Man, the fascist Atlantic is just so fucking credulous. The fucking legislators wrote the fucking bill to allow the president to use discretion and then they said the bill they themselves authored might allow for the president to use discretion and now the president is using that discretion? You don't fucking say!

Again… lol, this sure as shit isn’t the first time

America is most certainly NOT an ally of Russia. Only that traitorous coward and his administration is.

Republicans have been favoring Russia for well over a decade and more like 15 years at this point. That's another line Democrats really haven't crossed.

It's not an American thing, it's a Republican thing, and Republicans are not America, although they represent around half.

That said, Russia is fighting Cold War II and we're not even aware, so they are wildly winning. Much moreso than in Ukraine, an actual "hot" war.

That traitorous coward is the leader of America. So yes, it is.

For one that hasn't happened for two the "western order" is very much not a good thing.

that fuckin guy coudn’t lead a tour of his own house.

And yet...

Conservatives see the current liberal democratic world order and think it's a degenerate failure of civilization. Many reasons for this but it can be summed up as "racism and culture war bullshit."

They will literally side with Russia to destroy it if they are given an opportunity.

Edit: It is my uneducated prediction that we will provide to Russia: military intelligence within the next few months, raw materials and/or dual-use tech in Q1-Q2 2027, and major weapons systems by the end of 2027.

He’s the leader of MAGA. He doesn’t represent America. This is a very important and distinct difference that one who is capable of nuanced thought would easily understand.

A result of the push towards the imperial presidency.

Thanks Obama.

LOL anyone capable of nuanced thought would absolutely understand that the President of The United States of America 100% represents America.

So you think that every German in the 1930-1940’s were racist Jew-hating jack-booted authoritarians?

Clearly, you are not one of those people that are capable of nuanced thought. Therefore, IMHO, I think you’re probably going to be useless to any discussion I might find myself in. So…. Blocked.

Learn how to be a better person. Like me, the rest of the world won’t wait for you.

Oh I totally believe we already are and have been for quite some time.

Did the ones that weren't matter? Did they keep the war from happening or keep millions from being killed in camps? So yeah, he doesn't represent me or my beliefs, but he sure as shit has been able to order the deaths and deportations of thousands. To deny that influence because not everyone in the u.s. agrees is just silly.

Blaming an entire nation on the lunacy of its leader isn’t helpful in ANY way. Do better.

So you think that every German in the 1930-1940’s were racist Jew-hating jack-booted authoritarians?

Of course not, but if you answered on your history test that Hitler didn't represent Germany, you would flunk. These are not the same thing. Clearly you are not one of those people capable of nuanced thought. Learn how to be a more educated person.

America isn't like this because Trump is president

Trump is president because America is like this

"We are only hundreds of millions of people here! What could we possibly do?!

"We tried nothing and are all out of ideas."

Except that not only is that the antithesis of how a federal system works but do you really think that all the tribes support this just as one for instance? Being a tribal member I can just tell you that we don’t and he has been trying to undo our citizenship since day one because of it. What about all the places in the US that can’t vote for the president? I’m not totally sure you understand what the word nuanced actually means.

Find another word than nuanced, you’re embarrassing yourself regardless of being right or wrong.

do you like Trump or something? cuz I gotta say he fucking sucks balls

That is a meaningless distinction.

Twice. Fucking TWICE!

And since the first time that bag of rancid gonorrhoea was elected there's been:
An insurrection.
A bunch of court cases that ended with convicted felonies.
A successful rape trial, and payout.
A raid because a lorry load of top secret documents were stolen... AND then stored in an unlocked room next to a fax machine. A FUCKING FAX MACHINE.
A blatant attempt to flood a server area which held the CCTV footage.
A confession about showing said documents to a journalist (I think), plus other people.

And those are just the bullet points I can quickly think of of easily proven corruption and illegality. But there's more. So much more.
So, yeah, if a country elects a disgusting thing like that again and again then I'm believing it's what they want.

Well, america doesn't seem to care enough about it.

'It's the systems fault, not mine! I had no reasonable choice! Damn them all! I'm the victim here!' - sitouts justifying their role in 2024

Smfh

And people think the two candidates are the same.

that not only is that the antithesis of how a federal system works

What in the world are you talking about? Every leader of every region in the world represents their people, regardless of what any of those people think of them. That's why they're called "representatives". That's exactly how that works.

President Xi doesn't come to the US and meet with Barack Obama, because he doesn't represent America, and can't make decisions for them.

What an article.

Consider what the American president just told the entire world: Please don’t interfere in my relationship with a murderous dictator, or he might help the country that America’s men and women in uniform are fighting at this very moment. The leader of the most powerful nation on the planet—yes, that’s still the United States right now—is trying to get everyone else, including the American Congress, to avoid antagonizing Putin, instead of warning Putin not to even think about aiding Iran.

As always, The Atlantic's solution to every situation is to be more aggressive and militaristic. A more sane version of this article would be criticizing Trump for starting the war in Iran to begin with. But The Atlantic jizzes their pants over the war because they'd been dreaming about it for ages.

The author seems to be struggling here with the concept that Superman does not exist. The US, like any country, has a limited ability to throw it's weight around. This is exactly why sanctions on Russia didn't work and were never going to work, because they just sold their oil through India and China, and China was never going to cooperate on sanctions while we were antagonizing them in a pointless trade war. "Full aggression on every front," the dream of every Atlantic writer, only has the effect of spreading the US thin and weakening its ability to apply real pressure anywhere.

