General News

[Tommy G]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The US are a major player in matters that require the whole world though, such as this one - with great power comes great responsibility and all that.

 

If they choose to look inwards rather than helping out then that's of course their prerogative - and people should look for leadership from elsewhere. However, should the worst come to pass, it will also be right to view them as responsible and hold them accountable for all the consequences that ensue.

You need to be looking at China and India too - and a whole host of far east collectives who haven’t even heard of basic recycling

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You need to be looking at China and India too - and a whole host of far east collectives who haven’t even heard of basic recycling

I agree, everyone needs to play their part. (The Chinese are doing better, the Indians less so.)

 

And on that front, part of being a great power, if you really want to change the world for the better, is leading the way.

 

If the US choose not to do it, that's their choice, but what they do both in terms of the issue itself and attempting to get others to follow suit, along with the other leading powers, matters.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

I've been in Germany this week and the AFD are everywhere.

 

They had a stall in the marketplace today and the people looking were of various ethnicities. I wonder if we will see a similar pattern to the USA.

If they do win, it's yet another sign that history can be cyclic and what happens next in that cycle is rather ugly.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

 

Thought this was a very good interview and summary of the state of affairs by the former head of MI6.

...so the hard currency of the future is military might?

 

Yeah, there's only one way that ends.

 

I hope that he's wrong. I fear that he's right, because he knows his stuff, clearly.

[Md9]

The amount of times trump has gone on about wanting to check the gold in Fort Knox is not missing probably means him and that other c*** musk have already done something with it and want to blame everyone else 

[Jon the Hat]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...so the hard currency of the future is military might?

 

Yeah, there's only one way that ends.

 

I hope that he's wrong. I fear that he's right, because he knows his stuff, clearly.

It always has been.  It’s just for the last 50 years or so the US has been so superior no one else tried much. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It always has been.  It’s just for the last 50 years or so the US has been so superior no one else tried much. 

Pretty much what the man said.

 

But I fear that traditional bloc nationalism of that type cannot survive the modern world.

 

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Charles Darwin

 

That goes for ways of living, as well as organisms themselves.

[ajthefox]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...so the hard currency of the future is military might?

 

Yeah, there's only one way that ends.

 

I hope that he's wrong. I fear that he's right, because he knows his stuff, clearly.

It's Interesting to hear from someone who really knows his stuff. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

It's Interesting to hear from someone who really knows his stuff. 

Yeah, he's clearly had access to far more information (both privileged and otherwise) than the man in the street so it's interesting to listen to the expertise.

 

I'm also pretty sure that he knows that way of things playing out leads to only one logical outcome, but clearly he feels he can't do anything about that.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0ng4eyr3xo

 

Interesting take from John Simpson on how in terms of foreign policy, 2025 may be a very interesting year.

[samlcfc]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm guessing that it's at least in part the idea that more lenient policies cause bigots to lash out more.

 

Definite hint of "you must have done something to provoke him, Miss" about that argument, but so it goes.

 

More than hint I'd say. It's hard to find the motivation to converse with someone who states that people were murdered because of decision to emigrate, regardless of their motivations to do so.

 

Not that it matters significantly, but i can't find confirmation that all the victims travelled to Sweden illegally, showing the comment has some of the same sweeping condemnation that the murderer used in their decision.

 

As you have mentioned, the immigration crisis will worsen, and my biggest worry about it beyond peoples concerns about infrastructure, is that grim behaviour like the above will see people agreeing to putting people behind fences before it's dealt with constructively. Just staying we should stop immigration is an egregious oversimplification of the geopolitical barriers that sort of action involves. The sort of thinking that see's us funnel outrageous amounts of power into the hands of wild 'leaders', so that they can ironically fight the tyranny that is the democratic processes that are supposed to safeguard us from them. Cause that's been a great idea historically.

 

It's wild that people look at it as the root cause of destablisisation of western countries too. Say nothing about the management of our economic system, leading to depreciation of wages and rising cost of living over decades. Many industries seeing low or negative wage growth,, with lower-skilled jobs and public sector work being hit especially hard. Rent and mortgage costs rising, along with energy, food and other household goods.

 

Couldn't possibly look at making appropriate changes to taxation to upkeep infrastructure, where the burden is born by middle and lower-income people, whilst greedy tech demagogues like musk undermine our democracies for their personal business goals. Pretending to challenge the system, whilst funding politics and and shaping narratives to serve their own interests in a project of social manipulation on a ridiculous scale.

