US

[dedja]

https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/just- ... nald-trump

We must accept this is who the US wants. The real question is if we still want America - News | InDaily, Inside South Australia

I don’t suffer from what some of President Donald Trump’s more fervent supporters – both in the US and in Australia – like to call “Trump derangement syndrome”.

That is, I’m not disputing that he won last November’s US presidential election “fair and square”, as did the Republican Party in both the House and the Senate, and that together they have a mandate to implement the policies that they presented to the American people during the campaign that preceded those elections.

(Whether they have a mandate to implement policies they didn’t present to the people during the campaign, or indeed policies that Trump explicitly distanced himself from is another matter, but not one that I’m going to pursue here.)

Rather, in my view, the American people choosing – as they clearly did – a convicted felon, self-confessed sexual predator, racist, narcissist, protectionist, someone who openly displays his contempt for the US constitution, the “norms” and conventions of both personal behaviour and political conduct, to be their “Commander-in-Chief”, despite knowing all those things – as, arguably, many if not most didn’t in 2016 – tells the rest of the world something very profound about the American people. Something that Europeans – along with Canadians, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, Australians and New Zealanders need to understand, very quickly.

The American people of today are not the same people as those who saved the world from fascism 80 years ago, and who over the following 45 years stared down Soviet Communism.

They are not the same people as on whose behalf John F. Kennedy pledged 65 years ago, to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”.

They are not the same people as on whose behalf Ronald Reagan, 40 years ago, celebrated the fact that “Americans courageously supported the struggle for liberty, self-government, and free enterprise throughout the world, and turned the tide of history away from totalitarian darkness and into the warm sunlight of human freedom”.

They are very different from the people whom Reagan represented when, almost 38 years ago, standing in front of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, he called upon Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”.

On the contrary, the American people of today — or, at least, a majority of them – are frightened, angry, afraid, and insular. They don’t want gates opened or walls turned down – they want walls erected, to keep out foreign goods, foreign ideas and foreign people.

So Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, New Zealanders and people of other countries who want to live in freedom need to ask themselves, not simply, “can we continue to rely on the US to defend us if we are threatened by others who don’t want us to live in freedom?” — the answer to which ought to be becoming obvious – but, more fundamentally, “do we want to?”.

Do we want to ally ourselves with a people who can knowingly choose people like Trump and Vice President JD Vance to lead them, and to be the public face of their country for the rest of the world?

A people who are willing to “cut deals” with murderous dictators – in much the same way, albeit on a smaller scale, that mob bosses carved out territory in the boroughs of New York, where Trump learned his trade under the tutelage of his father and the likes of Roy Cohn – without the involvement of those whose interests are to be sacrificed to allow “the strong to do as they will, while the weak suffer as they must”, as Thucydides put it some 2430 years ago.

For some – most obviously Japan and Korea, and probably Germany – that may mean acquiring their own nuclear weapons. For all, it means spending more (and perhaps a lot more) on their own defence.

But it should also mean asking whether they can continue to allow the US to define what is in their own national strategic interests – as Australia, in particular, has increasingly begun to do in the past 24 years (and which will be further entrenched by AUKUS, if Australia remains party to it). While other democracies’ interests may continue to overlap with those of the US, increasingly they won’t, as most of us have assumed they do.

Singapore’s Defence Minister, Ng Eng Hen summed it up very well in responding to the harangue that Vance delivered to the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, saying (at that conference) that “It is clear to all of us that we live in quite interesting times, that the assumptions that we have undertaken in last 80 years have now fundamentally changed”, and, more pointedly, that “the image [of the US in Asia] has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent”.

I hope that our Prime Minister, Defence Minister and Foreign Minister are at least thinking along similar lines – even if, thus far, they’ve not been prepared to speak along similar lines.

It gives me no pleasure to write any of this.

Like (I think) most Australians, I’m grateful for the role of the US in world affairs in the past 85 years – while acknowledging that its record, like ours, isn’t flawless.

I’ve spent more time in the US, as a visitor, than in any other country. My wife is an American – although she scarcely recognises today’s America as the country in which she grew up.

I have a lot of friends in America, including chief economists at banks and other financial services firms. Some of them are now having to self-censor, or are being censored by their CEOs, or their compliance departments – they are forbidden, or are afraid, to tell their clients what they really think – in a country whose vice-president last week chided European countries for, so he said, stifling “free speech”.

