Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

TPP - And Trump Idiocy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TPP - And Trump Idiocy

    So this just flew across my transom. After pulling us out of the TPP, Trump is now apparently reconsidering in light of the (almost obvious) inevitable outcome: China would begin to move into areas formerly occupied by the U.S.

    Dear Mr Trump:

    I know you consider yourself an expert negotiator, but your choices suggest otherwise. Permit me to help you with some basics. When a power vacuum is created, someone will either be sucked into it, or they will jockey to become the dominant player. This is Interactions 101. So when you say, "I'm taking my ball and going home," you abandon leadership in the game, and someone else will then slide into that leadership position. This is true because the vast majority of the world looks to leaders. Sheep are common. Shepherds are comparatively rare. So when the shepherd takes his staff and goes home, the sheep will look to the next available shepherd.

    Now, it appears, you are beginning to see that China is sliding into the enormous power vacuum created by U.S. nationalism/populism. When England goes nationalistic/populistic, the world yawns. But when the "leader of the free world" does it, the impact is enormous. In the past year, you have largely sacrificed our position as a world leader to your nationalistic/populistic rhetoric. So we will increasingly be paying homage to other countries that adopt this role. I know your "base" loves it. In time they will come to regret it. We will become the nation that is an "also ran," and the fears they had before will be realized.

    I actually admire the more hard-line stance. I think it should have been taken decades ago. BUt the "I will take my ball and go home" stance is a serious mistake. Usually, the kids find another ball, and play resumes. The kid with the original ball looks like a sore loser that cannot handle not getting things "their way."

    Maybe you just need to grow up a little? Your interpersonal skills bear all the hallmarks of a grade-school mentality, so it is no surprise your negotiation skills and political skills would be similarly limited. Perhaps you should take a lesson from the great leaders that came before you? Each of them had a unique skill: they could recognize their limitations and bring the right people into the mix to deal with it. Clinton lacked this skill - and that is why she is not president. You apparently also lack this skill - which suggests to me that your slim margin of less than 100,000 votes in three states was just a luck of the draw. Maybe you could make SOME effort to prove us wrong?

    Or not. And if not, then I suspect that there will be a collective "you're fired" in 2020. See you then.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  • #2
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    So this just flew across my transom. After pulling us out of the TPP, Trump is now apparently reconsidering in light of the (almost obvious) inevitable outcome: China would begin to move into areas formerly occupied by the U.S.

    Dear Mr Trump:

    I know you consider yourself an expert negotiator, but your choices suggest otherwise. Permit me to help you with some basics. When a power vacuum is created, someone will either be sucked into it, or they will jockey to become the dominant player. This is Interactions 101. So when you say, "I'm taking my ball and going home," you abandon leadership in the game, and someone else will then slide into that leadership position. This is true because the vast majority of the world looks to leaders. Sheep are common. Shepherds are comparatively rare. So when the shepherd takes his staff and goes home, the sheep will look to the next available shepherd.

    Now, it appears, you are beginning to see that China is sliding into the enormous power vacuum created by U.S. nationalism/populism. When England goes nationalistic/populistic, the world yawns. But when the "leader of the free world" does it, the impact is enormous. In the past year, you have largely sacrificed our position as a world leader to your nationalistic/populistic rhetoric. So we will increasingly be paying homage to other countries that adopt this role. I know your "base" loves it. In time they will come to regret it. We will become the nation that is an "also ran," and the fears they had before will be realized.

    I actually admire the more hard-line stance. I think it should have been taken decades ago. BUt the "I will take my ball and go home" stance is a serious mistake. Usually, the kids find another ball, and play resumes. The kid with the original ball looks like a sore loser that cannot handle not getting things "their way."

    Maybe you just need to grow up a little? Your interpersonal skills bear all the hallmarks of a grade-school mentality, so it is no surprise your negotiation skills and political skills would be similarly limited. Perhaps you should take a lesson from the great leaders that came before you? Each of them had a unique skill: they could recognize their limitations and bring the right people into the mix to deal with it. Clinton lacked this skill - and that is why she is not president. You apparently also lack this skill - which suggests to me that your slim margin of less than 100,000 votes in three states was just a luck of the draw. Maybe you could make SOME effort to prove us wrong?

    Or not. And if not, then I suspect that there will be a collective "you're fired" in 2020. See you then.
    This is perfectly expressed. Trump’s supporters think the man is bold and edgy when he tweets “Trade wars are easy to win.” After China retaliated, Trump whines about unfairness, “There was never a trade war.” Oops!