 

These people would rip every last piece of soul out of your culture for money and influence before any migrant would, as they happily have a bunch of people believing.

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 February by samlcfc

[Foxdiamond]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It always has been.  It’s just for the last 50 years or so the US has been so superior no one else tried much. 

He is right that Europe has been free loading. We must urgently step up military spending to be a credible foe that makes the other side think it's not worth it. Mind the west was under no illusion back in the Warsaw Pact days so in some way familiar 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, samlcfc said:

 

More than hint I'd say. It's hard to find the motivation to converse with someone who states that people were murdered because of decision to emigrate, regardless of their motivations to do so.

 

Not that it matters significantly, but i can't find confirmation that all the victims travelled to Sweden illegally, showing the comment has some of the same sweeping condemnation that the murderer used in their decision.

 

As you have mentioned, the immigration crisis will worsen, and my biggest worry about it beyond peoples concerns about infrastructure, is that grim behaviour like the above will see people agreeing to putting people behind fences before it's dealt with constructively. Just staying we should stop immigration is an egregious oversimplification of the geopolitical barriers that sort of action involves. The sort of thinking that see's us funnel outrageous amounts of power into the hands of wild 'leaders', so that they can ironically fight the tyranny that is the democratic processes that are supposed to safeguard us from them. Cause that's been a great idea historically.

 

It's wild that people look at it as the root cause of destablisisation of western countries too. Say nothing about the management of our economic system, leading to depreciation of wages and rising cost of living over decades. Many industries seeing low or negative wage growth,, with lower-skilled jobs and public sector work being hit especially hard. Rent and mortgage costs rising, along with energy, food and other household goods.

 

Couldn't possibly look at making appropriate changes to taxation to upkeep infrastructure, where the burden is born by middle and lower-income people, whilst greedy tech demagogues like musk undermine our democracies for their personal business goals. Pretending to challenge the system, whilst funding politics and and shaping narratives to serve their own interests in a project of social manipulation on a ridiculous scale.

 

These people would rip every last piece of soul out of your culture for money and influence before any migrant would, as they happily have a bunch of people believing.

 

 

 

 

Erudite.

 

And where exactly does that pathway leave us? Nowhere good.

 

18 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

He is right that Europe has been free loading. We must urgently step up military spending to be a credible foe that makes the other side think it's not worth it. Mind the west was under no illusion back in the Warsaw Pact days so in some way familiar 

As much as the sentiment is logical right now (Russia, China and the US all appear to be singing in harmony there), I'm wondering where a world divided into Cold War era blocs (but with even more division) based on nationalist superiority leads us in the next couple of decades, given the ascendancy of world changing technology and increased resource crises.

 

I know I keep asking this question, or along similar lines - but that's because no one seems to want to give a full and/or reasoned answer.

Edited 23 February by leicsmac

[bovril]

19 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

He is right that Europe has been free loading. We must urgently step up military spending to be a credible foe that makes the other side think it's not worth it. Mind the west was under no illusion back in the Warsaw Pact days so in some way familiar 

US was very happy for Europe to deindustrialize and demilitarize because it helped cement their global hegemony. It's only since the rise of China and Russia's invasions in Georgia and Ukraine that they've started to express their concern that we are "free loading". 

[Foxdiamond]

18 minutes ago, bovril said:

US was very happy for Europe to deindustrialize and demilitarize because it helped cement their global hegemony. It's only since the rise of China and Russia's invasions in Georgia and Ukraine that they've started to express their concern that we are "free loading". 

They have been saying it for years in a more polite way 

[samlcfc]

45 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Erudite.

 

And where exactly does that pathway leave us? Nowhere good.

 

As much as the sentiment is logical right now (Russia, China and the US all appear to be singing in harmony there), I'm wondering where a world divided into Cold War era blocs (but with even more division) based on nationalist superiority leads us in the next couple of decades, given the ascendancy of world changing technology and increased resource crises.

 

I know I keep asking this question, or along similar lines - but that's because no one seems to want to give a full and/or reasoned answer.

Like said above, the US were happy to adopt a controlling stake in NATO out of the fifties, whilst hamstringing the continent with debt, rather than seeing a newly united Europe step out onto the global stage with the potential to put them on their knees. 

 

If the new perspective is for the long-term, it seems like it's going to be a formative period for Europe.

 

As noted in my previous post, I'm worried about the capacity of the financial elite to undermine our democracies and restrict Europes choice in some respects. If unable to consolidate power, I'd imagine the continent would be possibly be somewhat of a battleground for competing superpowers.

