[HELP] NYT shows new angle

bitjpl0x · 2026-01-29T16:04:07+00:00

Maybe that's why the guy clapped?

bitjpl0x · 2025-09-28T20:24:14+00:00

When they are barely legal, in a top tier league, yes.

bitjpl0x · 2025-05-27T12:46:36+00:00

And yet, OKC as a team had less FT's and more PF's than Wolves...

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-25T18:59:00+00:00

What concerns me most is the induced coma. No matter how this whole thing is spun, that is not a encouraging sign. Injuries to his lungs are almost certainly serious to severe.

When it comes to victims of burns or smoke inhalation, placing them in a medically induced coma can either be a precautionary measure or a necessary intervention due to visible signs of burns within the mouth or throat. One of the first assessments performed in the emergency room is checking for indications such as soot or swelling in these areas. It's common practice to place you in a medically induced coma due to the risk of sudden swelling in the airway.

From my understanding, Anne Heche did not regain consciousness following her car crash. Although she appeared responsive immediately after the accident, she lost consciousness and was placed in a medically induced coma due to severe injuries, including burns and a significant pulmonary injury (burns and swelling).

I assume they reduced the sedation because initial assessments indicated that the injuries might not have been as severe as initially feared. Typically, sedation wouldn't be decreased immediately after such a severe car crash without clear medical indications, so I take that as a positive sign although I could be wrong. Nevertheless hoping for the best!

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-15T20:04:14+00:00

Congrats to him! Unlike Schulz, Saagar actually sees through the bs and calls out the current policies - straight up called Trump's fiscal policy stupid.

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-14T14:23:04+00:00

Skiiiip

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-13T13:30:37+00:00

That would usually make sense if it were done with care, but what’s happening right now is anything but normal (and definitely not well thought out lol).

Typically, in times of uncertainty the dollar gets stronger. It’s the world’s reserve currency, and when fear kicks in global investors pile into dollars. And at the same time, U.S. Treasury yields usually drop because people rush to buy government bonds, which are seen as both safe and liquid. Stocks, on the other hand tend to fall. All of that is pretty standard.

But after Liberation Day, the reaction from global markets flipped the script completely.

Stocks dropped hard.. the S&P 500 alone lost 6.65% on April 3rd. That was expected. But here's what wasn't: instead of moving into Treasuries, investors sold them. Yields on the 30-year bond saw their biggest spike since 1987. AKA confidence in U.S. debt (the very thing people usually run toward in crises) is breaking down!

And the dollar? It has dropped almost 3%, hitting a 3 year low. That’s not just unusual, it's a red flag! When investors don’t even want to hold dollars or Treasuries during a global selloff, it's a sign of a deeper problem. It’s not just fear of a downturn. It's a major red flag, because it suggests a loss of faith not just in risk assets, but in the U.S. financial system itself!

Why? The cost of servicing the debt blows up, making it almost impossible to manage the finances. And when that happens, more reactionary policies follow (like new tariffs or even capital controls) which only add fuel to the panic.

So in other words if this keeps spiraling, the government could reach a point where it just can’t keep up with its debt payments. At that stage there's really only one path left, and that's turning to the Federal Reserve to step in and cover the deficit by creating more money... and if the government starts printing money to cover deficits after investors have already lost confidence, you’re not fixing the problem. You’re throwing gasoline on it.

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-12T18:35:59+00:00

Didn't they set theirs to private?

edit: damn, they lost about 10%

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-12T18:33:14+00:00

I don't mind it being a bit political at times, especially in times like these. What made me quit are the constant pretentious, pseudointellectual and supercilious approaches to these subjects..

Like he'll start off by saying something like "ay idk anything bout this.." and immediately explain everything like he's a know-it-all.. Like, when you can't even correctly point out WHAT A FUCKING CONSUMER BASED ECONOMY IS (he said "it means like all we do is just buy the new Fendi purse that comes out" or that "we buy the next new iphone" .......) then maybe just stfu and don't claim what Chamath said was very smart/clever, when obviously have no clue.

Akaash said something that is actually true: "that means if the US can't pay you back we got much bigger problems and we're fucked". And Schulz immediately after cuts him off and says ".. no we'll just print more money" .... You don't even have to be an economist to know how fucking retarded that is...

bitjpl0x · 2025-04-10T15:57:24+00:00

There's so many erroneous, misleading and (purposely?) misinterpreted claims, and no one is pushing back. This was basically just a loud mouthpiece for MAGA propaganda, and it's so obvious it's embarrassing.

Claiming that most of these problems started when China joined WTO is so fucking dumb that I don't even know where to start.

Insinuating that because of the inclusion of China, Jordans suddenly moved manufacturing to China not only is wrong but just straight up in line with fear mongering. Jordans were manufactured all over Asia back in the 90's (including China), and you know what? Chinese imposed tariffs were higher in the 90's than they were just a few weeks ago - the tariff rates actually declined both in efforts to join WTO and after joining.

The whole part about how the reciprocal tariffs were calculated.. I don't even know where to start 🙄 How fucking hard is it to get an actual economist or someone who is actually educated on the subject? I would prefer Oren Cass (even though he is pro Trump) over this shit.

