Octopus Overlords

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:10 am

$iljanus wrote:We're not even close to a year in

It’s been 36 days.

2.5% done

Holman wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:47 pm Fuck Marco Rubio. Even a year ago he was arguing for the importance of defending Ukraine against Russia.

Spineless coward.

He was sitting on a couch with VD. Talk about a third wheel.

WYBaugh wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:20 pm

Enough wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:00 pm Still fuming and reeling, watching the world order completely blow up with a vacuum of hate and stupidity ready to fill it in DC. This shook me like 1-6 and 911.

It is mindbogglingly stupid

When Vance barked, "You haven't said thank you, once! ...in this meeting." I lost it.


I would say a stark line has been drawn. If you ever gave a shit about Ukraine and thought Russia invaded them - how could you still back Trump after that display. I mean, unless you have toxic-male syndrome and you got a hard-on watching Trump's face glow red.



All this being said, I am actually surpised that he was not told by aids and handlers that Trump needed an ass-kissing like no-other, and anything like 'Correcting him on Live TV' would be a really really bad thing for him to do.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:10 am

$iljanus wrote:We're not even close to a year in

It’s been 36 days.

That’s depressing. Can’t wait for what new horrors March will bring us.

Madness. The correct term for March is always 'madness'.

Isgrimnur wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 11:29 am Madness. The correct term for March is always 'madness'.

Las Vegas oddsmakers: “Who will make the Final Four? And the over/under on US democracy.”

I’ve seen a lot of speculation that Trump and Vance bullied Zelenskyy for domestic consumption. Maybe, but I’m more in line with the idea that it was a clear communication to Putin and to Europe.

I just don’t think the MAGA base cares. I don’t think they’re paying attention to any of this. Of course, the very small, engaged portion of MAGA is eating it up. But how big do you think that group is? I’m totally guessing, but I’d put that at maybe 5% of the MAGA base. Everyone else won when Trump was elected, and now they’ve tuned out entirely. They don’t watch cable news. They don’t read news on line. They don’t follow “journalists” or journalists on social media. They could care less about all this.

It’s not like we’re talking about the price of eggs or gas, you know.

Kurth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 12:37 pm I’ve seen a lot of speculation that Trump and Vance bullied Zelenskyy for domestic consumption. Maybe, but I’m more in line with the idea that it was a clear communication to Putin and to Europe.

I just don’t think the MAGA base cares. I don’t think they’re paying attention to any of this. Of course, the very small, engaged portion of MAGA is eating it up. But how big do you think that group is? I’m totally guessing, but I’d put that at maybe 5% of the MAGA base. Everyone else won when Trump was elected, and now they’ve tuned out entirely. They don’t watch cable news. They don’t read news on line. They don’t follow “journalists” or journalists on social media. They could care less about all this.

It’s not like we’re talking about the price of eggs or gas, you know.

Probably it’s all of the above. Manipulation of the domestic sheep and message to Putin that the US is open for business. Trump only wants to deal with Russia and China. The world can be divided amongst the three of them.

Prick swinging for domestic MAGA consumption is just a bonus. This is for the not so hidden influencers who whisper their objectives in the GOP Administration ears and a demonstration of personal revenge.

I can only comment that my local MAGA lunatics have always been very vocal (on FB) about what's happening with Ukraine and the amount of money that's been sent to them - especially as part of the 2024 election cycle. I have no doubts it's just a bonus for that group of morons and the real message was to telegraph that Trump and Vance are clearly stooges for Putin.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 10:10 am

$iljanus wrote:We're not even close to a year in

It’s been 36 days.

Just 5 away from a year.

I do a little burn every time trump inflates the amount of money Biden "gave" Ukraine. I think he tossed out $350B yesterday. The correct amount is ~$175B, of which $75B was spent in the US. For that $100B investment we got to cause 700,000 Russian casualties and rally the demoralized NATO, all without risking a single American life. Quite the bargain, if you want to be the leader of the free world.

'Course, it really was all wasted if you abdicate that leadership.

