Politics

[LivingTheDream]

Since everyone is demanding sources from me but not themselves, I'll post one for you. Is this what you are referring to?

Report: Texas Finds Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Registered on State Voter Rolls

Texas has reportedly found thousands of illegal immigrants registered to vote on the state's voter rolls, with Secretary of State Jane Nelson saying 2,724 possible noncitizens have been flagged through a federal database cross-check. | Pre-Viral

www.breitbart.com

..."After running the SAVE cross-check, Texas’ investigation reportedly identified 2,724 possible noncitizens. Their voter files were then sent to local counties to be further reviewed."...

That means 2,754 possible non-citizens. Not confirmed. After review, 33 Have been referred to the AJ office for investigation. The Republican source is below.

Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database

But wait, there's more. https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/13/save-voter-citizenship-tool-mistakes-confusion/

Rut row...looks like an investigation shows that the 2,754 is mostly a lie....So again, 33 cases have been referred for an investigation...remind me again, who has been in charge of the state of Texas for the past 30 years?

If a state-wide Texas election with 18 million registered voters has a margin of error of less than 33 votes, then maybe you have a point. Oh wait, maybe not, not all those 33 people actually voted

So you are saying a state run by Republicans that requires an ID to vote has a very small margin of error and is doing a good job? Sounds like a solid case for the SAVE Act.

 

[RLD]

I think Rubio answered that today from Americas perspective. He said Europe didn’t come to help in the ME in our war. While we have funded the most to Ukraine and it is not our war it’s Europe’s war. (Paraphrased)

I’m certainly not saying it is sellable across Europe but I have a hunch that the 2% contribution to NATO Trump wanted eight years ago is going to look like a bargain. 5% will probably be a bargain in European budgets in 5-10 years.

I would be happy to see Europe and Canada spend 5%! But I also think it is wrong to simply lump NATO as one unit in the criticism. Poland spends fairly on defence but just doesn't have assets that would make a difference in the Gulf. The U.K. is a different story.

Trump does seem to forget that when European countries support U.S. actions they support it fairly. A-stan was very much "your war" but plenty of europeans lost their lives there in that. Same with Desert Storm (but to be fair I think that was all our war).

There are wars and then their are wars. Not many people outside the U.S. think this war is wise. Many leaders have actively stated they think it is illegal. You cannot expect countries to support wars they think are unjust. Especially when the U.S. has recently slapped you with aggressive tarriffs and keeps issuing threats about how you run your own countries and the VP drops buy and shits all over you.

Trump seems purely transactional, without morals or philosophy. Ukraine's defence strikes me as a classic "just war" against aggression. I don't think Trump sees it that way.

He also thinks one can bully people into anything. He insults Starmer and the UK (and all of our contributions to A-stan) and then gets upset when they don't all jump in to help him out. You would think if he wanted some assistance he might have shown the foresight to make some investments in the goodwill bank instead of insulting everything that moves and then expecting everyone to forget that.

Merits aside, Trump's style makes it hard for other democracies to take risks to assist him.

 

[LivingTheDream]

If Trump and Rubio really believes that Nato should function as an offensive alliance rather then a defensive one perhaps they should asked for some sort of revision of the treaty?

Here is the thing. He didnt want Europe to join, he wanted them to say no, now he can say (or is currently saying) they didnt help us, NATO is terrible, Ukraine is terrible, etc. And you will soon hear him say Europe is unreliable, won't help us when we need it and we need Greenland, let's make a deal.

 

[RLD]

Regarding the 2023 legislation that Congress passed making it harder for a President to withdraw from NATO. I could be mistaken but I would bet we have an “auto pen” case at SCOTUS prior to January 2029. I also don’t know how that case could be decided but if it favors Trump, we are probably reading the tea leaves now.

You might get an autopen case up there, but I don't know how strong it will be. If the argument succeeds I could see it working on an executive order or pardon, where the document simply expresses the will of the President. It would be hard to see it applying to legislation which is simply the President endorsing the will of the people. If SCOTUS were to rule that it would kill a ton of legislation and make a mess of historic proportions.

But it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[mdwest]

My recollection is that the raison d'etre of NATO was to contain aggression from the USSR, and maybe to keep a close eye on Germany.

Now the USSR is no longer called the USSR but those folks are still pretty aggressive and still need some serious containing.

