Europe could 'weaponize' $10T of US assets over Greenland(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Europe could 'weaponize' $10T of US assets over Greenland
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-19/-weaponizing-10-trillion-of-us-assets-is-tough-ask-for-europe
167 comments
That's kind of the point. Crash the bonds market and with it the US government.
That won't work... that will crash the price of [new] bonds, and more capitalized nations will buy the dip. You are operating under an assumption that the humans controlling a quantity of wealth enough to [quote] "crash the bonds market" make decisions based on principles. They don't - and if you compare history with a long term bond price chart then it will become apparent.
Now, pray tell, which other nations are more capitalized than the world's third largest economy? Who would buy the dip? China? I doubt it. And nobody else has the scale.
Except at that point the dollar will be so devalued that you are still losing in real terms.
If open war breaks out with Europe, wouldn't these assets end up frozen anyway? It doesn't seem like weaponization to hedge that risk.
Could, but inevitably one member state will veto it because of their niche interests. See also: EU-Mercosur trade agreements.
We get nothing done in the EU because we are all prisoners to 27 different voting populations, and nothing moves forward if even one of them opposes it
We get nothing done in the EU because we are all prisoners to 27 different voting populations, and nothing moves forward if even one of them opposes it
Living in the EU, I'm skeptical any of this happens. Our leaders have been pretty reluctant to push back on anything so far and most of these assets are private anyway.
Wouldn't this be done by individual institutions and countries, not all once by "the EU?"
Evidence of that:
> Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46692594
Evidence of that:
> Danish pension fund divesting US Treasuries
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46692594
That's a tiny barely significant amount, though.
However the amount of US treasuries Denmark holds but privately and publicly did decrease by 20% or so over the last yea which I guess is something..
However the amount of US treasuries Denmark holds but privately and publicly did decrease by 20% or so over the last yea which I guess is something..
Fair point. Though I wonder if individual fund moves actually move the needle here or if it's mostly symbolic until it becomes a trend.
I believe that the best political speech of our time has just been presented. [0]
I believe that you might be a fellow European. If you happen to have 30 minutes to listen, I would love to hear your feedback.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/live/dE981Z_TaVo?t=100s
I believe that you might be a fellow European. If you happen to have 30 minutes to listen, I would love to hear your feedback.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/live/dE981Z_TaVo?t=100s
> only if foreign holders of US assets are willing to suffer financially
As a foreign-domiciled holder of US assets, my vibe is that losing the rule of law would indirectly lead to significantly more financial suffering.
How well did bond-holders fare, getting out of the last Lebensraum era?
As a foreign-domiciled holder of US assets, my vibe is that losing the rule of law would indirectly lead to significantly more financial suffering.
How well did bond-holders fare, getting out of the last Lebensraum era?
you're thinking systemically. chaosh ish a ladder, shansha. this will lead to overall downturns in everything but pockets of extreme windfall for people well positioned to either sell the US the supplies it needs to engage in war all the time against everyone or to distribute looted assets, and those are the people influencing the decision the most.
Gold repatriation..
Repatriated 20 years ago, according to https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/gold-in-den-usa-deutschla...
European banks need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat. ECB, BoE, SNB, Denmark, Sweden, all are on USD life support.
The only viable way to do this would be for the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia won't allow it and who is going to buy EU's exports? Not China.
But that analysis of viable options is for rational and competent leadership, so who knows.
The only viable way to do this would be for the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia won't allow it and who is going to buy EU's exports? Not China.
But that analysis of viable options is for rational and competent leadership, so who knows.
> or the EU to fully switch out of USA/USD into China/BRICS but Russia
TO solve
> need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat
?
This is about as nonsensical as it gets.
TO solve
> need the swap lines by the Fed to stay afloat
?
This is about as nonsensical as it gets.
EU banks: 1. Lend and trade in USD; 2. Have a shitload of deposits (liabilities) in USD-denominated accounts [1] [2] (1 trillion?)
A huge amount of EU imports (from outside Europe) have to be paid in USD. Like oil/natgas/commodities and manufactured stuff.
The Euro is not really used as reserve currency outside of EU.
So if EU goes into economic war with USA by dumping US treasuries: 1. they would be trading those treasuries for something else (EUR denominated bonds? yuan? something else?); 2. no more swap lines and goodbye exports to USA so USD debt trap with depositors (forced conversion to EUR?); 3. How are they going to pay imports without USD lines?
