I am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
The stated objectives for this administration was to be understood as: Weaken USD. Cheaper oil. Weaken NATO.
This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.
> you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together
There is no un-breaking this egg. Only the most deluded people in the world don't realize that there is no trust to be exchanged, for many generations at least.
The most universal bad outcome is that many people had predicted, we are now living in a new age of accelerated nuclear proliferation thanks to the loss of Pax Americana.
The simplest conclusion is that Trump has a narcissistic disorder and everything he does is related to that. All of his actions are well explained by this.
Of course, he can be a Russian asset to some extend at the same time.
There are ways in which the Trump admin is aiding Ukraine right now that cannot fit the narrative though.
If Putin controlled Trump outright, Ukraine would not be using US intel to more effectively strike Russian oil infrastructure. Trump blocked this intelligence sharing for a little bit during the initial "Peace talks" but now we are back to helping the find routes for weapons that won't be intercepted.
That is in line with Trump being sympathetic to Putin's narrative, but not in line with Trump following Putin's orders.
That infrastructure is critical for Russian state budget, something that is very strained, and for maintaining cheap energy internally to keep the populace apathetic.
Putin would also not have wanted the US to waltz into Venezuela unopposed. Makes Russia look very weak to have an ally who they supply with military aide be so comprehensively owned.
Unfortunately, Trump just idolizes Putin for being a powerful and oppressive dictator, because he likes power and wants that for himself. He has no moral qualms with the immoral things done by Putin. He loves the fake "Manly" persona. He's jealous of how effective Putin propaganda is.
It can still fit the narrative. There's a game theory to blackmail; if Putin publishes (hypothetical) kompromat then he loses his leverage. So as long as Trump remains less hostile to Russia than the alternative, he can do what he wants.
Also, support for Ukraine is very popular in the US, and Trump is clearly concerned about his image. Also about a potential revolt in the GOP. Cracks are showing already.
It's truly vile how he treats the office and the democratic values he's meant to uphold and defend.
Why is he not impeached? Where is the American people?
He treats you with such contempt that he isn't above using the office for fraud and scams. He has done more to harm the US than Putin could have ever dreamed possible. Where is the American people? Hello?
Impeachment doesn't mean what (I believe) you think it does. There were previous presidents of the US who got impeached and remained in the position as well. This part is not novel (the only novel part is that he managed to get impeached twice).
Removing Trump from office would require votes from some Republican Party members in Congress, and so far not enough are willing to vote for it.
He's been impeached twice, in his first term when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment happens. But removing a president requires trial and conviction in the Senate, and enough Republicans there voted against conviction. Several presidents have been impeached; none have been convicted.
> Where is the American people?
My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance over a segment of the population. They can say anything and that segment will believe them and support it.
> My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance
I understand what your saying but I believe it's too much of an excuse. Every single person has a degree of personal responsibility to be at least somewhat informed on the state and happenings of your nation. A democracy simply cannot function otherwise.
I completely agree about responsibility. At the same time, we can't close our eyes, on principle, to the fact that people can be influenced or we will paralyze ourselves about a critical problem.
I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.
Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.
Ironically, this kind of mindset is exactly the one that Putin encouraged within Russia because it makes political pluralism impossible. If no matter who wins, 40% of the population is convinced the opposition is inherently wicked and intentionally trying to destroy the country as an agent of foreign (either literally or culturally) interest...
...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.
Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.
Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.
Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.
You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.
> The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
The strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.
Who fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.
IMHO: The goal of the political movement (we really need a name for it after so many years in so many countries) is to replace the existing world order with a new one with them on top.
The movement seems to include right-wing (semi-)authoritarians such as Trump and the GOP, Netanyahu, Putin, bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), lesser powers, and many American business interests including in SV.
Leading Trump advisor Stephen Miller expressed one core position, which is that power rules the world - rather than human rights and votes, which is the fundamental of American tradition and law, and the current world order.
So yes, policies like Venezuala and Greenland, as well as immigration policy, anti-science positions, pro-disinformation actions, etc. are intended for a broader political outcome, but it's much broader than NATO. They are playing for the whole thing.