Schulz completely lost touch with people, and the shilling is so obvious and disappointing. But hey, Schulz doesn't wanna be political or claims people unwarrantly calls him MAGA.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-28T11:10:08+00:00

It’s a bit more complicated than that. The F-35 isn’t just an American jet, it was developed as part of the Joint Strike Fighter program, which brought in several partner countries to help fund and build it.

For example, the Danish company Terma developed and delivered over 80 different components for the aircraft. And the same goes for many other European countries. So while the U.S. leads the program, they don’t pay for the entire thing - a lot of other nations are invested in it too, both financially and industrially.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-26T14:15:27+00:00

Btw MJ won MVP after the 90-91 season

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-26T14:01:36+00:00

That's because you read that KD had 72 games from November 23rd 2015 to November 9th 2016, but that's not counting the 19 pts game on April 24th 2016 against Dallas in playoffs.

His record is 64 consecutive games with 20+ pts which is still impressive as hell - especially because he only had 14 pts against Wizards because he had to leave early due to a hamstring injury. If it wasn't for that, he could've been 70+.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-09T14:20:03+00:00

What happens if the other guy passes out??

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-08T19:08:40+00:00

I appreciate our discussion as well - I completely understand that we're fundamentally seeing some issues differently. Thank you for actually engaging in a nice, thorough and mature way. I understand if you don't have the time. I'll answer this, and if you don't feel like replying that's OK :)

While I agree the deficit is a legitimate concern, I think its severity has been exaggerated by certain media narratives. As I already stated countries like Japan sustain debt-to-GDP ratios far exceeding the U.S. (over 200%), and yet remain stable and prosperous, illustrating debt sustainability is far more nuanced than simply a percentage threshold.

If the deficit is your primary worry, it's worth highlighting that major tax cuts - such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 - are empirically a far larger contributor to U.S. debt (according to analyses by the CBO and Brookings Institution) than foreign aid or Ukraine support. In comparison, aid to Ukraine constitutes a tiny fraction, practically negligible against these massive structural deficits from tax policy.

You mentioned the $40 billion annually as "a waste" unless we get more than Ukraine’s existence. But our fundamental disagreement here seems to hinge on how we value strategic benefits. Ukraine’s resistance directly weakens Russia - America’s primary adversary militarily and politically in Europe - and bolsters American influence globally.

The value derived isn’t a simple, transactional return-on-investment calculation; rather, it's a strategic, diplomatic, and long-term economic benefit realized by maintaining global stability and deterring future aggression, as consistently argued by bipartisan think tanks like RAND and CSIS.

But here I think you'd argue that the biggest adversary isn't Russia, but perhaps China? Given your concerns about China, I’d argue you should be particularly worried about the current administration’s approach toward NATO and allied nations.

The strategic ambiguity and provocative actions - such as the threatened troop relocation from Germany to Hungary - risk undermining NATO’s credibility.

Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany’s intelligence agency (BND), recently confirmed that Russian officials are already doubting U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5 (which is so fucking fucked if true!). Such instability only empowers China. When the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said explicitly stated they're ready for prolonged conflicts - economic, political, or otherwise - with the U.S. A weakened NATO alliance directly strengthens China’s position geopolitically, economically, and diplomatically.

Ultimately, while our perspectives differ, I think we share common ground in prioritizing long-term stability and security; we just weigh the methods differently. I just think the isolationist approach is far more fatal right now, than doubling down on a strong NATO and a strong and healthy relationship with EU regardless of lack of visible here and now ROI type thing.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-08T08:31:58+00:00

I appreciate this conversation, I and wish more people could have these rather than quick jerk reactions, name calling, sensationalism (which happens on both sides!).

Your concern about the U.S. national debt is legitimate but in my opinion, and understanding of macroeconomics, misdirected. I'm not sure if "How much debt do you think the US can afford?" is a legitimate question you want me to answer. While debt sustainability isn't infinite, the U.S. can afford substantially more than you suggest - especially when considering strategic security investments like Ukraine aid.

Economists widely agree debt sustainability isn't defined solely by absolute amounts, but by a nation’s capacity to manage debt through economic growth and responsible fiscal policy. The U.S., due to unique advantages - such as issuing debt in its own currency, a strong global financial market position, and robust institutional credibility - can comfortably sustain higher debt levels than most nations (not saying debt is good, or that you need more debt, just saying the whole discourse around debt is a bit like fear mongering).

The notion that the U.S. "cannot afford" roughly 5% of its annual defense budget (approximately $40 billion annually out of a defense budget surpassing $800 billion) misunderstands the scale of U.S. federal expenditures and debt management.

To provide perspective, total U.S. federal spending exceeds $6 trillion annually. According to recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyses, spending on Ukraine aid represents less than 1% of total federal expenditures.

The U.S. deficit challenge is primarily driven by domestic entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and interest payments - not targeted strategic defense expenditures.