The only other big player who can give them equivalent liquidity in swap lines is China. But as I stated, that would be even worse than USD dependency and less likely.
All this while the EU industrial base is on the brink and with a huge dependency on American natgas and Chinese supply chain. They cornered themselves and they can't do much without huge sacrifices. The only way out needs a complete shakeup of the leadership in Brussels and a new economic plan. I wouldn't bet on that happening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar
[2] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publicat...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
A huge amount of EU imports (from outside Europe) have to be paid in USD. Like oil/natgas/commodities and manufactured stuff.
The Euro is not really used as reserve currency outside of EU.
So if EU goes into economic war with USA by dumping US treasuries: 1. they would be trading those treasuries for something else (EUR denominated bonds? yuan? something else?); 2. no more swap lines and goodbye exports to USA so USD debt trap with depositors (forced conversion to EUR?); 3. How are they going to pay imports without USD lines?
The only other big player who can give them equivalent liquidity in swap lines is China. But as I stated, that would be even worse than USD dependency and less likely.
All this while the EU industrial base is on the brink and with a huge dependency on American natgas and Chinese supply chain. They cornered themselves and they can't do much without huge sacrifices. The only way out needs a complete shakeup of the leadership in Brussels and a new economic plan. I wouldn't bet on that happening.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar
[2] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publicat...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
> liquidity in swap lines is China
In Yuan? Which is certainly a more of a global reserve currency than the Euro and is certainly widely used for international trade? The same Yuan with the massive amount of liquidity outside of China?
The Canadian Dollar and Pound Sterling each are a have a significantly bigger share as reserve currencies than the Yuan....
USD/CNY havs only slightly higher volume than USD/CHF. Hardly anyone uses it anywhere outside China.
In Yuan? Which is certainly a more of a global reserve currency than the Euro and is certainly widely used for international trade? The same Yuan with the massive amount of liquidity outside of China?
The Canadian Dollar and Pound Sterling each are a have a significantly bigger share as reserve currencies than the Yuan....
USD/CNY havs only slightly higher volume than USD/CHF. Hardly anyone uses it anywhere outside China.
RMB settled ~60% of PRC cross border payments last year (up from 30% a few years ago), ~6T USD equivalent in settlement, which already makes rmb more real/useful currency than euro/yen reserves. And functionally shadow reserve - RMB can buy Chinese inputs, intermediate goods and global commodities, i.e. even oil delinked from USD, which covers like everything a country typically needs. That's what reserve is ultimately for, to buy shit/liquidity, not mere storage. RMB already guarantees access to most global goods for the simple reason PRC is producer of said goods. PRC also has massive USD war chest reserves, they already do USD lending AND USD swaplines to global south. In terms of liquidity/scale of swapline to EU, peak US swapline to EU was like 600B during covid and 2008 financial crisis, i.e. 20% of PRC USD reserves, which PRC increasingly need to find uses for as she displaces more USD from trade settlement. So it's doable for PRC, but question of trust, but not whether EU trust PRC, but whether PRC trust EU since these swap lines tend to be commodity-backed, where frankly EU has limited offerings to PRC.
More to my point, then. EU is trapped by their need of USD.
Such righteous resolve would’ve been useful when dealing with Russian oil and gas.
"Could". Of course they'll drag their feet once again because they're appeasing cowards, unlike Canadians.
> unlike Canadians.
Who did what? Symbolically threaten to tax electricity exports to some cities close to the border and stopped importing American booze?
Canada is still the top 5 holder of US bounds..
Canada is still the top 5 holder of US bounds..
[deleted]
If the US would suffer more than the EU we should do it. A less powerful US would be a boon for the world.
Does this play into his supporters' agenda?
Trump's policies seem to be aimed at devaluing USD and harming the US and its allies.
I guess maybe this pressures the other powers that be in the US that don't take the threat seriously to do more to stop him?
Trump's policies seem to be aimed at devaluing USD and harming the US and its allies.
I guess maybe this pressures the other powers that be in the US that don't take the threat seriously to do more to stop him?
the entire world of neoliberal ghouls will bend over for trump because they've all quietly been offered a share of what he loots
Isn’t Europe full of neoliberal ghouls stoking war with Russia, blowing up pipelines, and cheering on rogue nations like Israel?
Russia is stoking
> Isn’t Europe full of neoliberal ghouls
There are some, but not as many as you imagine.
