64 pointsby doener8 hours ago6 comments
  • lateforwork7 hours ago
    The daily dose of distressing news from this administration is taking a toll on my health and I am sure many other Americans.

    Why aren’t our leaders speaking out more forcefully against these outrages? McConnell did give a speech pushing back, but it barely registered and wasn’t reported nearly enough. Yes, we made a grave mistake in electing the wrong person as president—but that doesn’t mean the country is obligated to sit silently for the next three years while he lurches from one dangerous blunder to the next.

    If impeachment and conviction aren’t on the table, then the least our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do is stand together and speak with one clear, unmistakable voice in opposition. Failing to do so isn’t just political cowardice; it carries real consequences. Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.

    • palmotea2 hours ago
      > Yes, we made a grave mistake in electing the wrong person as president—but that doesn’t mean the country is obligated to sit silently for the next three years while he lurches from one dangerous blunder to the next.

      Correction: the only viable opponent party ran the wrong person and chose the wrong strategy to oppose him. Their candidate(s) weren't the "right person" to be president. And despite a year of Trump, that opponent party is still unpopular.

      It's a testament to how broken the system is. They'll all acting stupidly, and no one is the good guys.

      > If impeachment and conviction aren’t on the table, then the least our leaders—Republicans and Democrats alike—must do is stand together and speak with one clear, unmistakable voice in opposition.

      Wake up, you're dreaming.

      What needs to happen is the Democrats need to listen to their own rhetoric and actually take the threat seriously, instead of seeing an opportunity to win a narrow partisan victory for their extremists. They need to reconfigure into a truly majoritarian party, which will make the progressives unhappy, so it won't happen.

      > Our credibility with Europe, already strained, will continue to erode if the world sees that American leadership is unwilling or unable to check reckless behavior.

      Honestly, few care about our "credibility with Europe." And they've got too many of their own problems to be considered in such a superior position.

      • bestouff2 hours ago
        > Democrats need to listen to their own rhetoric and actually take the threat seriously, instead of seeing an opportunity to win a narrow partisan victory for their extremists.

        I'm wondering what you call "their extremists". Seen from Europe all Republican candidates are extremists, and Democrats are centrists at best.

        • palmotea26 minutes ago
          > I'm wondering what you call "their extremists".

          The deep blue ones who demand everyone check all their boxes.

          > Seen from Europe all Republican candidates are extremists, and Democrats are centrists at best.

          That seems like a warmed-over 90s perspective that's long past its sell-by. Aren't there "far right" parties in power or nearly in power in much of Europe, and at least one European country that's totally dominated by one?

          • watwut5 minutes ago
            Europe is not having terror groups beating and shooting liberal cities.
      • watwut6 minutes ago
        Bullshit. There were no democrat extremists. Insteat, democrats run as centrist and anodyne position as possible. And you still lie about it as it they run some kind of extreme position.

        Trump won, because people like you will call his opposition extreme no matter what it does. And people like you will just try to push Trumps opposition into adopting his ideology, step by step.

    • masfuerte7 hours ago
      It's not three more years. The midterms are this year. If the public don't like the status quo the Democrats will gain majorities and things should change.

      It really is up to the voters to start fixing this. If they want to.

      • dragonwriter3 hours ago
        > The midterms are this year. If the public don't like the status quo the Democrats will gain majorities and things should change.

        Only the House is fully elected every two years, only 1/3 of the Senate is, and the swing states in Class II (the set up in 2026) are already held by Dems.

        Further, switching control of one or both Houses of Congress doesn't give the power to pass laws without also controlling the White House; it does give the power to block laws, but that may not do much to constrain an executive that is already flagrantly violating the law even with a partisan trifecta. And, while impeachment requires a simple a majority in the House, conviction and removal on impeachment charges takes 2/3 of the Senate, so even winning a majority wouldn't put that in reach.

      • Tadpole91816 hours ago
        To impeach and convict, Democrats would need 2/3 of the senate. If they won every single seat, they would still not have enough.
        • deeg3 hours ago
          If the Dems won every seat (I can dream, can't I?) that would be such a massive rejection of trump that a few GOP might vote to convict.
      • lateforwork7 hours ago
        Even if Democrats were to take the House there still wouldn't be anything Democrats can do to stop Trump from attacking Denmark, would there?
        • masfuerte7 hours ago
          The problem is that Trump is ignoring the law and nobody is doing anything about it. If the Democrats take the House they can impeach him.
          • lateforwork7 hours ago
            Impeachment does not do anything. He has been twice impeached in his first term.
            • masfuerte7 hours ago
              Yes, the Democrats need to take the Senate too. And they will if the voters want it.
              • lateforwork7 hours ago
                Two-thirds of the senate required to convict, which is unlikely.
                • selectodude6 hours ago
                  Impossible. There aren't enough open seats to get to 67 in the Senate.
          • dragonwriter3 hours ago
            They have already done that as many times to Trump as have been done to all other Presidents in US history combined; without conviction and removal, which requires a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate, impeachment has proven to be an ineffective constraint on Trump.
          • krapp7 hours ago
            > If the Democrats take the House they can impeach him.

