DamnYuppie

The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!

Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.

No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.

The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.

Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.

Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.

If I understand your argument it is that the rich should want to crater the market because even if they lose money, their purchasing power increases?

That would only work if they have large cash reserves, we have data that shows most billionaires/millionaires don't their wealth is tied up in assets.

Because of that if the market does crater their businesses/assets may in fact get wiped out.

The rich don't want volatility or crashes, it rarely benefits them.

Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure.

I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.

The fear indexes for Stocks and Crypto are near highs, which historically signals buying opportunities rather than reasons to panic.

The old adage "be greedy when others are fearful" holds true, backed by market history.

More money has been lost trying to time the market than simply staying invested. If this is long-term savings/investing, staying in the market is almost always the best move.

If it’s short-term money, it shouldn’t be in stocks anyway. For short-term capital, treasuries and cash-equivalents are safer plays.

The Paris Climate Agreement is not a treaty, hence it is also called the "Paris Accord".

We announced our withdrawal from the agreement in 2017, there is a 3 year waiting period built in so we didn't actually leave until 2020.

Joe Biden rejoined on his first day. I am not sure what Trump will do as different administrations have different goals.

We didn't break any part of that Accord, you can actually leave it with proper notice, which we did.

> Alliances with the USA aren't reliable

Can you please provide insight into this? As far as I can tell the U.S. has never failed to honor a treaty obligation, so the idea that it would suddenly abandon all commitments lacks historical precedent.

Ukraine is not now nor has ever been an ally To America. The Budapest Memorandum was not a defense treaty. It didn’t commit the U.S. to military intervention, it only committed the U.S. to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and take diplomatic action if it was threatened. We have done that with sanctions and aid.

It doesn't obligate us to do that into perpetuity nor does it keep us from being compensated for that aid. For perspective the price Britain paid for its survival in WW2 was its empire.

I would think our biggest obstacle is large corporations trying to wring every dollar out of farmers. John Deere, Archer Midland Daniels, and Monsanto come to mind. Oh looks like Monsanto is part of Bayer now.

An update on this it looks to be 200,000 acres at the moment. Which is 80,937 hectares or 809 square kilometers.

The USSR didn’t "come back"—it collapsed, shattered, and never recovered. What remains is a weakened, demographically dying, economically struggling Russia.

Territory lost by the USSR/Russia since the Cold War began: The entire Soviet Union dissolved—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all gone. The entire Warsaw Pact flipped to NATO—Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Germany, the biggest Cold War prize, reunited under the West.

Territory lost by the U.S. and its allies? Zero.

Russia isn’t a rising empire—it’s a wounded animal lashing out, terrified of its own irrelevance. They’re afraid, backed into a corner, and desperately trying to hold onto power. They don’t dictate world affairs.

And as for negotiating with Russia? The U.S. has been doing that for 80 years—and it never made us weak before. Why should it now?

America dictates terms not Russia, and certainly not Europe. If Europe wants to keep playing games, let them but America chooses when, where, and how we engage.

Define "giving up world power." Because last I checked, being a world power means taking care of your own nation first, ensuring its security, economy, and people are strong. If America can’t even secure its own borders, prevent foreign influence on its soil, or manage its own spending, then what exactly are we protecting?

Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad.

Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.

I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate the thoughtful take. It's enjoyable to engage in an actual discussion about this instead of the usual knee-jerk reactions so thank you!

But here’s the thing. Great powers compete globally, but the real question isn’t whether America competes. It’s how, where, and at what cost. If we’re keeping influence by stretching ourselves too thin, ignoring our own problems, and paying Europe’s defense bill forever, then we’re setting ourselves up for failure just like Britain did.

Ukraine matters to Europe, not really to us. Losing Ukraine isn’t a crisis for America, but losing focus on our own borders, economy, and the Pacific definitely is.

I get that multipolarity has risks, but so does trying to be everywhere all the time. If European security is that important, then Europe should handle it. If they won’t, that’s on them.

If we don’t start prioritizing where America actually needs to be strong, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve spent decades managing other people’s problems while letting our own pile up.

I appreciate the thoughtful response it’s refreshing to have a real discussion rather than the usual knee-jerk reactions.

That said, I think you’ve actually made my point for me. You laid out how Europe is equal to the U.S. in GDP, population, and military availability, all of which just reinforces why it no longer makes sense for the U.S. to keep shouldering the majority of European defense.

If Europe is fully capable, then it should be fully responsible for its own security. That doesn’t mean alliances disappear, but it does mean the dynamic needs to shift. The U.S. has carried this burden for 80 years, and at some point, grown-up nations take full responsibility for their own defense.