The ugly turn the American people have taken also makes me more aware of, and more grateful for, the strength of Australia’s institutions.

Compulsory voting – which I was opposed to, until I spent seven weeks in the US in 1982, and saw how voluntary voting exaggerated the power of single-issue zealots.

Preferential – or as the Americans call it, “rank choice” voting. Independent and non-partisan electoral commissions to administer elections, and draw up the boundaries of electoral districts.

Judges selected for their expertise in the law, rather than their partisan leanings.

A civil service whose senior ranks are not, for the most part, filled on the basis of political allegiance.

“Horizontal fiscal equalisation”, which seeks to ensure that the quality of schooling that children get, the quality of healthcare that families get, the quality of policing that communities get, doesn’t depend on which state you happen to live in, like it does in the US (and despite the corruption of that system by federal politicians from both sides of the aisle in search of votes from Western Australia).

We’re a better country than the US. And we need to ensure we don’t go down the path the American people have chosen for themselves.

Saul Eslake was an economist in the Australian financial markets for more than 25 years, including as chief economist at the ANZ from 1995-2009, and chief economist (Australia and New Zealand) for Bank of America Merrill Lynch from 2011-2015

[dedja]

Yes, so-called ‘AI’ is the future but in this case, it’s a feature not a bug.

https://apple.news/AdouMCR7xQAWuGdxi23O2-A

Apple Pledges to Fix Transcription Glitch That Replaces ‘Racist’ With ‘Trump’

Users online documented how a dictation tool input ‘Trump’ in place of ‘racist’; other words such as ‘rampant’ also trigger what Apple called a ‘bug’

Apple said it would fix a “bug” occurring on some iPhones in which its text-to-speech transcription software is sometimes replacing certain words with an “r” consonant—including “racist”—with “Trump.”

The words “rampant” and “rampage” also at times appear to be replaced with “Trump.” 

Occasionally, the speech recognition models may begin showing words that have phonetic overlap, an Apple spokeswoman said. The spokeswoman didn’t respond to questions about what is causing the error.

“We are aware of an issue with the speech recognition model that powers dictation and we are rolling out a fix today,” the spokeswoman said. 
The issue surfaced online—including on videos posted on social media—as users repeated the word “racist” while dictation software is being used in iMessage, Apple’s texting software. The Wall Street Journal confirmed the error in multiple tests. It also occurred with other words. 

“This is crazy,” a TikTok user who goes by the handle @davidmedinapdx said in a post on the platform. “You say ‘racist’ and it blurts out Trump.”
The software correctly renders “racist” or “rampage” several times, but occasionally when it is repeated, will dictate the word “Trump” instead of “racist” before replacing it moments later, the tests show. The word “Reinald” also appeared occasionally instead of “racist.”

Artificial intelligence has been known to generate unexpected results. The current excitement around general artificial intelligence—which is able to produce text and images—has attracted controversy over its propensity for presenting erroneous, fake or harmful content.

Last year, Alphabet-owned Google had to roll back new generative AI features in its search engine after users observed strange and incorrect answers, such as promoting rock consumption for health benefits.

[DOC]

IMG_0102.jpeg (38.62 KiB) Viewed 4599 times

I

[dedja]

[mighty_tiger_79]

The Don

[dedja]

The Enshittification and Putinization of the USA.

I hope I live long enough for when history reviews all this.

[Jimmy_041]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGorl82g ... 1nZmQxdg==

[Booney]

The orange baby had a good weekend.

[dedja]

All traditional Allies of the US should hammer home that they confirm their commitment and friendship to the US but are no friends of Trump. Isolate the arsehole like he attempts to do to others.

Invite every other US dignitary to their countries warmly, but no Trump or Vance. Only send their own 2nd and 3rd level dignitaries to the White House, not their Presidents or PMs.

Isolate the imbecile and ram home that no friend of the US will have anything to do with him.

Ignore his childish threats and rants … Trump craves attention, just deny it and watch him implode.

With a bit of luck Trump will destroy the US economy just enough that the penny drops for its moronic citizens … just enough to cause them pain without destroying the global economy.

