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.
Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote: I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here...
are you just ignoring the word "foreign"?
It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is.
"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere."
"The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
Right, as major world economy (if not the leader) everyones affairs effect the US and the US cares about the affairs of everyone because thats how the global economy works which the US needs to feed off to maintain its position.
Therefor US isolationism as practised by BerserkSword allows for Isolationism = World Police.
Glad we had this discussion.
thank you for confirming you are all just trolling a new poster
People are trying to have a discussion with you that can get no-where because your points don't make sense and completely ignore reality and the world and when presented with this you don't take a moment to reflect on your position.
You just got done using international trade to conclude that Isolationism can be used to justify World Police. In the same post, you did the incredibly idiotic "Glad we had this discussion" to declare victory. The accusation of trolling is well-deserved.
The cessation of these kinds of activities is how you prove you actually are trying to have a discussion with him. Stupid dunking is one way you demonstrate that is not the case despite wasting words trying to say you really want to have a discussion.
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote: I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here...
are you just ignoring the word "foreign"?
It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is.
"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere."
"The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
Right, as major world economy (if not the leader) everyones affairs effect the US and the US cares about the affairs of everyone because thats how the global economy works which the US needs to feed off to maintain its position.
Therefor US isolationism as practised by BerserkSword allows for Isolationism = World Police.
Glad we had this discussion.
thank you for confirming you are all just trolling a new poster
There is a <1% chance that you are a new poster, let's be honest here. Your first post on this forum is an immediate attack on other people. This is not rational behaviour for new users.
This is the General Forum and the US Politics Mega-thread is routinely the hottest thread in this forum. For users that also post in multiple gaming forums, it's not suspicious for that reason. The only suspicious aspect is the core culture within this thread discourages new user participation for ANY people not already involved in the thread.
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote: I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here...
are you just ignoring the word "foreign"?
It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is.
"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere."
"The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
Right, as major world economy (if not the leader) everyones affairs effect the US and the US cares about the affairs of everyone because thats how the global economy works which the US needs to feed off to maintain its position.
Therefor US isolationism as practised by BerserkSword allows for Isolationism = World Police.
Glad we had this discussion.
thank you for confirming you are all just trolling a new poster
People are trying to have a discussion with you that can get no-where because your points don't make sense and completely ignore reality and the world and when presented with this you don't take a moment to reflect on your position.
You just got done using international trade to conclude that Isolationism can be used to justify World Police. In the same post, you did the incredibly idiotic "Glad we had this discussion" to declare victory. The accusation of trolling is well-deserved.
The cessation of these kinds of activities is how you prove you actually are trying to have a discussion with him. Stupid dunking is one way you demonstrate that is not the case despite wasting words trying to say you really want to have a discussion.
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote: I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here...
are you just ignoring the word "foreign"?
It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is.
"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere."
"The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
Right, as major world economy (if not the leader) everyones affairs effect the US and the US cares about the affairs of everyone because thats how the global economy works which the US needs to feed off to maintain its position.
Therefor US isolationism as practised by BerserkSword allows for Isolationism = World Police.
Glad we had this discussion.
thank you for confirming you are all just trolling a new poster
There is a <1% chance that you are a new poster, let's be honest here. Your first post on this forum is an immediate attack on other people. This is not rational behaviour for new users.
This is the General Forum and the US Politics Mega-thread is routinely the hottest thread in this forum. For users that also post in multiple gaming forums, it's not suspicious for that reason. The only suspicious aspect is the core culture within this thread discourages new user participation for ANY people not already involved in the thread.
I said first post on this forum, not first post on this thread, where he goes off on a tangent about Terran players. I wouldn't blink twice for any regular user, it's not a grievously bad post, but it's peculiar to join a forum and immediately start off with a hostile tone. Usually people want to feel welcome and accepted first, and not immediately start off trying to annoy people. This leads me to believe that this person has most likely been here before.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
Well he opened his entire argument with “Why should America care about pissing off other countries?” in response pissing off a long term ally, so I question if he really thought out the entire discussion or the long term implication. The entire argument is “Why should the US care if they piss off other sovereign nations?” is basic as fuck at its core.
As for why would we defend Japan, the real question is why wouldn’t we defend a lot term ally? I understand that none of us grew up in an era where nations tried to invade and totally dominate other nations, but it was a bad time all around. I mean, look at the damage caused by a small scale conflict in Syria. We want less of that, not more. And don’t dip into the weak ass argument whatever problems are created won’t reach the US. History has shown otherwise.
hot take: us hegemony is a net positive (a pretty big net, especially for us citizens) and having to spend shit loads of money to defend and butter up allies is an integral part of maintaining it.
its kinda what rome and china did way back in the day, too.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
The interesting part of this discussion is that Berserk's description of isolationism matches what the US has been doing, and yet he wants a "return" to isolationism. It's patently obvious to the rest of the world that the US only "cares about democracy" when they stand to profit in other ways, so they are already only considering american interests when they do foreign policy. Usually if you stand for a return to isolationism, it's because you want less interaction with other countries, but Berserk has told us that's not what he meant. So the next step for me is to wonder if he wants less interventionism? But then again it started with "who cares about pissing off allies", not with interventionism.