There are some, but not as many as you imagine.
perpetual war is great for neoliberalism because it forces public spending on private, consumable goods. no matter how many bombs you buy today you're gonna need more tomorrow, it's in the nature of bombs. then later if there's ever a break in the destruction the bombmakers can invest their windfall profits in construction companies, thus winning in both directions.
Why are Americans letting their country go rogue internationally and risk going to war with Europe, Canada, or South America?
I keep trying to call the White House to express my disapproval but they just call me a dumb lib and send a gang of ICE officers to my neighborhood to kidnap my neighbors.
If you can think of a good way to stop it happening before the midterms, I'm all ears.
General strikes. Technically these are illegal when called by unions under the Taft-HArtley act, but if done at the popular level they can grind the country to a halt. But mass protest is the most effective way to bring down a corrupt government, and doesn't require waiting for an election and being disappointed by another round of political scams.
oh that isn't possible to organize No with that attitude
authorities will brutalize the protestors freedom isn't free
Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest Well we'll see whether that's true I guess.
what if this leads to civil war If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'
oh that isn't possible to organize No with that attitude
authorities will brutalize the protestors freedom isn't free
Americans are too comfortable/lazy to do mass political protest Well we'll see whether that's true I guess.
what if this leads to civil war If the alternative is corruption and tyranny, maybe that's a fight worth having. Authoritarian governments do not historically reach a point where they say 'well that's enough tyranny, let's not get carried away lest history think ill of us.'
General strikes require a large and powerful labor movement to organize them, and to provide people with material support for as long as the strike takes to achieve its goals. One day of symbolic absenteeism by the most politically involved 5% of the workforce is not going to cut it.
Strong labor movements help a lot, obviously, but general strikes are very often not labor disputes and not dependent on union infrastructure.
Protest every weekend? build momentum until this can't be ignored? perhaps write to congressmen? attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives? try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend.
Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.
I have an American friend who keeps complaining about Trump. There was a protest in his city, but he didn't go because he had a BBQ to attend that weekend.
Seriously, this isn't fun anymore and Americans should be extremely concerned and start acting one way or another. It may be symbolic but it's better than nothing, if only for peace of mind.
Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it) or will not listen to the public (because they're Republicans and indented to trump for their careers.
I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here.
My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy.
I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
I don't have any friends who don't vote, really, and the midterms might not come soon enough to do anything here.
My senator had a head injury and reversed all his opinions for some reason, so I've called his office a lot but he's very pro Invading Greenland now, and pro criminalizing his voters. Unhelpful guy.
I would start preparing for all of this to happen, and tell your friend to get his passport up to date.
RIP the man Fetterman used to be.
> Representatives already either agree it's bad (and can't do much about it)
Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President.
Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President.
Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President.
Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries like Defence ("War") and Homeland Security. Or all of the Secretaries really, since they're not upholding the Constitution themselves by not invoking the 25A to get rid of a mentally unstable President.
Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
> Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
That's the problem, turns out there are none.
Or to be more precise, they do exist but they rely solely on each arm of the government acting in good faith and respecting the boundaries of their power and deferring on powers that belong to a different arm of the government.
But turns out there was a 0-day bug in the constitution: if the president simply completely ignores all other branches of government, nothing can be done about it.
That's the problem, turns out there are none.
Or to be more precise, they do exist but they rely solely on each arm of the government acting in good faith and respecting the boundaries of their power and deferring on powers that belong to a different arm of the government.
But turns out there was a 0-day bug in the constitution: if the president simply completely ignores all other branches of government, nothing can be done about it.
Did you pay attention to his last impeachment?
The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.
The much vaunted checks and balances rely on Congress and the supreme Court checking the executives power. Since the presidents party controls both, this doesn't happen. The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s, and we are pretty close to the end of that process right now.
> The Imperial Presidency has been absorbing power from the other branches since the 90s
70s, at the latest. 30s, realistically and bipartisanly speaking.
70s, at the latest. 30s, realistically and bipartisanly speaking.
I read "Imperial Presidency" and instantly thought "Vote Palpatine/Vader 2024. What's the worst that could happen?"
:(
:(
> Representatives can draft articles of impeached for the President.
Trump has been impeached twice. Even if you could get enough Republicans in the House on board to do so a third time (the GOP holds a majority in both houses of Congress), the threshold of 2/3 of the Senate to convict and remove is far out of reach; there aren't enough Republicans that aren't die-hard Trump loyalists (there are rumors that an actual armed invasion of Greenland might change that, but those kind of rumors of opposition often turn out to be overblown when situations materialize, with a decisive number Republicans offering some criticism and then finding an excuse to oppose actual action.)
> Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries
No, Senators cannot start impeachment, which regardless of which officers subject to it are targeted must start in the House. And the same problems which face impeachment of the President apply here.
> Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
They rely on the same malign faction not controlling both political branches as well as dominating the Supreme Court at the same time. Unfortunately...
Trump has been impeached twice. Even if you could get enough Republicans in the House on board to do so a third time (the GOP holds a majority in both houses of Congress), the threshold of 2/3 of the Senate to convict and remove is far out of reach; there aren't enough Republicans that aren't die-hard Trump loyalists (there are rumors that an actual armed invasion of Greenland might change that, but those kind of rumors of opposition often turn out to be overblown when situations materialize, with a decisive number Republicans offering some criticism and then finding an excuse to oppose actual action.)
> Senators can start impeaching various Secretaries
No, Senators cannot start impeachment, which regardless of which officers subject to it are targeted must start in the House. And the same problems which face impeachment of the President apply here.
> Where are all these much-vaunted "checks and balances" that I've been hearing about for so long?
They rely on the same malign faction not controlling both political branches as well as dominating the Supreme Court at the same time. Unfortunately...
When the Republican Party has been largely purged of opposition to Trump (except for senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski and a tiny handful of people in the House), and when six out of nine Supreme Court justices are generally loyal to the GOP, then there are effectively no checks and balances.
Trump learned during his first term that he can bypass checks and balances by making sure the GOP is thoroughly MAGA. People who stood up to Trump have been sidelined, such as Justin Amash, Mitt Romney, and, most famously, Mike Pence, who stood up to Trump on January 6 and paid a heavy political price for it. That’s why Vance, not Pence, is the current VP.
Trump learned during his first term that he can bypass checks and balances by making sure the GOP is thoroughly MAGA. People who stood up to Trump have been sidelined, such as Justin Amash, Mitt Romney, and, most famously, Mike Pence, who stood up to Trump on January 6 and paid a heavy political price for it. That’s why Vance, not Pence, is the current VP.
> Protest every weekend?
Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
> build momentum until this can't be ignored?
Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
> perhaps write to congressmen?
"Dear official who actively supports subverting our democracy: Please don't."
> attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives?
Filed under "Rearrange the desk chairs."
> try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
This (alone) would have the ability to change things... but at this point, they are hiding that shameful fact. Non-voters and supporters of third parties in the US are effectively supporting the status quo.
You didn't suggest this, but I already employee a spicy bumpersticker that complains about Trump, and give stern looks to the screen when the news reports on abuses of law.
Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
> build momentum until this can't be ignored?
Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
> perhaps write to congressmen?
"Dear official who actively supports subverting our democracy: Please don't."
> attend townhall meetings and ask questions to your representatives?
Filed under "Rearrange the desk chairs."
> try to raise awareness to your friends who don't vote?
This (alone) would have the ability to change things... but at this point, they are hiding that shameful fact. Non-voters and supporters of third parties in the US are effectively supporting the status quo.
You didn't suggest this, but I already employee a spicy bumpersticker that complains about Trump, and give stern looks to the screen when the news reports on abuses of law.
> Your answer to "how do we stop this" is "do something until it stops."
That is, in part, a major aspect of resistance, yes. Protests on the weekends are great for community engagement and visibility, but constant pressure and activism are necessary. I think Minneapolis is a great example of how people should react when the situation gets bad. But even before that, getting involved in local organizations so that you're ready to help your neighbors is huge. For those of us not in Minneapolis, a general strikes would be great.
That is, in part, a major aspect of resistance, yes. Protests on the weekends are great for community engagement and visibility, but constant pressure and activism are necessary. I think Minneapolis is a great example of how people should react when the situation gets bad. But even before that, getting involved in local organizations so that you're ready to help your neighbors is huge. For those of us not in Minneapolis, a general strikes would be great.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
They have in my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2009_Moldovan_parliament...
And in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
And in many other places.
They have in my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2009_Moldovan_parliament...
And in Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
And in many other places.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
They do have the ability to change the course of actions. But even if it's just symbolic, massive protests would show the world that Americans aren't all in favor of the regime in place and some have a functioning morale compass.
They do have the ability to change the course of actions. But even if it's just symbolic, massive protests would show the world that Americans aren't all in favor of the regime in place and some have a functioning morale compass.