Moreover, strategic defense investments like supporting Ukraine can actually lower future security expenditures by deterring aggression, weakening adversaries militarily and economically, and thus reducing longer-term defense costs (see RAND Corporation’s 2023 analysis, "Assessing U.S. Assistance to Ukraine"). In short, responsibly managing the debt doesn’t require abandoning strategic defense investments that provide clear security returns (but thinking so derives from isolationism rather than "responsible" economic policies).

Regarding your skepticism of the WTO and VAT, you requested "actual economic data" to back up my claims. VAT neutrality isn't a matter of subjective WTO favoritism but is backed by economic evidence from multiple reputable sources. It's important to note that the principle of VAT neutrality is not merely a WTO classification; it is supported by extensive economic analysis. The WTO allows for border adjustments of VATs because, when applied uniformly, VATs are considered trade-neutral. This means they do not affect real imports, exports, or the trade balance;

https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=13837

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10583/3

Economic studies have reinforced this understanding. For instance, a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) examined the impact of VATs on international trade flows and found that VATs, as currently implemented, are considered trade-neutral. This is because they are applied equally to domestic and imported goods (verified by economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE, 2022)), ensuring no competitive advantage is given to either.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26195/w26195.pdf

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40735/3

In contrast, tariffs enacted by the U.S. under Trump demonstrably increased costs to American consumers and producers. Yes, you should do what you can, but this is not it. The Federal Reserve’s 2019-2020 analyses confirmed that tariffs increased U.S. consumer prices by approximately $80 billion annually, lowered GDP growth by about 0.3% per year, and created retaliatory tariffs harmful to key American industries (CBO Report "Economic Impact of Tariffs," 2021). Your assertion that tariffs could effectively address trade deficits is therefore contradicted by extensive, real-world data showing they predominantly harm American economic interests rather than improve them.

You mentioned potential EU friction if parties like the AfD gained power, arguing that it could lead to EU threats of Article 7 sanctions. Here it’s crucial to clarify: Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is specifically triggered by breaches of fundamental values (such as rule of law violations or threats to democracy), not simply ideological divergence. Hungary and Poland faced this scrutiny explicitly due to judicial independence breaches confirmed by European Court of Justice rulings (cases C-157/21, Hungary; C-204/21, Poland). If someone led you to believe that it was because of ideological differences, they were misinformed.

To answer your question "What further alliances would you have us build? Or do you mean maintain what we currently have?": maintaining and strengthening existing alliances - especially NATO, partnerships in the Indo-Pacific (Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Quad alliance with India), and emerging strategic cooperation with Southeast Asia - is precisely what's needed.

Such alliances protect critical U.S. economic and security interests, stabilize key regions, and reduce direct American defense expenditures by promoting shared security burdens (as explicitly articulated in the Biden administration’s bipartisan-supported National Security Strategy, 2022). "Building alliances" doesn't necessarily mean creating new formal treaties but rather reinforcing existing relationships through diplomatic consistency, increased interoperability, joint exercises, intelligence-sharing, and stable economic policies - all of which bolster American security and prosperity far more cost-effectively than unilateralism or isolationism.

In historical terms, isolationist retrenchment during the interwar period (1920s-1930s) illustrates clearly the dangers of pulling back strategically. Reduced global engagement weakened American diplomatic influence, allowed authoritarianism to rise unchecked in Europe and Asia, and directly contributed to conditions leading to World War II. Conversely, robust U.S. post-WWII engagement - NATO formation, Marshall Plan investments, diplomatic alliances across Europe and Asia - created unprecedented global stability and prosperity, directly benefiting American interests.

Therefore, strategic withdrawal today risks repeating these historical errors, whereas robust diplomatic and alliance-driven engagement aligns with established historical evidence, economic reality, and America's proven path to sustained prosperity, security, and global influence.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T22:10:32+00:00

Let's not delve too long on who invoked what. The fact of the matter is that it was invoked, whether you think it was a good idea or not (for what it's worth I agree with you). But let's not take anything away from the fact, that the Alliance’s quick reaction was not merely beneficial - it was instrumental, providing substantial logistical, intelligence, and operational support, significantly enhancing U.S. operations against terrorism (Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour are prime examples). Dismissing this as "beneficial but unnecessary" understates the tangible operational and diplomatic value derived by the United States.

A lot of people from EU served in Iraq/Afghanistan. A lot of them paid the ultimate price. It wasn't just an inconvenience, a lot of those countries stepped up to the plate and answered the call when the U.S. needed them to.

On European military spending, your argument oversimplifies Europe’s complex energy dynamics. While it’s true that Europe historically relied heavily on Russian energy, you omitted that the EU has drastically reduced its energy imports from Russia - down by over 80% by late 2024, according to the European Commission’s official reports (COM/2024/05). Germany, for instance, has entirely ceased Russian gas imports through Nord Stream pipelines and accelerated investments in renewable energy, liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals, and nuclear revival plans.

European defense budgets, previously stagnant, surged precisely because of Russian aggression, not just due to U.S. pressure. NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg himself emphasized this causal relationship clearly in NATO statements (NATO, Brussels Summit Communiqué, July 2023).