Personally I think Putin would be dancing a jig to see NATO come apart in some way.

What kind of refresh are you suggesting might work? I was pleased Trump got the countries to ante up a bunch more money for defence, but I think suggesting that NATO, as a group should have responsibilities in the Middle East would be some mission creep of epic proportions, and unsellable across Europe.

Other than the underfunding problem, until MAGA took a dislike to it, I think NATO remained relevant and useful in containing threats that originated in Moscow. That is why I think Congress passed the legislation to make it so difficult for the U.S. to withdraw. I don't think that was charity, I think they still believe in its essential mission.

The USSR was certainly the primary focus/threat at the formation of NATO... but that focus has shifted pretty dramatically over the years from dealing with crisis interventions in the Balkins to counter terrorism threats associated with GWOT, etc..

I guess the question is.. who or what is the collective threat that everyone in NATO is worried about? Do all of the member nations agree anymore?

Until Russia invaded Ukraine, much of Europe didnt give more than 1/3 of a shit about Russia.. in fact Germany was doing a TON of trading with Russia and even laughed at the thought of not buying billions of dollars of Russian gas, etc.. etc.. When Russia took Crimea in 2014, Europe's collective opinion seemed to be that it was a Ukrainian problem.. no one was worried about Russian troops advancing into the next country.. European NATO members did nothing to increase their military spending, training, or capabilities.. if anything they let their militaries continue to decline..

Based on the majority of Europeans opinions on AH, there doesnt seem to be a collective concern about Iran.. all I hear is "open the straits!".. anything beyond that they have no interest in at all..

The US seems to think China is the single biggest threat to western society these days both economically and militarily.. while Canada is increasing trade with China and Europe doesnt seem to care much about China either way..

So.. is there a collective enemy or collective concern anymore?

I honestly dont know...

But clearly what the US thinks is in its strategic interests is something that much of Europe thinks is counter to its strategic interests..

 

[Wheels]

Like I wrote before there are no articles in the Nato treaty that covers the current war in Iran, the treaty only applies to a collective defence and even though the US has been attacked by Iran through various proxies before the US did not took the oppurtunity to use that as a base for invoking article 5.

Perhaps if Trump wanted Nato to join he should have done like George W Bush or George HW Bush and taken the time to build a coalition before launching the attack.

If Trump and Rubio really believes that Nato should function as an offensive alliance rather then a defensive one perhaps they should asked for some sort of revision of the treaty?

I’m not disagreeing with you. Just reviewing comments made today by Trump and Rubio. It doesn’t look good for NATO in its current form.

In regards to your first paragraph. NATO also doesn’t cover Ukraine yet Europe and America are both involved. Same as Iran but Europe isn’t involved.

Ironically, Germany is prosecuting Ukraine commandos for blowing up Nord Stream. This does technically trigger NATO. A non NATO country attacking a NATO member. Why hasn’t NATO attacked Ukraine.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, NATO or not. It is who are your friends when the bar fight starts. That’s my read regarding Trump and Rubio statements today.

 

[RLD]

The USSR was certainly the primary focus/threat at the formation of NATO... but that focus has shifted pretty dramatically over the years from dealing with crisis interventions in the Balkins to counter terrorism threats associated with GWOT, etc..

I guess the question is.. who or what is the collective threat that everyone in NATO is worried about? Do all of the member nations agree anymore?

Until Russia invaded Ukraine, much of Europe didnt give more than 1/3 of a shit about Russia.. in fact Germany was doing a TON of trading with Russia and even laughed at the thought of not buying billions of dollars of Russian gas, etc.. etc.. When Russia took Crimea in 2014, Europe's collective opinion seemed to be that it was a Ukrainian problem.. no one was worried about Russian troops advancing into the next country.. European NATO members did nothing to increase their military spending, training, or capabilities.. if anything they let their militaries continue to decline..

Based on the majority of Europeans opinions on AH, there doesnt seem to be a collective concern about Iran.. all I hear is "open the straits!".. anything beyond that they have no interest in at all..

The US seems to think China is the single biggest threat to western society these days both economically and militarily.. while Canada is increasing trade with China and Europe doesnt seem to care much about China either way..

So.. is there a collective enemy or collective concern anymore?

I honestly dont know...

But clearly what the US thinks is in its strategic interests is something that much of Europe thinks is counter to its strategic interests..

