American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

It's hilarious that's what you actually think is going on   .

Darrell

Sure, Franky! Wink wink nudge nudge

[Charr Babies]

It probably really stems from what you meant by "sacrifice", but man does sacrifice sound like you mysteriously don't care about human life when its not the US.
If I took "sacrifice" out of context, then that is my bad, but how you take "sacrifice" as anything other than "let Russia have its way" I don't know.

Why I say you not only twist words, you also put words in my mouth.
You got me scratching my head again. So I searched "sacrifice". The only recent time I have used the word is Feb 10 on a post out of time and unrelated to the current topic

The very existence of NATO, with its founding principle is to threaten the then Soviet Union, now Russia. And let's not beat around the bush: NATO is US expansion. Nothing happens without an okay from the mafia boss. So yes, the US can attack Russia, but why risk a nuclear war when we have pawns to sacrifice?

With all the verbs you can ADD to what I have said I am surprised you stopped with abandon when you could have gone with invade, rape or genocide. Additionally, acknowledging current events or recognizing potential outcomes does not necessarily imply my endorsement.

If you're honest about having real discussions, you can learn from the brief exchange my little green friend and I recently had about Gaza being a thing of the past within a year. We both shared our opinions, with no twisting of words or manufactured facts, and he didn't get trolled all over the places. It can happen. 

[Mjmd]

Even I wouldn't have expected Trump to go to such extremes in alienating Ukraine, but I must say, if my speculation is correct, it's a brilliant move. The biggest mistake Biden made—and any president can make—is pushing Russia and China closer together. Sacrificing Ukraine while still collecting the debts (plus a hefty interest (pun intended)) it owes to the U.S. might be a minor concession in the attempt to lure Russia away from China, which is key to our domination.

A useful time for quoting. Maybe it is my bad for assuming you remembered. It was the start of this particular argument though. 

If you don't think a quote is applicable maybe don't post one and assume that is what I was talking about. 

[Charr Babies]

Even I wouldn't have expected Trump to go to such extremes in alienating Ukraine, but I must say, if my speculation is correct, it's a brilliant move. The biggest mistake Biden made—and any president can make—is pushing Russia and China closer together. Sacrificing Ukraine while still collecting the debts (plus a hefty interest (pun intended)) it owes to the U.S. might be a minor concession in the attempt to lure Russia away from China, which is key to our domination.

A useful time for quoting. Maybe it is my bad for assuming you remembered. It was the start of this particular argument though. 

If you don't think a quote is applicable maybe don't post one and assume that is what I was talking about. 

First, Out Of Context. That's recognizing what Trump is doing, what is happening.  


How do you turn this

I would argue being more friendly as in more neutral and cooperative with Russia and China is more profitable than the entire EU and Ukraine put together.

Into this?

abandon our allies so Russia wasn't forced to be so close to China.

With all the verbs you can ADD to what I have said I am surprised you stopped with abandon when you could have gone with, scarify, overthrow, invade, rape or genocide. 

And still, while we are still on this thread
What is that EVERYTHING China has taken, and how?

[Mjmd]

I was disagreeing it was the right thing to do. Even I'm not sure exactly what Trumps intentions are. I fear they are as you say, but we don't actually know that yet so I don't take it as a statement of "what is happening". So I was arguing why it was a stupid thing to do. My question as I've stated multiple times is for you to make the argument why its the right thing to do.

If this was just a statement of perceived reality and you disagree with doing so, then ya I don't expect you to answer the question on why its a good thing to do. If you agree with it try to defend it in a way that doesn't start a 4 or 5 page at this point circling of the issue or ignoring / forgetting about. Again simple respond if you acknowledge its a bad idea or you agree with the idea. Do one of those two things, and then if you agree with it I would like a geopolitical argument on why. If you don't agree, just state that and I don't need anymore. If I can focus this any more for you or clarify more let me know and I will attempt to do so.

You may need to clarify what you mean by "being more neutral and cooperative with Russia and China". How do I turn that into abandoning? Because being neutral means not helping our allies. I don't know what your definition of abandonment is, but not helping long standing allies to me is abandonment. Making a treaty for security guarantees and then ignoring those commitments is also abandonment. It is possible you meant something different though. Different people can think in different ways, but I hope you can see from what I believe is a logical interpretation that I wasn't purposefully distorting. It is possible you meant something different yes, but neither do I think its weird I interpreted in the way I did.

[Charr Babies]

I was disagreeing it was the right thing to do. Even I'm not sure exactly what Trumps intentions are. I fear they are as you say, but we don't actually know that yet so I don't take it as a statement of "what is happening". So I was arguing why it was a stupid thing to do. My question as I've stated multiple times is for you to make the argument why its the right thing to do.

Again, and again

Additionally, acknowledging current events or recognizing potential outcomes does not necessarily imply my endorsement.