Kraken wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 1:53 pm The correct amount is ~$175B,

Leon ventures have been subsidized nearly 1/4 of that most of which have happened in a similar time frame

https://fortune.com/2025/02/26/elon-mus ... acex-doge/

But DOGE’s Elon Musk runs a business empire of his own—one that reportedly collected $38 billion in government funding through a collection of government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits that go as far back as 20 years, an analysis by the Washington Post revealed.

Almost two-thirds of the $38 billion in funds were promised to his businesses in the past five years, the Washington Post reported. Last year alone, $6.3 billion in federal and local funding was devoted to Musk’s companies—the largest amount committed thus far, the publication said.

Fox News should be all over this, unless they are in bed with Putin too. I mean, if they are just a parasite on the US and are just going to keep sucking blood until it dies, that seems pretty short sighted, even for ideological capitalism.

Don't any of these oligarchs understand just how big an economy the US is or what will happen globally if it collapses? Don't they want their children to be oligarchs too? Or do they like the idea of their offspring being warlords in the wasteland? Because warlords need to be strong, not rich, if they want to keep on warlording. Oligarch to warlord is not an easy progress tree. Hell, windows are some of their biggest hurdles.

Kraken wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 1:53 pm I do a little burn every time trump inflates the amount of money Biden "gave" Ukraine. I think he tossed out $350B yesterday. The correct amount is ~$175B, of which $75B was spent in the US. For that $100B investment we got to cause 700,000 Russian casualties and rally the demoralized NATO, all without risking a single American life. Quite the bargain, if you want to be the leader of the free world.

'Course, it really was all wasted if you abdicate that leadership.

And a good percentage of that aid was in obsolete military equipment in boneyards that we would have to pay to dismantle otherwise. The only reason that the right is railing against this is that they want to embrace Putin and his style of government.

GreenGoo wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 2:17 pm Fox News should be all over this, unless they are in bed with Putin too. I mean, if they are just a parasite on the US and are just going to keep sucking blood until it dies, that seems pretty short sighted, even for ideological capitalism.

Don't any of these oligarchs understand just how big an economy the US is or what will happen globally if it collapses? Don't they want their children to be oligarchs too? Or do they like the idea of their offspring being warlords in the wasteland? Because warlords need to be strong, not rich, if they want to keep on warlording. Oligarch to warlord is not an easy progress tree. Hell, windows are some of their biggest hurdles.

And risk angering the administration which allows them access and appears on their channel? Fox News may have some dissent but that will be drowned out by the usual commentary praising Trump for his “tough diplomacy” or other such nonsense. At best they’re going to stay neutral so they won’t lose viewers to Newsmax or One America Network.

Fox News is operating as designed. Not a news organization but a product reliant on a certain viewership.

GreenGoo wrote:Don't any of these oligarchs understand just how big an economy the US is or what will happen globally if it collapses?

They do, and they will abandon Trumpism if/when it no longer suits them. Steve Bannon of all people warned against it recently.

YellowKing wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 5:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Don't any of these oligarchs understand just how big an economy the US is or what will happen globally if it collapses?

They do, and they will abandon Trumpism if/when it no longer suits them. Steve Bannon of all people warned against it recently.

It's like the people who took over Boeing and turned it into a money machine in the short term, screwing over long term investment and return. None of the oligarchs are in it for the long term investment. If they were, they would see the benefits of many of these programs. After all, a happy middle class is a spendy middle class, and a spendy middle class fuels the economy.

But no, they're in it for the short term gains and once that bottoms out they'll leave and wait for the recovery.

Kraken wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 1:53 pm I do a little burn every time trump inflates the amount of money Biden "gave" Ukraine. I think he tossed out $350B yesterday. The correct amount is ~$175B, of which $75B was spent in the US. For that $100B investment we got to cause 700,000 Russian casualties and rally the demoralized NATO, all without risking a single American life. Quite the bargain, if you want to be the leader of the free world.

Not to mention the intelligence gains we've reaped from the fighting. As a test bed for Western vs Russian equipment, this war has been invaluable.

And you know that most of the newest captured Russian kit was shipped to the West for analysis. The export versions of Russian vehicles and equipment (such as we've faced in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere) are stripped of the most sensitive tech, but Ukraine has been facing the actual Russian stuff.