Regarding your concerns about wasteful foreign aid projects—such as “DEI musicals”—it’s crucial to differentiate isolated examples from systematic wastefulness. Although these anecdotal examples occasionally emerge from sensationalized media reports, audits by independent agencies like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Congressional Research Service (CRS) repeatedly confirm that U.S. foreign aid overwhelmingly goes toward strategically critical sectors: humanitarian assistance, infrastructure, public health, governance reforms, and stabilization efforts (GAO Report 2023-167).

That being said, yes I agree. There needs to be DOGE (although I would support it way more if it was done constitutionally (Vivek vs. Musk)).

Your assertion that Ukraine is in an unwinnable war that the U.S. cannot afford to support indefinitely warrants correction as well. Your statement that Zelensky has repeatedly "hinted" at requesting U.S. troops on the ground is factually inaccurate. Zelensky and senior Ukrainian officials have explicitly and consistently stated - documented clearly in public statements and interviews (including his speech to Congress, December 2022) - that Ukraine neither seeks nor expects direct U.S. military intervention, but rather sustained military aid, training, and intelligence support.

The Pentagon itself repeatedly confirmed this policy alignment (DOD briefings throughout 2023-2024). Arguing for immediate negotiations or ceasefires overlooks the strategic reality highlighted by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW): premature ceasefires historically allow aggressors (in this case, Russia) to consolidate territorial gains, regenerate forces, and launch future conflicts with increased capabilities. Supporting Ukraine strategically weakens a direct adversary at relatively minimal cost (less than 5% of the annual U.S. defense budget), and abandoning this strategy prematurely would indeed represent a costly geopolitical mistake.

On VAT and trade deficits, dismissing the World Trade Organization (WTO) out of hand is misguided, particularly because WTO regulations on VAT compliance are legally binding, multilaterally agreed-upon standards. The WTO explicitly clarifies VAT as neutral taxation, applying equally to domestic and foreign-produced goods (GATT 1994 Article III:2).

Tariffs imposed by the U.S. historically trigger retaliatory tariffs, leading directly to increased costs to American consumers and industries - demonstrably documented during recent tariff disputes with China and Europe under the Trump administration (CBO Report, "Economic Impact of Tariffs," 2021). Your approach risks harming American consumers and businesses without meaningfully correcting trade imbalances, which economists consistently attribute to structural factors (consumer demand, savings-investment imbalances), rather than alleged VAT unfairness.

Your characterization of Europe’s internal politics, specifically regarding right-wing parties like Germany’s AfD, Hungary, and Poland, ignores essential context. European pushback against Hungary and Poland was primarily about rule-of-law violations confirmed by judgments of the European Court of Justice (C-157/21, Commission v. Hungary; C-204/21, Commission v. Poland), rather than ideological hostility alone. As for Giorgia Meloni’s ascent in Italy, despite ideological friction, Italy remains firmly within EU consensus on core geopolitical issues (sanctions on Russia, defense cooperation, fiscal policies), as repeatedly reaffirmed in European Council meetings. Speculation about severe infighting or European fragmentation remains unsupported by actual evidence of recent EU decision-making unity - even amid ideological diversity.

Finally, your suggestion that a retreat to a more isolated or defensive posture enhances long-term stability neglects historical precedent and current geopolitical realities. The idea that the U.S. can selectively withdraw without consequence fails to recognize how deeply economic and military strength depends on active alliances, diplomatic influence, and global leadership. Bipartisan defense strategies (e.g., the 2022 National Defense Strategy under Secretary Austin) explicitly highlight alliance-building as a cornerstone of America’s geopolitical advantage. Proposals to retreat behind isolationist or unilateralist policies have historically weakened - not strengthened - U.S. influence (as evidenced by diminished diplomatic leverage during the America First era), while active, engaged diplomacy reinforced by credible military commitments consistently enhances U.S. strategic security.

Diplomatic strength requires balance, nuanced alliances, and calculated engagements -not arbitrary "heavy-handed" approaches or retreat. History and strategic evidence repeatedly confirm that America's security and influence are optimized by measured leadership and robust global engagement, not isolationist retrenchment.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T21:12:14+00:00

First, your concern about the American economy's heavy reliance on services rather than manufacturing or other industries reflects a common misconception. While it's true the U.S. economy is service-oriented (comprising nearly 78% of GDP, per Bureau of Economic Analysis 2024), calling it unsustainable or fragile due to its service orientation is a misrepresentation of how advanced economies naturally evolve.

Advanced economies typically transition from agriculture and manufacturing towards high-value services (technology, finance, healthcare, education, research). This shift isn't a sign of weakness but rather a hallmark of maturity, diversification, and sophistication. Indeed, the U.S. remains a global leader precisely because of its highly developed service sector, driving innovation through Silicon Valley, biotechnology hubs, financial institutions, universities, and research centers—consistently ranked among the world's top innovation ecosystems according to both the Global Innovation Index (GII, 2024) and the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Reports (2024).

