Supposedly Hiram Maxim was prompted to invent the machine gun when an acquaintance told him:
"Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility."
- A large portion of the population is incarcerated
- The population is weaponized
- Many people are dying because they don't have proper access to health care
- The economy leave a lot of people on the side of the road producing highly anxious people
- School shoot / police violence
- ...
The problem of the US is indeed with high incarceration rates, long sentences, bad prisons where more hardened criminals educate the newcomers to be more efficient criminals; this whole system is screwed, and needs to be replaced.
Lack of access to health care, while increasing mortality and decreasing morale, is not violence; rather, it's a lack of mercy, and lack of resources. That same lack of resources limits access to (quality) health care in EU, but in different ways: long wait times, limited prescription of expensive but efficacious drugs, etc.
is this a typo? I'm autistic and can't see how autism has anything to do with weapons or being weaponized. in fact, I usually see the opposite (sheer numbers being weaponized against autism), but I'm probably the most biased possible source for that.
A good example is Paramount's decision to delay the first Sonic movie in response to internet backlash about Sonic's design. (Google old sonic movie design vs new).
Many people who participate in these things clearly do not have autism, but are spending a lot of time and attention on something broadly considered frivolous by society.
I'm saying this as a father of a girl diagnosed with autism; she's lovely, brilliant in some aspects, and... difficult in some other aspects. Life is harder for her.
if that hadn't happened you'd likely be facing the same situation, i.e. having 30 neighbours instead of 2
it's quite significantly larger
now, imagine if today that 80% wasn't part of the US, and was instead controlled by the indigenous population (likely tens of sovereign states)
would there have been large scale wars in the 19th and 20th century? it's quite obvious the answer would have been "yes"
See: the Trail of Tears, the actual, literal death march of natives out of their ancestrial lands because "manifest destiny"
The US is a terrible ally, for all the reasons you cite, but unless they somehow become a democracy, China would be worse in every way.
I am no longer considering the US as a democracy. From a west perspective, China doesn't want to annex Canada or Greenland.
Lack of direct threats to sovereignty, reliability (in the sense of honoring commitments) and basic diplomacy are characteristics that trump ideological compatibility in domestic functioning. The EU is not gonna buy the chinese equivalent of the F-35, no one thinks they are "friendly" but a turn to China is inevitable. It doesn't help that your democratic institutions are closer in the spectrum to a Putin "election" than a Swiss one.
This is even more true for weak and small countries, Trump's Panama obsession has caused irreparable damage to an already frayed positive perception. Paraphrasing an interview with then Chilean president Ricardo Lagos when he explained to Bush his decision to not vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in the security council:
How did you approach that moment of saying no to the United States?
I mean, I think there are two important elements here. The first is to understand that Chile is a small country. The international role we play is not very big. But precisely because we are small we demand rules in the international arena. Because if there are no rules, the big ones will mistreat us. Consequently, I explained this to President Bush on several occasions: We need rules because we are a small country. Bush found it difficult to understand the point about rules.
By what metric?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freedom-of-expression-ind...
Because they have elections?
I always thought that when Americans say they’re a democracy they mean that in sort of propagandist way. Like, installing democracy as justification for military aggression.
But it seems that now some people really believe it? The bi-partisan system sponsored by corporations, where candidates are vetted through the systems - it reminds me of the Chinese communism with two parties instead.
Just compare it to Swiss democracy.
When was the last time an candidate from an independent political party became a president in the USA?
Despite the current administration being in power explicitly because it genuinely won a recent election in which the incumbents would have preferred to win instead. Trump's frequent shittiness and feces throwing aside, he got his second term through the long-established and very stable American democratic process.
That you would then go from this to claim China as somehow better, a country in which authoritarian one-party rule is absolute and in which nobody can throw an incumbent out of office, is just.... really absurd.
IMO the simplest and most realistic way to reconcile "democracies don't invade each other" and "the US might do invasions now" is that the US is not a democracy within this model.
It certainly still is in a technical sense that is sometimes useful. But by other metrics, like "can the president start an unpopular war with a steadfast former ally" uhhhhh. If the military refuses an elected president's order to invade is it still a democracy?
Yes, because the military can't follow an illegal order, which is what a declaration of war without the approval of Congress would be. The military also can't spend money Congress hasn't authorized, even if the president tells them to.
Congress hasn't actually declared a war since World War 2. The President sends troops wherever he likes, whenever he likes, for whatever purpose he likes and Congress rubber-stamps their approval after the fact, and they call it something other than a war.
You're correct that the military can't follow illegal orders, but what you're describing as an example of an illegal order is just the way the US military industrial complex works.
I don't think this argument is landing that strongly.
When the people want a king, what's written in the rule book doesn't matter anymore.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-3134,0...
When was it ever?
Tibet doesn’t count either, it’s been a part of China for centuries and it was the serfs and slaves that sought reunification to escape the monks’ brutal rule.
