Makes perfect sense!

The Americas, sometimes collectively called America,[3][4][5] initially called India Nova by Europeans,[6] are a landmass comprising the totality of North America and South America.[6][7][8] When viewed as a single continent, the Americas or America is the 2nd largest continent right after Asia

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

I stated 'that does make sense' ... might want to read that again. 🙄

 

 

Maybe he does not know "America" means broader region. Not everyone studied Geography at school or looks at maps.

18 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Maybe he does not know "America" means broader region. Not everyone studied Geography at school or looks at maps.

Yea, 2 continents named North & South America would throw anyone off 

 

There's only 35 sovereign countries in the Americas.

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Yea, 2 continents named North & South America would throw anyone off 

 

There's only 35 sovereign countries in the Americas.

If Biden did it its fine. Anything Trump does is bad to them.

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

It doesn't just border England.   The Gulf of America, only borders countries in the Americas.

 

Actually surprised nobody thought of it before.   If he suggested Gulf of USA, then I could understand the deranged hatred so many exhibit now, for no rational reason.

 

Gulf of America ...  it does kind of make sense.  Don't let hate make you over think it.

Nice try.

No cigar.

Your idea would be:

Gulf of the Americas

'Like the maga hat:

Make the Americas Great Again

 

Next

...

7 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Maybe he does not know "America" means broader region. Not everyone studied Geography at school or looks at maps.

It's America's if you mean both North and South. But you and your mate from LA don't really mean that now do ya!

On 2/13/2025 at 2:55 PM, Harrisfan said:

Every map will be changed.

 

8 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

If Biden did it its fine. Anything Trump does is bad to them.

If Biden started to change names first week at office out of respect, the same result. Hee should had better things to do, than start his personal agenda against neighbours and allies. Just wondering how magas would had taken it thow.

 

And do you know what mexico means, and why it was named mexico? 

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If Biden started to change names first week at office out of respect, the same result. Hee should had better things to do, than start his personal agenda against neighbours and allies. Just wondering how magas would had taken it thow.

 

And do you know what mexico means, and why it was named mexico? 

Trump is from the USA. Only a leftist would whinge poor Mexico

 

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

Gulfo da Whingeo da boo hoo

7 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Trump is from the USA. Only a leftist would whinge poor Mexico

 

Who whinged about poor Mexico, the name change og the Mexico Golf applies only to those Americans who feel small, and need such stimulus to feel greater. Simple psychology behind it.

 

Same as naming Mountains old indigenous names, was to honor them. 

 

Then it is honerable, now it is just bad taste because of a man who wants to be an dictator, 

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Who whinged about poor Mexico, the name change og the Mexico Golf applies only to those Americans who feel small, and need such stimulus to feel greater. Simple psychology behind it.

 

Same as naming Mountains old indigenous names, was to honor them. 

 

Then it is honerable, now it is just bad taste because of a man who wants to be an dictator, 

Whingeing about a name change. No praise for fixing border crossings. How sad.

5 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Whingeing about a name change. No praise for fixing border crossings. How sad.

Is this about border crossing now? 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Nice try.

No cigar.

Your idea would be:

Gulf of the Americas

'Like the maga hat:

Make the Americas Great Again

 

Next

...

I live about five miles from it and the name has been adopted here.

As as the name gathers more and more acceptance and the screechspitting and howlingfrothing grow louder, the sun sets beautifully over the Gulf of America.........

Getting more and more childish, dangerous childish

 

 

White House says it has the right to punish AP reporters over Gulf naming dispute

 

https://apnews.com/article/ap-white-house-gulf-name-dispute-3f43c519a4b4f4661dd0831421943ef7

11 hours ago, Hummin said:

Getting more and more childish, dangerous childish

 

 

White House says it has the right to punish AP reporters over Gulf naming dispute

 

https://apnews.com/article/ap-white-house-gulf-name-dispute-3f43c519a4b4f4661dd0831421943ef7

 

So much for freedom of speech.

 

Wait for the US Government to start insisting on current Allies to do the same in documentation.

11 minutes ago, MicroB said:

 

So much for freedom of speech.

 

Wait for the US Government to start insisting on current Allies to do the same in documentation.

At this rate, the US won't have an allies. Problem solved.

King Trump PROCLAIMED that the gulf of Mexico should be renamed gulf of America. Ony kings can proclaim, right? And here I thought it was an executive action. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

At this rate, the US won't have an allies. Problem solved.