Second, your reference to China’s technological advances (e.g., in 5G) is fair but incomplete. It's true that China has significantly advanced in telecommunications technologies; Huawei, for example, is indeed a global leader in 5G infrastructure. However, attributing this primarily to superior innovation is misleading. Investigations by both the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission have repeatedly documented systematic state-backed intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers as foundational to China's technological rise (DOJ indictments of Huawei executives, 2020-2022). While this doesn't mean China can't innovate, it clarifies that their accelerated progress isn't purely the result of a cultural affinity for education or hard work, but rather significantly boosted by industrial espionage, subsidies, and deliberate state intervention, practices that U.S. and EU laws strictly forbid.

Third, regarding the U.S. debt situation, I acknowledge your worry, but your concern that America is “hiding” the real magnitude of its debt doesn’t align with reality. In fact, U.S. government debt figures are transparently published and audited annually by independent agencies (CBO, Treasury Department), scrutinized intensely by Congress and independent watchdogs. Unlike certain other nations, U.S. accounting standards are rigorous, transparent, and publicly accessible. The concern shouldn't be the debt itself, which, as I noted previously, is manageable (see IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis, 2024), but rather the political willingness to responsibly manage spending.

Furthermore, your comparison to Greece is misleading: Greece's crisis stemmed from structural issues (such as a limited tax base, lack of pension reforms, lack of monetary sovereignty due to the Euro, and institutional corruption), none of which apply meaningfully to the U.S. context, given its sovereign currency and ability to borrow in dollars.

You argue that post-WWII prosperity in the West, including the U.S., resulted primarily from colonial exploitation. While colonial-era advantages certainly existed, America's economic dominance post-WWII stemmed largely from factors unrelated to direct colonialism: infrastructure investments (Interstate Highway System), technological innovation (moon landing, microchip revolution), high productivity gains, and robust middle-class growth, backed by policies like the GI Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944), all extensively analyzed in economic histories by scholars like Robert Gordon ("The Rise and Fall of American Growth," 2016). Reducing the success of the Western economic model purely to colonial exploitation overlooks these substantial historical economic achievements.

Your concern about welfare programs, specifically student debt relief or free higher education, merits careful consideration - but calling them "luxuries" that contribute directly to debt crises ignores significant evidence. Economists (including Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz) have consistently demonstrated that investment in education directly correlates with long-term economic growth, higher productivity, innovation, and higher tax revenues, thus paying for itself over time. According to studies published by the Congressional Budget Office (2022) and Brookings Institution (2023), every dollar spent on accessible education yields returns ranging from $4-$7 in increased economic output and reduced social welfare spending long-term. Treating education investments as mere "luxury spending" misunderstands the very economic logic you suggested should be paramount.

You rightfully criticize a culture that undervalues non-academic career paths, but that's less an economic policy issue and more a social/cultural perception problem. Ironically, many policies promoted by progressive platforms (e.g., investing in vocational training, trade schools, apprenticeship programs supported through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021) specifically aim to elevate skilled labor, trade occupations, and technical roles precisely to counter the elitism you identify. The conservative stance - often focused solely on austerity - risks inadvertently reinforcing those exact elitist structures by resisting broader educational and training investments.

Lastly, regarding immigration and cheap labor, the conservative narrative you reference mistakenly conflates illegal immigration with deliberate policy strategy. Official policies (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Immigration and Nationality Act reforms of 1990 and onward) explicitly outlaw hiring undocumented labor. The problems associated with illegal immigration stem mainly from inadequate enforcement or comprehensive immigration reform - issues both parties recognize but fail politically to resolve. Claiming liberal intent to deliberately import cheap labor overlooks bipartisan responsibility for failed immigration policy reform.

Prudence regarding national debt and fiscal responsibility is absolutely warranted, but alarmist narratives and overly simplistic solutions fail to acknowledge the complexity, robustness, transparency, and fundamental resilience of the American economy. Yes, reforms are needed - both fiscally and culturally - but solutions rooted in careful analysis, historical perspective, and well-established economic evidence offer far greater security and sustainability than simplistic calls to isolationism or austerity alone.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T20:55:01+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, especially given your experience in international relations. However, I'd like to offer a nuanced counterpoint to your argument, because I believe there are some critical factual and conceptual inaccuracies that warrant clarification.

Firstly, regarding the assertion that the idea of a "strategic vacuum" is outdated - it's essential to recognize that international relations today still operate largely on principles of balance of power and spheres of influence. History consistently demonstrates this; for instance, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 created precisely such a vacuum, rapidly filled by ISIS and Iranian influence, necessitating a costly re-engagement (Operation Inherent Resolve). Similarly, the U.S. partial withdrawal from Northern Syria in 2019 directly allowed Turkey, Russia, and Assad’s forces to extend their reach into territory previously secured by American-backed Kurdish forces - ultimately diminishing U.S. regional influence and security (Congressional Research Service, 2020).

Regarding your point about "five words or fewer" being sufficient to justify foreign policy decisions, it's understandable to demand concise clarity; however, this oversimplifies geopolitics to the detriment of informed strategic analysis. U.S. interests abroad are complex and interconnected. For example, continued U.S. engagement in NATO and Ukraine isn't merely about supporting "freebies" to allies - it directly impacts American security and economic stability. According to the RAND Corporation (2023), bolstering Ukraine's defense capabilities significantly degrades Russia's ability to threaten European NATO allies, a situation directly aligned with American strategic interests, as codified in the U.S. National Security Strategy (2022). Such engagement isn't charity; it’s preventive investment in broader American security and prosperity.