Things have certainly changed since NATO was formed.

But I don't think trade with Russia was counter to NATO's objective to contain them. Part of the thinking behind that trade after the fall of the USSR was that if we could integrate Russia into europe economically, they would be less likely to be a military threat as they would have more to lose by starting a war. In the case of Ukraine and Putin that calculus turned out to be wrong, but I think that was the logic behind it. I also think you are right that very many Europeans, particularly those never occupied by or not sharing a border with the USSR had become very complacent.

China is a different kettle of fish. Other than maybe Taiwan they don't a real military threat but rather a massive economic/cultural threat. They need to be contained in very different ways, and so far no one really seems to be working on that.

The Chinese-Canada relationship is at an interesting point. While some very public steps have been taken to make trade easier between the countries we are not seeing it happen yet. Our trade with China went down last year, and recently China has been downgraded from our second to third largest trading partner (UK is now our second largest trading partner). Now if we are playing this smart (and I don't get invited to those meetings so I can't say for sure) we are just keeping the lines open with China until we get a firm fix on what is next with the United States. If we get rational jointly profitable agreements in place with the United States in the next 2 years are so, I can see us going right back to a very U.S. centered economy. If not I think we are going to try and put together an alliance of middle powers to make money with (we are quite close to a free trade deal with India right now) and I think China is likely plan C. But for us keeping all options open until we know what we can expect from the United States is the right strategy.

 

[mdwest]

Trump does seem to forget that when European countries support U.S. actions they support it fairly. A-stan was very much "your war" but plenty of europeans lost their lives there in that. Same with Desert Storm (but to be fair I think that was all our war).

Im going to completely disagree about A-Stan.

There was a reason that Article 5 was invoked and every single member of NATO signed "yes"..

Prior to 9/11 Al Queda had committed terrorist acts in 5 different countries.

Hundreds of additional attacks were thwarted across numerous nations around the globe prior to 9/11.

More than 90 countries lost citizens during the 9/11 attacks. 13 of those countries were NATO members.

Al Queda was a global problem and all of NATO was under threat.

Where I would agree with you is.. once Al Queda was effectively neutralized, Afghanistan became more of a US problem than a global problem. The fight with the Taliban didnt have to be Europes (or Canadas) to stay on board for.. But some chose to stay in the fight (while others left it)..

Whats further interesting about Afghanistan is the number of non NATO countries that participated.. Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Albania, Armenia, Jordan, New Zealand, Australia, and many more all sent troops.. They understood the global threat and jumped on board as well..

 

[RLD]

I’m not disagreeing with you. Just reviewing comments made today by Trump and Rubio. It doesn’t look good for NATO in its current form.

In regards to your first paragraph. NATO also doesn’t cover Ukraine yet Europe and America are both involved. Same as Iran but Europe isn’t involved.

Ironically, Germany is prosecuting Ukraine commandos for blowing up Nord Stream. This does technically trigger NATO. A non NATO country attacking a NATO member. Why hasn’t NATO attacked Ukraine.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, NATO or not. It is who are your friends when the bar fight starts. That’s my read regarding Trump and Rubio statements today.

Article 5 is not quite a hair trigger like that. In order to require the other members to defend, the victim state under attack must "invoke" the Article. They have to...send the bat signal, more or less. I would guess Germany has not sent the bat signal on that incident

 

[Wheels]

Didn't say you did give a fk....but this thread is headed "politics".....not usa politics ....

Mike. I think you need to start a discussion on McMillan’s Wind of Change. Then transition to Kenneth Kaunda and UNIP. Then let it segway over to Chinese mining in the Copper Belt. I will join in where I can.

 

[RLD]

Mike. I think you need to start a discussion on McMillan’s Wind of Change. Then transition to Kenneth Kaunda i'm and UNIP. Then let it segway over to Chinese mining in the Copper Belt. I will join in where I can.

I'm totally in on that!

 

[Wheels]

Article 5 is not quite a hair trigger like that. In order to require the other members to defend, the victim state under attack must "invoke" the Article. They have to...send the bat signal, more or less. I would guess Germany has not sent the bat signal on that incident

I agree and understand how Article 5 works. Just pointing out the irony.

 

[mdwest]

Things have certainly changed since NATO was formed.