Probably for the best. From what ive seen of the euros on this forum, our allies hate us more than our enemies

On 2/14/2025 at 1:53 PM, KhunLA said:

Yea, 2 continents named North & South America would throw anyone off 

 

There's only 35 sovereign countries in the Americas.

 

 

The logic that "America" in this context refers to the collective North and South American continents only applies if the Gulf of Mexico actually bordered South American land. It doesn't. 

 

The Gulf of Mexico is defined as a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ociean, bordered by the US Gulf coast, the Mexican east coast, Cuba and the Caribbean sea. Cuba is not part of the South American continent. 

 

Therefore, for the renaming to make sense for non-nationalistic reasons, it should be the Gulf of North America.

 

The Arab states renamed the Persian Gulf  the "Arabian Gulf" over 60 years ago. The main driver for this was that the Arabs felt the Iranians were too pro-Israeli.

 

60 years on, only those who kowtow to Wahabist Saudi Arabia call it the "Arabian Gulf". Outside of the Gulf region, there is only one country that does that.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

Is this about border crossing now? 

Harrisfan seems a reincarnation of SusanLea

11 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

At this rate, the US won't have an allies. Problem solved.

 

The US is falling back on the mantra that it doesn't have friends, only interests.

 

Cock-face Vance was right on one thing, Europe and the US are no longer aligned in terms of strategic alignment. The US has basically abandoned the principles of the Atlantic Charter, where the US and UK agreed that neither country would seek territorial expansion, and both countries would seek to free occupied countries from the Nazi jackboot, and allow them to determine their own form of government, Essentially, both agreed to deploy their power as a force for good globally, echoing the West Africa Squadron that Imperial Britain deployed for an astonishing 60 years to fight the scourge of slavery.

 

Western European states, through the Coal Union, EEC, EC, and EU, broadly echoed that policy. People forgot that prior to 1939, the borders in Europe  were not a settled thing. We fought and killed each other over lines drawn on a map. For Western Europe, that was all settled in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The final play was the collapse of Yugoslavia. Europe hasn't changed.  The US, for now, has changed.

 

A US First policy now means the US does not see itself as a Force for Good in the world. It no longer cares about how it is perceived. Everythin the US now does is guided by the principle; does this benefit the US. The US is now an expansionist country, seeking to expand the territories under its control, by force if necessary, as that will benefit the US. It has no interest in ending the Ukraine War for the benefit of Ukraine or indeed Russia. It only has an interest in ending that war because it benefits the US. If Roosevelt had taken that view, he would have determined it was not to the benefit of the US to send troops to Europe, or to fight across the Pacific, and that it would have been far better to make a deal with the Axis Powers. But he didn't take that view. His actions saved countless millions of the defenceless and oppressed. But for him there would not now be a Jewish people.

 

In the new Dog eat Dog world, where does "Europe" go. its now seen as a terrible strategic mistake by the UK to exit the EU, as it assumed there would always be a strong transatlantic NATO to guarantee the security of Europe and the maritime trade routes north of the Tropic of Cancer, to offset a pan-European military. That's all gone now.

 

This is how it must have felt after the collapse of the League of Nations. Friends became enemies. In WW1, Japan was an ally of the West. 20 years later, it was brutally massacring troops of its old friends.

 

Europe gets criticised for how much it spends on the military. But that's not the only measure. Combined, Europe has 1.9 million active troops. The EU alone has 1.3 million. By comparison, the number of active US uniformed is less than 1 million. So how does Europe have more troops but spend less? I have no doubt Europe needs to spend more, but not at the primitive levels suggested by the Whitehouse Dimwit.

 

The US is demanding Europe to increase spending inline with its own highly corrupt approach to defence procurement.

 

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-probe-into-department-of-defense-after-failing-gao-audit-for-fifth-time/

 

They don't even know where 61% of their stuff actually is. I bet a lot of that stuff only exists on paper. They might as well not exist if they don't know where it is. The power of the US military might be exaggerated.