Tbh my guess is Berserk isn't exactly sure what he means by isolationism either.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
It is in USA's interest to prevent nuclear proliferation of any country.
Honestly I'll be fine with Japan having nuclear weapons in a generalist sense. Same with Germany if anybody is wondering by way of comparison. Both can very easily develop nuclear weapons very rapidly.
Anyways, some Americans seem to not realise that that for the most part, USA has bases in foreign countries, because USA wants to have a military base in those countries. It is true that South korea for instance may want those bases themselves, but nothing forces USA to have military bases there against their political and military will.
If you support curtailing China's influence, it makes perfect sense to have military bases in Taiwan and Phillipines. In any case I don't think USA has military bases in Taiwan anymore.
On March 12 2019 03:23 xDaunt wrote: Rather than tell BSword what you think he means by "isolationism," why not ask him for policy specifics? Let's take the Western Pacific theater as an example, where we have multiple defense agreements with nations over there. Let's say China attacks Japan. Is it in America's interest to come to Japan's defense? How about South Korea? How about Taiwan? The Philippines? When you factor in the ease with which China would roll over some of those countries, it really begs the question of why it is in the interest of the US taxpayer to fund and guarantee the defense of some of those countries. It's one thing to make those types of defense agreements in a unipolar or even bipolar world. We're long past that that now.
It’s in America’s interests to not have Japan and China engage in an arms race, certainly. Japan could easily nuclearize and create a sufficient defence capability to defend its interests but following WW2 we all decided we felt more comfortable if Japan chilled the fuck out. The United States has received huge economic dividends from stability in the Far East.
Japan is easy enough to justify. How about Taiwan or the Philippines?
Taiwan is an American proxy off the coast of China. It is to China what Cuba was to America during the Cold War. Think of it like an aircraft carrier that can’t be sunk.
Philippines had strategic importance for control over trade in the area. That’s why America was able to strangle Japan in the run up to Pearl Harbor.
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
Normally, you would offer what you would think to be communist is, before asking what another person thinks to be communist is, but I suppose that we can assume by your lack of rebuttal, that my assumption that you you have confused the word "communist" with authoritarian government is correct.
I would say that the best way to describe a communist government as regards to a country would be to how its economy works. In relation to a capitalist economy, private ownership and private enterprise is banned, and only state or collective ownership is legal. Everybody would be in essense government employed, working in the public sector. Details may vary. China has many (usd) billionaires from private enterprises. A great proportion of the economy and people would be earning and working for private companies. Possibly more that state enterprises, I can't say for sure, because it is China, but whatever it is, it is certainly enough that China cannot be called communist. There is a free market. It exists. It is absurd that a country with a stock market, with a possible housing and investment bubble can be called a communist country.
Now its your turn Sermakola, as I don't want to play a game of "that isn't what I said, and I have unreservedly answered your question, though by your refusal to offer your own it can be inferred that my inference was correct, I do dare to ask you what you think a communist is, for the sake of conversation of course.
Ok I'm going to assume the best and go with you had a stroke.
You already asked me what I think a communist government is and/or why I think china is communist.
Then I posted this is response.
On March 07 2019 07:28 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 06:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:41 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:27 Excludos wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:16 youngjiddle wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:11 Excludos wrote:
On March 07 2019 03:02 youngjiddle wrote: [quote]
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I would be very skeptical about what China is saying about their push for green energy. Check out this video,
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
China's fall will be harsh.
How exactly is China increasingly communist? A bubble is basically a capitalist phenomenon, be it tulips, or dotcom, or construction.
On March 07 2019 04:07 Sermokala wrote: The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
Which part is it that you consider communist? State control and authoritarianism isn't the same thing as communism. Though I agree they have an insane level of corruption, they appear to be generally competent, at least when it come to their "federal" projects.
When I say federalism I mean it in its literal term as in the different levels of government being responsible for increasingly narrow jurisdictions. In the chinese state this manifests as governors and down being selected by the national congress. However this then works in reverse as the national congress is selected in a rather complicated method of elections that is at its core has the electors organized into groups to make their vote.
Its impossible to say what china really is when you take into account all of the differences in the laws they've carved out to allow capitalism in. What are special economic zones really? They're under commune elected state control but have the capitalist freedoms of a western country.
ANYWAY. Those "federal" projects are indeed legit it seems from everything I have seen. the real issue is what comes at the more local level. Stuff like the south china mall until recently and the apartment buildings that end up being little more then a series of concrete coffins so that people can buy their "third home".
I'm not going to tell you that I even 70% understand the chinese election system but at the end of the day the communist party controls the super majority of the seats and has always done. If you can't trust that they at least belive that they are comunist then I don't know what to judge things.
Then you posted
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
This is your rebuttle. You don't think china is communist, rather authoritarian. Now being those things don't contradict each other I asked you what you think a communist government is.
On March 07 2019 08:19 Sermokala wrote:
On March 07 2019 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok, I actually believe you don't understand what to be communist is, and you have confused it with an authoritarian form of government.