    History will judge him for being the most unimaginitive president ever. There are easy ways to compete with China. We could create our own Shenzhen by creating low-paying jobs and housing for the poor and homeless. We could innovate a solution that’d keep us competitive and thriving, but instead he invests his energy in Twitter insults and staff turnover drama.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      So this just flew across my transom. After pulling us out of the TPP, Trump is now apparently reconsidering in light of the (almost obvious) inevitable outcome: China would begin to move into areas formerly occupied by the U.S.

      Dear Mr Trump:

      I know you consider yourself an expert negotiator, but your choices suggest otherwise. Permit me to help you with some basics. When a power vacuum is created, someone will either be sucked into it, or they will jockey to become the dominant player. This is Interactions 101. So when you say, "I'm taking my ball and going home," you abandon leadership in the game, and someone else will then slide into that leadership position. This is true because the vast majority of the world looks to leaders. Sheep are common. Shepherds are comparatively rare. So when the shepherd takes his staff and goes home, the sheep will look to the next available shepherd.

      Now, it appears, you are beginning to see that China is sliding into the enormous power vacuum created by U.S. nationalism/populism. When England goes nationalistic/populistic, the world yawns. But when the "leader of the free world" does it, the impact is enormous. In the past year, you have largely sacrificed our position as a world leader to your nationalistic/populistic rhetoric. So we will increasingly be paying homage to other countries that adopt this role. I know your "base" loves it. In time they will come to regret it. We will become the nation that is an "also ran," and the fears they had before will be realized.

      I actually admire the more hard-line stance. I think it should have been taken decades ago. BUt the "I will take my ball and go home" stance is a serious mistake. Usually, the kids find another ball, and play resumes. The kid with the original ball looks like a sore loser that cannot handle not getting things "their way."

      Maybe you just need to grow up a little? Your interpersonal skills bear all the hallmarks of a grade-school mentality, so it is no surprise your negotiation skills and political skills would be similarly limited. Perhaps you should take a lesson from the great leaders that came before you? Each of them had a unique skill: they could recognize their limitations and bring the right people into the mix to deal with it. Clinton lacked this skill - and that is why she is not president. You apparently also lack this skill - which suggests to me that your slim margin of less than 100,000 votes in three states was just a luck of the draw. Maybe you could make SOME effort to prove us wrong?

      Or not. And if not, then I suspect that there will be a collective "you're fired" in 2020. See you then.
      Ugh. I entirely disagree. What a horrible mismash of bad and terrible ideas.

      Where to even begin... In no particular order:

      1. THE WORLD ISN'T A GLOBAL CHESS BOARD FOR YOU GUYS TO PLAY ON. The very notion of you guys being "players" against China where you exercise "dominance" over other nations and treat the world as board where you expand your influence over is absolutely infuriating for everyone in those nations you're dominating, and is morally disgusting. I'm not allowed to swear on this board, but insert your own paragraph of swear words here directed at the concept of imperialism and the cold-war idiocy of American imperialism, global domination, and the arrogance and selfishness of those who though they ought to control the world and dominate the lives and affairs of others. Our countries are neither chess pieces nor squares on a board for your convenience. You don't get to decide how we're going to live, we do. Those ideas were awful and outdated 50 years ago during the cold war and haven't got any better since. Urgh.

      2. Trade deals aren't an effective way of exercising power and domination or extending it. That's just propaganda put forth by special-interest groups to pretend that giving them better access to more markets is somehow patriotic. It's not. The two things have almost zero to do with each other. Obama tried to sell the TPP as being about extending American influence because that poked Americans in the patriotism section of their brains and made them more likely to agree to something they would otherwise be against (globalism of trade / outsourcing US jobs), but it was a lie. China doesn't 'win' if the US isn't in the TPP, because the TPP has zero effect on the 'global chessboard'.

      3. The TPP is mostly a bad deal. Imagine your boss came to you at work and dropped a multi-hundred page contract on your desk and said "here's a new contract you can sign if you want, it's got 30 chapters of new terms and conditions you've got to agree to and follow, but if you sign it we'll give you a 0.1% pay raise each year for the next 10 years, in addition to whatever pay raises you otherwise get" (That is literally what the right-wing pro-TPP government here assessed the TPP as offering). Most people would file that contract straight in the nearest rubbish bin, not sign it, because the minuscule benefits aren't remotely close to worth the downsides. The TPP is a 'good deal' only for the special-interest groups who are pushing it - a small number of multinationals who want to try and set international trade rules to benefit their bottom line.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        This is true because the vast majority of the world looks to leaders. Sheep are common. Shepherds are comparatively rare. So when the shepherd takes his staff and goes home, the sheep will look to the next available shepherd.
        Urgh, no. That's absurdly hierarchical. The world doesn't need a 'leader' to 'follow'.