Nothing short of a complete rejection of everything Trump at the mid-terms will have any impact on the spineless cowards masquerading as Republicans, but that’s nearly 2 years away.

What a complete clusterfaark.

[Jimmy_041]

The orange baby had a good weekend.

The meeting with Zelenskyy was unbelievable
I wonder which side thought it was a good idea to be televised?

Can't wait for Planet America this week

Here's the last episode to lure you in

[Jimmy_041]

I'm in an interesting section of Armageddon by Leon Uris about post-war Berlin. The blockade has just started.

The book talks about how the US kept cowtowing to the Soviets despite warnings from its Germany based military that it would end up costing them massively in the longer term. The politicians wouldn't listen.

I don't think Trump realises / cares that giving into Putin is going to cost the US (and the ROW) massively in the long term.

He just wants to get his "deal". Good luck with doing deals with people like Stalin, Putin, Hitler Mao etc

The AFR View
Zelensky was right. But he didn’t read the MAGA room
The best outcome for Australia would be if Trump is pursuing a grand China strategy. But we also need to hedge against him cutting deals with tyrants.

Mar 2, 2025 – 5.28pm

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian people will be the losers from the extraordinary Oval Office clash between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump.

The public bickering at Friday’s meeting in front of the world’s media was first and foremost a terrible moment for the Western alliance. It served as yet another demonstration of President Trump’s unwillingness – or, more accurately, his inability – to assume one of the primary responsibilities of his office: ensuring the US stands up for liberal democracies and condemns authoritarian threats.

Australia must now factor this into its strategic outlook regarding the US alliance and the geostrategic challenge posed by an assertive China.

The putative leader of the free world is rushing to cut a peace deal with a brutal dictator. David Rowe

President Zelensky attended the White House to sign a $US500 billion critical minerals agreement with the US. America has provided Ukraine with an estimated $US120 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid over the past three years, which has enabled Ukraine to fight Russia’s military machine to a stalemate. Trump, characteristically, wants to secure a return on America’s investment while brokering a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

If Zelensky had taken his cue from America’s tech billionaires he would have kissed the proverbial ring. Instead, there was a heated confrontation provoked by Vice President JD Vance’s praise of Trumpian diplomacy to try to end the war. That moved Zelensky to question Putin’s commitment to any peace deal, pointing to Russia’s past violations of ceasefires.

Zelensky is right. The putative leader of the free world is rushing to cut a peace deal with a brutal dictator. Russian forces have committed war crimes in Ukraine. Putin murders his own citizens to retain power. He also bears ultimate responsibility for the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 over Ukraine that killed 38 Australians.

If Zelensky had taken his cue from America’s tech billionaires he would have kissed the proverbial ring.

However, Trump has a transactional approach to foreign policy and the pursuit of a narrow America First agenda that comes at the expense of longstanding international alliances. The Ukrainian president arguably failed to read the “MAGA” room.

Zelensky wants Ukraine to be given an explicit US security guarantee before the start of peace talks. Trump’s base in middle America associates such foreign entanglement with the cause of “forever wars” such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. In effect, Zelensky is demanding America double down on the defence of Europe. Yet Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has already cast doubt on the Trump administration’s commitment to NATO, which has underwritten the stability of the continent over seven decades.

Zelensky, of course, is in an impossible position. The proposed critical minerals agreement offered only an implicit promise of US protection. The agreement is now in limbo after Trump kicked Zelensky out of the White House without the deal being signed. It’s difficult to see Trump offering the same terms again or how Zelensky can now sign an agreement he has so publicly signalled he does not support. The inevitable result of the split between Washington and Kyiv will be to strengthen Putin’s hand in the peace negotiations.

European leaders were quick to express ongoing support for Ukraine. Yet Europe has failed to ramp up its defences despite repeated requests by the US to do so, stretching back to Barack Obama’s demand that NATO members spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. European nations now have no choice but to increase military spending given the uncertainty about America’s commitment to the continent.

The best outcome for Australia would be if Trump is pursuing a grand strategy. Some foreign policy experts believe Trump is aiming to split Putin from his “no limits” partnership with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ending the conflict in Ukraine would in turn enable Washington to focus on confronting the threat to US pre-eminence in Asia posed by China.
The alternative view is that Trump has no time for liberal internationalism and believes that great powers such as Russia and China have the right to control their spheres of influence.