More likely in my book is the existing wars in the EU spreading, and civil war breaking out in the US. The EU wars are already expanding, loosing stability, and generally getting more politically divisive even if US policy had a strong impact on them. Those tensions aren't new, and at least from this side of the pond it seems like the US was keeping those expansionist actors in check more than encouraging them. Things are not going well in the US politically, and I'll leave it at that.
From the economic side, if there is a US economic collapse, and its definitely not going up, the economies that are going to hurt the most are going to be those built on top of the US dollar as they have outsourced control over the fundamental tools you can use to stabilize your economy in rough times.
These labels are being misapplied in my opinion. What people saw after the first assassination attempt was the opposite of cowardice, and I think it helped Trump win. As for bullying - there’s certainly some. But you can also look at how Biden bullied private companies to implement the Democrat’s censorship machine and find that bullying appears in many forms. Is the EU any better? Given their love of censorship and slip towards authoritarianism, I don’t think so. What about Canada? We saw their authoritarian handling of protests, where they literally denied protesters access to financial assets, and I view that as extreme bullying.
> He might be willing to go for a small country like Panama (and that would still be an _insane_ move)
Would it be insane? The canal was built by the US. It is a key part of economic and national security. Panama is violating treaties around its handover (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/1/senators-sound-alarm-...). Why do you think China is so upset about the recent sale to Blackrock? It’s because they have been quietly gaining control over the canal.
> the economies that are going to hurt the most are going to be those built on top of the US dollar as they have outsourced control over the fundamental tools you can use to stabilize your economy in rough times
I would say the opposite is true - they benefit from the world’s most powerful and best managed currency. That stability makes them resilient as well. Countries trade in dollars and accept debt in dollars for basic but well thought out reasons. They aren’t making irrational choices.
Yes. Invading Panama, a peaceful democratic ally, would be insane. Let me clear that up for you.
They are a sovereign state. They get to build relations with whoever they want. That's how sovereignty works. The way you win those countries over is with the use of soft power, something that China understands but seems to be outside the grasp of the current admin, who is banging around like a band of drunken apes.
Also I’m not sure what you mean by “huge trade partner”. Panama isn’t even in the top 20 trade partners of the US.
You're somewhat mistaken with this assessment. The modern convention is that any treaty can be annulled simply by one of the parties declaring "what kind of idiot would have made this treaty".
It's worthwhile to stay informed on how modern global norms treat treaties.
The US values democracy and free speech more than any other country. The EU only somewhat shares these values, which we can see from the normalization of censorship in its regulations, frequent calls to ban political parties, and the cancellation of election results in Romania. Europe has a vast history of expansionism, which we saw in brutal colonization across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Greenland itself is a result of expansionism.
China is also a country that is pro censorship and doesn’t value democracy. It annexed Tibet and Xinjiang and will do the same to Taiwan. The CCP has caused tens of millions in deaths, not just in the annexed areas but even among its own people.
I can see Europeans practicing some of those same authoritarian tactics China does. So maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at this statement of viewing China as a better partner. But it still seems odd to see people here admitting that they prefer an authoritarian dictatorship as their friend. In my opinion it says more about Europe than America.
I hope we will finally make peace with reality and stop giving sh*t about things valued in this or that country.
It is completely irrelevant for the EU what US values or loves and what kinds of authoritarian practices are present in China. What matters is what they can give us and what do they want in return.
US makes it clear it won't give us anything, and will demand a lot. It is China, then.
Trump is destroying democracy and free speech (notably press freedom).
Regarding freedom, I don't buy the US vision. The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many. From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people. Otherwise, some people impose their will (their freedom) on others. In this sense, regulation is an instrument of freedom.
Can you name specifics? What freedom does the press not have that they had a few months ago? How is there any less democracy now than before? Nothing has changed about the rights of people to vote or publish - if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending propping up one side of the press, stopping illegal immigration, etc.
> The US culture values individual freedom at the expense of the many. From my point of view, freedom is not possible without equality between people.
It’s an interesting point that I need to think more about. Personally, I still think individual freedom is the only real freedom. The US law is well thought out in limiting individual “rights” in minor ways (like not being able to harm others) while preserving most of it. Those choices let everyone live freely and more equally than any other system.
Every week, Trump is threatening the free press that criticizes him. He suspended the Associated Press from acceding to the Oval Office just because they speak about "Gulf of Mexico". He said that that negative cover of his actions should be illegal.
> How is there any less democracy now than before?
A free press is an important pillar of democracy. By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy. Democracy is not just voting, you have to be informed otherwise you are blind. You must also be educated to make decisions in your own best interest. A true democracy requires that anyone has access to education.
Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way). Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees. This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy. Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected. Some of Trump's allies even claim that the USA will need him in 2029: they are ambiguously threatening the very existence of an election.
Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
I could go on.
> if anything these things are getting better by removing wasteful spending
Even if it was true, you need time to change something. Otherwise you break lives and companies.
> By repeatedly threatening or even attacking it, you are attacking the very fabric of democracy.
You’re suggesting that the press is above criticism, and I disagree. I think the press does need to be held accountable when they are biased or spread misinformation or do bad work to chase clicks, for example. But this is different from their rights being infringed. Just like the press can say what they want, with only some exceptions, so can the administration. That seems balanced to me.