 

If the US becomes a more introspective country, then they might end up looking at themselves more. And these things might come true. Having lived in the US for many years, looking back, I can recall statements of a sort I would never hear in my country. For instance, I heard it many times, from people in the South, the Midwest (eg Missouri), that Californians weren't considered "real Americans", that they were "wierd". In my country, there will be people who don't feel British; Scottish, Irish, Welsh nationalists, and that's fine. But I never heard it cut the other way; "the Scots aren't proper British because they vote differently to me",

 

The Yugoslav Civil war genuinely shocked people. This was a sophisticated society, with an apparent rule of law, similar aspirations in life to me, and apparently living in a happy federation of equals. Of course it turned out some were more equal than others. What shocked was the barbarity, the return of scenes we had seen in WW2, of massacres, concentration camps, destroyed cities, in modern European cities, not in some 3rd World Hell Hole.

 

Since then, we've become somewhat immune to such scenes, We shouldn't be. The Ukraine is another example; two sophisticated societies not reproducing WW2 but now WW1.

 

I saw shocking inequalities in the US. In North Mississippi, seeing near Oxford what I can only describe as shanty towns was a shock. There is massive wealth inequality, I think greater than what you see in Europe, mostly based on race, but not entirely. MAGA is a symptom of that, But I think the MAGA politicians don't realise what they have unleashed, and they won't be able to control it, because, frankly, they can't deliver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, MicroB said:

 

The US is falling back on the mantra that it doesn't have friends, only interests.

 

Cock-face Vance was right on one thing, Europe and the US are no longer aligned in terms of strategic alignment. The US has basically abandoned the principles of the Atlantic Charter, where the US and UK agreed that neither country would seek territorial expansion, and both countries would seek to free occupied countries from the Nazi jackboot, and allow them to determine their own form of government, Essentially, both agreed to deploy their power as a force for good globally, echoing the West Africa Squadron that Imperial Britain deployed for an astonishing 60 years to fight the scourge of slavery.

 

Western European states, through the Coal Union, EEC, EC, and EU, broadly echoed that policy. People forgot that prior to 1939, the borders in Europe  were not a settled thing. We fought and killed each other over lines drawn on a map. For Western Europe, that was all settled in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The final play was the collapse of Yugoslavia. Europe hasn't changed.  The US, for now, has changed.

 

A US First policy now means the US does not see itself as a Force for Good in the world. It no longer cares about how it is perceived. Everythin the US now does is guided by the principle; does this benefit the US. The US is now an expansionist country, seeking to expand the territories under its control, by force if necessary, as that will benefit the US. It has no interest in ending the Ukraine War for the benefit of Ukraine or indeed Russia. It only has an interest in ending that war because it benefits the US. If Roosevelt had taken that view, he would have determined it was not to the benefit of the US to send troops to Europe, or to fight across the Pacific, and that it would have been far better to make a deal with the Axis Powers. But he didn't take that view. His actions saved countless millions of the defenceless and oppressed. But for him there would not now be a Jewish people.

 

In the new Dog eat Dog world, where does "Europe" go. its now seen as a terrible strategic mistake by the UK to exit the EU, as it assumed there would always be a strong transatlantic NATO to guarantee the security of Europe and the maritime trade routes north of the Tropic of Cancer, to offset a pan-European military. That's all gone now.

 

This is how it must have felt after the collapse of the League of Nations. Friends became enemies. In WW1, Japan was an ally of the West. 20 years later, it was brutally massacring troops of its old friends.

 

Europe gets criticised for how much it spends on the military. But that's not the only measure. Combined, Europe has 1.9 million active troops. The EU alone has 1.3 million. By comparison, the number of active US uniformed is less than 1 million. So how does Europe have more troops but spend less? I have no doubt Europe needs to spend more, but not at the primitive levels suggested by the Whitehouse Dimwit.

 

The US is demanding Europe to increase spending inline with its own highly corrupt approach to defence procurement.

 

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-sessions-open-probe-into-department-of-defense-after-failing-gao-audit-for-fifth-time/

 

They don't even know where 61% of their stuff actually is. I bet a lot of that stuff only exists on paper. They might as well not exist if they don't know where it is. The power of the US military might be exaggerated.

 

If the US becomes a more introspective country, then they might end up looking at themselves more. And these things might come true. Having lived in the US for many years, looking back, I can recall statements of a sort I would never hear in my country. For instance, I heard it many times, from people in the South, the Midwest (eg Missouri), that Californians weren't considered "real Americans", that they were "wierd". In my country, there will be people who don't feel British; Scottish, Irish, Welsh nationalists, and that's fine. But I never heard it cut the other way; "the Scots aren't proper British because they vote differently to me",

 

The Yugoslav Civil war genuinely shocked people. This was a sophisticated society, with an apparent rule of law, similar aspirations in life to me, and apparently living in a happy federation of equals. Of course it turned out some were more equal than others. What shocked was the barbarity, the return of scenes we had seen in WW2, of massacres, concentration camps, destroyed cities, in modern European cities, not in some 3rd World Hell Hole.

