back who are mostly affected and enraged.

Calm down, Senator Bloodfeast. That same carrot has been dangled in front of the American public since the 1950s.

And you fail in the one time it counts. That's hilarious.

Besides, you tried to use that tactic for Germany, so it can't be just for your convenience.

"Things aren't perfect in your country, so you can't criticize anyone for their problems". How riveting. How bout I do, anyway?

Oh you can, you of the American Right had no compunctions on meddling in other elections and the favour has and is being returned. "Popular will", you dismiss Grenell's meddling so why I should care about any of your excuses either? It's like the "little green men" of Russia, they pop up to say they're defending "local minority rights" as well.

Just the same way you can talk about censorship, sovereignty, collective defense and free trade among other values that have been used and discarded, you have no credibility. The same way for example that I don't buy your argument about NATO.

State of Democracy? Almost the only thing both sides in the Democrats & Republicans can agree on is that the Democracy in the US is rotten.

I'm being facetious. Ukraine is, of course, more democratic than Russia… however, suspending elections indefinitely doesn't exactly inspire confidence, understandable as it may be.

Jokes on you, I made up my own index that says America is the least shit country in the world.

No you weren't, you were trying to equivocate.

You're a coward who backs down when challenged, but an inveterate bullshiter like your former criminal President is what you are.

I nearly forgot:

If you read the article this article is about, you'd know that's not what actually happened. He spoke generally about a "resurgence" of conservatism in Europe, and specifically mentioned the chancellor of Austria, not any politicians or parties in Germany. Your article just made up a bunch of shit and tried to use random Twitter people as justification.

“to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders".

Quote from the very article second paragraph, you have no excuse if you're a native english speaker. Also knowing how little of the German Right-wing (from the Christians to even the free marketers) worked with Grenell afterwards one should emphasize "conservatives".

It's same sort of general sliminess as Putin talking threatening former Soviet Republics without naming specific ones. Or you being very concerned for the AfD, even without directly naming them. That was the general modus operandi for the American Right in Europe.

My mistake however, is that this is from 2018, I wanted it as a refresher for those who didn't know about that. For some news afterwards, in March 2019, Wolfgang Kubicki, Vice President of the Bundestag and deputy chairman of the Free Democratic Party, charged Grenell with acting like a high commissioner of an occupying power and called for Grenell to be expelled from Germany. For context, the FDP are the 'liberals' or 'libertarians', with the CDU being the Right-wing and the SDP being the Left-wing.

It didn't particularly take however, so Grenell was completely politically isolated in Germany from the start to end of tenure, apart from with the AfD. Only thing he did was complain about in on Tucker's show (another old name).

Professionalism was a lacking resource in the Trump Administration, but you do realize even that is breaking Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. The comments supporting Sebastian Kurz of Austria of "winning big" (you might want to check out what Kurz and his party are up to now, try Ibiza affair.) was just the cherry on top. (Although thinking about it, the quote of "the whole of Germany" and referring to Kurz of Austria is a … misstep, for anyone who does know of their history).

Fun fact, you're repeating him, you're really trotting out all the old talking points. More generally, there's a straight line in the rhetoric of all of these figures.

US ambassador accuses Germany of ‘eroding’ NATO solidarity .

The irony that in the end it was the US who broke solidarity more.

Another thing I forgot:

constitution

Orban has changed Hungary's constitution 13 times. You read all of those revisions, huh?

Even if the rest of the forum is regressing in time, and we somehow still have to engage in Trump & American Debates in 2024, their same arguments aren't going to stand.

It's not 2016 anymore, these little political games (and that stint in quibbling over Article 5 in 2018 was that, a stupid game) need to end. If the American Right want to say they're too weak and poor to deal with dictators, than fine. But if they have all the energy and money in the world to attack democracies and and cheekily rubs elbows with dictators, than they'll have another thing coming to them.

Centre stage in the US-Hungary row is the Hungarian government's demand for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, its opposition to military aid for Kyiv, and Hungary's regular meetings with top Russian officials, including Viktor Orban's encounter with President Vladimir Putin last October in Beijing.

The Hungarian approach to the war in Ukraine "does not stand up to reality", the US ambassador said in Budapest on 14 March.

"The Hungarian policy is based on a fantasy that disarming Ukraine will stop Putin. History shows it would do the reverse. It is not a proposal for peace; it is capitulation."

Mr Orban's conservative nationalist Fidesz party has been in office since 2010 and the Biden administration is also at loggerheads with the government over its understanding of democracy.

The ambassador highlighted "the systematic takeover of independent media, where oligarchs purchased media outlets only to gift them to a government-controlled foundation, while the few outlets that remain independent face investigations, tax audits, and the loss of advertising revenue".

something weird i keep seeing in this forums thread is that sometimes when someone makes a chain of posts, and some of the posts in the chain are voted differently then other ones in the chain

like the first 2 posts in gilan's 4-post chain have a score of -4 and -5, but then the last 2 both have a score of -2, atleast as of me writing this.

I'd chalk it up to people having different reaction to my comments. They're also spread out throughout the day, so people vote whenever they get to it.

Now if they're completely uniform, or come all at once or are otherwise completely disproportionate to the amount of people participating than someone's botting or using alts and got tired half-way through, but if so, what does knowing that do?

Actually, I want to test something out…

I suspect it's Spaghetto or a friend doing it.

I highly suspect Spaghetto, because I've never seen them be in the negatives, or at least never stayed there in the last 30 pages, and he's the only one. Chewybunny, Kups, Steven and certainly everyone has gone in the negatives at least once. Check it out, it's bizarre, sometimes I wonder if we're all pretending to not notice it for politeness's sake.

However, I'm biased because it's almost a meta point that at the same time I'm accusing the American Right of dastardly meddling, so the feelings may be interpolated from one to the other.

EDIT: Oh hey, Greyblades, Mistress Fortune and Watermelanie complained about stalker downvoters on page 312. It wasn't me

Anyway, it's been interesting to look up previous topic, but the last time I've seen Spaghetto in the negatives was in page 300 so it was actually nearly 30 pages. Although, they mentioned they suddenly got -3 at once so there likely was shenanigans there as well.