        But the "I will take my ball and go home" stance is a serious mistake.
        I disagree. Firstly, as a progressive, I am generally supportive of non-intervention on the international level as a general political policy and stance. This is connected with my belief that people in other countries should be free to determine their own destinies, and that imposition on them from outsiders is inherently anti-freedom. The US or whoever should take the stick out of their own eye before taking the twig out of others, etc.

        Secondly, the US in particular has been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-involved on the international stage. It would not be so much a matter of "taking the ball and going home" as it would be choosing to stop being both the referee and being 4 of 5 players on every team, and it would mean dialing US involvement and interventionism down a tad from "absurd, completely over the top, ridiculous levels of involvement in everything" to "giving the other players a little bit of breathing room". Remember, the US currently still has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, is doing drone strikes in about 8 countries, is aiding and abetting the Saudis in committing genocide in Yemen, and at any one time has over 100 missions being carried out by US troops in Africa. That level of involved could be lessened without 'going home'.

        Thirdly, the US has pretty consistently been a bad-actor in world affairs. While the US government has sold its interventions to its people using propaganda like "extending freedom" or "bringing peace and democracy" the pretense that its interventions are designed to "help" the people in the affected regions, any even semi-objective look at the history of US interventions shows that where and how the US has intervened has had almost zero to do with any humanitarian concerns or love of democracy or anything even approaching morally positive objectives. Rather the interventions have consistently helped special-interest groups, or been viewed as moves on the global chess board to increase total US power and imperialism - the concern for those countries and peoples being intervened upon has been non-existent. The US will happily support three quarters of the world's dictators, overthrow democratic regimes, sell weapons to countries committing atrocities, etc. More US involvement with the rest of the world, would only be a net good for the rest of the world, if the US actually started caring about the rest of the world and having the best-interests of the people it was interacting with in mind, rather than doing everything purely for utterly selfish US imperial interests. Reminder: Worldwide polls consistently show that the US is viewed internationally as the single biggest threat to world peace.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          I've just seen one of my favorite US political commentators published a 10-minute youtube video today talking about how Trump is too much of a interventionist war criminal (he's a center-left US commentator, background is a masters in pol sci). Seems pretty relevant to this thread.

          But contains some swearing so be warned.
          Trump Tells Top Officials He's In Favor Of Bombing Civilians

          A few snippets taken from the youtube auto-captions (so may have transcription inaccuracies) with punctuation added by me:

          In his [Trump's] mind this is his conception of war: we're gonna go in there carpet bomb everything destroy everything in... sight. "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians, and we're done we're out of there now." Of course, his generals, what's their take on it? The mainstream media puts this spin on it "well obviously they're more moral because they want to limit the number of civilian casualties". To an extent that's true but they don't tell you the other part of the picture. The other part of the picture is they want to permanently occupy these places illegally. They want US imperialism to just be the norm...

          The CIA showed Trump video of a drone strike in which they had waited until the target wasn't at home with his family. The president's response was, quote, "why did you wait?"... He said on Fox and Friends... "We have to take out their families. We have to take out their families. They say they don't care about their lives - don't kid yourself they care about their lives. But we have to take out their families"... So that's what he argued, and now he's doing it now he's carrying it out... it's exactly what he said on the campaign trail...

          There's been numbers released from Air Wars [airwars.org] which monitors the number of civilian deaths in these kinds of interventions that we're doing around the world and guess what? There has been a giant increase in civilian casualties under Trump. Now understand under Obama it was no picnic, in fact 90% of the time drones killed the wrong people. That is a giant percentage of getting the wrong people, but with Obama there were fewer drone strikes. Obama did more drone strikes than Bush. Trump is by far and away doing more drone strikes than Obama. In fact there was a 432 percent increase in drone strikes under Trump from Obama, and like he's telling you "I don't care about civilians I don't care."

