politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If it helps ease your anxieties at all, I don't believe ww3 or nuclear annihilation is the likely future. We've seen nuclear superpowers dance recently, nobody wants to use the things. The fuckers at the top, the ones with the actual power, not orange dumpster man, they like the slow burn. Get the resources, grind up the people, make that green. They don't want the world to end, there's too many kids to molest.
Do not get me wrong, I do agree with you otherwise. I do think there's a strong possibility of civil war though, at least in some capacity. It might even be the best situation, get the rot out.
Well obviously a thermonuclear war is not good for business. However do not make the grievous mistake of thinking that Trump is a mere pawn in the oligarch's game who can be relied on to act rationally in their self-interest. He's done their bidding aplenty, but he's also doing a lot of stuff that weakens him, his buddies, and his country, just because he's so fucking dumb and vain. Like invading Greenland, a country he already had full access to for military purposes and that US companies were always welcome to exploit for minerals. His generals are literally using every trick in the book to try to redirect his attention away from Greenland because the US has literally no interest – military, financial, or geopolitical – in it. Literally the only explanation for this fixation of his is that Greenland looks big on a Mercator projection and that makes his tiny dick hard.
M.A.D. only works when all actors:
Number 1 is in doubt with Trump because he and his cult spend a lot of time in a made-up reality. I can totally see some war hawks explaining to him that the UK and France don't have the nuclear capacity to glass the entire continental US outright, and Trump interpreting it as "we're untouchable" because he's not into concepts such as "nuance". To a degree the same is true of a dictator like Putin or Xi Xinping who are also surrounded by yes men who purposefully feed an enabling narrative (see also: Putin's decision to invade Ukraine because he thought he could get away with it).
Number 2 is simply completely incorrect. Trump is so unpredictable even his own administration can't guess his next move – they're constantly acting on his latest rant and doing a poor job of pretending it was part of the plan all along. I'd love to believe that he can be deterred by the thread of M.A.D, but I'm unfortunately too acutely aware of the news to lie to myself like that. That's the main difference between him and Putin – I can actually believe that Putin will only act in what he believes to be his self-interest, and he knows a nuclear exchange ain't it.
I agree with that conceptually, but I think one thing you might be assuming is that control of Trump is all from the same team. We know that there's a high likelihood that he's compromised by Russia, we know that he's loyal mostly to money. It might be easier to point out institutions that don't have power over him.
What I'm getting at is the things he does may not be random, rather we just don't know who or what is motivating them. The recent stuff for Greenland might be just a bunch of wind that Russia decided might take the interest and support away from Ukraine. Not to say he's a 5d chess player or anything, more that he's just willing to jump for the highest bidder.
Above all, he's selfish to the core. He takes things only as far as he can get power out of them. I have complete faith that he wouldn't ever do anything that could endanger him one bit. He can be safe in his big ivory tower, but the second nukes start being on the table, I'm expecting him to fold.
Anyway, my motivations aren't to argue a point or anything. I might have incompatible views to you and that's honestly fine, I'm more offering a possibility that might be more hopeful. There is a solid chance that the world will get through this little dip into fascism, come out the other end, and recover.