            Are we thinking third time's the charm?

            Maybe we should stop pretending that impeachment matters. It clearly doesn't.

          • palmotea2 hours ago
            > If the Democrats take the House they can impeach him.

            So? They've literally done that twice before, and what did it accomplish? They fired that bullet and missed, trying to jam it back in the gun to take another shot isn't going to work.

    • selectodude7 hours ago
      The republicans want this. McConnell did everything in his power to make damn sure Donald Trump never saw justice.

      This is the leadership. Congress abdicated their jobs and de facto doesn’t exist, the Supreme Court now solely exists to make sure that Trump is not constrained by law, and the executive branch is doing exactly what they said they were going to do during election season.

      We’re not getting out of this unscathed. It’s too late. November 6, 2024 we were too late.

      • watwut3 minutes ago
        > Congress abdicated their jobs and de facto doesn’t exist,

        It does exist and did not abdicated. Republicans in congress actively support Trump and war

      • jameskilton7 hours ago
        This is the only statement that matters. We knew exactly who Trump is and exactly what he would do if voted in again. The "opposition" did nothing during Trump's first term, and now they are completely powerless do do anything.

        America voted for this, we failed miserably to prevent this from happening for the past 30 years, and we will pay the price for this for generations.

    • jdlyga7 hours ago
      It's because Trump has proven he can do whatever he wants without consequences. Democrats have largely given up resisting him and are waiting him out.
    • NedF7 hours ago
      [dead]
  • leshokunin7 hours ago
    It is interesting to me that right leaning outlets do not seem to think so.

    They simply think we are entertaining an expansion and a sort of foreign policy shift.

    European outlets are absolutely terrified and pondering whether this is what will force the end of NATO.

    This pov isn’t represented in the right.

    • impossiblefork7 hours ago
      I feel that those who fear the end of NATO aren't thinking far enough.

      What's possible isn't an end of NATO, it's an EU-US war, with citizens of one in the other being interned, ships being prevented from leaving ports, complete embargoes à la WWII etc.

      If Denmark is invaded, we're at war, and I don't see how it can take any other form than this in the initial phases.

      • applemelonjuice2 hours ago
        Now this would be an interesting war. Regarding germany, almost all admnistrations from the smallest tows up to the government are busy uploading their data to US-clouds. They've just introduced the new e-health system where roughly 75% of all data (including encprytion keys) are stored on IBM systems (hello CloudAct) and so on, so the US can already access probably most of the country's data in a perfectly legally fashion. There wouldn't ever be a war because the US can simply shut down all the US OSses (long-term in a "nice" fashion by stopping export for software / security patches, or short-term by introducing nasty code in the updates). In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if they could shut down a typical country in a matter of hours if they'd really mean it.
      • leshokunin3 hours ago
        That is what I’m seeing as the common EU perspective. That notion is not shared by people in the US that much. As you can see in the other replies.
      • kelipso7 hours ago
        Europe doesn’t have a military that’s worth talking about. So it’s politically impossible for the EU to go to war with the US. They’ll do lots of protesting but that’ll be about it.

        The US isn’t just going to straight up invade anyway. There’s lots of political this and that but it does want to keep the current world order to some degree.

        • leshokunin3 hours ago
          What are your qualifications?

          My understanding is that most of the larger armies in the world, and nuclear weapons are there.

          And significant portion of our trade and US bonds.

        • impossiblefork7 hours ago
          It's perfectly possible for the EU to have a war with the US. Wars take time. The EU has better heavy industry, better ability to replace destroyed ships etc.

          If we're going to have a war it will probably last at least half a decade, probably a little bit more. What you say of the EU could also be said of the US at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

          If we weren't open to the possibility, we wouldn't be sending tripwire forces to Greenland, as we currently are.

          • kelipso7 hours ago
            I can imagine it happening after many years, maybe after half a decade they’ll have built up a sizable military and political will to start considering military action.
            • impossiblefork6 hours ago
              Yes. The beginning phases of the war-- i.e. the first five years or so, would probably be limited to sea drones sinking EU and US shipping, with neither coming near the other's coast. There could be interesting actions around the Azores and Canary Islands, with the EU perhaps needing to do unconventional stuff to defend these.
          • nix-zarathustra6 hours ago
            I don't think Europe is willing to go all out war over Greenland, especially with Russia pushing from the East.
        • timeon7 hours ago
          NATO is practically dead since beginning of 2025 - there are already countries in Europe willing to form alliance with China.
          • kelipso7 hours ago
            That’s just talk for whatever imagined political leverage that probably won’t work with Trump.
    • dottjt7 hours ago
      When you say "right" are you talking about USA right or European right?
    • budududuroiu7 hours ago
      In Romania, far right figures have gone as far as calling for 2026 to be named "The Year of America" in Romania.

