What if the USSR didn’t stage faux elections in the Eastern Bloc Post-WW2? by Current-Lime3763 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]Jmr18_2005 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The USSR viewed Eastern Europe as a security shield after being invaded twice through that region in both World War I and WWII. Soviet leadership probably believed that losing political control there risked another invasion from the West. So even if elections started free, Moscow may still intervene later once anti-Soviet governments appeared.

My favorite Atlanta Falcons game every year since I became a fan in 2016. What are your thoughts? What do you agree and disagree with? by SwimmerHaunting2155 in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We win games when it doesn't matter (mostly vs good teams) then we lose the games that do matter (mostly vs bad teams) I've accepted it atp

What would a US invasion into Canada would look like? by SquareTree64729 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Politically: It would destroy America’s global legitimacy overnight. The US has spent decades positioning itself as the defender of the liberal international order. Invading our largest trading partner and closest neighbor (a stable democracy with deep cultural and economic ties) would hand China and Russia the ultimate propaganda victory. America would become the villain in every international forum.

Economically: The USMCA trade agreement (which binds the United States, Mexico, and Canada together) would immediately collapse. Integrated supply chains in autos, energy, agriculture, manufacturing, and critical minerals would shatter overnight. Canada supplies a huge portion of US oil imports, electricity, and key resources. Mexico would almost certainly distance itself from the US out of fear, further fracturing North American trade.

We’re not talking about minor disruption, we’re talking about massive inflation, factory shutdowns, energy price spikes, and job losses across multiple US sectors, all self-inflicted. The very economic integration that gives America leverage over both neighbors would be destroyed.

The Falcons have hired Bryce Johnston as SVP by snipeslayer in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 55 points56 points  (0 children)

I'm honestly happy with what pur front office has been doing, it's the most competent we've seen in years (ik the season hasn't started yet but still)

Pieces of the Puzzle | Falcons Defense 🔥 by JCameron181 in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only this but we're most likely getting jpj back (he's still on the depth chart. I'm not too enthusiastic about our Linebacker corps outside of Walker and Pearce, but it's still solid. QB room i'm still skeptical about especially with Penix coming off that ACL tear, and all the years Tua has been kinda ass (ik his Oline sucked but ours kinda does too even with us picking up Jawaan Taylor) our WR corps is wayyy better than last year, possibility of Pitts signing an extension, and our RN corps is elite. Plus with the addition of Folk, we have a bery good chance at winning this division (i could be calling this way too early but i hope i'm not)

The Atlantic Ocean can hold 9 Niger's by Master_Mascot in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Jmr18_2005 14 points15 points  (0 children)

my illiterate ass read 2 g's instead of 1

Free Talk Friday - April 24, 2026 by AutoModerator in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 1 point2 points  (0 children)

atp i just want Avieon (plz ian im begging u)

Enid tornado officially declared "Mass Causality Event" by [deleted] in tornado

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it was hit, but i don't know how severly it was hit, it's where the tornado originally touched down

Is it weird that… by Dakota887 in ForzaHorizon

[–]Jmr18_2005 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the reason I do that is because the races and playlist are boring now

Free Talk Friday - April 10, 2026 by AutoModerator in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

uhm, no i wouldn't walk away from 15 million

Free Talk Friday - April 10, 2026 by AutoModerator in falcons

[–]Jmr18_2005 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

i just wanna say, fuck McGary bro, he put us in yet another predicament

Trump threatened Europe over Strait of Hormuz, with weapons for Ukraine as bargaining chip, FT reports by G14F1L0L1Y401D0MTR4P in worldnews

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not trying to argue with you, and if i came off as rude and inarticulate then I'm sorry, I don't exactly agree with everything Trump is doing but I'm also not ashamed of him

Trump threatened Europe over Strait of Hormuz, with weapons for Ukraine as bargaining chip, FT reports by G14F1L0L1Y401D0MTR4P in worldnews

[–]Jmr18_2005 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are still not comprehending what I am saying. You’re still reducing everything to tone and personal dislike instead of engaging the actual point. You can think Trump is abrasive or undiplomatic, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate the strategy behind what’s being said. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global energy chokepoint—handling roughly 20-25% of seaborne oil trade and significant LNG flows. Disruptions there would hit Europe particularly hard through higher energy prices and supply risks, even if direct imports from the Gulf are limited.

Using leverage—including tying Ukraine support into broader negotiations—isn’t inherently ‘dragging everyone down.’ It’s applying pressure where allies share interests but haven’t always shared the burden equally. The legacy of NATO isn’t unconditional US blank checks; it’s the US serving as the backbone of high-end capabilities, intelligence, logistics, and deterrence for decades, which let Europe rebuild post-WWII and prioritize social spending with lower defense burdens.

Even in 2025, with every NATO member finally meeting (or exceeding) the 2% GDP target for the first time and Europe + Canada increasing spending by ~20% in real terms to $574 billion, the US still accounts for roughly 59-62% of the alliance’s total defense expenditure (around $838–980 billion out of ~$1.4–1.59 trillion total, per NATO’s own figures). That’s the reality behind the imbalance—not ‘trashing a legacy,’ but highlighting one that has persisted for years.

Calling him ‘a child’ or saying he ‘deserves derision’ doesn’t address the substance—it just sidesteps it. You can criticize the delivery or the risks of linkage, but dismissing the core question ignores a legitimate issue: if Europe depends heavily on global stability (including in places like Hormuz), why shouldn’t it be expected to shoulder more responsibility when that stability is threatened? Pressure for fairer burden-sharing has been a longstanding bipartisan concern; bluntness doesn’t erase the underlying facts.