Do you think there’s no benefit in doing so?
feels like stock talk
lol, when will those freeloader states start paying their fair share!?
Sounds familiar doesn’t it
Ooooh the irony
Well, I’m always interested in why some people seem to prefer a more anti federalist stance. Why bother with one leader you detest when you can choose from 30? But will the borders to those nation states be open? Will we have to have a national ID or visa to visit a neighboring state that is no longer a member of the federalist republic ?
Will wealthy states set up puppet governments in food producing states? I don’t see how states would be more cooperative when disunited.
The US is a superpower because of its food security. This comes from the land in middle America. The US has more than 2x the average farm land per capita than the global average. And this is for a huge country which is also important. 6x more than China per capita and 3x more than Europe per capita.
Whether the US will lead or should is another question. It’s likely the US will be the last super power on earth with no enemies that border it, and 2 large oceans acting as a natural defense. It can be energy independent, and access to both the atlantic and pacific gives it a huge trade advantage. Note I say last superpower on earth, there is a reason for the renewed space race and that can change the game.
Whether the US should continue to lead, that is a different question.
But it’s interesting that China now opts for a very specific language, it no longer talks about being the lead. Now China wants a multipolar world. I think they realized it’s expensive to lead. China doesn’t want to have to be in a situation like the US is with Ukraine with countries saying the US is not doing enough while being criticized for doing too much intervention in other countries. You literally can’t win.
But personally, I don’t really see an alternative to the US lead order. It might be other countries aim for a healthier relationship with the US being more capable and less reliant on the US on defense. But there is no real alternative to global protection and keeping trade routes safe. China can’t and doesn’t seem to want to replace the US in these matters as it talks of a multipolar world and not the middle kingdom rhetoric. And arguably, no other country benefited more from the US lead world than China.
My view is this, U.S. leadership is most sustainable when it is optional, not mandatory.
I think the uncomfortable reality is that the U.S. and its allies drifted into an unhealthy relationship over time. The U.S. became the default insurer and problem-solver, while many allies underinvested in capability and strategic competence. Trump didn’t create that imbalance, he exposed it too abruptly and destructively for people to process.
The real path forward isn’t U.S. withdrawal or abandonment of leadership, but a rebalance: the U.S. remains the anchor, while allies are more capable and less dependent. That reduces the need for the U.S. to constantly step in, dictate outcomes, or absorb all the risk and blame, something Ukraine has made very visible. Europe acted like the US will always be there and left itself in a weak situation.
Stronger, more self-reliant allies ultimately make U.S. leadership more sustainable, not weaker.
yeah, that’s what I say…. it’s a thankless position and people take you for granted and constantly criticize and scrutinize you. If any other country wants to take the position, be our fucking guest! If China and Russia want to lead the world, they will have to deal with all the crap that the US does and more. If you want to really get into the weeds with this stuff, I recommend reading and/or listening to Peter Zeihan.
America is also going broke, has debt it cannot sustain and there will also be a currency/economic reckoning some day soon, maybe it’s even happening now as gold and silver prices are going crazy…. basically around $5000 and $100 respectively today.
Apologies but I’m dumb about this shit. Is anti federalist the same as libertarian?
don’t bother, don’t care
For decades allies have bought that debt. Canada, the EU, the UK, and Japan could be selling it if they get tired of being threatened…
For decades allies have bought that debt. Canada, the EU, the UK, and Japan could be selling it if they get tired of being threatened…
The US could retaliate by raising all tariffs for Canada to supply management levels of 300 percent. 
I have hoped this would happen for decades. Trump is my dream come true on maple leaf shartimus.
To quote BTO
And lock in losses selling off below par? There’s no shortage of buyers, including the US themselves if the price is tempting in a real sell off.
Now you have a bunch of USD after a sell off, then what? You need to find something to do with it. Let’s say you for some weird reason want to buy UK gilts, now you have a massive amount of USD to trade on the FX market for GBP. That type of volume would move prices for a worse rate, now you get hit again with more losses.
Not to mention, anyone seeing a country sell off US bonds would then front run you on the FX desk before you even finish the sell off. No country is just holding USDs after a sell off.
Now you depreciated the USD and it’s likely your own currency would raise against the USD. Now your own industries get hit with less purchasing power from the US.
This is why no one seriously does this.
Europe hold some $8t of US treasury bonds, notes, etc. If Europe starts selling these off then the treasury yields will increase, thus the cost for US to pay interest on the US national debt will sky rocket … thus causing issues for US economy…
Why do you think Scott Bessent was talking over and over again that Europe should not retaliate? Because he was scared they would do it. So after that Trump had to TACO, as even a US president is powerful he is nothing in comparison with the bond market, the bond market is true raw power who scares everybody
Would this hurt Europe economy too, yes to some degree as US economy would be crap so US consumer couldn’t afford to buy things, this is why the trend of selling America is trending, it’s not political, it is about diversifying to less risks and higher profits markets like Asia and Europe as it was in 2025 and most likely will be in 2026
Awesome for everybody else except US consumers who have to pay additional 300% tax on the things they buy
Also US oil companies that make big bucks on importing crude oil from Canada, refining it and sell it on for big profit would lose
Canada needs the US a hell of a lot more than vice versa 
Canada needs to US to buy products, but not to any unlimited extent, Canada will still survive without US, lower price on products but will still survive. If the US economy fails so they can’t buy any more Canadian products, they need to find other trading partners to sell to. Why do you think Corney has been to Europe, South America, China… So much lately?
To diversify, as BC has done for decades, but that requires sophistication and relationship building. Many 
can’t function well outside the protected, protectionist bubble.
Exactly, diversify. If any company doesn’t understand how to sell outside North America, there are specialists companies in Canada who can offer it as a service
You can lead a horse to water…..
The problem with this argument is that it treats “Europe” as a single actor with $8T of leverage, which simply isn’t how the system works. Those Treasuries are held across dozens of countries and thousands of private institutions (pensions, insurers, funds) that cannot be politically coordinated to dump assets without self-inflicted losses. I believe there’s even rules against doing this for political reasons
Even if large selling were attempted, markets would front-run it: USD would weaken in anticipation, spreads would widen, and execution costs would rise before Europe finished selling. To reallocate, Europe would also have to sell USD, strengthening EUR and immediately hurting export competitiveness, especially against the U.S., which Europe relies on heavily.
Yields wouldn’t “skyrocket uncontrollably”, they’d clear as higher yields attract buyers and ownership rotates. This is exactly why China, despite larger holdings and more incentive, never weaponized Treasuries. Bond markets discipline governments when moves are organic. They don’t give foreign holders a usable political weapon.
In fact having US bonds is the opposite of having leverage when you think about it logically. Yes you can attempt to balance it more with less of it and letting them mature and stop buying. Which is what China and Russia has done. But the market would punish a country trying to do a sell off.
You simply can’t weaponize the bond market like you said. If you could, it would have been done already. This is why it belongs as a Twitter trend like you mentioned. Not a serious conversation