Why do I have to argue from the pigeon hole you want to put me in. So, let me say it's the wrong thing for Trump to do. Answer my question : Why do you think it is the right thing to do?

If this was just a statement of perceived reality and you disagree with doing so, then ya I don't expect you to answer the question on why its a good thing to do. If you agree with it try to defend it in a way that doesn't start a 4 or 5 page at this point circling of the issue or ignoring / forgetting about. Again simple respond if you acknowledge its a bad idea or you agree with the idea. Do one of those two things, and then if you agree with it I would like a geopolitical argument on why. If you don't agree, just state that and I don't need anymore. If I can focus this any more for you or clarify more let me know and I will attempt to do so.

Read above. 
Trump is a PoS and he's making a mistake. Answer my question : Why do you think Trump is doing the right thing?

You may need to clarify what you mean by "being more neutral and cooperative with Russia and China". How do I turn that into abandoning? Because being neutral means not helping our allies. I don't know what your definition of abandonment is, but not helping long standing allies to me is abandonment. Making a treaty for security guarantees and then ignoring those commitments is also abandonment. It is possible you meant something different though. Different people can think in different ways, but I hope you can see from what I believe is a logical interpretation that I wasn't purposefully distorting. It is possible you meant something different yes, but neither do I think its weird I interpreted in the way I did.

Being neutral also mean helping each other equally. "being more neutral and cooperative" also mean just to ease off, and still favoring the allies

The thing is, when something isn't clear/clarify, any reasonable person seeking honest conversations would ask for clarification. (just like the question I am asking at the bottom) Despite my efforts to clarify and correct your narrative, again and again, you still insist on pigeonholing me.

That's is fine, I know your game. I can play.

And still, while we are still on this thread
What is that EVERYTHING China has taken, and how?

[Mjmd]

I don't think its the right thing to do obviously. I'm glad we agree it isn't.

I need clarification on "Being neutral also means helping each other equally". When Russia invades a country we've promised security guarantees to and our allies care about what is your "neutral" response? I might need a "why" here as well in addition to more of an explanation on what "neutral" means to you. I'm not sure how "helping each other equally" fits into a scenario like Russia invading Ukraine. Like helping equally would be also supplying Russia while supplying Ukraine. When I think "neutral" I think neutrality IE you aren't taking a side. Which is why I thought it it was an abandonment of our allies and commitments. So yes I request further clarification. It sounds like you just mean you favor less help maybe? Which is different from being neutral in my mind.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

There isn't some cold blooded geopolitical realpolitik here in, the morons the Trump admin bought on to run foreign policy think that the Ukrainian armed forces are woke and gay and transgender or whatever. Some dipshits on twitter posted that early on in the propaganda war, and through successive cycles of radicalization it is now Canon on the Trump Right.

If you go into apologist mode little there is some logic here in the division of the world into spheres of interest, where imperial cores can extract resources from their tributaries, so Ukraine and the Baltics for Russia, and South America/MENA/Oceania for the US. And Russia, unlike China, is heavily reliant on imports for consumer goods, and has a far less diversified economy. So maybe there is some logic in destroying an economic rival in a quest for Eternal Hegemony, but it also falls into the security trap of forcing the Chinese state to militarize.

It doesn't help that the Chinese and American economies are deeply interlinked, and in spite of the posturing by fatass Americans, they have no tolerance for any disruptions in personal comforts that would arise in a full scale shooting war. The inability to go to Cheesecake Factory and scraem at waiters for reheated steaks radicalized alot of people towards Trump in 2020, and disruptions in supply chains radicalized even more towards Trump in 2024.



Therefore some of it is business as usual, some of it was a break from the past. If there is a continuation of contradictions, it's because the foreign policy of the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump1-Biden foreign policy blob was always incoherent and contradictory. American credibility and soft power is already at a nadir thanks to Biden and the US state and its mainstream media apparatus facilitating the genocide on Palestine.


The main break from previous policy is that Trump wants to take the US security state that murders people across the world with airstrikes and loitering drones and helicopter-borne death squads dropping in on defenseless villages, and applying that to the metropole. Every innovation that the US has developed on Iraq/Afghanistan and Israel has developed on Palestinian ghettos, is sitting in warehouses across the US waiting for the Neofeudal Overlords and their Loyal Bannermen to unleash on the peasants of the US.

[greenline]

If Trump really wanted to bring forth the pain on his domestic enemies in that way, he would be expanding the ranks of the secret police, not slashing them.

[Mjmd]

You could argue he is mainly slashing people who won't do what he wants them to do. That being said, ya that post went from something vaguely reasonable to conspiracy theory pretty fast. While I think Trump is capable of cracking down on protests I don't know if its likely / certainly not whatever that last paragraph was.