I agree that NATO served its purpose mutually during the Cold War. But now that the geopolitical landscape has changed, so should the arrangement. The U.S. has pressing priorities at home, and if Europe is as strong and independent as you say, then it should have no problem stepping up.

If Europe wants full American protection, then maybe it’s time they start paying for it.

Putin started the war, but U.S. policy played a major role in keeping it going. The so-called "adults" spent years writing blank checks, refusing to push for peace, and actively discouraging negotiations.

Trump has been in office for barely a month, and you're already declaring his efforts a "failure"? Wars don’t end in 30 days, especially when the previous administration spent two years fueling it instead of pushing for a resolution.

America operates on its own timeline, not anyone else's. If we want to change our approach to Ukraine, we should do it in a way that aligns with our interests, not because of some artificial urgency. The fact that negotiations are already moving forward with Putin should tell you something: a real process is happening. If the previous administration had done its job, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.

Yes, but making the world a less cruel place requires strength—strength of purpose, strength of character, and intellectual strength to have hard conversations about hard realities. We don’t reduce cruelty by ignoring the harm done by those who break the law. The people you defend are not victims—they are the ones making life harder for others, whether it’s overwhelming social services, committing crimes, or undercutting legal immigrants who followed the rules.

We don’t fight cruelty by sanitizing language or pretending reality isn’t what it is. We fight it by acknowledging hard truths and having the courage to address them honestly, not emotionally.

You are correct finding numbers can be a bit hard. Here is what I have found.

Since President Biden took office in January 2021, the U.S. has experienced a significant increase in illegal border crossings. Reports indicate that there have been approximately 8 million "encounters" at the U.S.-Mexico border during his tenure, a substantial rise compared to previous administrations. This surge is notably higher than the figures recorded during the Trump administration, which saw approximately 2.4 million encounters over four years.

For graft I was referring to the continual mismanagement of funds by Federal Departments. - An estimated $236 billion in improper payments were made, encompassing over-payments, underpayments, and payments lacking proper documentation. - The DOD hasn't passed an audit in in 7 years! We can not account for our spending or our military assets. - The whole US Aid thing is also part of that graft. US dollars going to questionable endeavors to enrich a few.

There are many more examples from FEMA and other organizations. The examples illustrate a systemic issue with the federal governments financial management.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe_... https://www.gao.gov/blog/federal-government-made-236-billion... https://www.myjournalcourier.com/opinion/article/commentary-...

That’s not even remotely comparable. The United States and Ukraine are vastly different in terms of military capability, geographic positioning, and strategic importance. Putin annexing a couple of U.S. states is a laughably unrealistic scenario—he can barely hold the territory he's taken from a country bordering his own.

The war in Ukraine is tragic, but it’s not our war. The idea that we must commit endless resources to it just because it’s happening is not a rational foreign policy stance. A stronger America means prioritizing where we spend our strength, not blindly throwing resources at conflicts that don’t directly threaten us.

Sure, the military-industrial complex benefits—but the military-industrial complex always benefits. That’s not a justification for continued involvement; it’s just a fact of how defense spending works. If anything, this strengthens my argument; why not prioritize military production and readiness for the Pacific, where our actual strategic interests lie?

As for "field testing," that’s a pretty thin silver lining to justify indefinite support. Wars evolve regardless, and we don't need to offload billions in weapons to foreign conflicts just to learn how modern combat works. If we’re going to spend, let’s spend where it serves America’s direct security, not someone else’s.

The assertion that America's wars cost us $30 trillion is not accurate. As of 2012, the national debt stood at approximately $16 trillion, with a significant portion resulting from domestic spending and the financial crisis, not solely military engagements. Our debt is not that large because of the wars, are they contributors of course, are they the long pole in the tent, not even close.

America is under no obligation to provide endless support to Ukraine. The notion that it's our duty to act as the world's arsenal is misguided. While assistance can be strategic, perpetually fueling a conflict without a clear path to peace is neither noble nor wise. It's time to prioritize diplomatic solutions over an indefinite cycle of military aid.

Why can’t it? Stating that America should prioritize itself is a direct and unapologetic stance. Brevity is not a lack of thought—it’s efficient communication. Dismissing a position because it’s concise rather than engaging with its merits is a weak argument. I recognize that some dislike this perspective and will seize any opportunity to undermine it, but that doesn’t make it any less valid.

Everyone has their own take on how they behaved. You say they acted like children, others say Zelensky was disrespectful. Either way, I’d rather have leaders willing to push back than the so-called "adults" who let this war start and then kept it going on autopilot.

