LosLobo

I agree that Trump's unpredictability has led many countries to reconsider their defense relationships with the U.S., but the F-35 remains unmatched in terms of capability. The Gripen is a 4th-generation+ fighter—impressive and affordable—but lacks the stealth, sensor fusion, and multirole capabilities that make the F-35 a 5th-generation jet. While the Gripen may serve as a solid stopgap for some nations, it cannot replace the F-35's advanced technology, interoperability with NATO, or its future-proofing capabilities. The next-gen fighters that could rival the F-35 are still 10–20 years away. Tempest (UK) and FCAS (France, Germany, Spain) are aiming for their first operational aircraft by 2040. The F-35 was first introduced in 2015, with full operational capability (FOC) reached by 2018, and it has been in service for several years. Its development took about 18 years from first prototype flight in 2000 to operational status. Given the advanced technologies these new programs are targeting—such as AI, autonomous systems, and next-gen stealth—it’s reasonable to expect that their development will take 10–20 years, similar to the F-35’s timeline. Sadly, despite any political shifts, the F-35 will continue to dominate as the 5th-generation fighter for decades, well before any viable alternatives are fully operational. By the way you use the term 'we' may I ask what country are you talking about? NB: Just to clarify, the UK has not dropped the F-35 for the Gripen. While countries like Brazil, Thailand, and the Czech Republic have chosen the Gripen, the UK has already purchased the F-35 and remains fully committed to it as a core part of its defense strategy. Additionally, if the UK were to reconsider, it would likely continue relying on its locally built Eurofighter Typhoon alongside the F-35, rather than opting for the Gripen.

Before the election, Trump, a McDonald's fan, claimed Biden would eliminate hamburgers, a fatal blow to Trump, but perhaps a blessing for those downwind. Yet, ironically his 10% tariff on Australia will increase the cost of McDonald's burgers, a major consumer of the Australian beef, possibly making some consumers choose an alternative. This 10% tariff on Australia stems from their rejection of U.S. beef due to concerns about BDE (Mad Cow Disease). Any price increase is essentially a tax on ordinary consumers—something Trump, a billionaire, will never notice. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/the-unsettling-reason-australia-refuses-to-buy-american-beef/ar-AA1CaV8T

Europe isn’t starting from scratch—SAAB, BAE Systems, Airbus, Dassault, Leonardo, and Rheinmetall already produce top-tier military equipment. But while Europe is making strides toward defense independence, the idea that U.S. weapons will be completely replaced in the near future is premature. Fighter jets like Tempest and FCAS are in development, but the F-35 is already deeply integrated into NATO and Asia-Pacific forces, making an immediate shift unlikely. Tanks and armored vehicles from Rheinmetall and BAE Systems are competitive, but U.S. logistical dominance still plays a major role in NATO operations. Similarly, while European missile defense systems exist, the U.S. still leads in cutting-edge tech like the Patriot and THAAD, which even Germany and Poland continue to buy. The transition away from U.S. arms won’t happen overnight. Trump’s foreign policy has pushed Europe toward self-reliance, but full military independence will take decades. The U.S. defense industry isn’t facing an immediate collapse, but in 10-20 years, if Europe’s projects succeed, America’s dominance in arms exports could take a serious hit.

The ideocracy continues .........besides penguins polar bears.

Maybe believe it. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-australia-liberation-day-2054649

You are being misled me old son! The U.S. trade deficit reflects consumer choice for cheaper imports, not a financial loss. Tariffs raise prices for U.S. consumers, not exporters, putting the burden on Americans. The U.S. economy is built on services and tech, with global supply chains making imports more attractive. Returning to past manufacturing is unrealistic—automation means fewer jobs, not more. The future lies in tech, innovation, and services like AI, biotech, and green energy, which require better education and a skilled workforce for higher-paying jobs.

Just like Trump’s 'big, beautiful' Mexican border wall—this tariff wall won’t be paid for by Mexico—or Canada, Europe, China, Australia, or Thailand. Nope—just like the border wall, Americans will foot the bill.

You seem confused about the characteristics of National Socialism, -- is that the other or just the usual MAGA Projection Derangement Syndrome (PDS)?

Only cheaper, I pay 169 baht here for standard and there are no ads in Thailand. I think US charges more for ads-free. And different TV series and movies, with more Thai and Thai language content. Though you can get US programming with a VPN. AFAIK.

Groceries—those things you need ID to buy. You forgot ‘us’ and ‘US’—and Trump’s favorite covfefe!

Trump’s tariffs—aka taxes—mirror Hoover’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley disaster. Supposed to protect U.S. industries, they instead raised costs, triggered retaliation, failed to revive manufacturing, and helped plunge the world into the Great Depression. His obsession with trade deficits is pure economic illiteracy. A deficit isn’t a loss; it often signals a strong consumer economy. But bully Trump sees it as a scoreboard, and his policies will backfire—hurting businesses, consumers, and global trade, potentially steering us toward another depression. But hey, when has he ever let history or basic economics get in the way of a bad decision?

You're cherry-picking facts and distorting their meaning. Biden didn’t start a trade war—he inherited Trump’s tariffs and has adjusted them strategically. The Russia aluminum tariff wasn’t about trade policy; it was a sanction on an aggressor waging war in Ukraine. Beware Radiochaser's misinformation.

With respect, tariffs are explicitly defined as taxes on imports (or exports). They function as a tax, are collected as a tax, and appear in government revenue as a tax. There's no "in effect" about it—it's a tax, period. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp?

Yet we have proof of a court ruling of being liable for sexual assault because rape in NY law involves penile, not digital penetration. And Biden's accuser - there is no proof of that.

Let’s cut through the nonsense quickly on your most egregious claim: Ah, the MAGA double standard—stolen, unverified diary = truth, but a court ruling against Trump = no big deal. Trump’s court-confirmed sexual abuse – Trump was found liable for digitally raping E. Jean Carroll. This isn’t an "allegation"; it’s a legal ruling. Trump’s additional accusations – Over 20 women have accused him of assault or harassment, including claims of walking in on underage pageant contestants and his involvement in a conveniently dropped lawsuit where a Jane Doe accused him and Epstein of underage rape. By your logic—if Biden’s unverified diary counts, Trump’s numerous allegations should be undeniable. But you’ll probably ignore that, right?