|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 09 2017 10:43 LegalLord wrote:
The real problem with scrapping the TPP is that I don't think he has a follow-up strategy at all. Not for his more aggressive stance on China, not for his idea of "fair, bilateral trade deals." I still don't think the TPP is a good idea but scrapping it probably has to come with some form of reconsideration of US Pacific strategy.
well yeah but its possible for him to do so. Unlike making Mexico pay for a wall or undoing the effects of automation and globalization to return rural factory jobs.
And I think Trump's Pacific strategy is to just withdraw and pretend it does not concern the US.
|
On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore.
You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you?
|
As a bit of fun, I've considered vague designs for some political parties, as there's quite a bit of dissatisfaction with the current ones, and I don't like them. some are semi-serious, some are silly-ish, though they have a real point to them
centrist party - dedicated to remaining in the political center, regardless of what that means ideologically.
competition party (or challenge party) - dedicated to officers being chosen by competitive challenges and their records on appropriate matters. might involve holding specific competitions for various posts.
undemocratic party - opposed to direct democracy, referenda (most of the time), would not use a typical primary style to select candidates. feels that voting often isn't that helpful for things. thought of this cuz of the book i'm reading on flaws in democracy, it's a reaction to the notion that democracy is an inherent good that should always be pushed for.
|
On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you?
Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return.
|
On January 09 2017 10:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 10:15 Sermokala wrote:
Am I the only American on this forum that is actually pretty intrigued in seeing a proper USA-Russian axis into the next century? Siberia is the last great clay in this world and both nations have a ton that they can benefit from each other. The US and Russia have a long way to go before they can become anything resembling allies, but there is no reason why we have to see more of the outright hostility that we have seen for the past eight years. The US and Russia have a lot of common interests that they can pursue. However, it's going to be tough to make any headway on those things as long as the US keeps shitting in Russia's backyard.
Fucking hell. Were you or the Republicans saying anything even remotely close to this when Obama was mending diplomacy with Cuba?
Unlike Cuba, there are lots of reasons over "the past eight years" why Russia should absolutely be seen to us, and more importantly, to our allies as a serious and disturbing threat.
The hypocrisy just fucking staggers me. This is the say-anything constituency of America. Why not be friends with Russia (since Trump's shady business with them is now making news)? They've only invaded their neighbors and crushed their own elective-freedom and free-media during Putin's never-ending "Presidency". What do you and these "reformers" actually stand for?
|
On January 09 2017 11:42 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 10:24 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 10:15 Sermokala wrote:
Am I the only American on this forum that is actually pretty intrigued in seeing a proper USA-Russian axis into the next century? Siberia is the last great clay in this world and both nations have a ton that they can benefit from each other. The US and Russia have a long way to go before they can become anything resembling allies, but there is no reason why we have to see more of the outright hostility that we have seen for the past eight years. The US and Russia have a lot of common interests that they can pursue. However, it's going to be tough to make any headway on those things as long as the US keeps shitting in Russia's backyard. Fucking hell. Were you or the Republicans saying anything even remotely close to this when Obama was mending diplomacy with Cuba? Unlike Cuba, there are lots of reasons over "the past eight years" why Russia should absolutely be seen to us, and more importantly, to our allies as a serious and disturbing threat. The hypocrisy just fucking staggers me. This is the say-anything constituency of America. Why not be friends with Russia (since Trump's shady business with them is now making news)? They've only invaded their neighbors and crushed their own elective-freedom and free-media during Putin's never-ending "Presidency". What do you and these "reformers" actually stand for?
Why do you think that I'm opposed to reformed relations with Cuba?
|
On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return.
That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against.
|
On January 09 2017 12:41 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return. That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against.
If something like sane immigration policy constitutes "authoritarianism," then I better go get some jackboots. Arguing that any deviation from the current order amounts to "authoritarianism" is asinine.
|
So Taiwanese president made a stop in the US opposing the Chinese request. I genuinely wonder what kind of strategy Trump is going to be going for with China. But it definitely seems like he's going to be pushing an anti-China platform of FP.
On January 09 2017 10:51 Gorsameth wrote:
And I think Trump's Pacific strategy is to just withdraw and pretend it does not concern the US.
One may wonder why the US navy needs more ships then.
|
There will be no strategy, Trump makes Duterte look like Machiavelli. This is going to be a very volatile situation for the next four years. We can just hope that foreign leaders don't take Trump too seriously and try to brush this stuff off.
|
Canada11564 Posts
On January 09 2017 15:04 Nyxisto wrote:
There will be no strategy, Trump makes Duterte look like Machiavelli. This is going to be a very volatile situation for the next four years. We can just hope that foreign leaders don't take Trump too seriously and try to brush this stuff off.
You know that got me thinking. I much earlier wondered if comparing him to Andrew Jackson for his demagoguery made sense. But given his bellicose nature on sensitive topics, I wonder if a comparison to Kaiser Wilhelm II would be more apt. And I don't mean that to say that I think Trump will lead us into a world war, as I am of the opinion that Wilhelm got a bad rap and that the bureaucrats and generals of Europe were gearing for war underneath the monarchies- Wilhelm was useful to a point because of his bombast. But why I see a parallel is because of how the other monarchs (related by the grandmother of Europe, Victoria) rolled their eyes at 'Willy' due to his strutting and lack of tack. His lack of tack was all fine as long as they didn't take 'Willy' seriously. But the self-importance and bombast seems somewhat akin. Or maybe it was just a random thought of little value.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 09 2017 15:23 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 15:04 Nyxisto wrote:
There will be no strategy, Trump makes Duterte look like Machiavelli. This is going to be a very volatile situation for the next four years. We can just hope that foreign leaders don't take Trump too seriously and try to brush this stuff off. You know that got me thinking. I much earlier wondered if comparing him to Andrew Jackson for his demagoguery. But given his bellicose nature on sensitive topics, I wonder if a comparison to Kaiser Wilhelm II would be more apt. And I don't mean that to say that I think Trump will us into a world war, as I am of the opinion that Wilhelm got a bad rap and that the bureaucrats and generals of Europe were gearing for war underneath monarchies- Wilhelm was useful to point at because of his bombast. But why I see a parallel is because of how the other monarchs (related by the grandmother of Europe, Victoria) rolled their eyes at 'Willy' due to his strutting and lack of tack. His lack of tack was all fine as long as they didn't take 'Willy' seriously. But the self-importance and bombast seems somewhat akin. Or maybe it was just a random thought of little value.
