|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 19 2017 01:03 Doodsmack wrote:
Still, officials from both the Obama and Trump teams acknowledged that the transition had been rocky, in no small part because Mr. Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton caught both the outgoing and incoming administrations so completely by surprise. Had Mrs. Clinton won, her staff planned to place a transition team in the N.S.C. within a couple of days.
I guess we just put the cart ahead of the horse. This isn't the first time I can recall that an administration was so salty about an unexpected defeat that it decided to become an obtuse opposition party instead of just learning to make do with what it has and move forward.
Hillary Clinton is such a bad candidate to rally around as the "head of the party" that I'm left wondering why this "Hillary consensus" is even a thing. Trump is bad but people certainly need to see some perspective on how bad he is - and isn't.
|
On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be.
make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said
|
On January 19 2017 01:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:03 Doodsmack wrote:
Still, officials from both the Obama and Trump teams acknowledged that the transition had been rocky, in no small part because Mr. Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton caught both the outgoing and incoming administrations so completely by surprise. Had Mrs. Clinton won, her staff planned to place a transition team in the N.S.C. within a couple of days. I guess we just put the cart ahead of the horse. This isn't the first time I can recall that an administration was so salty about an unexpected defeat that it decided to become an obtuse opposition party instead of just learning to make do with what it has and move forward. Hillary Clinton is such a bad candidate to rally around as the "head of the party" that I'm left wondering why this "Hillary consensus" is even a thing. Trump is bad but people certainly need to see some perspective on how bad he is - and isn't.
I think part of the issue is the fact that he hasn't given his detractors a reason to feel like they should expect anything but the worst case scenario from him. Sure he hasn't taken office yet, but he has made plenty of statements that do less than inspire faith.
|
On January 19 2017 00:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 12:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 18 2017 12:22 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand why anybody gives this Milo guy a public platform, he is a troll Because he is smart, media-attractive, and has a compelling message. As someone who's not too familiar with Milo, would you mid summarizing his message? Is it basically anti-PC, let's bring discourse back to reality? I accept that he's not a bigot/homophobe/etc, he just walks the edge of those things to draw attention.
Probably the best way to put it is that Milo is presenting the counterargument to the norms that the SJW crowd is trying to establish with an appeal to a more classical libertarian ideal.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Milo is a libertarian.
|
Norway28561 Posts
Basically Trump might succeed in 'dissolving globalism' through ridding the world of the one competent hegemon we've had?
China lifted some 500 million people out of absolute poverty between 1983 and 2004 - 63% of the population to 10%. This is historically unprecedented. I'm not disputing that there are still significant problems relating to Chinese society that I would find completely unacceptable in the west, I just think that societal progress has to be achieved in levels. And then I think that security, stability and a certain baseline of economic prosperity are requirements before the other societal improvements can be achieved.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, logistically, how would you expect a deeper cooperation with China at the expense of cooperation with the US to look? Especially if Trump takes his "China is evil" agenda seriously?
|
On January 19 2017 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be. make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said
I'd be more hesitant. China is becoming more authoritarian as well, and has been horrifyingly passive and enabling of autocrats by itself. Japan and South Korea are more inspiring (even if not spotless) allies in the region, but it seems that picking any of the three means aligning oneself against the other two. As a thought exercise, I think I'd prefer Trump over Jinping, simply because it's easier to get rid of Trump. He has shown himself as incapable of balancing, and his overpromising (and possible treason) makes me hopeful the nightmare might end. That said, this is a time to show a better way, and it would be a terrible crisis to waste. A more united, liberty loving Europe should be our goal, and working towards it is still possible.
|
Couple this with Trump's escalating promises...will he expand use of executive power? He has threatened to do so if Repubs in Congress don't unite or act quickly enough.