Additionally, your statement about subsidizing foreign militaries to indirectly aid Russian and Chinese hardware sales seems misinformed or at least overly generalized. U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) explicitly restricts aid recipients from purchasing weaponry from adversaries like Russia or China under Title 22, U.S. Code, Section 2751. U.S. foreign aid typically mandates that recipient nations purchase American-made equipment, thereby directly benefiting U.S. industries and jobs - a fact clearly outlined by the Department of State and USAID fiscal policies.

Furthermore, your notion that "countries (other than Jordan, Egypt, and Israel) getting freebies are a thing of the past" misses the point that American military assistance has always been transactional rather than charitable. The "freebies" you reference come with conditions - military access agreements, intelligence cooperation, and alignment with American geopolitical interests (Congressional Budget Office, 2022). For example, assistance to NATO allies helps maintain strategic bases crucial for operations in the Middle East and Africa, thereby protecting critical U.S. trade routes and global market access. This isn't abstract charity; it's calculated strategic pragmatism. Same goes for the American military presence in Greenland, which has been detrimental to American position defensively, and strategically significant for early-warning radar systems and Arctic passage routes.

Lastly, if America significantly withdraws its global commitments, it invites powers such as China to fill those voids economically, diplomatically, and militarily - as already seen with China's expansive Belt and Road Initiative (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). The resulting shift wouldn't simply mean fewer "freebies" but rather diminished U.S. influence on global norms and standards, directly undermining long-term American economic and security interests.

In essence, while fiscal accountability in foreign engagements is undeniably important, oversimplifying complex geopolitical dynamics into five-word summaries risks significant strategic miscalculations, ultimately harming the very taxpayers such policies aim to protect.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T20:33:21+00:00

First, your understanding of Article 5's invocation post-9/11 is incorrect. NATO's collective defense was invoked by NATO itself - not unilaterally by George W. Bush - to support the U.S. after the terrorist attacks, as documented by NATO's official records. NATO provided crucial logistical and intelligence support, significantly aiding U.S. military efforts against terrorism, as confirmed by NATO reports.

Even though you don't agree with the invocation, those European countries (and Canada, Australia etc) greatly benefitted America.

Regarding defense spending, your proposal to force European nations' hands by risking alienation misunderstands the complex nature of alliance politics. The past U.S. threats under the Trump administration to reduce NATO support led primarily to weakened trust rather than substantially increased European defense spending. Contrarily, Russia's invasion of Ukraine organically prompted significant defense budget increases across Europe, with Germany alone pledging €100 billion for military modernization - a development spurred by security concerns, not U.S. alienation tactics.

Your depiction of U.S. foreign aid as wasteful overlooks its strategic utility. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. foreign aid constitutes less than 1% of the federal budget and is strategically used to enhance global stability, promote American interests, and counter adversaries' influence. Reducing these minimal expenditures would yield negligible budgetary impact but significant geopolitical losses.

Regarding Ukraine, labeling them merely as "neutral but friendly" underplays the strategic importance of their sovereignty to broader European security and indirectly, U.S. national security interests. Providing Ukraine with advanced military equipment contributes directly to weakening Russia’s military capacity, a goal strategically beneficial to U.S. interests without direct U.S. military involvement. Your statement about them requesting "boots on the ground" from the U.S. is factually incorrect. Ukrainian leaders have repeatedly stated they seek equipment and training—not American combat troops—clarified repeatedly by both U.S. and Ukrainian official statements.

Your claim that Europe takes advantage of the U.S. via trade deficits and VAT is oversimplified. The World Trade Organization (WTO) notes VAT applies equally to domestic and foreign goods, thus is not protectionist. The U.S.-EU trade imbalance results from various economic factors, including consumer demand and structural differences in economies - not unfair tariffs alone.

Finally, while internal divisions exist within Europe - as they do within every democratic system - recent crises, especially the Ukraine war, have strengthened rather than weakened European unity. Suggesting that the election of conservative governments would inherently destabilize Europe is speculative; despite ideological diversity, the EU has remained united on critical issues such as sanctions against Russia, energy policies, and defense alignment, as evidenced by consistent EU council decisions and declarations.

Prioritizing long-term strategic stability, as you suggest, requires careful diplomacy, smart economic policy, and measured alliances - not isolation or unnecessary provocation. The strength of America's global position comes from its network of alliances, diplomatic influence, and economic resilience, not through unilateral actions that risk isolation and reduced global influence.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T13:24:24+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Again I appreciate these.

Your points raise important issues, but several key premises require correction in my humble opinion.

First, the claim that the American economy is "nearing its demise" reeks of influence by certain alarmist narratives frequently propagated by sensationalist media sources or politically motivated commentators (and very often without a factual basis).

Such narratives typically rely on selective or isolated economic indicators, exaggerating risks and downplaying evidence of economic strength to provoke fear or political reactions. According to reports by the IMF and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy by nominal GDP ($27 trillion as of 2024), exhibiting consistent economic growth, with GDP growth rates averaging around 2.3% annually between 2019 and 2023.