 

Since then, we've become somewhat immune to such scenes, We shouldn't be. The Ukraine is another example; two sophisticated societies not reproducing WW2 but now WW1.

 

I saw shocking inequalities in the US. In North Mississippi, seeing near Oxford what I can only describe as shanty towns was a shock. There is massive wealth inequality, I think greater than what you see in Europe, mostly based on race, but not entirely. MAGA is a symptom of that, But I think the MAGA politicians don't realise what they have unleashed, and they won't be able to control it, because, frankly, they can't deliver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn! Whole lotta truth here. Too bad it has:
1. too many words for MAGA attention span.

2. too many BIG words for the same reason.

Two thumbs up!

1 hour ago, hotsun said:

Probably for the best. From what ive seen of the euros on this forum, our allies hate us more than our enemies

 

Not true. I love America. I have many friends in the US military. The problem is the country is now run by criminals and nitwits.

 

A lot of the present issues in Western societies that are so corrosive to our civic dignity relate to the events of 2008-9, when a lot of ordinary people really suffered because of the actions of others, those others who seem to have never suffered (bank bailout). Those responsible for it are now in power; Trumpf is highly symbolic of that, because the financial crisis originated in the voodoo economics that is property. The man is in debt, but seemingly not. Musk is labeled as the world's richest man, but had to borrow money to buy Twitter. I've no idea how much actual money he has. These people exist in a world of debt ordinary people cannot relate to.

 

It was a genuine crisis in capitalism that is still playing out, and we are not sure how that is ending. One casualty is likely the United Kingdom, which I expect to cease to exist by 2035. Along the way the British will fall victim to those political forces we so resisted in the 1930s, and I think the outcome will be horrific. 

 

The US is changing, from a country that had a well founded reputation of defending the weak and defenceless ("Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore"), of equality in the face of adversity (King and many others were martyred in striving to improve the human condition), to something else.

 

We have been in crisis for 20 years. MAGA is not a solution to that crisis. Its a symptom of that crisis (and its equivalents across Western politics)

 

Those in power clearly don't understand what is happening, and that is fearful. Politicians didn't understand SubPrime, and yet based a lot of their policies around such voodoo economics, and "faith in the market", they are now turning to technology, without any notion what it is. Not a single politician can accurately describe what "AI" is. Neither can Musk, because he is a BullPooper, and has gotten where he is through masterful BullPoop. He is very good at raising money, which is more about if you can put on a good presentation than anything else. People actually thinks he wants to go to Mars. Now they are putting everything on AI. AI will re-industrialise America. AI will cure cancer. AI will make you rich But what if it does none of that?

 

Lets be clear. I am big champion of AI. My job is all about AI, machine learning, neural networks, and whatever else you want to throw in the AI bucket. But those policy makers are clueless. And those clueless policy makers are destroying the reputation of America in their confusion.

 

AI will cause the next crisis is society, and possibly an existential one. Not in a T1000 crushing the skulls of puny humans way, but a crisis in how society functions, and that society ceases to function, and we are thrown back 200 years. If we are looking for a Hollywood analogy, its less Termininator, and more Elysium. Or Children of Men, which doesn't have the Sci Fi guff. Its going to suck up so much treasure, and energy (literally and figuratively). Implicitly, it cannot help humanity as humanity is at  the moment. The problem is data. AI needs data, a lot of it. Whoever has the best data "wins". Chinese data will only benefit China. US data will only benefit the US etc. So to win, China needs US data, the US needs Chinese data etc. For AI to "succeed", the notion of a nation is irrelevant. Which maybe points to how we might end up being governed. And then we end up at James Lovelock's notion of the Novocene, which goes beyond Musk's Technocracy ideology (Musk was raised in a family that believed in the Technocracy movement; the idea that elections are not needed if experts are in charge, working for the benefit of mankind). Lovelock's Novocene proposed a future where we are governed by AI, in a benevolent manner, like how we look after flowers in the garden. Electronics only really work well in the benign environment of the earth, which wouldn't exist without Life.