          We have a word for that when you are doing offensive attacks on country that didn't attack us and you are targeting civilians on purpose in some instances... so you're doing violence for a political reason against civilians what's that word again? Terrorism... Donald Trump is a terrorist... We don't realize how extreme this really is because if it's any other leader of any other country and they were to make a comment like this we would literally be discussing regime change. If it's an enemy to the US and their leader says something like this like "no we don't care whether we kill civilians, yes do it" we would say "that is a terrorist rogue regime and they're ripe for regime change".
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So this just flew across my transom. After pulling us out of the TPP, Trump is now apparently reconsidering in light of the (almost obvious) inevitable outcome: China would begin to move into areas formerly occupied by the U.S.

            Dear Mr Trump:

            I know you consider yourself an expert negotiator, but your choices suggest otherwise. Permit me to help you with some basics. When a power vacuum is created, someone will either be sucked into it, or they will jockey to become the dominant player. This is Interactions 101. So when you say, "I'm taking my ball and going home," you abandon leadership in the game, and someone else will then slide into that leadership position. This is true because the vast majority of the world looks to leaders. Sheep are common. Shepherds are comparatively rare. So when the shepherd takes his staff and goes home, the sheep will look to the next available shepherd.

            Now, it appears, you are beginning to see that China is sliding into the enormous power vacuum created by U.S. nationalism/populism. When England goes nationalistic/populistic, the world yawns. But when the "leader of the free world" does it, the impact is enormous. In the past year, you have largely sacrificed our position as a world leader to your nationalistic/populistic rhetoric. So we will increasingly be paying homage to other countries that adopt this role. I know your "base" loves it. In time they will come to regret it. We will become the nation that is an "also ran," and the fears they had before will be realized.

            I actually admire the more hard-line stance. I think it should have been taken decades ago. BUt the "I will take my ball and go home" stance is a serious mistake. Usually, the kids find another ball, and play resumes. The kid with the original ball looks like a sore loser that cannot handle not getting things "their way."

            Maybe you just need to grow up a little? Your interpersonal skills bear all the hallmarks of a grade-school mentality, so it is no surprise your negotiation skills and political skills would be similarly limited. Perhaps you should take a lesson from the great leaders that came before you? Each of them had a unique skill: they could recognize their limitations and bring the right people into the mix to deal with it. Clinton lacked this skill - and that is why she is not president. You apparently also lack this skill - which suggests to me that your slim margin of less than 100,000 votes in three states was just a luck of the draw. Maybe you could make SOME effort to prove us wrong?

            Or not. And if not, then I suspect that there will be a collective "you're fired" in 2020. See you then.
            So sort of how the Russians moved in to fill the vacuum in the Mid East when Obama pulled us out?

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              So sort of how the Russians moved in to fill the vacuum in the Mid East when Obama pulled us out?
              Are you being sarcastic? Or do you really think that happened?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                I've just seen one of my favorite US political commentators published a 10-minute youtube video today talking about how Trump is too much of a interventionist war criminal (he's a center-left US commentator, background is a masters in pol sci). Seems pretty relevant to this thread.

                But contains some swearing so be warned.
                Trump Tells Top Officials He's In Favor Of Bombing Civilians
                Actually Carpedm, there's a different recent video by the same commentator that is 20 mins and covers more generally the topics of US foreign policy, war, intervention, intentions and Trump leading it, that I think is better to give you a more general view of where I am coming from on this and what I think the US policy more generally should be. Again, this commentator throws in swear words in his commentary, so be warned: Glenn Greenwald & Tucker Carlson Slam Neocon Warhawks.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just a geuss as I have little interest in this but is the commentator philip defranco?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                    Just a geuss as I have little interest in this but is the commentator philip defranco?
                    No, it's Kyle Kulinski. I don't follow or know much about Philip DeFranco (who I see from checking is a libertarian... suffice to say I have a very low opinion of libertarians).
                    Last edited by Starlight; 04-12-2018, 10:19 PM.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      No, it's Kyle Kulinski. I don't follow or know much about Philip DeFranco.
                      I think Philip is the more interesting of the two. His audience holds him accountable and he acts rather professionally.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                        I think Philip is the more interesting of the two. His audience holds him accountable and he acts rather professionally.
                        Have you watched Kyle Kulinski much, or is this just your way of saying "I like Philip DeFranco. He's better than everyone else."?
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          I've just seen one of my favorite US political commentators published a 10-minute youtube video today talking about how Trump is too much of a interventionist war criminal (he's a center-left US commentator, background is a masters in pol sci). Seems pretty relevant to this thread.

