Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
That Kim Jong Un's a true master of foreign policy.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
Most importantly, Trump took away the main reason for North Korea to ever want to attack the US. People worried about North Korea potentially dropping nukes in 2016, now we're worrying about whether Trump is legitimizing a dictatorship or conceding too much about negotiations. I'd heavily prefer dealing with these psychological questions over actual nuclear war.
What policy did he implement that completely fucked things up? I'm not talking about something controversial that some people liked and others disliked, because that's virtually 100% of everything any politician does these days. The US seems to be running strong, with all of your numbers being up, like shown here:
Having a trade war when the US is strong economically, and being a net importer, means it's in a superior position that the Chinese are forced to concede to. So again, both sides are negotiating hard. Negotiating hard means it looks like nothing is being achieved for a long time, both parties leaving the table at various times, then coming back later, and then they reach a deal. The fact Trump seems to get along with both Kim and Xi personally means there's almost 0 risk of the talks ever completely stalling. So far, I haven't seen any reason to doubt this.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
That Kim Jong Un's a true master of foreign policy.
/s
I think.
You mean seduction. Trump claimed that Kim started sending him letters after he became President and that on the basis of those letters Trump fell in love with him. Actual quote.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
That Kim Jong Un's a true master of foreign policy.
/s
I think.
You mean seduction. Trump claimed that Kim started sending him letters after he became President and that on the basis of those letters Trump fell in love with him. Actual quote.
Hahaha, Trump at rallies is basically just a reality TV show host who entertains his base by talking about real life events in hyperbole. I do understand your position better if you think he's being 100% serious.
On March 10 2019 19:34 iamthedave wrote: You'd have thought that the frank admission 'yes the President is a garbage human' from even his defenders would at some point cause a light to flash on and people to realise that the President being The Worst Of Us is not good and warrants action.
Ah well. Hopefully the Democrats will win and put a decent human being in charge. I'd say 'someone better than Trump' put that is a perilously low bar to clear.
I think the opposite point of view would be, 'yes the President is a garbage human' but we live in a lawful society. So until the crimes he has committed has enough evidence to prove it in court he is presumed innocent.
Stating incorrect things as if they were true isn't illegal, that one would have been easy to prove even on his campaign.
That isn't even close to a counter to the central idea that the leader of your nation shouldn't be an objectively terrible person.
The correct opposite view is 'It does not matter if the leader of our country is an objectively terrible person on the provisio that they are the best person for the job'. The Putin defense, in short.
Trump's fans don't consider him a "garbage human" at all, though. Everyone, including Trump himself, knows about and admits to his flaws. Most people simply don't care enough about the personal lives or rumoured inner thoughts of their leaders. As long as the leaders do their job by doing what the people that voted for him think needs to be done, they'll want to keep him.
Also, I'm happy I don't live in a world where he have metrics to tell us who's an "objectively terrible person", and that we're free to decide for ourselves whether we like and/or want to associate with someone.
I worry about the Democrats too, because so far there's no Obama, someone charismatic that both the centrists and progressives can get behind. With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
Trump has a track record of him not messing shit up? What Asian foreign policy successes does he have? Didn't he just recently fuck up that meeting with North Korea?
I am also confused about this. NK hasn’t done anything, but Trump has gone to bat for the legitimacy of their dictatorship multiple times, even making excuses for their murder of Americans.
Most importantly, Trump took away the main reason for North Korea to ever want to attack the US. People worried about North Korea potentially dropping nukes in 2016, now we're worrying about whether Trump is legitimizing a dictatorship or conceding too much about negotiations. I'd heavily prefer dealing with these psychological questions over actual nuclear war.
What policy did he implement that completely fucked things up? I'm not talking about something controversial that some people liked and others disliked, because that's virtually 100% of everything any politician does these days. The US seems to be running strong, with all of your numbers being up, like shown here:
Having a trade war when the US is strong economically, and being a net importer, means it's in a superior position that the Chinese are forced to concede to. So again, both sides are negotiating hard. Negotiating hard means it looks like nothing is being achieved for a long time, both parties leaving the table at various times, then coming back later, and then they reach a deal. The fact Trump seems to get along with both Kim and Xi personally means there's almost 0 risk of the talks ever completely stalling. So far, I haven't seen any reason to doubt this.
