US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1738

On March 18 2015 03:49 always_winter wrote:
The US subjugating the entire Western hemisphere through a series of cunning, manipulative soft-power exertions for a period of about two hundred years is widely condemned throughout academia and its ramifications continue to limit Central and South America at large. There's a rather large difference between identifying parallels between emerging powers and recognizing the failure of the precedent as a means to prevent the neigh-inevitable cyclical repetition of history.

Cute quip, though.

On March 18 2015 03:19 always_winter wrote:

The idea that the Brits, French or Germans could shape policy within a Chinese (let's drop the "Asian" façade and call it what it really is) organization is pretty far-fetched, considering inequitable economic policies and inhumane social standards are the very means which enable China to thrive on the global market. As the US is unwilling to compromise its economic hegemony on the world stage, so, too, will China be uncompromising in regard to undermining the inequitable trade practices working greatly in its favor.

On March 18 2015 03:57 ticklishmusic wrote:


You're making the assumption that China desires to and is able to exert soft power in such a manipulative way given the current global political landscape.

On March 18 2015 04:29 oneofthem wrote:

that's not an assumption. it's simple fact especially when talking about asia and africa.

this discussion has taken an interesting turn as people actually believe the european piece about influencing china. LOl

PEORIA, Ill. — The question to Rep. Aaron Schock was simple: Do you think you’ve broken any rules or federal laws? But the scandal-plagued congressman did not have a definitive answer.
“Well, I certainly hope not,” Schock said. “I’m not an attorney.” The 33-year-old Republican went on to argue that he does his “best” and takes his obligations “very seriously,” which is why he’s enlisted outside advisers to help audit his office’s procedures.
Story Continued Below
“That’s what we can all do, is our best effort,” Schock said.

On March 18 2015 05:18 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. isnt really influencing mugabe et al to such a degree to make them not deal with china. we cant even affect europe enough.

the part about better job is naive. intl dealing with a typical african dictator is won on kickbacks and tolerance for human and environmental abuse. china is also the growth mkt for commodities and there is really no such thing as a positive 'better' job there except paying more. again, kickbacks and lack of burdensome regulatory requirements

On March 17 2015 22:34 xDaunt wrote:
In the ever-expanding annals of Obama's foreign policy failures, anyone else notice all of the countries -- particularly traditional US allies -- starting negotiations to join China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?

On March 18 2015 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Only tangentially related to US politics, but HANS, so posting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh7nfnUIAvA

On March 18 2015 09:17 kwizach wrote:

In the ever-expanding annals of xDaunt's ignorant blaming of Obama for everything that happens in the world, here's another entry.

If you had actually followed these developments, you would know that the Obama administration actually did pretty much all that it could in order to avoid the launch of the AIIB. In fact, it handled Asian countries' desire for representation among institutions such as the IMF far better than the Bush administration. For example, see the 2010 IMF quota and governance reform, in which the U.S. managed to maintain its initial degree of influence in the institution while allowing emerging powers to gain more influence, thus exactly achieving the US' objectives in the negotiations. In comparison, previous negotiations on these matters were handled far less well by the Bush administration, which paid much less attention to the demands of emerging powers within international organizations.

You therefore seem to be confusing "everything not going your way" with "making a mistake". The Obama administration is hardly to blame for the launch of the AIIB and for the list of countries which did decide to join it, given how much it did to prevent it from happening and to find alternative solutions to try to accommodate China and the like. Sometimes, there's just not much you can do in the face of outside developments. This is one of these cases, unfortunately for the "Thanks, Obama!" narrative you like to push every time something you don't like happens.

On March 18 2015 10:57 xDaunt wrote:

I could start with a discussion about excuses and assholes, but let us just cut to the chase. The problem is not that the AIIB has been launched. China was always going to launch AIIB, regardless of any marginal changes at the IMF (or even any large change that preserved American dominance). China -- along with the other BRICS -- is actively looking to establish a new world order better conducive to its interests. The problem is that traditional US allies (notably the British) are failing to stand firm and in alignment with US interests, and are joining the AIIB. That is on Obama for failing to develop and maintain strong enough ties with these countries to keep them firmly in our sphere of influence. And blaming Bush is little more than a tacit admission that Obama is such a clueless diplomat that he has been unable to meaningfully improve relations with our allies over the past 6 years. But hey, people love to make excuses for the failures that have occurred on Obama's watch, so I do not expect you all to stop now.

On March 18 2015 11:31 Leporello wrote:

Countries don't develop their trade policies based on how much beer they drink with the other countries' leaders. "Yeah, this trade deal would benefit my country's economy and make me look like a competent leader, but **** all that because bros before hoes, Obama's my BFF."