                          But contains some swearing so be warned.
                          Trump Tells Top Officials He's In Favor Of Bombing Civilians

                          A few snippets taken from the youtube auto-captions (so may have transcription inaccuracies) with punctuation added by me:

                          In his [Trump's] mind this is his conception of war: we're gonna go in there carpet bomb everything destroy everything in... sight. "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians, and we're done we're out of there now." Of course, his generals, what's their take on it? The mainstream media puts this spin on it "well obviously they're more moral because they want to limit the number of civilian casualties". To an extent that's true but they don't tell you the other part of the picture. The other part of the picture is they want to permanently occupy these places illegally. They want US imperialism to just be the norm...

                          The CIA showed Trump video of a drone strike in which they had waited until the target wasn't at home with his family. The president's response was, quote, "why did you wait?"... He said on Fox and Friends... "We have to take out their families. We have to take out their families. They say they don't care about their lives - don't kid yourself they care about their lives. But we have to take out their families"... So that's what he argued, and now he's doing it now he's carrying it out... it's exactly what he said on the campaign trail...

                          There's been numbers released from Air Wars [airwars.org] which monitors the number of civilian deaths in these kinds of interventions that we're doing around the world and guess what? There has been a giant increase in civilian casualties under Trump. Now understand under Obama it was no picnic, in fact 90% of the time drones killed the wrong people. That is a giant percentage of getting the wrong people, but with Obama there were fewer drone strikes. Obama did more drone strikes than Bush. Trump is by far and away doing more drone strikes than Obama. In fact there was a 432 percent increase in drone strikes under Trump from Obama, and like he's telling you "I don't care about civilians I don't care."

                          We have a word for that when you are doing offensive attacks on country that didn't attack us and you are targeting civilians on purpose in some instances... so you're doing violence for a political reason against civilians what's that word again? Terrorism... Donald Trump is a terrorist... We don't realize how extreme this really is because if it's any other leader of any other country and they were to make a comment like this we would literally be discussing regime change. If it's an enemy to the US and their leader says something like this like "no we don't care whether we kill civilians, yes do it" we would say "that is a terrorist rogue regime and they're ripe for regime change".
                          This is a commentator paraphrasing and summarizing Trump. Got any direct video evidence of Trump saying any of that stuff about "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians," etc?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Ugh. I entirely disagree. What a horrible mismash of bad and terrible ideas.

                            Where to even begin... In no particular order:

                            1. THE WORLD ISN'T A GLOBAL CHESS BOARD FOR YOU GUYS TO PLAY ON. The very notion of you guys being "players" against China where you exercise "dominance" over other nations and treat the world as board where you expand your influence over is absolutely infuriating for everyone in those nations you're dominating, and is morally disgusting. I'm not allowed to swear on this board, but insert your own paragraph of swear words here directed at the concept of imperialism and the cold-war idiocy of American imperialism, global domination, and the arrogance and selfishness of those who though they ought to control the world and dominate the lives and affairs of others. Our countries are neither chess pieces nor squares on a board for your convenience. You don't get to decide how we're going to live, we do. Those ideas were awful and outdated 50 years ago during the cold war and haven't got any better since. Urgh.
                            I am not a "manifest destiny" and "American exceptionalism" kind of guy. However, trade IS a global chess game and should be balanced with human rights and human dignity. China has a track record of not caring much about the latter two. The U.S. is certainly no saint when it comes to the latter two, and there is more than a little hypocrisy involved, IMO, but you can't influence that situation if you're not IN that situation. That was essentially my point.

                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            2. Trade deals aren't an effective way of exercising power and domination or extending it. That's just propaganda put forth by special-interest groups to pretend that giving them better access to more markets is somehow patriotic. It's not. The two things have almost zero to do with each other. Obama tried to sell the TPP as being about extending American influence because that poked Americans in the patriotism section of their brains and made them more likely to agree to something they would otherwise be against (globalism of trade / outsourcing US jobs), but it was a lie. China doesn't 'win' if the US isn't in the TPP, because the TPP has zero effect on the 'global chessboard'.
                            I think you may have missed the economic/political course about the relationship between money and power. To suggest/imply that there is no relationship seems a little, well, naive. Perhap I read your post wrong and that is not what you meant. And trade most certainly is about money.