 

If the countries involved were to overcome those pitfalls, the latent economic potential of the unified continent would be huge. A population that dwarfs the US and Russia, with great communication infrastructure and massive landmass.

 

Geopolitical blocs and prospective resource scarcity would see more militarisation from all the emerging economically isolated regions I'd imagine. With a shift to more coercive power globally and possibly more authoritative regimes, ignition of new wars will probably be on the cards at some point, and I guess we'd just have to hope that things don't get too hot.

 

Not a great area of knowledge personally. Would happy to hear more positive ideas!

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

Like said above, the US were happy to adopt a controlling stake in NATO out of the fifties, whilst hamstringing the continent with debt, rather than seeing a newly united Europe step out onto the global stage with the potential to put them on their knees. 

 

If the new perspective is for the long-term, it seems like it's going to be a formative period for Europe.

 

As noted in my previous post, I'm worried about the capacity of the financial elite to undermine our democracies and restrict Europes choice in some respects. If unable to consolidate power, I'd imagine the continent would be possibly be somewhat of a battleground for competing superpowers.

 

If the countries involved were to overcome those pitfalls, the latent economic potential of the unified continent would be huge. A population that dwarfs the US and Russia, with great communication infrastructure and massive landmass.

 

Geopolitical blocs and prospective resource scarcity would see more militarisation from all the emerging economically isolated regions I'd imagine. With a shift to more coercive power globally and possibly more authoritative regimes, ignition of new wars will probably be on the cards at some point, and I guess we'd just have to hope that things don't get too hot.

 

Not a great area of knowledge personally. Would happy to hear more positive ideas!

 

I think that's pretty much on the money. And pardon the gloominess, but I simply don't foresee any possible positive outcome resulting from that. There would be no way to avoid massive loss of life and suffering.

 

If someone could supply something concrete to disabuse me of that notion, it would very much be welcomed.

[leicsmac]

Presented without comment.

[Salisbury Fox]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Presented without comment.

Shameful

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Presented without comment.

Under four years to go, barring a welcome myocardial infarction.

[WigstonWanderer]

35 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Under four years to go, barring a welcome myocardial infarction.

Seems his popularity is already falling. Hopefully continue to do so. Less than 2 years I believe until mid term elections and perhaps he’d be a lame duck for the 2 years after that. This assumes that there are ever free and fair elections again in the US of course and I don’t think this can be taken for granted.

 

Would be wonderfully poetic if a severe bout of Covid carried him away.

Edited 24 February by WigstonWanderer

[purpleronnie]

The whole Trump popularity baffles me, a billionaire looking after another billionaire (musk) doing everything they can to look after all the other billionaires get's voted in by millions of americans who can't rub two pennies together.

[Dunge]

15 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Seems his popularity is already falling. Hopefully continue to do so. Less than 2 years I believe until mid term elections and perhaps he’d be a lame duck for the 2 years after that. This assumes that there are ever free and fair elections again in the US of course and I don’t think this can be taken for granted.

 

Would be wonderfully poetic if a severe bout of Covid carried him away.

I notice that some Americans who enthusiastically voted for cuts to the state aren’t happy at the cuts to the state through which Elon Musk is trying to drive his chainsaw.

 

And that some Rupert Murdoch-owned media is starting to get a little nervous about Trump’s attitude toward Russia.

 

I often scoff at the “leopards eating people’s faces” meme, but…

[bovril]

2 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

The whole Trump popularity baffles me, a billionaire looking after another billionaire (musk) doing everything they can to look after all the other billionaires get's voted in by millions of americans who can't rub two pennies together.

Could be wrong but I think the lowest ten percent by income was split pretty evenly between Harris and Trump.

 

In general I think people are influenced when voting as much by culture and background as economic status. Although of course those things are linked.

Edited 24 February by bovril

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, purpleronnie said:

The whole Trump popularity baffles me, a billionaire looking after another billionaire (musk) doing everything they can to look after all the other billionaires get's voted in by millions of americans who can't rub two pennies together.

It’s because he appeals to people in a very American way so it seems baffling to us as outsiders.
 

Make no mistake that Farage is just as radical and just as much about smashing the traditions, institutions, checks and balances that have been in place in the west since 1945, but you’ll get British people denying it and saying he isn’t and find him a lot more understandable because we see how he directly pulls at British tendencies instead and we understand the nuances of those so it feels different even if the end goals are the same.

Edited 24 February by Sampson