I'm surprised that more people on HN aren't very familiar with their strategy and goals.
Speculating a cabal of authoritarians planning to change the world order is strictly in tinfoil hat territory.
It is much more boring than that. Democracy is an unstable way of ruling societies and generating value out of people. Keeping it healthy requires not only elections but lots of "undemocratic" powerful institutions with unelected well-educated people in it (courts, agencies, foundations, bureaucrats). Those institutions need to have actual power to coerce. The goal of the democracy should be generating quite a bit people who will hold those positions.
Managing economics such that there aren't any too big organizations that can significantly affect individuals' independent decision making is also required. That's the antitrust laws and unions for ya.
When educational, scientific and social organs are undermined, the public becomes more susceptible to strongman figures that provide easy solutions to the degradation. When economy is mismanaged undereducated people are easily swayed, more educated people are easily coerced.
It is statistical common human behavior to support autocrats, especially under stress. Autocrats themselves have a strong inherent understanding of power and great skills/intuition to detect the weakest. If you encoutered bullies in your life, you may have observed how their brain and the cult of personality works. It is fascinating that they can pick out the weak so easily.
Like the bullies, the autocrats understand each other since they understand themselves. Our crappy happenstance is not a result of a strategy but the systematic behavior of bullies and, bullied and oppressed people.
The Republicans pick on Venezuela and Europe and Canada since they know that those societies are weak and they are separated. They know from years of backstabbing experience that if they play the game right, they will get to enjoy one more praise, one more success, one more sadistic dopamine rush. They will get to enjoy eating one separated bison from the herd at a time. They know that attacking a strong bully like themselves will be hard and it will probably hurt. They won't get the same feeling of accomplishment.
Without attacking the system itself, it is really hard to win against it. There needs to be strong external factors for established autocratic regimes to collapse by letting them be. Attackers need to be smart and nimble and more importantly systematic. Moreover the lines of defense are not uniform. There are many smaller bullies even in the weak. They have lots of economic incentives to keep their small serfdoms.
It's not speculation; they openly talk about replacing the world order and there is plenty of evidence. What exactly they want, and who participates to what degree, is less well-defined.
Anecdotally, several of my extended family are now on SSRIs because it helps alleviates their pain from rheumatoid arthritis. My mom in particular often complains about fainting; if I was taking similar high dosages of painkillers, SSRIs, and other drugs targeting the nervous system I would faint too.
I grew up with Disney. Was a big fan of the parks, merchandising… Sonewhere along the way Disney left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe it was the removal of Fastpass. Disney now is very naked about extracing maximum dollars from suckers like me. I no longer think of Mickey Mouse as representing family oriented entertainment.
In the US, it looks like the healthcare industry is the sole viable sector. What I don’t know is how to break into healthcare from a developer’s perspective. Good luck.
For much of the past 12 months, extremely high uncertainty (from sweeping policies such as those related to tariffs); dramatic shifts in the nation’s immigration flows; and, to a much lesser extent, companies testing the AI waters, have resulted in muted employment gains – or even outright losses – across most industries.
The lone exceptions have been health care – an industry growing as a result of an aging population – and leisure and hospitality, which has reaped some of the spoils from an increasingly bifurcated economy.
I second this. I see inexperienced business folks (including CEOs) think they are going to take advantage of an IT vendor by signing a fixed price contract and then demand constant additions to scope couched as something else. What ends up being delivered is a hot steaming pile that is dead on arrival. Act like shit; be treated like shit.
First, try to slow down my heart rate and breathe.
If I have some energy, do a few squats, old man push ups against the desk, or try to strengthen my knees by standing on one leg a few seconds at a time.
I usually am pro vaccine. But the HPV vaccine discussion seems politicized to me. As someone who is monogamous and over fifty, I had trouble following the risk vs reward discussion. The CDC says it is only recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
All vaccination is now heavily politicized in the US. HPV vaccination was an obvious focal point initially because of why we'd do it when we do.
The initial data says you should vaccinate somewhere around 12-14 year old girls because most of them will be HPV naive but if you wait longer they won't be any more. But too many US parents cannot imagine their little girl ever having sex and if they never have sex they almost certainly won't contract HPV so, why are we vaccinating them? Are you trying to make my daughter a slut?