> Trump decides unilaterally by issuing decrees. This is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.
Why is it that executive orders are executive orders under one administration but “decrees” under another?
> Moreover, he decides so quickly that the DOJ cannot ensure that the Constitution and Human rights are respected.
This isn’t the DOJ’s job. If someone thinks their legal rights are violated by an executive order, they can file a lawsuit and fight it in the courts. There is also no such thing as “ensuring human rights” in American law - there’s just enforcement of the laws passed by Congress and upholding the constitution (which may include ensuring human rights but it might mean something different from what you intend).
This is a tangent, but I want to point out that the previous administration was the one who repeatedly violated the constitution - for example when Biden and his appointees would yell at tech companies to pressure them into censoring the public (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mark-zuckerbe...). That’s literally a violation of the most important right in the US constitution.
> Democracy also needs time to make decisions, and to make decisions collectively (at least in a parliamentary way).
Democracy did make a decision - to elect Trump. I don’t think democracy requires every single daily decision of the administration to be reviewed - that’s just impractical, and no country does that. The executive branch has the right to do its job.
> Trump is attacking free speech by banning the use of some terms in emails, attacking schools (e.g. Columbia) and threatening companies with DEI programs.
You’re mixing a few different things here. A president banning things like DEI in their own agencies is legal. A president removing funding for schools who break the law or enable criminals, as was the case in Columbia, is legal. There’s no unlimited right for any school to get free taxpayer money. And as for companies with DEI programs - given that many of those companies break the law by discriminating based on race and gender as part of their DEI programs, they deserve punishment under the law. You framed this as “threatening” them, but I view it as simply holding them accountable.
The AP is the nation's premier news source, it's relied upon by nearly every other news source for coverage. Banning the AP from the White House for not hewing to the WH's ideological garbage is an attack on the free press, even if it is not (and I think it likely is) a violation of the First Amendment.
Then we have the attacks on Perkins Coie and other law firms for their legal work, revoking their credentials - another violation of the First Amendment, which protects not just speech but action.
The Secretary of State revoking a green card for protected speech? Again an assault on the First Amendment.
Meanwhile over at the FCC, Brendan Carr is launching investigations into social media organizations over their moderation processes (https://reason.com/2025/02/05/how-the-fccs-warrior-for-free-...), gone over 60 Minutes over a baseless claim about how an interview was edited, and threatening to revoke broadcast licenses for not being nice to Trump: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/trumps-fcc-chair....
Trump repeatedly sues media organizations, several of which have folded in a way to basically pay a bribe.
Revoking funding to Columbia, a private university, for not being draconian enough against people protesting a genocide in Gaza? Also a free speech violation.
And as for the Biden admin pressuring social media companies on Covid and election misinfo? The administration was simply requesting that the companies review content that was against the guidelines - stuff like Alex Berenson's disinfo on vaccines and illegal tweets about voting by SMS. The former kind of content likely killed 100,000s of people, the latter was illegal.
Spare us your Trumpy gaslighting on DEIA - having a goal of having a more diverse and inclusive workplace and educational institutional isn't illegal.
Maybe try doing your own research instead of sputtering out MAGA talking points.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/10/nx-s1-5323166/arrest-green-ca...
Generally citizenship can only be revoked from a naturalized US citizen if the government proves some sort of fraud on their application.
Also no one has their citizenship revoked. People who are immigrants but not yet citizens are getting booted for breaking the law in numerous ways, including supporting sanctioned terrorist groups. It goes well beyond legally protected speech, even for America.
Denaturalization means taking away someone's citizenship. Nobody's citizenship was taken away in this specific case.
I think most would agree that "taking away someone's permanent residency card" is not on the same level of outrageous as "taking away someone's citizenship." I agree that both are drastic measures, but one is way more outrageous.
Whether it was justified in this specific case or not, and to which degree, is an entirely separate story.
If you mixed it up with some other case and manage to locate it, please reply with a link, because I am genuinely curious too (not trying to be snarky, I mean it). So far, I was not able to find a single case of a US citizen getting denaturalized recently, except this one[0]. But this one kind of makes sense, since he lied on documents during the naturalization process about his involvement in extra-judicial killings in El Salvador back in the day (which would have almost definitely prevented him from becoming a US citizen, in the first place, if he was truthful):
> Arnoldo Antonio Vasquez, a native of El Salvador, is alleged to have concealed and misrepresented his involvement in the extra-judicial killing of 10 civilians in San Sebastian, El Salvador, in September 1988, when he was an officer in the Salvadoran military. Vasquez was previously identified by then-Vice President Dan Quayle in a list of Salvadoran soldiers responsible for these killings. Vasquez concealed his involvement in the San Sebastian killings throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings. Vasquez was naturalized as a U.S. citizen Jan. 13, 2005.
0. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/denaturalization-lawsuit-f...
Denaturalization means stripping a citizen of their citizenship, not revoking a visa or green card.