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.
> 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.
As a European without political ties, I already consider the US a failed democratic state. It has a bully running the country, and no one seems to have the guts, ability, or interests, to fix that. The US constitution gives the president _way_ too much power for a position that can, essentially, be bought.
I wonder how many JDs the donor class can throw at the US democracy once trump is removed. You might have stopped the most raging idiot but not the idiocy behind it.
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.
> 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.
Unfortunately, dem leadership seems prepared to repeat the failures of the Biden administration. Dems returning to power and then just continuing largely on the status quo is not an acceptable outcome of the 2026 and 2028 elections.
And with a willing supreme court insisting that numerous congressional restrictions on the president's power are actually unconstitutional, I'm not so certain that winning congress in 2026 will actually do much to limit Trump's criminal actions.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I think it's going to have to get very very much worse before it gets better. Too many people have no idea what's happening, and too many of the people who do know what's happening (including quite a few in Democratic leadership) seem to think it'll all just snap back into place in 2026 and 2028. I'm afraid they won't wake up to it until we see a 1930's style depression in which Americans are literally going hungry. Really does feel like we're doing the 20th century all over again.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
> 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?
Not even close. European politics is by design coalition politics there is no voting blue or red, you are voting for a party and if party has certain amount of votes it will get into parliament (except UK).
The thing is that you would need absurd amount of votes to get more than half of seats in parliament and govern as a single party. So what is normal in USA (one party rule) is exceptionally rare in Europe.
So even if you "win" elections, you need to establish coalitions with less extreme parties to actually achieve majority in government and to be able to modify laws. This will average out your program and will cut down extreme edges on both sides.
Dems elected majoritarian focused centrists in 2020. Harris did things like promise to have a republican in her cabinet and campaigned with Liz Cheney. Durbin intervened in judicial oversight to avoid making a big thing out of Clarence Thomas' bribes. Schumer refused to endorse Mamdani. The dems supported a bill to expand ICE.
And the big one: the Biden administration slow rolled prosecuting Trump for trying to install himself as president despite losing the election.
The majoritarians winning in 2026 and 2028 just repeats the failures of 2020. What we need is a serious response to fascism.
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.
Yep, that dipshit doesnt even grasp his own arguments implications.
When Kamala Harris left you no choice but to vote for Trump (bEcAu5e Sh3 1s eVEn wORs3!!1) then the problem is on the republicans side to bring up better candidates. When your political opponent makes mistakes, dont try to correct it, yet, all he talks about is what the dems should do.
> then the problem is on the republicans side to bring up better candidates.
Look: the Republicans are terrible, but Democrats have this bad habit of using that as an excuse to cover up their own shortcomings. They blame MAGA, blame Trump for not being better, instead of looking in the mirror and becoming a party that people like enough that it can win.
Any party that can't win handily against Trump, especially after all the scary warnings, is unfathomably incompetent and dysfunctional. IMHO a key part of that is that the party is beholden to ideologues on the far edge of the mainstream who keep it on a losing course.
For instance: we wouldn't be in this mess if "farm state Democrat" was a category that was still allowed to exist. I watched one of the last of those fall, and it appeared she was hemmed in by ideological out-of-state donors who prevented her from adapting to local conditions.
But what if these "local conditions" are the actual problem?
The left has generally two sides, the intelletual and emphatic side and the identity politics side about gender, etc. The right has only identity politics, decorated with fabricated bullshit to have a clear enemy/outgroup.
The left has actual constructive suggestions for improvement while the right fear mongers about in/out groups.
The democrats in total are certainly not perfect, esp. the old guard, that mostly fails to oppose trump proportionally to his megalomania. But there are (young) democrats that are _clearly_ better candidates and the internal frictions (sanders, mamdani) to unsuccessfully suppress them by the donor class clearly shows you which party is less corrupt.