|
On January 19 2017 01:30 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be. make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said I'd be more hesitant. China is becoming more authoritarian as well, and has been horrifyingly passive and enabling of autocrats by itself. Japan and South Korea are more inspiring (even if not spotless) allies in the region, but it seems that picking any of the three means aligning oneself against the other two. As a thought exercise, I think I'd prefer Trump over Jinping, simply because it's easier to get rid of Trump. He has shown himself as incapable of balancing, and his overpromising (and possible treason) makes me hopeful the nightmare might end. That said, this is a time to show a better way, and it would be a terrible crisis to waste. A more united, liberty loving Europe should be our goal, and working towards it is still possible.
oh for sure. Doesn't mean China is anywhere close to the best for me at all. Just if it's been between the two and I had the option to pick I'd rather pick China for 4 years.
|
The problem with that Truman quote is that Eisenhower is typically regarded as an amazing president. Personally I won't praise him for his role in foreign imperialism like Iran and Vietnam, but most people remember him for enacting the interstate highways.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On January 19 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:
So, logistically, how would you expect a deeper cooperation with China at the expense of cooperation with the US to look? Especially if Trump takes his "China is evil" agenda seriously?
I have no thoughts on this subject. It's not like we're gonna dissolve decades of mutually beneficial cooperation just because you elected an absolute clown - we're just hoping the next 4 years pass as quietly and uneventfully as possible. But I expect that if the US under Trump wants to strongarm her european allies in a you're with or against us type of GWB deal, opposition towards Trump would make it impossible for European heads of state to comply, because it would be so incredibly unpopular. Meanwhile, Norway recently allowed itself to be strongarmed by China (Since we gave Liu Xiaobo the peace prize we were pushed out in the cold, really hurting trade with China) because that was economically beneficial.
|
On January 19 2017 01:38 LightSpectra wrote:
The problem with that Truman quote is that Eisenhower is typically regarded as an amazing president. Personally I won't praise him for his role in foreign imperialism like Iran and Vietnam, but most people remember him for enacting the interstate highways.
Eisenhower did a good job of navigating some difficult and novel issues -- both foreign and domestic. I think that he compares quite favorably to all of his successors until Reagan.
|
On January 19 2017 01:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:30 mustaju wrote:On January 19 2017 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be. make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said I'd be more hesitant. China is becoming more authoritarian as well, and has been horrifyingly passive and enabling of autocrats by itself. Japan and South Korea are more inspiring (even if not spotless) allies in the region, but it seems that picking any of the three means aligning oneself against the other two. As a thought exercise, I think I'd prefer Trump over Jinping, simply because it's easier to get rid of Trump. He has shown himself as incapable of balancing, and his overpromising (and possible treason) makes me hopeful the nightmare might end. That said, this is a time to show a better way, and it would be a terrible crisis to waste. A more united, liberty loving Europe should be our goal, and working towards it is still possible. oh for sure. Doesn't mean China is anywhere close to the best for me at all. Just if it's been between the two and I had the option to pick I'd rather pick China for 4 years.
My choice was rather close to be honest, and I can see valid arguments for your side, as well, but did you take the large amount of U.S. liberals into account? They are going to need as much support as they can get.
|
On January 19 2017 01:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:38 LightSpectra wrote:
The problem with that Truman quote is that Eisenhower is typically regarded as an amazing president. Personally I won't praise him for his role in foreign imperialism like Iran and Vietnam, but most people remember him for enacting the interstate highways. Eisenhower did a good job of navigating some difficult and novel issues -- both foreign and domestic. I think that he compares quite favorably to all of his successors until Reagan.
Eisenhower subverted Iran's secular democratic government so Anglo-American oil companies wouldn't lose their profits. The Ayatollah revolution was a direct result of that.