If you've been a teenage American this should strike you as very silly, and doubly so if you understand biology. Teenage girls are not, in fact, celibate by default, so some of them will get horny. And if you understand biology the viral infections aren't caused by the same mechanism as pregnancy "sexual activity" is a shorthand, you can easily get infected while steering clear of anything that would get somebody knocked up. A peck on grandma's cheek is unlikely to work, but if you're sucking face for most of a Stranger Things episode that's definitely enough that you might contract HPV.
> recommended for young adults so I interpret that for my case the answer is negative.
You need to be careful making assumptions.
Previously that recommendation was due to limited vaccine production and trying to prioritize young women.
There were CDC recommendations during covid that were not about what was best for you individually.
As always with health, the right answer is to seek professional advice. But also to take personal responsibility for your own choices (that depend on your specific circumstances).
Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
> Same, what is the risk/reward for someone who is and plans to be monogamous. Young or old. Cost not a concern. Give me the info and let me decide for myself, my kids, my parents.
Did I read this correctly? You are going to decide for your children based on their plans to be monogamous?
And you’re also going to decide for your parents? I can only assume you’re in the unfortunate situation where your parents are no longer capable of making decisions?
I don't want to assume, so I'll ask if you're willing to share - are you making the implicit assumption that your kids are and/or will be monogamous, and is that assumption a key factor in your decision on their vaccinations?
The CDC recommendation to get it at 11 or 12 does not make sense to me. I know they aren’t having sex - and I know that some kids do. We will discuss, together, the pros/cons as they get older to see if it makes sense. As they get older, they’ll make these decisions themselves. Until then, I’m weighing the pros/cons and in our case, it doesn’t seem they are at risk in the near future.
The early recommendation age just falls out of the data that shows the vaccine is substantially more effective if you haven't been infected yet, together with the fact that it's a multi-dose vaccine where the second dose comes months later, and realistically for many that's going to mean a year or more before completing the series.
I think there's truth to the idea that the specific 11-12 range is somewhat arbitrary: as much as anything it's that because there was a preexisting "slot" in the vaccine schedule at 11-12. The American Academy of Pediatrics differs from the CDC's panel on this... but on the earlier side: they would start the recommendation at age 9. I think to a significant degree the thinking there is that if you go earlier the messaging and reaction is more "your child will probably eventually have sex and this is an effective time to give the vaccine" and less "your child will be having sex like, tomorrow."
I am a parent who vaccinated my daughter at 9 for HPV, and my son will be vaccinated as soon as he’s old enough, without delay or hesitation. It is my opinion you are doing a disservice to your children with a suboptimal mental model, potentially driven by emotion instead of data.
Your children will have sexual contact with another human eventually as they grow into adults, and there is very low risk with an HPV vaccine. There is, in my opinion, no reason not to vaccinate as soon as possible (considering the material reduction in future cancer risk, and that there is no cure once infected, only prevention via vaccination). You might have feelings, as many have strong feelings, but they won’t matter once your kids are 18 and you no longer control them. Google the stats on parental estrangement.
Try to do better, you are a guardian of your children, not an owner, and your values will potentially not be their values. I don’t care with who or when my children have sexual experiences with once they are old enough to consent, what matters is they are respected, as well as protected from harm and poor health outcomes from these experiences they will certainly have eventually during their lifetimes. If you don’t think your kids are going to have sex when they’re older, or think you can control it, you are lying to yourself. So, protect them from what you can, which in this case is HPV.
Let me start by saying I am mostly in agreement with what you've written. But I do not understand why there is the urgency to vaccinate them when they are 9 (as you did).
Because the United States is rapidly devolving, including around vaccine recommendations and what availability and access might look like because of that, and my child and I were already at the pediatrician that day. Administering the vaccine and me asking the pediatrician “can we do it today?” cost me nothing beyond the time. If I need to find them their second dose elsewhere six months after the first (unlikely, but possible), I am prepared for that, but once they have that second dose, they have the persistent health benefit with very little effort required (regardless of what the future looks like). I’ve just lowered their future cancer risk, with no more than an hour or two of time.