The future of Taiwan remains the likely test of US commitment to maintaining the regional status quo. Australia needs to leverage every diplomatic, economic and cultural connection to strengthen the relationship with our major security partner. Yet, at the same time, we also must undertake our own regional diplomacy initiatives. That is the hedge now required if Trump is willing to cut deals with tyrants.

[mighty_tiger_79]

why does it fall on countries on the other side of the world to contribute more than the neighbours to a war that's on their doorstep??

[Trader]

Yup, it's an interesting thought process.

Why should the US spend $200B protecting a country on the other side of the globe.
Especially when the direct neighbours are staying out of it.

Now, one could say America chose to take on the role of world police when they got involved in every major conflict over the last 70 years, and therefore now they have that role, they should continue to fulfill it.

But I also agree with the alternative thought. Times have changed, the US don't have the surplus cash they used to. They have massive problems at home, and throwing money into a black hole, with no reasonable return on that investment, is naturally a low priority.
I can see why Donny wants to get something in return (the minerals agreement) before he commits to further support for Ukraine.

With that said though, the way in which he is choosing the impose this change in direction is childish at best, and outright pathetic at worst, and he is rightly copping criticism for the way in which he is doing it.

[Jimmy_041]

Have a read..................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[dedja]

why does it fall on countries on the other side of the world to contribute more than the neighbours to a war that's on their doorstep??

It doesn’t because it's not true. Europe has provided more funding and assistance to Ukraine than the US.

Have a read of the linked article by Jimmy … it’s the reason why the US should have as much skin in the game as Europe.

[Jimmy_041]

It's the old problem that, unless you study history, it all seems very silly

Trump doesn't give a toss for history or the fact that he has a responsibility for a legacy for the US sacrifice over a couple of centuries
I get what he says about the swamp and MAGA, but he's wrong on this subject.
When 9/11 happened, we all rallied around the Good ol' Stars & Stripes for no cost - actually we rallied around lies. Same as Viet Nam

Musk is just a Gen Alphabet ****. **** off to Mars mate. You're only rich because others fought and died for your ability to earn

In the meantime, we have China doing live firing off our shore and Albo is nowhere. Trump is nowhere.
But the lefties love to remind us that Albo and Wong got China back trade wise after ScoMo called them out over covid
That worked well - our wineries and lobster farmers are rich again but China are reminding us that they can destroy Sydney with no warning

Can't they do it off Melbourne? No-one cares if that $hithole is given the last rites

Rant over - zoom meeting starting

[Trader]

Have a read..................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

So, an agreement more than 30 years old, that all parties have been backing away from, including Russia, UK and France, and Zelenskyy himself questioned its value prior to Russia's invasion, means it's USA's responsibility to defend Ukraine?

why does it fall on countries on the other side of the world to contribute more than the neighbours to a war that's on their doorstep??

It doesn’t because it's not true. Europe has provided more funding and assistance to Ukraine than the US.

Lumping all of Europe together might be more than the US, but by country, US has done substantially more than any other country.

According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/130 ... o-ukraine/
USA 114B Euro
EU Institutions 49B
Germany 17B
UK 15B
Japan 11B
Canada 8B

[dedja]

It’s shouldn’t be hard to understand the global importance of Ukraine giving up the Soviet Union nuclear stockpile it had in its possession at the time of its independence.

With regards to aid to Ukraine, the question wasn’t the largest contributory country, but European contribution vs US.

[Jimmy_041]

Fair enough

In the same period, the US also gave Taiwan about $6bn in military aid and they aren't at war

Good on the US funding others to fight its natural, and contemporaneous, enemies.

Tell me: what would happen if the US stopped funding the defence of allies & went totally isolationist?
I'm not saying they should: Trump is. They've done it before - a few times
Then someone sinks a USS Maine, Lusitania or Maddox ..............

Same same but different world

[Jimmy_041]

So, an agreement more than 30 years old, that all parties have been backing away from, including Russia, UK and France, and Zelenskyy himself questioned its value prior to Russia's invasion, means it's USA's responsibility to defend Ukraine?

Stoopid Ukraine

I would have kept the nukes and established.......... "The People's Republic of Jimmy_041"