Whether a deal was fully locked in or not, what we do know is that previous leadership had years to find an off-ramp and failed. The last group of "adults" spent years writing blank checks and getting nothing in return. If the current approach shakes things up and forces real discussion, maybe that’s exactly what’s needed. Looking out for America’s best interests doesn’t mean playing nice—it means knowing when to say enough.

My understanding is that a deal was in place. President of Ukraine publicly reneged on that deal and took what was supposed to be more of an announcement as an opportunity to grandstand and renegotiate the deal that had been worked out.

Things got heated. I am not really that upset about this. I have been in far worse meetings with far less at stake. I am glad that our leaders are not letting people we are trying to help push us around. Usually such meetings are not public and basically most people don't get to see the sausage making of diplomacy.

I am more embarrassed that previous Presidents let foreign leaders come to our country and stomp for candidates or make demands of us.

As I said personal freedoms. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms off the top of my head. These may not be important to other countries so they may not feel their lose of them as anything important. Hence my statement we may in fact view freedom differently one from one another.

You know I don't actually follow that take to be honest. I find this an interesting and important topic. So I am responding where a statement trips my fancy. I mean I am getting down voted all the time so not like I am doing it for the attention. I have opinions on this and have been thinking about the geo political climate intently for the last few years, as such I see no reason I can't chime in. Is there some policy about not being overly engaged in a topic I was unaware of?

I don't agree that it is a bad look. People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal. People who look at such things with "horror" dehumanize the conversation by refusing to admit the harsh truths of the world. It is like they bathe themselves in weakness and virtue signaling. They hide from how cruel the world is and try to bring everything down to some tame level that doesn't exist solely so they can control the discourse.

Some understand it fine but are realizing the influence we get isn't worth it. Stop acting like we are idiots for not wanting to engage with geopolitical power games as much as we have been. We know our history, we know our place in the world, we understand all the trade offs, and we may actually not feel they are worth it at this time.

It is the constant refrain of "if they disagree with us they are not informed or are not as intelligent as we are". It is as if they can't believe people could have informed opinions that differ from theirs...wild...

I don't equate personal freedoms with conquests. If you are a threat to our country I give no cares for what we do to you. If your nation has to be thrown on the pyre of Americas freedom..so be it.

Alec I can't respond to your response. But no it wasn't a parody. I don't actually think we are cozying up to Putin. Europe keeps throwing money at him, we are just trying to end a stupid war. The "purge" is more of a fact finding to see who is wasting our money and how. No one is being killed, jailed, or tortured. I would however not mind if many politicians end up in jail. People forget previous presidents have fired over 350,000 federal employees, the sky didn't fall. But the national debt did for a time...just saying...

Wait who would ally with China/Russia, Europe or US? I mean either of those are a deathknell for Europe. China will not defend them against Russia. Heck I am not sure China can keep its hands off of Russia's oil fields as they lack their own resources. It would be fun to watch though.

What collective benefit are you referring to exactly that isn't going to be profit? You think Russia and China care about your ideologies? China will exploit you and Russia will do what Russia always does. They all want to gang up and invade America?? They would have better things to do then that if Europe became their pet.

Yeah and we don't need Europe to be free. Europe needs America. We are not equals in this.

One party greated the other cordially in a suit. One showed up to meet the President of the United States in leisure attire! One had made an agreement with Secretary of State and then reneged on it publicly. This same individual then decided to threaten the President of the United Sates. Who exactly was acting like a mobster?

There is nothing immoral about getting paid for services or products. If you don't like it go somewhere else. Why is it that everyone expects hand outs from America but never once ask what can they do for America? It is Ukraine who is exploiting the American people for free arms. Finally an America stood up to their ridiculous behavior, the petty dictator was kicked out of the White House.

So you have some good points about soft power. Yet at this time as I look at Americas GDP Europe is playing less and less of a factor in it. So as I said the juice may no longer be worth the squeeze. Also what is the point of soft power in Europe when we are being over run by immigrants? America needs to look to itself first. We can't be a strong world power for much longer if the issues at the southern border continue. I know no one in the world cares about Americas problems, they tend to ignore them and view us as something to use or get something from. Yet we have not only a right but obligation to look to ourselves first.

Ukraine is not and has never been an friend or ally to America. We were one of many parties to an assurance that we wouldn't level them if they turned in their nukes. We have given them aide in their time of need. There was a deal in place for more aide and the President of Ukraine came in, in athletic gear mind you, and reneged on the agreement and started grandstanding and threatening the US President in the Oval Office! This was a HUGE mistake, he basically said to America I do not respect you and spit in our faces. I know many people do not see it that way around the world but if a world leader comes to ask for aid from the country they are completely dependent upon for their survival and their plan is threats and leisure attire how is that not disrespect?

I mean fair play for being bold and all. Yet that was unwise in the extreme.