                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            3. The TPP is mostly a bad deal. Imagine your boss came to you at work and dropped a multi-hundred page contract on your desk and said "here's a new contract you can sign if you want, it's got 30 chapters of new terms and conditions you've got to agree to and follow, but if you sign it we'll give you a 0.1% pay raise each year for the next 10 years, in addition to whatever pay raises you otherwise get" (That is literally what the right-wing pro-TPP government here assessed the TPP as offering). Most people would file that contract straight in the nearest rubbish bin, not sign it, because the minuscule benefits aren't remotely close to worth the downsides. The TPP is a 'good deal' only for the special-interest groups who are pushing it - a small number of multinationals who want to try and set international trade rules to benefit their bottom line.
                            Here I am outside my depth. I have not read the details of the TPP, so I cannot comment. I can generally observe that, if the deal is not ideal, then working to make it a better deal is a target we should be shooting for. Packing up and going home should happen at the end of the negotiations, if the resulting deal is simply not in the best interests of the country in question. It was my understanding that the TPP negotiations were not complete when that happened. Perhaps I am wrong about that.

                            However, the TPP isn't the only thing I was referring to. Trump "MAGA" (what a pile of hokum THAT is) focus, his protectionism, his isolationism, his withdrawal from the climate accords, his hissy at being sanctioned by the UN, are all part of a larger pattern of systematically withdrawing from the world stage. The U.S. has done that a couple of times in its history - and it never gained us all that much. Trade is a vital part of peace. Trump threatens all of that.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Urgh, no. That's absurdly hierarchical. The world doesn't need a 'leader' to 'follow'.

                              I disagree. Firstly, as a progressive, I am generally supportive of non-intervention on the international level as a general political policy and stance. This is connected with my belief that people in other countries should be free to determine their own destinies, and that imposition on them from outsiders is inherently anti-freedom. The US or whoever should take the stick out of their own eye before taking the twig out of others, etc.
                              Leadership is not (or should not be) about "imposition." Indeed, leadership should be a position of service. And it is a position that should be earned, not taken. Nothing about what I said runs counter to that. I think you have read a lot of things into my post that I did not put there.

                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Secondly, the US in particular has been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-involved on the international stage. It would not be so much a matter of "taking the ball and going home" as it would be choosing to stop being both the referee and being 4 of 5 players on every team, and it would mean dialing US involvement and interventionism down a tad from "absurd, completely over the top, ridiculous levels of involvement in everything" to "giving the other players a little bit of breathing room". Remember, the US currently still has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, is doing drone strikes in about 8 countries, is aiding and abetting the Saudis in committing genocide in Yemen, and at any one time has over 100 missions being carried out by US troops in Africa. That level of involved could be lessened without 'going home'.
                              No disagreement here. And countries SHOULD be allowed to resolve their own internal issues. However, when a country's leadership is committing attacks of genocide against its own people, I do think the larger international community has an obligation to step in, much as I think I have an obligation to step in if I see a parent abusing a child when I am out shopping.

                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Thirdly, the US has pretty consistently been a bad-actor in world affairs. While the US government has sold its interventions to its people using propaganda like "extending freedom" or "bringing peace and democracy" the pretense that its interventions are designed to "help" the people in the affected regions, any even semi-objective look at the history of US interventions shows that where and how the US has intervened has had almost zero to do with any humanitarian concerns or love of democracy or anything even approaching morally positive objectives. Rather the interventions have consistently helped special-interest groups, or been viewed as moves on the global chess board to increase total US power and imperialism - the concern for those countries and peoples being intervened upon has been non-existent. The US will happily support three quarters of the world's dictators, overthrow democratic regimes, sell weapons to countries committing atrocities, etc. More US involvement with the rest of the world, would only be a net good for the rest of the world, if the US actually started caring about the rest of the world and having the best-interests of the people it was interacting with in mind, rather than doing everything purely for utterly selfish US imperial interests. Reminder: Worldwide polls consistently show that the US is viewed internationally as the single biggest threat to world peace.
                              Again, no argument here. U.S. policy tends to be about U.S. interests, and that is, frankly, wrong. If the world were a neighborhood, the U.S. would be the guy on the block that only does something for the neighbors if there's something in it for him, and is always looking for a way to gain the upper hand over the other people on the block, which he can do because he's richer than anyone else on the block and owns a substantial chunk of the police force. I have experienced being in countries and being embarrassed to be an American because of the actions of our government and/or our corporations. I can hope for better. Obama was internationally weak and indecisive. Trump is as much a bully in foreign policy as he is domestically. Bush appears to have been on a vendetta. We have not been strong, international, moral leaders for a long time. At least one of those seems to get dropped on the floor.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              157 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              373 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X