I work in risk management, and have for almost a decade, so that’s how my brain is wired to evaluate and manage risk. I understand others may decision and action differently. Low cost, low risk, high reward choice? That’s a damn good deal, I’ll take that deal.
Pretty sure this line never convinced anyone of anything. We all want to do "better" but have different definitions of what that constitutes.
> If you don’t think your kids are going to have sex when they’re older, or think you can control it, you are lying to yourself.
I don't think anyone thinks this. Some people do hope and expect their children not to have sex outside of a monogamous marriage. If you give your kid a vaccine that is primarily meant for people who do not do this, you are letting your kid know that you don't really have faith in them.
That sends a strong message that some people do not want to send. As GP said, you're free to raise your kids different, and if you don't place value on reserving sex for marriage, it would make sense that you would do differently.
"Sending a message" is generally a cover term for evil.
And there is no issue of having faith in them--you are trying to make a decision you have no right to make. You're a parent, not a slavemaster.
The real world data is that the "good" girls are more likely to get pregnant, more likely to get STDs. And more likely to end up in bad marriages.
And lets add another data point. I used to have a bunch of coworkers from a very conservative background. An unmarried person would not be able to buy a condom in town type conservative. Over the course of many years I became aware of many marriages--and every single marriage was either arranged or due to pregnancy. Every single one. Remember, one of the definitions of insanity is keeping trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
Neither does a parent, based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception. Parents aren’t special, and they are failing in this regard by believing they should have a right to say no, simply for being a parent. Anyone, broadly speaking, can have children. That does not make them good or qualified parents unfortunately. It just makes them temporary guardians (until their children are adults) with an opinion.
~54% of Americans read below a sixth grade reading level, for example. We would trust your average American’s judgement on vaccination need or schedule, especially for their children, why?
> based on all available evidence, and multiple jurisdictions make vaccination compulsory without exception
Can you share which jurisdictions mandate the HPV vaccine and have no exceptions? I am aware of only a few jurisdictions where it is required, and all such jurisdictions have exceptions.
They also only require it for kids in schools, so any kid who is homeschooled is not subject to the mandate in the first place.
More importantly, the vast, vast majority of jurisdictions have no mandate whatsoever, so any parent can also choose to move to one of those, in addition to the homeschool option.
Ah ok I'd be curious to know what those are, though I would find them to be less persuasive/relevant from a policy perspective. There are countries that have no freedom of speech, outlaw non-govt schools, etc., and I don't want to be taking cues from such countries.
Regardless, I would imagine that very few jurisdictions, and a relatively small percentage of the world, lives somewhere that mandates these vaccines and has no opt-outs.
No, you have an obligation to do the best job you reasonably can with raising children. We generally do not permit parents to do things which pose an undue risk to their children, and most of the exceptions to this involve religion being given a weight it shouldn't get.
Trying to make sex more dangerous to me falls squarely in the realm of child abuse.
For a 9, 10, or 11 year old? I'm definitely not encouraging them to have sex.
I surely hope we go after actual child abusers than parents who delay or opt-out of this OPTIONAL vaccination for their kids.
The problem here is the do-it-later crowd is going to wait too long. Same thing as we see with sex-ed, knowledge is treated as encouraging when reality says it's exactly the opposite. Honest sex ed leads to later sex and fewer problems.
Well, hope and faith are not effective strategies. Good luck to those who operate from this perspective, they will face disappointment, which is theirs to own. Monogamous marriage is a shrinking minority of potential outcomes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], and ~40% of first marriages end in divorce [7] (rates are higher for second and third marriages).
The kids of these people get a chance to do better when they become adults, and that's all we can hope for: that they make better choices than their parents. Better luck next generation I suppose.
[1] How has marriage in the US changed over time? - https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-... - February 11th, 2025 ("In 2024, US adults were less likely to be married than at almost any point since the Census Bureau began tracking marital status in 1940. The percentage of households with a married couple peaked 75 years ago: in 1949, it was 78.8%. That percentage has been below 50.0% since 2010, when the rate was 49.7%. In other words, less than half of American households have included a married couple for over a decade.")