      It's hilarious because the same types are yelling about Making Romania Great Again, "truly sovereign" (whatever that means) and not subordinate to other states.

      • actionfromafar7 hours ago
        It means subservient to a single state: Russia.
    • anal_reactor2 hours ago
      > European outlets are absolutely terrified and pondering whether this is what will force the end of NATO.

      Many people have secrets. I have employed a tactic where I am very public about my private life - in this way if someone leaks an embarrassing secret about me, most people in my social circle either already know it or don't care. If you're worried about your private life going public, do a preemptive strike and make it public yourself.

      Most politicians are worried about their reputation. Trump isn't. He created a situation where his reputation is already garbage yet he remains the most influential person on Earth. Do you hate him? Draw a number and take a seat in the waiting line. This allows him to employ much riskier negotiation tactics than ever heard before, because he doesn't care about negative publicity.

      Many Europeans are terrified that Trump might actually do something horrible, that he's a madman with a gun. And that's the point. This is literally the only way to force EU countries to up their military spendings, because until recently we were aware that no matter what happens, big daddy comes and rescues everyone, while Europeans can sit and complain about legality of actions that are morally dubious but strategically necessary.

      As a European, I hate Trump as a person, but god damn I love him as a politician, because the end result is that other people finally believe "guys, it's for real, it's happening, we need to militarize". When Russia took Crimea in 2014 that should've been a warning sign for Europe that time of peace is over and we need to get our shit together. We didn't. Thank god that Ukraine managed to hold, because on the day of 2022 invasion the cards were stacked against it, and had Russia done a three-day operation as planned, which seemed likely, then the next move would've been to catch a NATO country with pants down, which was likely, and that would've spiraled into WW3.

      Completely disjoint from what you think of Trump as a person and his domestic politics - we have to admit that EU armies are a joke and if we want peace in Europe we need to take the situation seriously and Trump being an asshole is a blessing in disguise because otherwise we'd let the situation stagnate further. EU does need some tough love and a reality check.

    • lostmsu7 hours ago
      Any links?
  • jleyank6 hours ago
    People better pay attention to this issue if they want to work in the tech field. How the US interacts with its associates governs how products can be marketed, how staffing can be done, how money can be raised, … pretty much everything of interest to the HN community must be seen through this economic and immigration lens. Autarky might be a neat concept to some, but it’ll suck being a startup in that environment. They need customers and staff so restrictions on their scope suck.
  • postflopclarity7 hours ago
    yeah that's what tends to happen when you make several credible threats to invade & seize someone's sovereign territory
    • teaearlgraycold7 hours ago
      Hoping that American voters and politicians learn from this.
      • budududuroiu7 hours ago
        They won't, I genuinely believe the vast majority of Americans will call for war, invasion, etc if the price of their "treats" (TVs, cars, gas, ...) gets too out of reach.

        Consumer prices are the only category that hasn't gone up in price in the last couple of decades. It's basically the only little "treat" you can look forward to while toiling away for peanuts

      • le-mark7 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • i80and7 hours ago
          I just cannot stomach the number of people who apparently value nothing except displays of performative cruelty and childish tantrums.

          There's been a significant shift of an "ow-I-touched-the-stove" variety towards sanity among independents, but it's a Problem that some significant double-digit percentage of the nation just plain likes this violent self-destructive flailing, and will reward anything as long as it makes them feel like somebody is getting hurt.

        • catlover766 hours ago
          [dead]
  • nephihaha5 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • selectodude7 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • toomuchtodo5 hours ago
      Turns out investment of any sort in fellow countrymen is somewhat worthless in the US unfortunately. Find your people, and it ain't them (both those who voted for this, and those too bothered to spend the time to vote). The people who voted but didn't vote for this? Those are the folks you put your time and effort into.
    • i80and7 hours ago
      I'm sympathetic to the position that a lot of people just didn't pay attention before voting in the '24 election and voted purely off of some incomprehensibly puerile vibes, but the complete apathy I'm still seeing is equal parts profoundly tragic and utterly crazy-making.

      Even if the US backs down, the transatlantic coziness that's felt like a permanent fixture all my life is just gone. And if we don't back down, God help everybody.

      • tosapple6 hours ago
        Maybe part of the problem is faith in the courts to sort this all out. Notoriously, they take forever.

        I'm going to buy a NAAGGA hat.

    • Neywiny7 hours ago
      Incandescent or incessant?