Where are the deals here? Less we forget that NK has not destroyed a single nuke and is preparing for another test launch as we speak (also Trump is to blame for raising tensions to their highest in recent memory in the first place). Or that our trade deficit with China is up and we are having to subsidize entire industries due to the damage Trump's tarrifs are doing. Also, how China is filling the power vacuum in the Pacific left when we bailed out of the TPP without a backup plan.
Your point about China having to concede fails to acknowledge the political nuances of the situation. More likely than anything substantive happening is China throwing a few token minor things Trumps way to shut him up and let him sell it to his base as a massive victory (see NAFTA and S Korea).
I for one dont trust the baffoon who gets his briefings from Fox news and who acts solely on his 'gut,' despite having zero specialized knowledge of the situation, as somehow the one to remake decades of foreign policy for the better.
On March 11 2019 02:34 Neemi wrote: With Trump now having a proven track record of not completely messing up shit, and having much Asian foreign policy success + strong economy behind him, he's not going to be a pushover.
For now, all he has done is speak. And try to get money from other countries since his world revolves around that and only that. He messed up the US involvment in the world, UN agencies, treaties (including nuclear proliferation, basically allowing Russia and Iran to build more nukes legally, meaning the US cannot go after them if they do).
USMCA is not signed, nothing of consequence is signed by NK. The NK policy has always had one goal : survival. Building nukes is a way to not get destroyed, they were never going to attack first. Now, they have recognition by the US : goal achieved. They will try to push the furthest they can to get sanctions lifted, but will never give up nukes since if they do, nothing stops other countries from just removing the regime (apart from China). Achieving peace with SK and being recognised around the world is also a way to survival. They even obtained as a bonus the sudden stop in joint military exercises between the US and SK ! For now, the US has gained absolutely nothing, and NK only slightly destroyed a test facility they didn't need anymore (and are rebuilding somehow), while progressing towards their goal. Some foreign policy success ! Other foreign policy success ? Moving the embassy in Jerusalem ? Yeah, nothing achieved apart from pissing off a whole part of the world and stoking flames.
The economy is going well, I'll grant you that. It was already going well before he came in, mind you. And everybody can get a good economy by doing short term measures and hugely increasing the deficit. Are inequalities reducing ? Is the standard of living improving for people ? Quality of life, environment ?
Not messing shit up, you mean by putting lobbyists in every secretary position, with a lot of them already in pretty hot waters having ethics issues ? Shutting down the government several times with no effect, and don't let me talk about that emergency declaration. Basically doing things everyone (minus 1-2 hardliners) advised him against ? And alienating nearly all allies, this is not messing shit up ? The damage done to the US credibility isn't going away anytime soon, and I fully expect him to blame his successors afterwards for the result of his actions. At this point it's probably better for his legacy to do only one term, so he wouldn't have to deal with the aftermath. Bah, he would blame the democratic opposition anyway.
He might have achieved lots of things the conservative love (judges, some internal policies), but most of the rest is utter chaos. Anything bipartisan is not going to be made, since he doesn't want to give any credit to democrats for anything, so you can probably forget this huge infrastructure plan, "coming soon" since... his inauguration. The country is coming second, after himself. That's not what I would want in my president.
On another topic, just today there was this nice little article explaining that, contrary to sworn testimony that there had been no written directives to investigate Clinton after the election. It turned out, that, 2 days before Whitaker left DOJ, they suddenly stumbled upon a letter from Sessions requiring recommendations in investigative actions or the appointment of a second Special Counsel. (Whitaker had it in his sent mails, and testified that such a directive did not exist). As if nobody would be aware of a direct directive from the AG... Of course it doesn't reference directly an order from Trump, but a referral from his good pals in the old House Judiciary Committee.
What was the harm in releasing that directive earlier instead of lying about it ? The whole pattern of deception, hiding and lying is really impossible to understand for me. https://www.americanoversight.org/sessions-letter
The Chinese population likes Trump because he's an entertaining, bumbling moron who is a walking meme factory. Same reason that the late night circuit and American media like Trump, he provides great material.
