Trump is worshipped by the MAGA. Don't be surprised if Trump weaponizes his followers to carry out his lost deranged motives. If the economy truly collapsed, then this is another sign that we are truly heading towards WW3.
Buy on AliExpress.com
'Murica! (347 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Trump is worshipped by the MAGA. Don't be surprised if Trump weaponizes his followers to carry out his lost deranged motives. If the economy truly collapsed, then this is another sign that we are truly heading towards WW3.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Only in theory but it won’t happen for two reasons.
One is Canadians aren’t middle/high school kids so Americans are less likely to be brave enough to come shooting Canadians down
Second is Americans haven’t won a war since ww2. A bunch of sandal wearing talibans beat American military. They would need to come out guns blazing annd drones blazing and good luck trying to get bunch of fat American boomers come to Alberta when it’s minus 40 Celsius to patrol the streets lol.
One is Canadians aren’t middle/high school kids so Americans are less likely to be brave enough to come shooting Canadians down
Second is Americans haven’t won a war since ww2. A bunch of sandal wearing talibans beat American military. They would need to come out guns blazing annd drones blazing and good luck trying to get bunch of fat American boomers come to Alberta when it’s minus 40 Celsius to patrol the streets lol.
ChatGPT says this:
How Long Would a USA vs. Canada War Last?
If the war were purely conventional (without nuclear weapons or major international intervention), it would be over in a matter of days to weeks—but full occupation could take much longer. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Initial Invasion (0-7 Days)
Estimated Time: 1 Week
Outcome: Canadian military overwhelmed, major cities occupied.
2. Securing Major Cities & Infrastructure (1-3 Weeks)
Estimated Time: 2-3 Weeks
Outcome: Most of Canada's government and economy under US control.
3. Insurgency & Occupation Challenges (Months to Years)
**Estimated Time: Months to Years
Outcome: The USA "wins" but struggles with long-term occupation.
Final Answer:
✔️ Military Victory for the USA: Days to weeks
✔️ Full Occupation: Months to years
✔️ Complete Control Over Canada: Very difficult & unlikely
While the USA could win fast, keeping control would be a costly, long-term nightmare.
How Long Would a USA vs. Canada War Last?
If the war were purely conventional (without nuclear weapons or major international intervention), it would be over in a matter of days to weeks—but full occupation could take much longer. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Initial Invasion (0-7 Days)
- The US Air Force and Navy would immediately establish air and naval superiority, destroying Canadian defenses.
- US ground forces could launch multiple invasions from the long shared border, moving rapidly toward major cities (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal).
- Cyber warfare would cripple Canada's communications and infrastructure.
Estimated Time: 1 Week
Outcome: Canadian military overwhelmed, major cities occupied.
2. Securing Major Cities & Infrastructure (1-3 Weeks)
- With little resistance left, US forces would secure key locations:
- Ottawa (capital) → Government control
- Toronto & Vancouver → Economic hubs
- Calgary & Edmonton → Energy sector
- Any remaining Canadian military resistance would be scattered.
Estimated Time: 2-3 Weeks
Outcome: Most of Canada's government and economy under US control.
3. Insurgency & Occupation Challenges (Months to Years)
- Canada’s large geography and rural populations could make full occupation difficult.
- Civilian resistance and guerrilla warfare could continue for years in remote areas.
- International pressure (NATO, UN) could make the USA face severe economic and diplomatic consequences.
**Estimated Time: Months to Years
Outcome: The USA "wins" but struggles with long-term occupation.
Final Answer:
✔️ Military Victory for the USA: Days to weeks
✔️ Full Occupation: Months to years
✔️ Complete Control Over Canada: Very difficult & unlikely
While the USA could win fast, keeping control would be a costly, long-term nightmare.
This. Plus half of America hates him and loves Canada as America’s closest ally for the entire modern era. Our countries are inextricably linked on every level. The moment he announced an invasion of Canada, a Civil War would start in ‘Murica. Americans protested in the streets over Vietnam, over Iraq, over Israel’s actions in Gaza. It’s pretty obvious invading their neighbour and closest ally would tear America apart.
He knows the only possibility is economic subjugation. Pressuring the Canadian economy to the point of collapse and they can take us over that way. He fails to realize we are one of the most resource rich nations in the world. And we will be able to trade with other nations. It shall take some time and hardship, but eventually new trade deals and economic relationships shall be made. We’ll certainly suffer a lot in a trade war with ‘Murica, but so will they, even more so because they aren’t just starting a trade war with us, but with all 3 of their biggest trading partners. And that doesn’t even count the EU. If it was just us and America, that’s a different story. But it isn’t. It’s every single one of their major trading partners. MAGA has to be the most deluded, moronic group of people around.
He knows the only possibility is economic subjugation. Pressuring the Canadian economy to the point of collapse and they can take us over that way. He fails to realize we are one of the most resource rich nations in the world. And we will be able to trade with other nations. It shall take some time and hardship, but eventually new trade deals and economic relationships shall be made. We’ll certainly suffer a lot in a trade war with ‘Murica, but so will they, even more so because they aren’t just starting a trade war with us, but with all 3 of their biggest trading partners. And that doesn’t even count the EU. If it was just us and America, that’s a different story. But it isn’t. It’s every single one of their major trading partners. MAGA has to be the most deluded, moronic group of people around.
https://x.com/TomHoefling/status/1885416525676355834
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn’t another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn’t another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
@Lion Trump won't invade Canada. He's obsessed with annexation but will likely go after Gaza. My genuine concern is if his tarrifs wars will cause a global economic crash. If it does, then I do worry that we likely see other invasions. Right now Syria is like a 'Royal Rumble,' you have Turkey, Iran, Israel's eyes all on it. You will also have China go after Taiwan and Russia will almost certainly continue in Ukraine.
Things don't look good, there's a growing conflict in the Middle East (Asia) and in Europe (Ukraine).
All it takes is one stupid move by Trump or misstep to connect both conflicts. The US pulling out of NATO or the Gaza invasion may be the trigger. I'm of the minority here who believes WW2 started in the Far East. There needs to be a serious de-escalation by most world powers otherwise WW3 will be inevitable.
Things don't look good, there's a growing conflict in the Middle East (Asia) and in Europe (Ukraine).
All it takes is one stupid move by Trump or misstep to connect both conflicts. The US pulling out of NATO or the Gaza invasion may be the trigger. I'm of the minority here who believes WW2 started in the Far East. There needs to be a serious de-escalation by most world powers otherwise WW3 will be inevitable.
Cloudflare is incredibly good at containing DDoS. The initial assumption of most people in the engineering security space was indeed that it was most likely a misconfiguration that led to X being vulnerable. He probably also fired folks who were responsible for business continuity and disaster recovery along with shutting down redundant datacenters.
What a fucking pussy
Trump turns the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/trump-musk-tesla-white-house-showroom-buys-car-rcna195905
Trump turns the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/trump-musk-tesla-white-house-showroom-buys-car-rcna195905