He had a great domestic policy, but his foreign policy was just as bad as Bush's and Obama's.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On January 19 2017 01:30 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be. make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said I'd be more hesitant. China is becoming more authoritarian as well, and has been horrifyingly passive and enabling of autocrats by itself. Japan and South Korea are more inspiring (even if not spotless) allies in the region, but it seems that picking any of the three means aligning oneself against the other two. As a thought exercise, I think I'd prefer Trump over Jinping, simply because it's easier to get rid of Trump. He has shown himself as incapable of balancing, and his overpromising (and possible treason) makes me hopeful the nightmare might end. That said, this is a time to show a better way, and it would be a terrible crisis to waste. A more united, liberty loving Europe should be our goal, and working towards it is still possible.
A more united and liberty loving Europe should most certainly be our goal, but these really are not the trending values for our continent at the moment. (Which, I'd argue is caused by the real economic downturn coupled with partially real impression of less security and stability. These base levels need to be in place before more lofty societal goals can be accomplished. )
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 19 2017 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:29 LegalLord wrote:
So, logistically, how would you expect a deeper cooperation with China at the expense of cooperation with the US to look? Especially if Trump takes his "China is evil" agenda seriously? I have no thoughts on this subject. It's not like we're gonna dissolve decades of mutually beneficial cooperation just because you elected an absolute clown - we're just hoping the next 4 years pass as quietly and uneventfully as possible. But I expect that if the US under Trump wants to strongarm her european allies in a you're with or against us type of GWB deal, opposition towards Trump would make it impossible for European heads of state to comply, because it would be so incredibly unpopular. Meanwhile, Norway recently allowed itself to be strongarmed by China (Since we gave Liu Xiaobo the peace prize we were pushed out in the cold, really hurting trade with China) because that was economically beneficial.
A few days ago, Trump basically said, "we'll deal with Europe as a bloc or as separate nations, I don't really care." So the US is basically taking a hands-off approach to EU internal troubles at best, in the biggest persistent crisis of faith in its 20-ish year existence.
Say you choose to deepen cooperation with China though, which would at the very least entail deeper infrastructure, e.g. OBOR. Take a look at a map and tell me which countries you're probably going to have to make nice with if you ("Europe") don't want to be hung out to dry by all the major non-European economic powers.
|
On January 19 2017 00:55 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 00:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In the same way, I still think the US today is one of the better places in the world one could live. But that is not because Trump is becoming your president 2 days from now, it's because of other historical factors (including competent leadership of the past). As far as electing a leader that I am willing to follow, Trump is to me literally one of the worst possible candidates, and if there was an election where candidate A was Donald Trump and candidate B was Xi Jinping, I am voting for Xi Jinping. I'd still much rather live in the US than China. Alright, that's not an outrageous thing to say, although your previous posts really did sound like anti-democratic apologism.
But large parts of the world looking to China for leadership is a very real possibility. In addition to pulling out of TPP and thus providing no real economic choice for most of East Asia, his constant buffoonery on twitter inspire very little confidence in his capabilities. If he adds things like pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords (or at least not complying with the obligations), and tearing up the Iran Deal, two things he has talked about quite a bit before he was elected, I don't doubt a lot of countries will suddenly do an Asia pivot.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 19 2017 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2017 01:30 mustaju wrote:On January 19 2017 01:13 Toadesstern wrote:On January 19 2017 01:02 LegalLord wrote:
I think if nothing else, Trump's election shows just how badly people have lost perspective. I asked before what it would take for Hillary voters to vote Trump instead and the sheer insistence on "stop Trump, costs be damned" was quite telling. And now at least one European liberal who should consider China to be the epitome of what is wrong with the world says that they would rather support China than Trump's America.