Add in the demonstration of just how effective the Russian military really is when the shit hits the fan.

Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

To be fair, if you're the EU is it really a good thing to have a Russian ally embedded throughout your territories if you're expecting to be confronting Russian aggression in the near future?

Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:43 am

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

To be fair, if you're the EU is it really a good thing to have a Russian ally embedded throughout your territories if you're expecting to be confronting Russian aggression in the near future?

The US isn't going to engage in offensive operations against Norway. All they have to do however is stop sharing Intel or not participate in joint training or just withdraw troops all of which gives the advantage to Putin.

Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:43 am

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

To be fair, if you're the EU is it really a good thing to have a Russian ally embedded throughout your territories if you're expecting to be confronting Russian aggression in the near future?

that was my first thunk. It's a bit conspiratorial but it's there.

A much more realistic thunk is The GOP Administration is looking for an excuse to pull troops from Europe and would do so at the hint of trouble so we can use Manifest Destiny for North and Central America claims. Still conspiratorial. The problem is that's the bluster they are actual using.

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

Trump has given Europe a really good reason to fear US troops.

Trump has given European governments a good reason to fear the abandonment of Europe..Why do you think Ukraine wants US security guarantees? They don't fear US troops taking over their country but wants them as a deterrent. US bases in Europe serve as a deterrent not an occupying force. There's not enough American troops to take over Europe.

I don't mean to say they would become an invading enemy, I mean they will be seen as a false security.

Like, should Russia invade Xyz - the US would simply withdraw from Xyz.

Anyhow... we'll see where he takes us with NATO soon enough.

Unagi wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:29 am I don't mean to say they would become an invading enemy, I mean they will be seen as a false security.

Like, should Russia invade Xyz - the US would simply withdraw from Xyz.

Anyhow... we'll see where he takes us with NATO soon enough.

Yeah I figure the worst case scenario would be that Putin sends a message to his vassal and Trump embarks on a Making America Strong campaign by recalling troops to guard the border against the cartels and Canada. Then Putin opens a corridor to the Kaliningrad Oblast.

Insightful analysis of the strategic significance of the Kaliningrad Oblast: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... aliningrad

raydude wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 6:14 pm But no, they're in it for the short term gains and once that bottoms out they'll leave and wait for the recovery.

What recovery? This isn't going to be a recession the government can buy its way out of. There will be no government (just a shadow of its former self anyway). We're starting to look recovery time measured in generations, if ever, because recovery is not guaranteed.

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:58 am

raydude wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 6:14 pm But no, they're in it for the short term gains and once that bottoms out they'll leave and wait for the recovery.

What recovery? This isn't going to be a recession the government can buy its way out of. There will be no government (just a shadow of its former self anyway). We're starting to look recovery time measured in generations, if ever, because recovery is not guaranteed.

The ingenuity and manpower is there to recover from anything but ravages of total war. The question is who benefits and who suffers. At this point, the people on top don't really have the ability to generate more or fear losing life changing wealth no matter what happens. The only thing they'd fear is being deposed of their wealth or unmatched freedom. So instead of thinking in terms of wealth they think in terms their market share of entire economies. I don't doubt for a second that collapsing everything their way is a way to increase their market share in everything. It's what robber barons do.

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:08 am

Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:43 am

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

To be fair, if you're the EU is it really a good thing to have a Russian ally embedded throughout your territories if you're expecting to be confronting Russian aggression in the near future?

The US isn't going to engage in offensive operations against Norway. All they have to do however is stop sharing Intel or not participate in joint training or just withdraw troops all of which gives the advantage to Putin.

I think the point is what good is having U.S. military bases in your country if they are going to be sympathetic to your enemy.

Some more details that give insight into the fiasco in Kremlin West.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -zelenskyy

The officials believed that had all been communicated to Ukraine, as was the advice that senators gave Zelenskyy on Friday morning to praise Trump and not litigate the issue of wanting stronger security guarantees to his face.

Best negotiator in the world as long as the person he's negotiating with has been coached and bullied in advance.