Intellectual leftists have the problem that realitys complexity works against them while right wingers can just summon the next boogeyman. Republican voters are _literaly_ programmed on their enemy stereotypes! "Extreme left", "marxist/socialist/communist", down to, "critical race theory", "war on christmas", etc. All these cheap negative labels get thrown around to terminate critical thought and vote as the tribe does. That is the actual problem to fix and it is on the right!
Today, dipshits still run around arguing, that "this is what i voted for", while poverty, healthcare, etc. are still the most pressing issues. As long as democracies somewhat reflect the populus, democracies cannot fail by definition. When the dipshits dont get their heads cleared and educate themsels, eg. about actual migrant crime rates and their economic contribution, _they will fall for the next populist with the simpler 'answers'._
> But what if these "local conditions" are the actual problem?
They are not. I thought we were defending democracy? "Adapting to local conditions" means representing your constituents, not kowtowing to some far off group and lecturing your constituents that they really should want want you're offering.
One of the Democrats' problems is, ironically, a lack of diversity.
> Republican voters are _literaly_ programmed on their enemy stereotypes!
That kind of othering thinking is a pretty serious problem. If you think in such an unempathetic way, you're going to delude yourself. Your side isn't all kindness and light, and their side isn't all hateful automatons. You are all people, for fucks sake. How the fuck different are you really? Actually not much.
Oh, I am talking about democracies and lecturing. You are right, i have to be very careful with my othering/stereotypes but given the current state of afairs, i think im in a strong position to do so. Trump would have never gotten my vote.
My take about democracies not failing meant, only the people in it can fail. There is certainly some civic due diligence for electoral decisions. My tribalism discerns between people who at least try to come to an educated decision and dipshits. Ask yourself, why putin might start to love _our_ democracies again.
You could easily be better represented by some outsider convincingly lecturing you on important topics you didnt know you should care about, if you just cared to listen and think.
> They blame MAGA, blame Trump for not being better, instead of looking in the mirror and becoming a party that people like enough that it can win.
Democrats should blame MAGA and Trump more. No amount of rational policy messaging will help against MAGA and Trump when you let them set the framing. All of this is caused by MAGA and Trump. Not by democrats. By republicans and especially conservatives.
It is ridiculous abuser logic to blame your immoral choices on opposition for not opposing you better. Right wing people, including farm people, should have own moral agency. They are not toddlers and yes they should be blamed.
> especially after all the scary warnings, is unfathomably incompetent and dysfunctional
None of that was scary to republicans and conservatives. They found the warning appealing.
> we wouldn't be in this mess if "farm state Democrat" was a category that was still allowed to exist. I watched one of the last of those fall, and it appeared she was hemmed in by ideological out-of-state donors who prevented her from adapting to local conditions.
Oh please. Yes we would, in fact we would be in the bigger mess. We would had two fascist parties instead of one.
The local conditions are: must hate and badmount cities at every occasion, must be attracted to violence, must have wish to mistreat liberals and everyone to the left of Trump. Because if farms voted by their economic interests, they would not voted for Trump. They voted for them because they share the values.
> Democrats should blame MAGA and Trump more. No amount of rational policy messaging will help against MAGA and Trump when you let them set the framing. All of this is caused by MAGA and Trump. Not by democrats. By republicans and especially conservatives.
Sorry, they've done that so much that people have become deaf to it.
> It is ridiculous abuser logic to blame your immoral choices on opposition for not opposing you better. Right wing people, including farm people, should have own moral agency. They are not toddlers and yes they should be blamed.
Thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose. "Me, change to become more effective? Of course not! Here's some moralistic gesticulating to justify myself."
You basically want to lean all in on negative campaigning. But bashing the other side doesn't cause people to support you. However, it's a really seductive option when you're unpopular and refuse to change. It's not a strategy, it's a cope.
> Oh please. Yes we would, in fact we would be in the bigger mess. We would had two fascist parties instead of one.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Despite your intentions, you're probably helping MAGA more than you hurt it.
> Sorry, they've done [critizing trump] so much that people have become deaf to it.