Xi thinks Trump is a moron too. But a dangerous one, since he threatens to disrupt the Chinese economy at a delicate time. However, he also perceives the opportunity that an America with a largely impotent foreign policy presents.
On March 11 2019 05:24 ticklishmusic wrote: Re: China
The Chinese population likes Trump because he's an entertaining, bumbling moron who is a walking meme factory. Same reason that the late night circuit and American media like Trump, he provides great material.
Xi thinks Trump is a moron too. But a dangerous one, since he threatens to disrupt the Chinese economy at a delicate time. However, he also perceives the opportunity that an America with a largely impotent foreign policy presents.
This doesn't really add up. Trump is the first president that we have had who has been willing to effectively take on China and curb its emergence as a power. What makes Trump different and more effective than his predecessors is his weaponization of American economic power. Trump is methodically taking a hammer to China's structural advantages. The USMCA is one of the biggest pieces in this regard in that it closes off China's ability to dump goods in Mexico or Canada for eventual sale in the US. With regards to the tariffs, and setting the trade gap aside, it's pretty clear that the US is winning the trade war. The Chinese economy is taking beating, with broad-based declines all across its economy. The Chinese central bank is flooding the market with stimulus to keep things afloat. The US, on the other hand, is just chugging along. I saw an article in the WSJ a week or two ago quantifying the drag from tariffs on the US economy at $6.4 billion per month, which is a nominal figure. We're still early in the game and it's going to take some time for the full impact of the tariffs to be felt on both sides. But right now, the US has the upper hand, which seems to be leading towards some kind of new trade deal with China. Regardless of what's in it, the US will undoubtedly come out in a better position than it was in before Trump took office. The previous state of affairs was simply intolerable.
On March 11 2019 06:46 Doodsmack wrote: Until the trade deficit with China decreases, Trump's tariffs and trade war are a failure.
Trade surplus is not the end all, be all of success and failure. No economy can be perfectly balanced and able to competitively produce everything by itself in today's world, it shouldn't be the only metric defining success. Getting a new deal, and comparing both, while observing the aftermath of the tarrifs in the US and China, will define if it was a success or not. This is something Trump is having a hard time to understand. Yet, putting pressure on the chinese economy which is already struggling to keep their systemic issues in check, can achieve results. More damaging than the deficit in the long term, was the technologies and IP stolen. But it's late now, China is more advanced in a lot of fields, though they are still doing it to a lesser effect.
On March 11 2019 05:24 ticklishmusic wrote: Re: China
The Chinese population likes Trump because he's an entertaining, bumbling moron who is a walking meme factory. Same reason that the late night circuit and American media like Trump, he provides great material.
Xi thinks Trump is a moron too. But a dangerous one, since he threatens to disrupt the Chinese economy at a delicate time. However, he also perceives the opportunity that an America with a largely impotent foreign policy presents.
This doesn't really add up. Trump is the first president that we have had who has been willing to effectively take on China and curb its emergence as a power. What makes Trump different and more effective than his predecessors is his weaponization of American economic power. Trump is methodically taking a hammer to China's structural advantages. The USMCA is one of the biggest pieces in this regard in that it closes off China's ability to dump goods in Mexico or Canada for eventual sale in the US. With regards to the tariffs, and setting the trade gap aside, it's pretty clear that the US is winning the trade war. The Chinese economy is taking beating, with broad-based declines all across its economy. The Chinese central bank is flooding the market with stimulus to keep things afloat. The US, on the other hand, is just chugging along. I saw an article in the WSJ a week or two ago quantifying the drag from tariffs on the US economy at $6.4 billion per month, which is a nominal figure. We're still early in the game and it's going to take some time for the full impact of the tariffs to be felt on both sides. But right now, the US has the upper hand, which seems to be leading towards some kind of new trade deal with China. Regardless of what's in it, the US will undoubtedly come out in a better position than it was in before Trump took office. The previous state of affairs was simply intolerable.
Trump has advanced China's emergence as a power more than any American president in history. Did you miss the speech where Xi literally said that with America retreating from the world stage China would step in to pick up the slack?