But I don't think trade with Russia was counter to NATO's objective to contain them. Part of the thinking behind that trade after the fall of the USSR was that if we could integrate Russia into europe economically, they would be less likely to be a military threat as they would have more to lose by starting a war. In the case of Ukraine and Putin that calculus turned out to be wrong, but I think that was the logic behind it. I also think you are right that very many Europeans, particularly those never occupied by or not sharing a border with the USSR had become very complacent.

China is a different kettle of fish. Other than maybe Taiwan they don't a real military threat but rather a massive economic/cultural threat. They need to be contained in very different ways, and so far no one really seems to be working on that.

The Chinese-Canada relationship is at an interesting point. While some very public steps have been taken to make trade easier between the countries we are not seeing it happen yet. Our trade with China went down last year, and recently China has been downgraded from our second to third largest trading partner (UK is now our second largest trading partner). Now if we are playing this smart (and I don't get invited to those meetings so I can't say for sure) we are just keeping the lines open with China until we get a firm fix on what is next with the United States. If we get rational jointly profitable agreements in place with the United States in the next 2 years are so, I can see us going right back to a very U.S. centered economy. If not I think we are going to try and put together an alliance of middle powers to make money with (we are quite close to a free trade deal with India right now) and I think China is likely plan C. But for us keeping all options open until we know what we can expect from the United States is the right strategy.

As I sit here and think about what would a revamped NATO look like?

Something that wont happen.. but I think would frankly be awesome.. would be for the US, Canada, and Mexico to get their collective shit together and form a North America Treaty Organization... Something that focuses on North American security concerns..

Completely separate from any economic/financial/trade agreements.. just something that aligns all three countries in a defense/offense manner that protects our side of the globe from anything that might infringe on any of the member nations sovereignty...

Again, it will never happen... but.. I think something like that would be both beneficial and interesting to watch develop..

 

[Brent in Az]

Since everyone is demanding sources from me but not themselves, I'll post one for you. Is this what you are referring to?

Report: Texas Finds Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Registered on State Voter Rolls

Texas has reportedly found thousands of illegal immigrants registered to vote on the state's voter rolls, with Secretary of State Jane Nelson saying 2,724 possible noncitizens have been flagged through a federal database cross-check. | Pre-Viral

www.breitbart.com

..."After running the SAVE cross-check, Texas’ investigation reportedly identified 2,724 possible noncitizens. Their voter files were then sent to local counties to be further reviewed."...

That means 2,754 possible non-citizens. Not confirmed. After review, 33 Have been referred to the AJ office for investigation. The Republican source is below.

Texas Completes Citizenship Verifications in the SAVE Database

But wait, there's more. https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/13/save-voter-citizenship-tool-mistakes-confusion/

Rut row...looks like an investigation shows that the 2,754 is mostly a lie....So again, 33 cases have been referred for an investigation...remind me again, who has been in charge of the state of Texas for the past 30 years?

If a state-wide Texas election with 18 million registered voters has a margin of error of less than 33 votes, then maybe you have a point. Oh wait, maybe not, not all those 33 people actually voted

There is absolutely nothing in my those links to prove your claim that those 2754 were legitimate or erroneous.
The 33 non citizen voters were referred to the DOJ, prior to the voter rolls list coming out
As far as you who is in charge of Texas,? Low level Idiots at DMV letting illegals slip thru the cracks. Intentionally, or not.

One illegal vote is one too many.

But we all know the Democrats love to cheat anyway they can

 

[Wheels]

I think Nato is more or less dead allready, or at least the idea of the US coming to europes aid...there seem to be a lot of allies believing that the US under Trump would not come to their aid regardless if the US are a member or not...or at least thats how it sounds in MSM in Europe. Perhaps the organization should be terminated and replaced with something new.

The countries that made up NATO in 1949 had a lot in common. They had bonded over an existential cause. All those countries gradually become more liberal.

The American pendulum started to swing back towards conservative principles in Trumps first term. Then there was the Biden reset. You now see conservative parties in Western Europe starting to make serious gains but they are still a decade behind America. The philosophical and political differences have caused the fissure within NATO. The big question is will the national pendulums continue to separate or will they start moving in unison before NATO splinters.