And what dare I ask do you think a communist is for the sake of conversation?
This is the last of the conversation before your post so I hope you can understand how baffling and infuriating it is when you decide to snark about how I'm not offering what I think a communist government is. I asked you that question. I already answered that question and you responded, even going so far as to offer what you think our point of disagreement is.
You bring up points that I already brought up and have been responded to not just by me but by other people in the thread. This is "Your posts don't have anything to do with even your own posts", I genuinely don't think you read your own posts let alone anyone else's.
This is what I get for engaging you in good faith. To be said to have a stroke. It is my fault I suppose as you are so predictable. What you posted is not an answer to what you think a communist government is, as most of it is how you think the Communist party in China works, none of which has anything to do with communism, but rather authoritarianism. Unless... your argument is that the ruling party has communist in the name, in which case that would be a one sentence answer, and one is left wondering why you wrote so much about something else, and in any case can be dismissed by the reasoning that by assuming the best and go with you didn't had a stroke and don't genuinely think that China is communist because of a name. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Its not that I'm denying your good faith its that I'm denying that you're engaging with me, the thread, and yourself. You can't just make statements like "I think you're confusing communism with authoritarianism." And then refuse to elaborate on how that makes sense at all. I said you had a stroke beacuse theres no other way to really explain what just happened.
I mean if anything that I described is a republic when Rome being a republic elected representatives through the use of organized groups. Essentially China doing the same thing but in a bottom up-then down method is still fairly Republican.
The rest of my post was elaborating on if China was really communist. Despite having private businesses be illegal They've opened a flurry of zones where it is legal. Its only at the very end that I joked about them calling themselves communist. But that ending bit seems to be the only part that you've read. You didn't read the posts responding to my post from other people saying the same things without the communist name part. You even didn't read the post you yourself made accepting my argument and explaining what you think I got wrong.
The only way this conversation moves forward is if you explain the difference between communism and authoritarianism and how I got it wrong in my post just like how conversations work with everyone else in the thread.
I've already defined Communism and why it doesn't apply to China. Now it's your turn. Oh wait, you now are saying you was just joking. How tiresome.
It is always weird that we all hang out on a website devoted games about moving armies a map and playing games like Civ and Total War, but then ask questions like “Why does the us care about all these islands in the very big ocean?”
On March 12 2019 04:16 Plansix wrote: It is always weird that we all hang out on a website devoted games about moving armies a map and playing games like Civ and Total War, but then ask questions like “Why does the us care about all these islands in the very big ocean?”
The national government bears sole responsibility for conducting foreign policy for the US. We’ve been debating what nations to befriend and oppose, and what means to do that, at what cost for hundreds of years.
The popular hobby here to play video games do not take the place of that history.
Recently, a candidate was electedthat promised to put American interests first, and criticized past policy as favoring elites within the country while hurting the common man. The whole reason he’s justifiably called a populist is because he claims the elites have been operating in their own, narrow interest instead of the country as a whole.
If universal goodwill was purchased for free, I assume the current America First and aggressive noninterventionists would support it. Since that is not the case, we can and will have the conversation on how much should be spent and what we should purchase abroad with blood and treasure. This includes NK and Iranian nukes, Chinese regional/global dominance, Venezuelan tranquility, and European magnanimity. It asks you to weigh billions in foreign aid and military subsidies and foreign intervention against domestic aid and concerns.
On March 12 2019 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote: To be fair, Civ and Total War don't simulate real life logistics at all, or if they try to do so, bears no semblance to reality.
Who plays island maps anyways? They are imba.
It is more than people who enjoy the simulation of military in video games don’t seem to apply any curiosity to how the military strategy worked in reality. I was pretty deep into WW2 war gaming in my 20s, playing a lot of flames of War and other war games. These types of discussions would never happen in that space because of the knowledge base among the players.
Also, I have this really rudimentary underling of how my car works and that it requires me to fill it with gas every once and a while. If I take that with my novice understanding of military tactics and how big the pacific ocean is, I can posit using a small amount of critical thinking that islands in the middle of the ocean would be cool for boats. It is just weird that people keep bring it up like it isn’t self evident.
Anyone willing to tell a lie this inane is willing to lie about anything. In fact they lie to such an extent that it is a mental illness. Pathological liars cannot be trusted on even mundane matters, and everything they say should be considered presumptively false.
On March 12 2019 05:18 Doodsmack wrote: Anyone willing to tell a lie this inane is willing to lie about anything. In fact they lie to such an extent that it is a mental illness. Pathological liars cannot be trusted on even mundane matters, and everything they say should be considered presumptively false.
Pelosi has taken impeachment of Trump off of the table, saying "[Trump's] just not worth it." While I'm completely unsurprised that she has said this, I do find the timing rather curious. One would think that she'd at least wait for the Mueller report. My guess is that she already knows that there's not going to be anything worthwhile in it. Or maybe she's been listening to Hannity who has been saying since Friday that some of the FBI and DOJ officials who worked on the investigation are about to get indicted, and she's trying to get in front of that freight train.
EPT