[2] Charted: How American Households Have Changed Over Time (1960-2023) - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-american-households-hav... - November 6th, 2024 ("More Americans today are delaying or forgoing marriage altogether, with just 20% of women and 23% of men aged 25 being married—the lowest on record. Projections indicate that by 2050, one-third of Americans aged 45 may remain unmarried.")
[3] Morgan Stanley: Rise of the SHEconomy - https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-eco... - September 23rd, 2019 ("Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.")
> Well, hope and faith are not effective strategies. Good luck to those who operate from this perspective, they will face disappointment, which is theirs to own.
Hm, worked great for many people I know. I can imagine it would depend on a number of factors.
But looking at your links, they don't seem especially relevant to the question of whether more people are having sex before marriage than before. They don't even mention the word "sex" in fact. And of course, the relevant question isn't whether people in general are having sex before marriage less, it's whether people raised in families where abstention is valued are upholding that value in their lives.
But congrats on sharing lots of links, which makes it look like evidence is on your side!
As to whether "hope and faith are not effective strategies", it probably makes sense to listen to the experience of people who rely on such hope and faith in their lives, and who have many friends/family who do. People who express outward disdain for such things are probably not the best source of reliable info on the matter.
I understand that religiosity (faith and hope) is negatively correlated to intelligence, so I also understand faith driven mental models are an uphill climb to better health outcomes at scale. "It is what it is." As I mentioned, perhaps we'll have better luck next generation, when systems have improved in this regard.
(edit: facts and data are not unkind, they just are, and I feel like I have been very polite in my delivery of all facts and data presented; if you are unhappy about the facts and data presented, that is an internal issue to reconcile)
That's a pretty longwinded ad hominem you've got right there.
Forgive me for not digging into your links again...fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
You're entitled to your opinion, but when you go around spouting about faith not being a good strategy and then cite a bunch of unrelated articles, you've shown that you are yourself not very intelligent (or kind).
"Faith" is fundamentally belief without knowledge. Thus you by definition have no reason to rely on it. (Although the word also gets used in situations where there is a track record to rely on but no specific evidence in the particular case.)
And you're using the wrong yardstick. What you should be looking at is the number of adverse events. STDs. Unintended pregnancies.
Everyone hopes for and has faith in their kids with regard to some actions. It could be going to class, staying out of gangs, not drinking/doing drugs. We don't know for a fact our kids will do what we hope, but we act in a way that shows we have faith in them, so as to avoid undermining their confidence.
I don't need to use the yardstick you propose. There are many confounders in aggregate data, and there are not public polls that capture the demographics and beliefs of my family. It would be a fool's errand to pretend that publicly available data is somehow more important than my own understanding of my kids.
It's funny how you think I shouldn't be able to make decisions for my children, but you seem to think that you know better than me what is right for them.
The available data indicates that you're wrong. You *think* you know, you don't.
Would it be acceptable to not belt your kids because you have faith in your driving skills? (And never mind that the one time in my life where a seat belt mattered was when I was essentially PITted by someone who didn't look left. I walked away with nothing but a pulled muscle and because I was belted my foot correctly found the brake pedal while I was spinning around and totally disorientated.)
Or how about the woman from ~30 years back that said that DUI doesn't really matter if your faith is strong enough as god will protect you.
Not belting your kids when you put them in the car is unsafe and is illegal. However, not getting your 9 year old a vaccine for STDs is not unsafe if that kid is not sexually active, and therefore not at risk for contracting the STD. As the kid gets older, the calculus changes because they are more independent. But pretty much any responsible parent has a very accurate sense of whether their 9 year old is having sex.
And the parents who have a sexually active 9 year old that they do not realize is sexually active are probably not taking them in for their regular doctor appts and vaccines.
It's not that they'll be active at 9. Rather, that you don't know when they'll be active and the ones who see this as encouraging sex will delay too long. Thus it's better to do it early.
I'll never understand how differences of opinion can make people so extreme. Child abuse is a serious issue and you have gone through some mental gymnastics to conflate child abuse with my decision to not vaccinate my 9, 10 or 11 year old child for HPV.
reply