This is an amazing comparison and I can't believe I didn't see it earlier. The 21st century Willy.
|
well Willy was really expansionist and if we're lucky Trump will just turn inward, but they are both incredibly ill suited for their jobs in a very similar way
|
On January 09 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 12:41 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return. That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against. If something like sane immigration policy constitutes "authoritarianism," then I better go get some jackboots. Arguing that any deviation from the current order amounts to "authoritarianism" is asinine.
Slightly changing the US' immigration policy is not akin to the "destabilization of the current Western order", which is what you were initially referring to and what mustaju was addressing.
|
On January 09 2017 14:52 LegalLord wrote:So Taiwanese president made a stop in the US opposing the Chinese request. I genuinely wonder what kind of strategy Trump is going to be going for with China. But it definitely seems like he's going to be pushing an anti-China platform of FP. Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 10:51 Gorsameth wrote:
And I think Trump's Pacific strategy is to just withdraw and pretend it does not concern the US. One may wonder why the US navy needs more ships then.
We don't. Saying you want to expand the military is easy Republican PR points so Trump said it. I doubt would not be surprised if he doesn't intent to follow through on it.
Congress probably will tho if he doesn't stop them.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 09 2017 14:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2017 12:41 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 11:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 11:25 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On January 09 2017 08:49 mustaju wrote:On January 09 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
The destabilization of the current Western order is only a concern to those who want to keep the status quo. There are a lot of westerners who want to reform the current system. Reformation and tearing it down are different things. The current "reformers" have not exactly shown themselves as constructive or as able to tolerate dissent. There's plenty of challenges to overcome, but none of the destabilizers have any stated solutions for our global problems, and they actively work against the frameworks that are most likely to fix them. Oh, isn't this rich. The reformers are intolerant of dissent? Do I really need to go pull all of the absurd news articles, op-eds, and, yes, even posts in this thread, from the campaign where every establishment hack and his mother called Trump and his supporters idiots for even daring to question various aspects of the status quo? Like I have pointed out ad nauseum in this thread, the left doesn't even know what tolerance is anymore. You did absolutely nothing but deflect here. You are invalidating my concerns, and not addressing the issue itself. "Anti-authoritarian" was the statement I was going for. What do you suppose you are accomplishing by making yet another person think highly negatively of you? Your post, in all of its glorious vaguery, offered nothing but condescension to the discussion. Feel free to make a real point, and you may get one in return. That pointless bravado, however, is far more reasonable. So answer me this, what authoritarian reform to liberal democracy would make the world a better place? We are currently witnessing a rise of Authoritarianism, which is exactly what the liberal democratic system is supposed to prevent and fight against. If something like sane immigration policy constitutes "authoritarianism," then I better go get some jackboots. Arguing that any deviation from the current order amounts to "authoritarianism" is asinine.
No such argument was made. I linked an article by Vox which described a common and established methodology for finding authoritarian tendencies in a population. Namely willingness to discard civil liberties for perceived security, and distrust or hate of foreign influence and change of a perceived status quo(ironical, considering your statement). Trump voters scored very high in that study. It's impossible to argue with someone who dismisses it as just a reaction to a "sane immigration policy" since it covers a lot more. The only way you can prove this argumentation wrong is by linking to a study using accepted methodology and definition that shows low authoritarianism values among Trump supporters.
|
How tediously predictable, his phone must be suggesting 'overrated' as soon as he types 'o' at this point
|
What would he do if Beyonce dissed him? People really love Beyonce.
|
I've heard before that one of the big "problems" with US FP is that they can't properly decide whether they want to make Russia their big enemy, or China. Obama's presidency would definitely corroborate such an oscillation of uncertainty in FP matters if you look into how his "Asia pivot" turned into a focus on the Ukraine and the European matter (Hillary Clinton's "luckily Europe is pretty stable" quip in her GS speeches seems to have been proven wrong right now).
Maybe Trump would bring clarity to that issue, or maybe he will just contribute to the confusion. We should see how he reacts the next time Russia decides to pursue a course of action that runs strongly contrary to Trump's interests.
|
On January 10 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
I've heard before that one of the big "problems" with US FP is that they can't properly decide whether they want to make Russia their big enemy, or China. Obama's presidency would definitely corroborate such an oscillation of uncertainty in FP matters if you look into how his "Asia pivot" turned into a focus on the Ukraine and the European matter (Hillary Clinton's "luckily Europe is pretty stable" quip in her GS speeches seems to have been proven wrong right now).
Maybe Trump would bring clarity to that issue, or maybe he will just contribute to the confusion. We should see how he reacts the next time Russia decides to pursue a course of action that runs strongly contrary to Trump's interests.
Yes how dare Obama turn his attention away from a stable Europe and then back again right after Russia, against expectations, launches an invasion on Europe's border...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