I'm on the fence about the trade stuff. You believe this is absolutely wrecking the Chinese economy, they're on their knees begging for forgiveness for daring to take on America, and other people seem to feel it's not really accomplishing much at all. Time will tell on that front. But there's no denying that Trump's foreign policy has done nothing but make America seem like an unreliable ally that has given China a massive boost in its international standing.
China certainly has economic problems beyond the impact of the tariffs, and they undoubtedly are causing more damage to China than the tariffs. But bottom line is that the tariffs are hurting China at a time when China can ill-afford a trade war. This has brought Xi to the bargaining table. That’s a good thing.
And as for this nonsense about the US retreating from the world stage under Trump, what exactly do you want the US to do in an increasingly multipolar world? Start a war? It’s pretty much universally accepted that the US no longer has the comparative strength to stop China from seizing Taiwan or any other local strategic goal in theater. Economic pressure is the best tool available.
It's weird to me how all of the positive steps between NK/SK are attributed to Trump, when South Korea went from having a right wing, clearly insane president to a left wing, sunshine policy embracing one.
and on the flip side, all the American media attacking Trump for not accomplishing anything with NK are letting President Moon off the hook, they never even say his name.
On February 25 2019 04:03 Nebuchad wrote: I've seen a bunch of people saying that the aid convoy at the border of Venezuela was set on fire by people from the opposition, and not by the army as it's been reported. There were two videos about molotovs to back this up, one where they prepared them, and one where it is thrown at the convoy. Is this fake news?
I still don't know how to function in situations where the media can't be trusted :/
People were saying this on Twitter the day it happened. I guess it's a good sign that a story finally runs on this, but overall I still find it really hard to navigate this whole situation.
On March 11 2019 10:11 xDaunt wrote: China certainly has economic problems beyond the impact of the tariffs, and they undoubtedly are causing more damage to China than the tariffs. But bottom line is that the tariffs are hurting China at a time when China can ill-afford a trade war. This has brought Xi to the bargaining table. That’s a good thing.
And as for this nonsense about the US retreating from the world stage under Trump, what exactly do you want the US to do in an increasingly multipolar world? Start a war? It’s pretty much universally accepted that the US no longer has the comparative strength to stop China from seizing Taiwan or any other local strategic goal in theater. Economic pressure is the best tool available.
Not pissing off almost every strategic ally the US has ever had would have been a good start. Let alone this apparently new nonsense about trying to make other countries pay for the privilege of having American soldiers in their country.
On February 25 2019 04:03 Nebuchad wrote: I've seen a bunch of people saying that the aid convoy at the border of Venezuela was set on fire by people from the opposition, and not by the army as it's been reported. There were two videos about molotovs to back this up, one where they prepared them, and one where it is thrown at the convoy. Is this fake news?
I still don't know how to function in situations where the media can't be trusted :/
People were saying this on Twitter the day it happened. I guess it's a good sign that a story finally runs on this, but overall I still find it really hard to navigate this whole situation.
Not a 'win' for Maduro but vindicating for him nonetheless because it feeds into the narrative that he's protecting Venezuala from Columbian interests, since they doctored the footage and tried to create the story.
Still no explanation for why the security forces were there in the first place though.
On March 11 2019 10:11 xDaunt wrote: China certainly has economic problems beyond the impact of the tariffs, and they undoubtedly are causing more damage to China than the tariffs. But bottom line is that the tariffs are hurting China at a time when China can ill-afford a trade war. This has brought Xi to the bargaining table. That’s a good thing.
And as for this nonsense about the US retreating from the world stage under Trump, what exactly do you want the US to do in an increasingly multipolar world? Start a war? It’s pretty much universally accepted that the US no longer has the comparative strength to stop China from seizing Taiwan or any other local strategic goal in theater. Economic pressure is the best tool available.
Not pissing off almost every strategic ally the US has ever had would have been a good start. Let alone this apparently new nonsense about trying to make other countries pay for the privilege of having American soldiers in their country.
Why should Americans care about pissing off foreign countries? We owe nothing to them, and the average American doesnt get any benefit from being allies with them.
The only people who gain from these globalism policies are the American elite.
Trump isn't perfect, but the closer we get to to isolationism, the better it is for us.
EPT