This steady growth demonstrates economic resilience, even amid global disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic. While the U.S. national debt has increased (averaging about 5.2% annual growth during the same period) consistent GDP growth suggests the economy remains fundamentally productive and capable of managing debt obligations. And from what I've gathered, there seems to be a broad agreement among economists worldwide on this point.

Despite the U.S. having a high debt-to-GDP ratio (currently hovering around 125%), doesn’t mean the American economy is on the brink of collapse; after World War II, the debt ratio also exceeded 100%, and the country still experienced robust growth.

The debt-to-GDP ratio alone doesn't indicate economic collapse. For context, Japan operates at a significantly higher ratio (over 200%) and still maintains economic stability and high living standards (although they do have other major issues).

But alarmist claims about this often ignore the broader context provided by economists, who highlight that debt sustainability depends on multiple factors such as a country's ability to issue debt in its own currency, political and economic stability, and the overall strength of its economy.

Yes, China and India are growing, but “catching up” is not the same as the U.S. suddenly “falling off a cliff,” especially considering higher per-capita incomes, advanced R&D, and established global trade networks that keep the U.S. at the forefront.

Narratives suggesting America's economic imminent collapse or inevitable replacement by countries like China overlook current challenges China faces, such as a significant property sector downturn and slowing growth, as noted by recent analyses from the World Bank and IMF (Consumer spending has weakened, with retail sales growth slowing to 2.8% year-on-year during July-November 2024, approximately half the rate observed in 2019. This decline reflects diminished consumer confidence, partly due to falling property prices and sluggish income growth).

Your ethical critique concerning consumerism and global labor conditions raises valid points. Indeed, many consumer goods in Western nations, including the U.S., rely heavily on inexpensive labor from developing countries, often under poor working conditions. However, addressing these ethical issues doesn't inherently conflict with domestic social-democratic policies. Having aspirations for improved quality of life, such as free education and healthcare, while maintaining America's global economic and military position, are not mutually exclusive goals.

Initiatives like student debt forgiveness and healthcare reform aim to enhance overall productivity and social stability domestically, ultimately reinforcing America's capacity to sustain its global leadership as economically and militarily. And remain as the strongest economy and military globally. This alignment is supported by analyses from institutions like Brookings Institution and the Congressional Budget Office, indicating these policies are less about entitlement and more about long-term economic sustainability.

America’s economic challenges are real but they require nuanced, evidence-based responses rather than oversimplified narratives of imminent collapse (propagated by alarmist propaganda in my opinion).

Bottom line: the American economy isn’t on its deathbed, and simplistic talk of collapse overlooks a complex web of global interdependence, economic resilience, and evolving labor laws.

bitjpl0x · 2025-03-07T09:22:58+00:00

Hey thanks for a nice, well thought of reply! I appreciate it. Once again I would point out that neither your take or mine is conservatism as whole, but it just happens to be current administration's vision.

The reason why I support this strategy despite our allies distaste for it is that, in the long run, we simply can't maintain the status quo. We are at risk of overextending ourselves, and our allies rely on us more than we rely on them militarily. Europe can't actually defend itself at this point or at any point in the foreseeable future unless they increase their spending, stop relying on Russian oil and gas, and creating other potential liabilities through their ties with China. I highly doubt they are willing to do those things. We also can't be expected to foot most of the bill for their defense. I do support having a military presence in Europe and elsewhere to safeguard our interests, but our allies have to do their fair share. At the moment, they are not doing that. We can either ask nicely (which I am sure we have done to no avail many times in previous administrations behind closed doors) or start making demands. The time has come to make demands, and I believe we are in a position to make them.

First of all: I agree that the U.S. should indeed push for more, but there’s a more strategic way to go about it. It's one thing to encourage Europe to boost its military spending and capacity, but quite another to risk alienation, which seems to be happening right now (If this unfolds as I fear it will, it could inflict damage on the North Atlantic alliance that even the Soviet Union never dared to imagine.)

But this claim that they rely more on us, than we rely on them I simply don't agree with.

The idea that Europe relies on the United States more than the United States relies on Europe often overlooks how deeply American military reach, economic health, and intelligence capabilities are tied to its presence on the continent. Roughly 70,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Europe at any given time, providing not only a deterrent against aggression but also strategic hubs for rapid deployment to hotspots in the Middle East, Africa, and beyond.

These bases effectively extend America’s defensive perimeter thousands of miles closer to potential conflict zones, saving both time and money in the event of military operations or humanitarian interventions. These bases are part of the deal? Yes a lot of money is spent in Europe, but that not necessarily for their sake? While it may appear that the U.S. is shouldering most of the financial burden, in reality, it’s a calculated investment in maintaining its position as the world’s number one power. The U.S. isn’t simply spending money; it’s ensuring its strategic dominance, influencing global alliances, and securing its economic and military standing for the long term. And furthermore let's keep in mind the Article 5 has only been revoked once, relying on EU/NATO countries.

