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 January 26 2020 02:25 farvacola wrote: Ehh, I don’t think it’s weird in the sense that many folks claim to be libertarian without wrestling with what that really means. For many, it’s a placeholder for “I belong to neither main party, and I think I should be left alone.”
Sanders can fit that bill relatively easily depending on how one views hot button topics like healthcare.
He's basically a libertarian communist. Eat the rich, socialize basically everything, but taxation is theft and the government should never be involved in his life. Farv hit the nail on the head
Anarchist then, right?
Seems to me it's the only type of libertarian that makes sense.
On January 26 2020 02:25 farvacola wrote: Ehh, I don’t think it’s weird in the sense that many folks claim to be libertarian without wrestling with what that really means. For many, it’s a placeholder for “I belong to neither main party, and I think I should be left alone.”
Sanders can fit that bill relatively easily depending on how one views hot button topics like healthcare.
He's basically a libertarian communist. Eat the rich, socialize basically everything, but taxation is theft and the government should never be involved in his life. Farv hit the nail on the head
Anarchist then, right?
Seems to me it's the only type of libertarian that makes sense.
That was my initial guess, but "making sense" to any rigorous analysis doesn't describe many people's political views. We all mostly form them emotionally imo.
Libertarian's, if they are to be taken 100% seriously, are an anarchist death cult that wants humanity to return to hunter-gatherer communities living in caves.
Its like any other ideology. even socialists like GH base their ideology on capitalism if you get down to its roots. Modern libertarians are republicans that don't want to be burdened with being relevant and want to throw away their right to vote in order to be smug and self-righteous to other people. At least with the green party you can easily desern what they want.
On January 26 2020 07:51 Sermokala wrote: Libertarian's, if they are to be taken 100% seriously, are an anarchist death cult that wants humanity to return to hunter-gatherer communities living in caves.
Its like any other ideology. even socialists like GH base their ideology on capitalism if you get down to its roots. Modern libertarians are republicans that don't want to be burdened with being relevant and want to throw away their right to vote in order to be smug and self-righteous to other people. At least with the green party you can easily desern what they want.
What on earth are you talking about?
How are we "republicans that don't want to be burdened with being relevant and want to throw away their right to vote" when the libertarian party garners the third highest number of votes in the general elections?
It's easy to discern what the libertarian want as well. It's just that you don't seem to know much about libertarianism. I'm not even going to bother addressing the "death cult" comment.
On January 26 2020 06:27 Belisarius wrote: I have no idea how you mash those two ideologies together without fundamentally misunderstanding one or both.
You can't socialise everything and not have the government involved in your life. That's the whole point.
That said, sure, I'll take it.
One can argue a Communist utopia, particularly a complete communist society as described by Marx (a pipe dream), is libertarian if no coercion is involved.
Since his friend referred to "eating the rich" though, which would be a coercion, I don't think that's what he bases his beliefs on though.
On January 26 2020 02:24 Ryzel wrote: Your friend must indeed be weird if he calls himself libertarian and supports Bernie lol
I don't know if you realize this, but Bernie and Ron Paul have been allies on key issues, historically speaking.
They were often alone in the face of establishment on issues like the Fed and the military industrial complex.
On January 26 2020 08:16 BerserkSword wrote:I don't know if you realize this, but Bernie and Ron Paul have been allies on key issues, historically speaking.
They were often alone in the face of establishment on issues like the Fed and the military industrial complex.
The appeal of Bernie has roots in the abject failure of so called fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan. If you want a balanced budget, Bernie is one of the only senators to be serious about the military industrial complex. He has plans to spend money, but he also wants to fund those plans and not extend the deficit. We're probably going to see the deficit for this year hit 1 trillion since it grows every year under Trump.
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
On January 26 2020 07:51 Sermokala wrote: Libertarian's, if they are to be taken 100% seriously, are an anarchist death cult that wants humanity to return to hunter-gatherer communities living in caves.
Its like any other ideology. even socialists like GH base their ideology on capitalism if you get down to its roots. Modern libertarians are republicans that don't want to be burdened with being relevant and want to throw away their right to vote in order to be smug and self-righteous to other people. At least with the green party you can easily desern what they want.
What on earth are you talking about?
How are we "republicans that don't want to be burdened with being relevant and want to throw away their right to vote" when the libertarian party garners the third highest number of votes in the general elections?
It's easy to discern what the libertarian want as well. It's just that you don't seem to know much about libertarianism. I'm not even going to bother addressing the "death cult" comment.
Yes they get the third amount of votes in a nation that Is firmly a two-party system. They used to be apart of the Republican party until they decided that being apart of serious politics wasn't for them so they decided to be ilrelevent. Ask Jill stein her chances of becoming president are.