 

Couple that with a VP stating he doesn't care about safety in AI, and he's setting his country up to be destroyed in that war. It will be literally defenceless by design, because a President ordered it. Its a bit like someone saying they are going to build up a merchant fleet, but we don't need a navy as building all those warships will just hold us back in buiding cargo carrier.  Hence he hasn't a clue. I genuinely found his comments in germany disappointing, because I thought, irrespective of his personal moralities, he had some insight into the tech world that he previously invested in, and that part of his schtick is just an act until Trumpf croaks. But he revealed himself to be as thick as mince. And people like him will be in charge.

 

So the events of 2008-9 has caused a crisis in leadeship competance, everywhere, with country after country making catastrophic strategic errors. The UK made a mistake in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. The US made a mistake in 2016, 2020, 2024. Russia made a potentially existential mistake in 2022. The EU, mistake after mistake. China similarly; it knew it was going to have a demographic crisis decades ago, and is facing a collapse in society. Utimately, I will point the finger at the Baby Boomers for not having enough kids. They benefited from the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, and then didn't capitalise on that, instead preferring to have longer and longer largely useless retirements. Instead, they should have been working longer and longer, as life expectancy increased.

 

Maybe Europe and the US will be at war with each other in the next 10 years. I really hope not. We are all in for a rough ride, and not all of us will make it. I've no idea where it will end up.

4 hours ago, MicroB said:

The Gulf of Mexico is defined as a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ociean, bordered by the US Gulf coast, the Mexican east coast, Cuba and the Caribbean sea. Cuba is not part of the South American continent. 

 

Therefore, for the renaming to make sense for non-nationalistic reasons, it should be the Gulf of North America.

 

The Arab states renamed the Persian Gulf  the "Arabian Gulf" over 60 years ago. The main driver for this was that the Arabs felt the Iranians were too pro-Israeli.

 

60 years on, only those who kowtow to Wahabist Saudi Arabia call it the "Arabian Gulf". Outside of the Gulf region, there is only one country that does that.

 

 

 

Yes ... and they are all part of North America.  Hence the name Gulf of America.  Not Americas.

 

Geez, if he wanted to be pro-yank he would named it 'Gulf of USA'

 

Are you all crazy ... give the hate a rest.

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yes ... and they are all part of North America.  Hence the name Gulf of America.  Not Americas.

 

Geez, if he wanted to be pro-yank he would named it 'Gulf of USA'

 

Are you all crazy ... give the hate a rest.

Shouldn't the two presidents be working on lowering prices instead of useless misdirects that are only meant to feed their 5-year-old egos and antagonize our allies?

 

Are you naive or anti-American? Perhaps you should give a rest to defending these robber barons.

6 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Shouldn't the two presidents be working on lowering prices instead of useless misdirects that are only meant to feed their 5-year-old egos and antagonize our allies?

 

Are you naive or anti-American? Perhaps you should give a rest to defending these robber barons.

Neither naive nor anti USA government, well that's a question mark, as not a fan of past administrations.

 

Present administration, they're kicking butt and doing exactly what they campaigned on.

 

Only the blind and the ones full of hate can't see it.

 

The hate is so blinding 

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Neither naive nor anti USA government, well that's a question mark, as not a fan of past administrations.

 

Present administration, they're kicking butt and doing exactly what they campaigned on.

 

Only the blind and the ones full of hate can't see it.

 

The hate is so blinding 

From your past posts, I think you are not exactly anti-American, but if you honestly think these robber barons and their computer monkeys are performing selfless acts for the good of "We, The People," well that says it all about you.

 

You ARE aware they unknowingly fired the people who manage the nuclear stockpile?

You ARE aware they are COMPLETELY hidden from any accountability per executive order?

 

So, naive it is. Got it.

3 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

From your past posts, I think you are not exactly anti-American, but if you honestly think these robber barons and their computer monkeys are performing selfless acts for the good of "We, The People," well that says it all about you.

 

You ARE aware they unknowingly fired the people who manage the nuclear stockpile?

You ARE aware they are COMPLETELY hidden from any accountability per executive order?

 

So, naive it is. Got it.

Stopping govt waste & illegal immigration ... selfish bastards 

 

Billionaires before entering politics vs the 100's of scum that became multi millions after entering politics on <$200k a year.

 

Both have lost millions if not a billion of so, by being out spoken against the deep state.  They haven't gained anything, and why most talented 'already' rich people can't be bothered with politics.  

 

Try to get past the hate, and you may see clearer