I obviously don't see China the same way a lot of others do. And I did make it clear that I voted Clinton (most disgusting vote I ever cast, btw). But you know what? Trump is the president now, and you should all be a bit more willing to acknowledge that. Think about exactly what a realignment towards China would entail, and put Trump into perspective, and perhaps it would be clear just how absurd this realignment would be. make that two. As long as we're talking about 4 years only and I get a new chance after that I'd be up for what Drone said I'd be more hesitant. China is becoming more authoritarian as well, and has been horrifyingly passive and enabling of autocrats by itself. Japan and South Korea are more inspiring (even if not spotless) allies in the region, but it seems that picking any of the three means aligning oneself against the other two. As a thought exercise, I think I'd prefer Trump over Jinping, simply because it's easier to get rid of Trump. He has shown himself as incapable of balancing, and his overpromising (and possible treason) makes me hopeful the nightmare might end. That said, this is a time to show a better way, and it would be a terrible crisis to waste. A more united, liberty loving Europe should be our goal, and working towards it is still possible. A more united and liberty loving Europe should most certainly be our goal, but these really are not the trending values for our continent at the moment. (Which, I'd argue is caused by the real economic downturn coupled with partially real impression of less security and stability. These base levels need to be in place before more lofty societal goals can be accomplished. )
I do agree that this is hard to accomplish, but arguably a time of crisis is the best time for far-reaching institutional reforms and meaningful political activism. A more united approach to European security and borders would be a good start, the governing system of the EU needs to be vastly overhauled as well.
|
|
|
On January 18 2017 22:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 22:35 xDaunt wrote:On January 18 2017 22:29 Scarecrow wrote:On January 18 2017 21:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 18 2017 14:30 Wegandi wrote:On January 18 2017 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:On January 18 2017 12:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 18 2017 12:22 Nyxisto wrote:
I still don't understand why anybody gives this Milo guy a public platform, he is a troll Because he is smart, media-attractive, and has a compelling message. What compelling message? "The jews run everything and gay people should get back into the closet" is compelling to you? The guy is a walking version of 4chan, are you serious? Gay people should get back in the closest? Milo? LOL. You know Milo is gay right? People don't like Milo because he's militantly anti-feminist and anti-PC. I actually find it sort of hilarious that the people who like Milo are the ones stereotyped as gay haters. The LBQT uber-alles crowd loathes him, yet he is "one of them" so to speak. It's interesting to me anyways. Edit: Sort of like Camille Paglia. Other feminists can't stand her (she's not man-hating enough), and me, as someone who is not, agrees on many of her points. Go figure. The LGBQT crowd and its allies don't like Milo because he exposes the contradictions and insanity of their arguments Sorry, but a guy who says "Like all feminists, they can only survive by sucking on the teat of Big Government" seems better at expressing insane arguments than exposing them. I don't get how being an asshole to various groups, rather than learning to stfu when you don't like someone on a superficial level, is a cause worth championing. You seem to be a product of the media you're consuming xDaunt, with all this 'regressive left' talk and trying to conflate the left with fascism. Is it really that hard living in a post-highschool world where it's not socially acceptable to be a dick to people because of someone's gender, philosophy, body shape or orientation? I feel like most of Milo's followers must be just angry white guys who want to express hateful opinions instead of keeping them to themselves. You have it backwards. People like me don't wake up in the morning looking for opportunities to be a dick to various minorities. We'd rather just be left alone. However, various elements of the regressive left won't afford us that opportunity. They have an agenda to push. And for as much as I may agree or disagree with various elements of the agenda, what I particularly object to is the manner in which it's pushed. I doubt we see eye-to-eye on many things but I have to agree with you, at least partially. Forcing Christians to make wedding cakes for gay people, and forcing the (Roman Catholic) Little Sisters of the Poor to provide birth control really opened my eyes up to the socially left-wing. They're not at all about tolerance or acceptance.
I disagree on the soundness of your point.
I'd say it's much more unclear what to do in each of those 2 instances. And those nuns weren't required to provide birth control, so I think you have the facts wrong on that case.
Is being intolerant of intolerance itself intolerant? that's the core question.
I'd say, necessarily, some level of not tolerating intolerance has to be.
Are you sure you're sufficiently familiar with the legal and ethical arguments in each of those cases? I ask because sometimes people have opinions based on vague or incomplete understandings, and I can't tell whether you have full understanding or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