> Have protests ever stopped the creation of a dictatorship, in history?
It sends a message to the less active people who might turn off news that somethings is ain't right. Next time they might even vote.
It sends a message to the less active people who might turn off news that somethings is ain't right. Next time they might even vote.
You could do as the Ukrainians did for a start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
Kind of hard to pull off in a country that helped orchestrate it and with a lot more people to defend the status quo.
Short of enough Republicans finally declaring enough is enough and deciding on impeachment or the fourth clause of the 25th Amendment, the only other option is for pro-impeachment senator candidates to run as Republicans in the primaries, which begin as early as March. Theoretically, if enough Republican senators up for reelection get primaried due to their refusal to rein in Trump, this may put pressure on the rest of the GOP’s senators to remove Trump this year, and this may also encourage the House (which only requires a majority to impeach).
Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.
Of course, the challenge is convincing the electorate in red states that Trump’s antics regarding Greenland are catastrophic enough to warrant his removal, given the stranglehold MAGA has on the Republican electorate.
You're completely dismissing all extraparliamentary means of opposition.
Protests. Riots. Strikes.
Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc.
Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
Protests. Riots. Strikes.
Y'know, the sort of thing that toppled Yanukovych in Ukraine, lotsa Middle Eastern dictators during the Arab Spring, British rule in India, Soviet control over the Baltics, etc etc etc.
Your politicians are use- and spineless. It's time for your people to step up.
The sad reality is Americans really don't care about foreign policy -- the only thing that could actually lead to major strikes or protests large enough to move the needle would be if large numbers of American soldiers were dying (i.e., Vietnam).
Plus, I just saw a little segment on Fox News where it was portraying this whole Greenland deal as a way to "help Greenlanders boost their economy, each person will get X cash, blah blah". So anyone only watching Fox is probably convinced we're doing Greenland a favor, liberating them from Danish oppression, just like we recently liberated Venezuela from oppression (in case you didn't know!).
Plus, I just saw a little segment on Fox News where it was portraying this whole Greenland deal as a way to "help Greenlanders boost their economy, each person will get X cash, blah blah". So anyone only watching Fox is probably convinced we're doing Greenland a favor, liberating them from Danish oppression, just like we recently liberated Venezuela from oppression (in case you didn't know!).
Last time I checked, only 56% of Americans disapproved Trump's actions. Not enough to trigger big riots...
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Only 4% or so approve of going to war to conquer Greenland, so if it gets that bad you might expect sentiment to keep turning. but his approval floor has been pretty steady at no lower than ~30 percent through every controversy so far.
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see American citizens rioting over international affairs unfortunately. Hopefully he'll be unpopular enough to lose senate, and his successor won't be as insane. That would be the best outcome.
Americans have a history of rioting over economic and social conditions, however. An attack on Greenland may open a Pandora’s box of consequences that will devastate America by us becoming a pariah state, which will lead to economic pain.
For the sake of the country, I hope that this is finally the red line that will get enough Republicans representatives to finally have the courage to rein in Trump, at least on this issue.
For the sake of the country, I hope that this is finally the red line that will get enough Republicans representatives to finally have the courage to rein in Trump, at least on this issue.
As soon as they get their new marching orders from the Fox & Friends mothership, it's going to be 44%.
May I introduce you to the 3.5% rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
To add, this 56% is not evenly distributed politically. Protests in California, Minnesota, and New York (all blue states) are not likely to get red state representatives and senators to threaten Trump with removal. Blue state congresspeople are already on board with removing Trump, but removal can’t happen without 2/3rds of the Senate getting on board, which means this can’t happen today without some Republican support.
I’m a Californian. It’s one thing for me to write Alex Padilla or Adam Schiff; they’d vote to convict if they have the chance. But they won’t get a chance unless people like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham say “enough is enough,” but I don’t live in those states.
I’m a Californian. It’s one thing for me to write Alex Padilla or Adam Schiff; they’d vote to convict if they have the chance. But they won’t get a chance unless people like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham say “enough is enough,” but I don’t live in those states.
rayiner(2)
Personally, I'm hoping Danish special forces are currently building a replica of Trump's house.
Protest
I think the only thing that would generate enough public momentum to stop Trump would be a US stock market crash.
JasonADrury(2)
Because we, collectively, have abdicated our responsibility to elect thoughtful representatives who care about the rule of law and betterment of society.
That abdication has lasted decades and led to what is essentially a cascading failure across multiple levels and wings of government.