GreenGoo wrote:This isn't going to be a recession the government can buy its way out of.

Why not?

Alefroth wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 1:24 pm

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:08 am

Max Peck wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 10:43 am

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

To be fair, if you're the EU is it really a good thing to have a Russian ally embedded throughout your territories if you're expecting to be confronting Russian aggression in the near future?

The US isn't going to engage in offensive operations against Norway. All they have to do however is stop sharing Intel or not participate in joint training or just withdraw troops all of which gives the advantage to Putin.

I think the point is what good is having U.S. military bases in your country if they are going to be sympathetic to your enemy.

As far as I know nothing has changed in our response if Russia attacks NATO. I think the Europeans are desperate to keep US bases because they need time to build up their military. And we bring intelligence resources, airlift capabilities, etc. So there is definitely a point to having US bases.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 1:36 pm

GreenGoo wrote:This isn't going to be a recession the government can buy its way out of.

Why not?

What recession are we talking about exactly?

Despite Trump 2.0’s best efforts to destabilize things, American consumers continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow. I mean, the whole “don’t buy shit day” last week went by without even a notice. It takes a lot for American’s to stop buying shit, and fears about what Trump 2.0 will do to this country — keeping in mind that nearly half the country supports Trump 2.0 — aren’t going to do it.

Will the trade wars that Trump wants to jump into BIGLY result in the next Great Depression? IDK. But we’ve seen an openness to wage these types of trade wars previously, even during the Biden administration, and the global economy didn’t crash into a ditch. It feels like a more likely scenario is that Trump will brandish the threat of tariffs and even implement some, and global leaders will provide some trade policy fig leaf that Trump 2.0 can hold up to claim they achieved their stupid AMERICA FIRST goals. I guess the point is, I don’t think Trump is that hard to fool - he’s really not a great dealmaker - and no one wants the global economy to grind to a halt. I think there are probably numerous ways out of that situation.

So, if the global economy isn’t going to go off the rails, and the U.S. economy is generally strong with consumers spending as American consumers do, where’s this recession? I’m not sure it’s a foregone conclusion.

$iljanus wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 4:31 am

Alefroth wrote: Sat Mar 01, 2025 9:42 pm Hope to see more like this-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegi ... r-ukraine/

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

Oh no. I don't want to see this because that's more of a reason for Trump to pull troops out of Europe.

I’m not sure Trump pulling troops out of Europe wouldn’t be in Europe’s best interests at this point. I don’t really see that those troops are providing much of a security guarantee given that Trump is such a Putin stooge. I know Europe has it’s own set of problems, and taking over independent responsibility for European security would be an additional burden many of those countries are not in a great position to absorb right now, I’m not sure they have much of a choice, and I’m not sure it wouldn’t be in their long term interests to do so.

Also, the Ukraine war has really exposed Russia as a paper tiger. They’ve been absolutely flummoxed by Ukraine when everyone expected they’d roll into Kiev in 48 hours. How do we really think Russia would do trying to invade Poland at this point, let alone any of the big EU powers like Germany or France?

If I were European, I’d be very much in favor of investing in my own security given where things are right now.

Those are might big IFs you’re using to jump to conclusions.

Business isn’t back to assess Friday’s spending, and it will take a few weeks to assess at best.

And it’s faulty to assume Trump 1.0’s threats will be the same as Trump 2.0’s tariffs plus government destruction. The unemployment alone will be a crisis.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 1:36 pm

GreenGoo wrote:This isn't going to be a recession the government can buy its way out of.

Why not?

GreenGoo wrote: Sun Mar 02, 2025 11:58 am There will be no government (just a shadow of its former self anyway).

RE: recession

There is enough of a delay between the implementation of a measure and the effects that I'm not sure we can look at what's happening now as representative of the outcome. If there are suddenly some combination hiccups in Social Security payments, fallout from the tariffs, impacts from those parts of the government that were crippled, multiple unchecked diseases with no response infrastructure, and suddenly everything in the store is priced like eggs...

I think we're like the late game in a round of Jenga. The tower hasn't fallen, but it's been destabilized, and if we continue to play, it falling becomes more and more unavoidable.