The irony here is that Trump is overextending the US and trying to be in too many places at once, by starting the Iran War. Most ordinary people, including many on the right, oppose the war for that reason. But The Atlantic is so committed to full aggression everywhere that they somehow find a way to argue Trump isn't overextending enough. And, naturally, their objection seems to primarily be that it's undignified to acknowledge these limitations, rather than framing things around any actual human cost.

A world in which the White House is allied to the Kremlin was, until now, the stuff of paranoid fiction. Manchurian candidates and red presidents were fantasies, dark tales that Americans told themselves, like ghost stories around a campfire. But this alliance now exists. If Stalin and his Cold War successors could see what Trump and Putin have created, and how the mighty United States has been humbled and humiliated, they might think that their evil hopes were not wrong, but only that they dreamed them too early.

This whole framing of it being an "alliance" because the US stopped sanctioning them is patently absurd. Is the US "allied" with every country it's not currently sanctioning? Words mean things.

But what's especially ironic about this part is that the USSR, under Stalin, was literally part of "The Allies," during WWII. The US traded with the Soviets, fought on the same side against a common enemy, sent them military aid, coordinated on military strategy, etc. Why would Stalin consider it particularly remarkable, even if the US had entered an actual alliance with the Russian Federation? That's also completely dismissing the whole history of the collapse of the USSR and the US involvement in establishing the Russian Federation in the first place. It's just stupid.

By the way, why did the US ally with Stalin? Was it because FDR secretly agreed with him, ideologically? Or was it because the US was aware of it's material limitations and made the correct decision to focus on one problem at a time, instead of maximum aggression towards everyone at once? If this guy had been in charge back then, we'd all be speaking German.

Even after WWII, throughout the Cold War, the US traded with the USSR. The US also signed treaties and agreements such as SALT. And whenever it did, there were plenty of these insane, warmongering reactionaries, like the author, who pushed the exact same kinds of exaggerated rhetoric about how the politicians responsible were being controlled or manipulated by the Kremlin. These extremist nutjobs want the same thing they always have, a future where when the dust settles there's two Americans left and one Russian, so they can call it a "victory."

he may well believe that some janky diesel deal with Russia will alleviate high fuel prices in the United States. (It will not, although it will certainly help some Russian companies.)

Honestly I just love this line, the cherry on top of the whole piece. "It will not," zero elaboration whatsoever. Reminds me of this classic Onion article. Why would making oil more directly accessible, instead of shipping it to China or India first, not lower fuel prices? Even if there's some reason why it wouldn't, why isn't it included in the article? It's just unprofessional.

It seems that the author included that line because he's concerned that people will care more about fuel prices than the rest of his arguments, and he's concerned such people might agree with Trump. But how on earth do you paint yourself into such a corner, in your own article, that you're left baselessly asserting, "it won't," regarding Trump and fuel prices? Donald Trump is solely, directly responsible for prices soaring, on account of his pointless, failed war of aggression against Iran.

But again, no one at The Atlantic wants to frame things in those terms, because they just love war so damn much.

Did you forget when they all had Ukraine signs and stickers? Right up until he said one good thing about Putin then bam supporting Ukraine is woke.

What are you, as a nation, going to do about the lunacy of your leader?

The last decade has demonstrated that your entire nation is incapable of doing anything at all, to your great shame.

The stench of your inaction will linger across the globe for decades.

This is so pathetic.

Someone tells you a hard truth and you just block them.

I'm sorry to tell you that you're going to need to block pretty much anyone who is not American, or a Russian bot, because anyone paying attention agrees with the guy you just blocked.

Its @pratai@piefed.ca that keeps talking about nuance, not @artyom@piefed.social

Not to those of us that want nothing to do with fascists and dictators.

Well, facts would say otherwise.

Sarcasm, in this economy? You are braver than I thought.

The so called American experiment is over. The result proved to be no different. The nature of humanity is perpetually fighting for freedoms.

Their superpower was not their military or their economy. It was the mythology that they were exceptional people and the modern exemplar of democracy. For a while much of the world was to believing too.

Canada's PM Carney said it well. The world put up with them out of convenience.

The Americans took that tolerance as a compliment on their brash attitude. They couldn't adapt when reality diverged from the mythology. Half of them are coping by following the traitor into oblivion. Half of them are insistent reality will return to their mythological storyline.

Site doesn't load

Remember Article 3 section 3. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-3/section-3/

No, but I hate fascists who use anti-Trump virtue signalling as a cloak.

I can’t keep anyone straight on here

I'm not so sure this will last after daffy duck has flown away.

Duck season?

People voted for this person to become President of the United States.

Analysis: For Trump, results have often revealed the art of no deal
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deals-negotiating-style-russia-iran-apprentice-6776621902cf44c1cec9a13fc6a8cd78

If what I've heard about two things being true at once is accurate, then it's possible for both The Atlantic and Trump to suck balls at once.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

for the lazy

Now? He's made it clear where he was heading since last year.

Traitor Trump doesn't speak for the American people anymore than Putin the Poisoner speaks for the Russians. Put them both in a room and let everyone they have wronged have a go at them for all I care. They are just puppets for the wealthy.

It was over when it started. The founding fucks idea of liberty was simply those with the money make the rules and don't have to follow them. The so called American experiment has been a great success for the wealthy. You are just confused by propaganda that it was ever about anything else.

The real news is the rot that exists in the US exists in every country. You can point, cry, rage, etc all you want about the US but it is coming to your country unless you have policies in place to reverse the wealth gap.