That abdication has lasted decades and led to what is essentially a cascading failure across multiple levels and wings of government.
The reality is people all over the world are largely the same. This isn't some genetic or cultural makeup of Americans.
The average person isn't going to be out protesting on the streets until something starts to direly impact them. Life is filled with complications and worries enough that human's just choose to allocate their capacity for worry to more immediate issues.
(I'm not American and don't live in the US)
The average person isn't going to be out protesting on the streets until something starts to direly impact them. Life is filled with complications and worries enough that human's just choose to allocate their capacity for worry to more immediate issues.
(I'm not American and don't live in the US)
We do demonstrate pretty easily in France
Despite appearances, Trump's power is largely political. If he didn't have the support of the Republican party, he couldn't do most of the things he's doing, since Congress would override him.
But the reality is that he still has significant public support, from a public who get most of their current events from filtered, biased news media. In that way, we've actually become remarkably similar to Russia under Putin.
But the reality is that he still has significant public support, from a public who get most of their current events from filtered, biased news media. In that way, we've actually become remarkably similar to Russia under Putin.
Trump has around 90% support from Republicans.
Honestly, this looks very much like 1930s Germany. I really wish that weren't an exaggeration.
Honestly, this looks very much like 1930s Germany. I really wish that weren't an exaggeration.
> Trump has around 90% support from Republicans.
Republican ID is at around 27% of the electorate and on a downward trend; his support from independents who are much larger than either Dems or Reps is much less.
Republican ID is at around 27% of the electorate and on a downward trend; his support from independents who are much larger than either Dems or Reps is much less.
With Trump admin being protected by ICE goons and surrounded by people loyal to him, TrumpPutin is exactly what is gonna happen.
>filtered, biased news media
There isn't a lot of unbiased media, in any political direction. Danish media is no different.
There isn't a lot of unbiased media, in any political direction. Danish media is no different.
BSABSVR? Really? BS.
I have no idea what you're saying.
The initialism is short for Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican (according to urban dictionary).
My statement implied no such thing - merely an opinion that all media is trash and unworthy of trust. For the most part. Same can be said for politicians. For the most part.
> My statement implied no such thing
Right, I agree. Just offering the information since I had to look it up.
Right, I agree. Just offering the information since I had to look it up.
I've met all sorts of people and they're generally not dumb, so it’s not mass stupidity but maybe narrative capture. When media incentives align with wealth and power, propaganda becomes pervasive and people absorb it without realizing it. Social media algorithms and echo chambers amplify this.
The myth of the American Dream (reinforced by the prosperity gospel and fused with the modern conservative movement) has turned greed and hierarchy into “virtues.”
What’s strange is that the people selling it (Trump, Musk, etc.) come across as profoundly miserable.
The myth of the American Dream (reinforced by the prosperity gospel and fused with the modern conservative movement) has turned greed and hierarchy into “virtues.”
What’s strange is that the people selling it (Trump, Musk, etc.) come across as profoundly miserable.
I've met all sorts of very rational people, but when you bring up immigrants their brain reasoning centers turn off and they start frothing over Haitians eating dogs.
You have to know how to trigger it, cause Trump knows it extremely well. Studies have shown for a long time the human brain is often wired to prioritize group loyalty over factual accuracy.
Prior to Trump, most white americans only encountered this if they brought a black girlfriend home.
You have to know how to trigger it, cause Trump knows it extremely well. Studies have shown for a long time the human brain is often wired to prioritize group loyalty over factual accuracy.
Prior to Trump, most white americans only encountered this if they brought a black girlfriend home.
I upvoted you, but there is a good counterpoint to the brainwashing narrative: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/
If Dems want to govern, they need to run on platforms that are popular with voters in marginal districts; not lefty fantasy stuff that is off-putting to normies.
I don't think Kamala or Biden collapse was due to what you're talking about at all. Dems are always running on centrist/right ideas as far as we've seen. On the contrary it's because they prevented real left ideas (Sanders) from running that they lost trust in their camp. They're about to repeat this next elections with Buttigieg or Newsom
You are mistaken.
"Why are Americans"
If you think the average American has any real control over what comes out of the White House these days, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas City to sell you.
If you think the average American has any real control over what comes out of the White House these days, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas City to sell you.
We can't give up our power just because the situation is difficult. We need to assert as much power as possible. Organize; talk openly about the problem; coordinate plans for voting (yes, I know its early). Pressure politicians. There are things individuals can do, right now. No, it's not enough on our own. But if we don't act as individuals, then we really are screwed.