 

[MauserM03Blog]

Sounds like whichever military you served in desperately needs to find new analysts to me…

I would have fired them on the spot for wasting my time and my staffs time unless they could bring hard data to the table that validates their determination along with evidence that their own personal bias was removed… anyone that can do basic math, understands the US military, understands the USMC, and understand the fundamentals of force forecasting would look at any report that remotely resembles what you describe as valueless drivel..

But sure.. let’s reconvene in 30 years… I mean the first 20 years prove that any nonsense they were advocating has been proven completely untrue.. so let’s keep wasting our time for another 30 years monitoring the same nonsense…

That’s actually laughable..

FWIW, I am not a Marine.. I was a solider years ago before I moved into defense consulting before I moved into defense contracting.. I now sit on the board of multiple defense firms and am CEO of a defense services firm that focuses on consulting services... So I do indeed know what proper defense analysis products look like, how they should be developed, how they get presented, etc.. you've tapped right into the heart of what I do for a living and have done for decades..

Your credentials suggest you should be an intelligent and open minded fellow (and I'm sure you are in some contexts) and yet in your words you can't help but dismiss out of hand information that doesn't line up with your established thinking. If you were interviewing candidates for a senior post, would you select someone who demonstrated the characteristics you just have?

 

[mdwest]

Your credentials suggest you should be an intelligent and open minded fellow (and I'm sure you are in some contexts) and yet in your words you can't help but dismiss out of hand information that doesn't line up with your established thinking. If you were interviewing candidates for a senior post, would you select someone who demonstrated the characteristics you just have?

If I told you that I saw the sun turn brown and the moon catch ablaze… you’re going to accept it just because it was said?

Or are you going to say bullshit? Prove it.

What you have relayed is obvious bullshit to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the subject matter…

Being open minded, and being stupidly led down a clearly untruthful path are two completely different things…

I don’t waste my time on bullshit…

So my point remains the same… your country clearly needs better defense analysts…

I interview people for senior posts regularly..

I don’t hire yes men or conformists..

But I also avoid hiring idiots and bullshit artists…

 

[MauserM03Blog]

If I told you that I saw the sun turn brown and the moon catch ablaze… you’re going to accept it just because it was said?

Or are you going to say bullshit? Prove it.

What you have relayed is obvious bullshit to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the subject matter…

Being open minded, and being stupidly led down a clearly untruthful path are two completely different things…

I don’t waste my time on bullshit…

So my point remains the same… your country clearly needs better defense analysts…

I interview people for senior posts regularly..

I don’t hire yes men or conformists..

But I also avoid hiring idiots and bullshit artists…

Resorting to, 'Oh yeah? Prove it!' is a poor alternative to, 'Hmmm, that's interesting and unexpected, quite frankly. I'll keep thinking about that.' I'm seeing a lot of narrow thinking amongst members here.

No need for specifics, but there have been times when I've found my views on important societal issues changing completely. It's happened slowly, and quickly. Can you think of times when this has happened for you?

 

[mdwest]

Resorting to, 'Oh yeah? Prove it!' is a poor alternative to, 'Hmmm, that's interesting and unexpected, quite frankly. I'll keep thinking about that.' I'm seeing a lot of narrow thinking amongst members here.

No need for specifics, but there have been times when I've found my views on important societal issues changing completely. It's happened slowly, and quickly. Can you think of times when this has happened for you?

So if I tell you something that is obviously ridiculous and false, you think the best solution is to think about it rather then demand the person that is telling me something that is ridiculous and obviously false prove their ridiculous and false statement?

This has nothing to do with personal views…

It has everything to do with rejecting idiots..

A new race of man was found today.. they have purple skin, are hairless, and are asexual… I have no real evidence.. but I’m telling you it’s true..and I give you some clearly trumped up data to validate my bullshit..

How much of your time are you going to waste considering it?

Your Muslim Marine claim is almost as stupid, ridiculous, and unfounded. It clearly demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge or even awareness of the USMC, or population demographics of the US and the US military.. and force forecasting…

But you keep on being open minded.. it seems to suit you well..

 

[steve white]

I don't know what accountability you want. Voters decide if a President made the right or wrong decisions and that decides if the keep the job or not.

Sometimes you need PUNISHMENT, incarceration, fines and the like or justice is not done. Makes me sick when criminal behavior only results in resignation. That's what I want!
lAnd not primarily talking about the president. I would probably faint if I saw one rotten Democrat go to jail.