The last libertarian convention gary johnson (the guy that they've nominated for president a few times) was booed for being in favor of drivers licenses. They want you to seriously believe that "stop occupational licensing" is a serious slogan that won't get people burning alive with bad electrical work and people being decapitated from getting into car accidents with semi-trailers.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
I mean, the more controversy-generating portion of your comment was obviously the “would swap Trudeau for Trump” bit - once upon a time in this thread or its predecessor, that was the sort of comment that would elicit about 30 left-wing commenters grumpily replying that Trudeau is 1000x the man Trump is, incomparably less evil, a more considerate lover, etc. Maybe it still will!
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
It's worth noting that those foreign businesses are often more efficient because they don't bother with unnecessary stuff like... you know... paying their employees, or disposing of toxic waste anywhere except the nearest river. Supporting local industries does keep them under your eye and playing by your rules.
Protectionism also has a role in retaining strategic capability. If your country can feed itself, power its own industry, build its own critical infrastructure etc, you are much more resilient to external shocks. It can be wise to keep those things in place by assisting them during periods they've been undercut, especially in our increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.
It can help growth in the long term, too. A case in point is china's piece-by-piece appropriation of the supply chain for most rare earths. The US was happy to outsource primary production because it is costly and polluting, but didn't realise that the higher-tech, value-adding steps would follow the miners out the door.
Now, I agree with your last paragraph. Trump isn't protectionist for any of these reasons, he's protectionist because he is a giant narcissist who doesn't understand how countries work, and he saw some coal miners wearing t-shirts with his face on them. But free trade has problems as well, and protectionism is not universally bad because he's doing it.
On January 26 2020 20:49 Belisarius wrote: It's worth noting that those foreign businesses are often more efficient because they don't bother with unnecessary stuff like... you know... paying their employees, or disposing of toxic waste anywhere except the nearest river. Supporting local industries does keep them under your eye and playing by your rules.
Protectionism also has a role in retaining strategic capability. If your country can feed itself, power its own industry, build its own critical infrastructure etc, you are much more resilient to external shocks. It can be wise to keep those things in place by assisting them during periods they've been undercut, especially in our increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.
It can help growth in the long term, too. A case in point is china's piece-by-piece appropriation of the supply chain for most rare earths. The US was happy to outsource primary production because it is costly and polluting, but didn't realise that the higher-tech, value-adding steps would follow the miners out the door.
Now, I agree with your last paragraph. Trump isn't protectionist for any of these reasons, he's protectionist because he is a giant narcissist who doesn't understand how countries work, and he saw some coal miners wearing t-shirts with his face on them. But free trade has problems as well, and protectionism is not universally bad because he's doing it.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. My post was getting a little long so I didn’t get into this, but there are some specific cases where protectionism can be justified. Another you didn’t mention explicitly is as a response to another country’s protectionism - in China’s case, for instance, the trade war was partly in response to the large tariffs China already had in place. That doesn’t mean starting a trade war is definitely a good idea, but it at least makes sense even within free trade principles.
But none of those cases where protectionism can be justified are almost ever ways to win votes. The version of protectionism that wins votes is almost always rooted in 1) ignorance of comparative advantage, and/or 2) the delusion that we’ll be able to pick other countries’ pockets, and they’ll just go along with it without retaliation.
Am I too uncharitable? Is there more validity to this type of populism than I’m giving it credit for?
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia.
In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to.
On January 26 2020 11:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
On January 26 2020 09:29 ShoCkeyy wrote: The full video of Trump asking to fire the ambassador to Ukraine has been released. You can watch it at the 43 minute mark.
Currently on the move but I’ll post the video when I get a chance or if some else can post it?
It takes the guy less than a minute to convince Trump to get rid of her, just by saying she's from the Clinton administration and that the ambassador was telling people Trump would be impeached. Trump has a real tone change compared to the rest of the dinner when he says the 'get rid of her, take her out, do it' part. He does sound agitated/serious.
The Ukraine part starts few minutes earlier around 39mins. Trump seems overly surprised to hear Ukraine has oil.
The rest of the vid is kind of interesting if you want to know how a lobbyist dinner with Trump is. Lots of ass kissing and lots of bad takes.
On 8 mins where they shit on South Korea, and Trump shows he has no clue why the US is even there or what the Korea war was about.
11min he talks about the US taking in billions from the tariffs. None of the businessmen affirm him because they know it's bullshit lol
On 16mins Trump says 'WTO is a weapon to hurt the United States. And the European Union the same thing, it's a group of countries that got together to screw the United States, and they are probably worse than China'
33m30s Kanye West will pull the millennials to Trump
He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant.
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like?
I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties.
But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too.
I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there.
It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia.
In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to.
Allowing Korea and Japan to militarize would just create an arms race in Asia (likely the world once you give up the idea of nuclear proliferation. The problem with independent nations in alliance is that they must have similar power levels. Do we want every nation in the world holding nuclear weapons? I'd say absolutely not. I'd rather not have the US or anyone as a global super power either, but I think it is better than the cold war.
EPT