When something goes wrong in any country, you protest, you take it to the streets. It seems like America doesn’t know how to do that.
Because they voted a Republican congress due to egg price anxieties.
I mean, I understand the frustration, but this like asking why don't the Russian citizens just, you know, make Putin stop invading Ukraine.
I did my part, but I have 70 million compatriots that are just all too willing to allow the earth scorching as long as it means they don't have to see another black little mermaid.
I did my part, but I have 70 million compatriots that are just all too willing to allow the earth scorching as long as it means they don't have to see another black little mermaid.
we're in the streets every day being brutalized by the regimes masked, armed thugs. what else would you like from us?
When Americans have said the same about Russians for a decade, who gave you the same response, what did the Americans reply?
you know, if i say one thing and a different american says a different thing that doesn't make us hypocrites, it makes us two different people
Wow, I had no idea, I thought people in the same country were the same person?
Now when we've both shaken off our much pent in sarcasm, what would you say to them?
Now when we've both shaken off our much pent in sarcasm, what would you say to them?
I think there is a communication issue - the parent is not using sarcasm.
"They" don't exist. There are no Russians who replied to me in any manner when I said "You need to just overthrow your government" because I never said such a thing to anyone. Nothing I said was sarcastic, it was all meant to be taken extremely literally. You're trying to catch me out as a hypocrite but I didn't do what you said I did.
[deleted]
Americans aren't one person. Regardless, this is whataboutism.
It's not, it's supposed to make you come up with your own answers, because sometimes the answer is more obvious to see when you see someone else with the same problem, and pretend you're helping them, instead of helping yourself.
I thought your 2nd Amendment was supposed to prevent that.
Ironically the original intent of the second amendment was closer to "the states should have a lot of people used to using guns so they can raise militias if necessary".
ICE has recruited a lot of those people - you don't see as many weird paramilitary militia groups as you did back in 2020. So I guess it technically worked as intended here. Unfortunately that means more jackboots with "don't tread on me" flags on their unmarked vans.
ICE has recruited a lot of those people - you don't see as many weird paramilitary militia groups as you did back in 2020. So I guess it technically worked as intended here. Unfortunately that means more jackboots with "don't tread on me" flags on their unmarked vans.
Yep. The Proud Boys are effectively 100% incorporated into ICE at this point. Less sure about the 3%ers, haven't seen enough reporting on that.
Protest
Because most Americans don't care about what's going on in the rest of the world and basically just care about inflation: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/HHP... (p. 16). Even after everything, a majority of Americans say Trump is doing a better job than Biden, who had worse inflation on his watch (p. 18).
Americans don't care because they don't have to. In Germany, 40-45% of GDP is exports: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... In the U.S., it's just 10-11%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... Exports to the EU are just over 1% of GDP. To put that into perspective, if exports evaporated completely, that would wipe out just three years of American GDP-per-capita growth. For Germany, it would wipe out more than two decades of GDP per capita growth.
That not only means that 90% of America's economy is domestic. It means that most people have no exposure to the rest of the world through their workplaces. To the extent they do, that experience is with Canada and Mexico--we have twice as much trade with those countries as with the EU. Canada and Mexico have essentially zero meaningful leverage over the U.S. So even for the relatively few Americans who have some exposure to the rest of the world, most of their exposure is to relationships where America is the utterly dominant party.
Americans don't care because they don't have to. In Germany, 40-45% of GDP is exports: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... In the U.S., it's just 10-11%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?location.... Exports to the EU are just over 1% of GDP. To put that into perspective, if exports evaporated completely, that would wipe out just three years of American GDP-per-capita growth. For Germany, it would wipe out more than two decades of GDP per capita growth.
That not only means that 90% of America's economy is domestic. It means that most people have no exposure to the rest of the world through their workplaces. To the extent they do, that experience is with Canada and Mexico--we have twice as much trade with those countries as with the EU. Canada and Mexico have essentially zero meaningful leverage over the U.S. So even for the relatively few Americans who have some exposure to the rest of the world, most of their exposure is to relationships where America is the utterly dominant party.