You switched again! From "dems do too little" to "they actually do too much"! And the best part: by talking about the quantity and theater around it, you dont have to face the content. Even when the message doesnt get amplified by billionares and distributed to their usefull idiots, that critizism about trump might still be very relevant and valid! NO MATTER HOW MUCH REP. THINK 'UFF, HEARD THIS BEFORE'!
> Thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose
> You basically want to lean all in on negative campaigning
Dude, Trump is the one who ran with deportation! Precisely because he has no better constructive vision! I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU IN ANOTHER ANSWER, THAT THIS IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BT. THE PARTIES. Conservatives only have their identity politics and thus is constructing and enemy (migrants, antifa, liberals) THEIR ONLY SHTICK!
And because FoxNews and social media has grilled your brain so well, no matter what we "other" people say in response, in your head, it will be wrong. This entire subthread is just another case of insanity.
You cant imagine how frustrating this is. Conservatives need to grow an f'ing spine and oppose trump too, but reading your ad-hoc, brain-off replies ...
> You switched again! From "dems do too little" to "they actually do too much"!
Sorry to deny you your gotcha, but I haven't: they've done too much of some things, and far too little of the right things. It's not a one-dimensional axis of "doing."
> And because FoxNews and social media has grilled your brain so well [emphasis mine]
Weren't you the user I was talking to about othering? You're doing it again, and injecting your stereotypes without any kind of basis.
Just so you know: pretty much the only news media I consume is the New York Times.
> no matter what we "other" people say in response, in your head, it will be wrong. This entire subthread is just another case of insanity.
You're projecting. I'm well aware what you're saying, but I don't think you're being rational or realistic. You appear to be angry in-general and reaching for ideas that primarily indulge that anger and its biases.
> You cant imagine how frustrating this is. Conservatives need to grow an f'ing spine and oppose trump too, but reading your ad-hoc, brain-off replies ...
Speaking of brain-off replies... I think you need to step back and calm down. It appears you're thinking in a very black and white way, and jumping to the conclusion that someone who doesn't agree with you on strategy or tactics is a member of your "opposing team."
And I probably sound like a broken record, but thinking like yours is a big reason the Democrats lose. It's kinda Trumps superpower: he scrambles Democrats' brains, clouding their judgement, preventing effective responses (in addition on their pre-existing biases in that direction).
Ah yes, McConnell, that staunch critic of despotism in general and of Trump in particular, who had nothing to do with the chain of events that led us here, and who definitely never sells out his country, morality, and the greater good whenever expedient to his own benefit and that of his party.
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.
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.
Yes and no. Presumably people would remove them and install one of the very numerous alternatives on the first day.
I don't think it's a real barrier. The real barrier is the US troops in Germany, who could cause huge disorder. Many computers would of course have to be kept off to prevent updates from wiping everything though, so the first few days would be extremely interesting. Maybe immediate internet shutdowns to prevent malware updates while this goes on is the right solution, with people simultaneously sent out to help companies and individuals save their computers by installing some pre-checked OS.
I really want to belive this: That it's somehow possible to work around such a kind of digital meltdown when the US really, really want to cause some real damage using zerodays, backdoors and so on. I can't imagine that it's possible, but I also don't think it'll come this: There'll just be a call from Trump to ${SOME_HEAD_OF_STATE} stating that if they don't shut up regarding greenland at this very second, they're looking at deleting the entire nation's mail, data, have no iPhones, Androids and so on. No one will even consider taking such a kind of risk. And that's just one factor besides tariffs and everything else.
I don't think that's something people are going to care about in that situation.
Presumably we would grind up our Android and Apple phones on the first day-- i.e. actually take them out and physically crush destroy them as completely as possible, or at least remove the batteries and never use them again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most dont consider, that skirmishes dont have to make use of all military capabilities. Take a look at india vs china [0]. To be clear, those sticks-and-stones fights still cost lifes, are totally unnecessary and for a power-corrupted US soldier maybe unthinkable but it does not have to be an all out war. Maybe some ghandian unarmed european opposition is all it takes for the US opposition to find some traces of a spine.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
reply