In tight quarters like Europe, most countries would not allow this for a country they’re not actively at war with, no. If someone flies something into your airspace and isn’t actively attacking you, the presumption of an accident is normal, and shooting down aircraft would be considered pretty extraordinary. Hell, even the US didn’t actually shoot down the spy/weather balloons that China flew over them until they’d basically crossed the entire continental US. This law is only happening because they know Russia is doing this intentionally, the drones are armed, and they’re unmanned. If any of those factors were different, they probably wouldn’t be doing this.

“Does it come in a Men’s Paltrily?”

…but there is now a clarity across Europe, and not just in Paris, that regardless of Vance’s reassurance, Europe has to have the capability to operate autonomously of the US. Trump is self-evidently not reliable, and his benign assessment of Putin’s intentions is not shared.

Planning for a European reassurance force in Ukraine is under way, as is planning for a potential Russian attack on Europe. Since February, France and the UK, through a combined joint expeditionary force, have formed the nucleus of that planning, but this has broadened, with new political leadership increasingly coming from four members of the Weimar+ group: Poland, France, Germany and the UK.

Honestly, I think Europe’s disillusionment with us will be better for them in the long run. The fact that they were waiting on Biden to take the lead in Ukraine, whose fecklessness over lending credence to Russia’s prima facie bogus claim of the war being US vs Russia made him hold back many strategic options from Ukraine, meant that they were also not thinking about what Russia’s aggression meant for them, and reacting accordingly.

I think the original purpose of Article 5 (in terms of US intervening vs Russia) has probably been dead for a couple decades now, and it’s good that Europe won’t be finding that out when Russian troops are rolling in, and the US backs off.

“It’s been 3 months since we cut off all food and medicine to the civilians in your territory. Next we’re going to fully occupy your territory, and kill you and anyone we assert is part of you. Hey wait, what do you mean you won’t negotiate with us?”

If only. I bet it’s because it’s got a decent crop of rare earth metals.

He might even be thinking it’s a good place to set up his future gulags; isolated and icy and remote. His own little Siberia.

Step 1: Remove flouride, attack vaccines

Step 2: Announce a disability registry, so no one wants to get diagnosed, resulting in a plummet in diagnoses

Step 3: …?

Step 4: “See, flouride and vaccines caused autism and disabilities!”

I am surprised, and happy.

Who are they as a group, or who are they as in, list their names?

Even in Trump’s first term, I heard liberals (often older, homeowners/ wealthier) saying things like, “He’s not good, but the border is a problem. It’s impossible for people to find a job nowadays.”, or claiming that Biden and Harris (the Border Czar, dontchaknow) were letting people ‘flood in’.

This past election cycle, anti-immigrant rhetoric popped up across liberal media takes on what Democrats needed to do differently to appeal to more voters, insisting that Dems actually want to lock down the border.

I’ve already heard one Dem-voting person say that Trump’s “already fixed the border”. They won’t vote for him, but they also won’t brook discussion of any real resistance to him, either. And they are actively hostile to reforms Leftwards, because honestly I think many of them secretly want him to succeed in creating a white ethnostate that benefits them, without them having to endorse it themselves.

How do we identify them?

Talking to people. Discussing current events. Discuss Trump. I’ve seen it most among upper-middle class Boomers, but I am sure there are plenty more across other demos.

If and when we finally escape from Trump and his ilk, we need to have a real discussion and plan for reparations for everyone he’s deporting and detaining (assuming that hopefully they are still alive), and constitutional reforms to limit executive power.

There are too many white liberals quietly supporting Trump’s actions, even if they’d never say it, and we can’t allow the Right to become the “useful authoritarians” for Center-White America to unleash on minorities every couple decades.

Let people who can’t afford housing run the country

They will never let that happen. There are more than enough rich kid millennials to fill congress a hundred times over.

We have to do this through shows of popular support, because apart from the few genuinely good people that manage to overcome the system to get elected, congresspersons are never going to as a whole be reflective of the average American.

Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.

Sure:

this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test (or even, as in this case, maybe doesn’t pass some weird purity test, just based on no knowledge at all) does a lot of damage

So you literally referred to me saying I’d reserve judgement as “hyper-criticism” (when I in fact had at no point offered any criticism of him). If that’s not unwavering and unquestioning, I don’t know what is.

Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively

Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. Unless you just think that being cautious of someone based on their associations is “shitting on” them, in which case that’s a ‘you’ problem.

… which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party.

Yes, the full membership of the Democratic Party that has been doing almost nothing whatsoever to counter Trump, the same full membership of the Democratic Party that kowtowed to Biden deciding he was the best candidate instead of having a primary, and lost us 2024. That same full membership is exactly why I’m cautious. As you said,

I won’t say you’re in any way wrong to be suspicious of anything DNC-related.

Which is obviously not true, seeing as when I was, you then accused me of being “hyper-critic[al]”.

At this point, it feels like arguing for the sake of arguing, because my second comment, after you came right out of the gate accusing me of being a right-wing stooge, clearly stated:

If he’s not that, I support him fully!

clarifying that “reserving judgement” meant I was/am perfectly open to him actually being good, and supporting him!

But that was apparently not good enough for you.

So no one is allowed to “pop up” and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they’re “splintering.” Got it.

You’re the one who claimed that a splintering was occurring. I pointed out that there is a unified effort already happening.

Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you’re posting under?

He is making claims about his future actions. Nothing less, and nothing more.

Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him, to the point you’re framing me saying “let’s see if his actions match his words” as an unacceptable attack or evidence of malfeasance, all while repeatedly mischaracterizing what I’ve said? Because at this point you’re starting to look like you’re pushing an agenda.

this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test… does a lot of damage. It’s a good way to splinter and diffuse progress and put up obstacles to people who are trying to accomplish something.

Right now, Sanders and AOC are making a lot of progress, and they’re the ones I trust to be pushing for the changes to the party that we need. If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing. If Sanders or AOC endorse Hogg, I would trust their opinion.

Put it this way: If one mid-level priest said he wanted to do something about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, that would be good.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to downplay Hogg’s position in the DNC; he’s literally the second-highest ranked person. And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.

I could actually see Boasberg charging Rubio or others with contempt, but I don’t think it gets any further than that. Either Trump will just immediately pardon them, or SCOTUS will order an injunction, and rule that official duties are protected from findings of contempt, etc.

If SCOTUS sees that the administration is just ignoring a finding of contempt, they may also put an injunction just to cover up the disregard publicly, so they don’t have to address the situation.

And kicking the legs out of anyone who might expose their game, as well.

this guy’s left, and you’re anti- him

What part of “reserve judgement” do you not understand?

If he’s not a child molester, then I support him fully too! Isn’t that a weird way to frame things?

It wouldn’t be if he was the Vice Chair of an org that had historically been run by child molesters, as the DNC has and is run by Centrist Neolibs.

If he is not a neolib, he would be the exception to a very longstanding precedent of DNC leadership, so I think it’s a very fair question to pose, especially right when Sanders and AOC are making news as they are.

The DNC leadership is not going to go down without swinging, and I fully expect them to try to co-opt Progressivism as a label and redefine it rightwards. Like I said, if he’s not that, and throws his weight behind established Progressives or better, awesome!

But I will heavily scrutinize anyone that any DNC leader is backing; we don’t need any more Fettermans or Sinemas, even if it’s just a post-election “conversion” to the Center.

Centrist Dems are half the reason we have Trump. Don’t try to frame this as some anti-Left thing, this is about milquetoast, feckless neolibs who have and still do spend enormous effort preventing the party from actually aligning with its voting base.

If he’s not that, I support him fully! But until I see that, I’m not going to celebrate just because he’s young.

But go off with your ad hominems! They sure worked this past election to cajole support. /s

Hopefully the EU will actually do something with this information (obviously the US won’t), and it doesn’t become another Panama Papers situation.

I will reserve judgement until I see precisely who he intends to replace them with.

His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he’s just the Centrist Dems’ vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.

Edit: To clarify for anyone else who is confused, I really hope he does what he says he will! We need lots more young progressives.

Zero chance. They are too terrified of being targeted to actually use their clout. Having worked in higher ed, I don’t think there is much institutional will to fight back from administrators. Professors, somewhat, but not admin.