>In Germany, 40-45% of GDP is exports . . . In the U.S., it's just 10-11%
The contrast is even more stark than those numbers suggest because while the US is basically self-sufficient in petroleum these days, it imports and exports a lot of crude because US refineries are good at refining heavy crude and sour crude, which other countries struggle to refine. The crude produced in the US is the easy-to-refine non-heavy non-sour stuff so it exports some of that and imports an approximately equal amount of difficult-to-refine stuff because that way US refineries can take advantage of their comparative expertise to make a little money.
The point is that it would be easy for US refineries to switch entirely to US-produced crude as their supply, and if they did that, that 10-11% figure would go down a lot.
The reason people tend to think that international trade is important to the US economy is that during the Cold War, Washington used the ability to trade with the US as a carrot to tempt countries into allying with the US against the USSR. But the main motivation for the US to do that was not to enrich Americans but rather to increase the (long-term) military security of Americans.
The contrast is even more stark than those numbers suggest because while the US is basically self-sufficient in petroleum these days, it imports and exports a lot of crude because US refineries are good at refining heavy crude and sour crude, which other countries struggle to refine. The crude produced in the US is the easy-to-refine non-heavy non-sour stuff so it exports some of that and imports an approximately equal amount of difficult-to-refine stuff because that way US refineries can take advantage of their comparative expertise to make a little money.
The point is that it would be easy for US refineries to switch entirely to US-produced crude as their supply, and if they did that, that 10-11% figure would go down a lot.
The reason people tend to think that international trade is important to the US economy is that during the Cold War, Washington used the ability to trade with the US as a carrot to tempt countries into allying with the US against the USSR. But the main motivation for the US to do that was not to enrich Americans but rather to increase the (long-term) military security of Americans.
Inflation, and immigration/border security. Americans still prefer Republicans to Dems on the latter, even though the specifics of current-year ICE enforcement is unpopular. And Dems have so much trouble just saying "we should deport illegal immigrants that commit other crimes and secure our borders" that Republicans will probably win the next election, too.
The edgy conservatives who frequent HN these days will be notably silent in offering a response to this.
They don’t view anything that is going on as incorrect or “the wrong direction”.
They don’t view anything that is going on as incorrect or “the wrong direction”.
In some ways some people are literally blinded to the problems they cause because as you say, they do not and some say cannot see the problem.
A good discussion on the topic is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooEsmOOm2k tl;dw - authoritarianism and conservatism directly impact your cognition and ability to reason about the world and prefer abductive reasoning and avoiding new information.
"Republicans don’t want to hear this, but there’s a pretty long-standing body of social science research that indicates people who have right-wing attitudes, particularly regarding religion and epistemology, appear to have lower cognitive capacity." (and it gets worse with age because you do not receive new information)
A good discussion on the topic is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooEsmOOm2k tl;dw - authoritarianism and conservatism directly impact your cognition and ability to reason about the world and prefer abductive reasoning and avoiding new information.
"Republicans don’t want to hear this, but there’s a pretty long-standing body of social science research that indicates people who have right-wing attitudes, particularly regarding religion and epistemology, appear to have lower cognitive capacity." (and it gets worse with age because you do not receive new information)
What makes this disillusionment even more difficult to claim is that it’s the same argument that’s used to counter liberals by saying they are all sheep, etc.
Which, leads us to simply morals and ethics. Two sides with two different views who both are angry at the other for not having their views.
That’s not to say both are right, but there’s surely one side that has a lot more care for us all as humans vs thee.
Which, leads us to simply morals and ethics. Two sides with two different views who both are angry at the other for not having their views.
That’s not to say both are right, but there’s surely one side that has a lot more care for us all as humans vs thee.
"They are all sheep" is rich coming from the most conformist group in existence. There is a reason they use "blue-haired" as an insult. Their rugged individualism can't tolerate deviating from the flock for acceptable hair styles. Conservatives are clowns. They would be funny, except they are destroying our country.
Counterpoint: they know this president is complete dogshit but don't want to openly admit it.
"I don't like everything that he does. Why are you so fixated on him? You have TDS. Libtard."
At this point I assume they just have it on macros like the old MUD days. And to extend the analogy, they're playing as low-wisdom trolls.
At this point I assume they just have it on macros like the old MUD days. And to extend the analogy, they're playing as low-wisdom trolls.
Because there is no risk of war. Hyperventilating online isnt reality.
dayyan(1)
dsfdsfsdfsdf(2)
So much optics and theatre going on, makes you wonder what is the larger play / bigger move that is motivating all of this.
Meanwhile, the bond holders that don’t sell, can wait it out until the bond pays out or the selling mania stops, and the price returns to equilibrium.