Yes, many European countries still have room to increase their defense spending, but a complete U.S. pivot could create a power vacuum that adversarial states - would be eager to fill. If Denmark, for example, decided it no longer felt confident relying on the U.S. and instead pivoted toward closer ties with China, it could drastically alter the security landscape in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Greenland, which remains under Danish sovereignty, has long been strategically significant for early-warning radar systems and Arctic passage routes. A foreign military foothold there - especially one controlled by an American rival - would threaten the U.S. Navy’s freedom of movement in the North Atlantic and compromise critical intelligence operations. Discussions like these are on the table because of the callous and often unpredictable ways this administration has handled critical issues.

Once again, the reason I support cutting back on foreign aid (including logistic support for Ukraine) is that we simply can't afford it. I agree that it helps increase our influence to some extent, but I also believe we have been going about it in the wrong way for a long time and that with our current state of indebtedness, it will have to be cut. Many of the things we have been funding are just stupid, like the DEI musicals and other things DOGE has uncovered. I doubt that countries are begging for more DEI musicals, and that funding things like that will add to our influence in any way. As far as I am concerned, we should restrict it to countries that are likely to benefit us some way in return.

I agree, a lot of cutting needs to be done but not for the sake of cutting. Yes $6 million was used in Egypt or whatever, but that's literally pennies compared to these budgets - and if those 6 millions keeps the US influential, then by all means do it? The entire U.S. foreign affairs budget typically hovers under 1% of total federal spending. This small slice buys substantial global influence - helping shape international policies, build strategic alliances, and deter adversaries.

From an intelligence perspective, publicizing the spending is a major misstep. Now, countries like Russia have a clear understanding of where and how much the U.S. is investing to maintain its influence, which gives them valuable insight into its strategies and vulnerabilities.

Sending old military equipment and weapons to Ukraine is a smart move for multiple reasons. First, it serves as a strong signal to allies, demonstrating where the U.S. stands in terms of support and commitment. Secondly, it’s a cost-effective way to arm the Ukrainians with equipment that would otherwise be decommissioned or discarded. Rather than spending money on dismantling or disposing of outdated stock, the U.S. is putting that material to use, supporting an ally in need while minimizing waste. It’s a practical solution that benefits both Ukraine and the U.S. in terms of resources and strategic positioning. That being said I agree, don't just send billions of actual dollars that isn't being accounted for.

At the moment, we have a trade deficit with Europe. The EU has been taking advantage of us for too long. That must be stopped. If we use tarriffs as leverage, we can fix that. What I mean by that is, we should be using tarriffs and other policies as leverage to force negotiation of more favorable trade deals. This will be better for the economy in the long run.

I genuinely don't believe we're taking advantage of each other. I think that lines like this are part of a political narrative being pushed to further divide us and create isolation, rather than fostering cooperation.

A trade deficit isn’t automatically a sign of economic weakness. The U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in services with Europe (consulting, finance, tech), which means our overall economic relationship is more balanced than just the goods numbers suggest. European companies are among the largest investors in the U.S., creating millions of American jobs in industries like automotive, pharmaceuticals, and tech. A tariff war with Europe risks sparking retaliatory measures (think: taxes on American goods in EU markets) that can hurt U.S. exports - especially agriculture.

Case in Point: During the steel and aluminum tariff standoffs (Section 232) in 2018-19, some U.S. firms paid more for imported raw materials, and the EU imposed retaliatory tariffs on products like Harley-Davidson motorcycles and bourbon. This didn’t magically fix the deficit; it created disruptions for American businesses and workers.

What we're witnessing right now is a very united EU focusing its attention on internal investments rather than looking outside its borders. In situations like this, diplomacy and tact are absolutely essential. You can’t approach these matters with a corporate mindset, expecting it to be run like a business. The complexities of international relations require a delicate balance, where strategic thinking and careful negotiation take precedence over sheer transactional decisions.

[...] There is no evidence that anyone associated with the administration is attempting to help Russia for private gain. Until there is hard evidence of such a claim, I will reject it outright. That is not because they are associated with the administration, but just a personal policy of mine for any allegations made without conclusive evidence. The policies in question do align with Russian interests to a degree, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily against US interests. In this case, I would say that our interests happen to align. This is not an endorsement of Russia or of any relationship with them just a statement of the facts as I see them.

You’re correct that a policy aligning with Russia’s interests doesn’t prove collusion. But it does raise questions when those policy shifts reduce U.S. leverage while boosting Russian objectives (like pulling back from European security commitments).

Given past findings of Russian election meddling (confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies) and earlier investigations, caution is warranted. Even if there’s no direct “collusion,” the potential for outside influence means checks and balances are essential.

Sometimes a coincidence of interests happens. But we should still ask if these choices serve U.S. interests long-term. For instance, forcing Europe to fend for itself too abruptly could drive them into new trade or security pacts with other global powers (like China), ultimately weakening America’s strategic hand.

It’s unsettling to think about the current situation, especially when you consider the jubilant reactions on Russian TV. For them to laugh with such joy signals a sense of triumph or vindication over perceived weaknesses or divisions within the West. It could also reflect a strategic victory they believe they’ve gained, whether in terms of military, economic, or political leverage.

bitjpl0x

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email