Zelenski and Trump debate :0 (3 Viewers)

[Bendwhat?_over]

sing me a lullaby pls

Are you alright...???

 

[Socialism]

Are you alright...???

lol cuz sylvia told me to go to sleep and i thought i was being called naive

as opposed to... apparently being told i'm getting put down

 

[Bendwhat?_over]

lol cuz sylvia told me to go to sleep and i thought i was being called naive

as opposed to... apparently being told i'm getting put down

That's not what I was referring to.

 

[Socialism]

That's not what I was referring to.

ummmmm

 

[SylviaB]

I don’t think the U.S.’s global leadership is just transactional. It's the worlds biggest economy, its soft power attracts foreign investment and gives it a major edge in trade negotiations.

Firstly, the transactional nature applies to Europe too. They don't follow America due to "shared values" - it's in their interest to do so, so they do.

Secondly, people invest in the US due to their economy, not their soft power.

Countries want to do business with the U.S. because of its stability, influence, and reliability.

None of which has anything to do with endless and unconditional aid for ukraine.

Abandoning allies

"Abandoning allies" = Not giving unlimited, unconditional support to a non-ally

or pushing tariffs makes the U.S. seem unreliable, which can hurt its long-term economic interests by driving away investment and creating uncertainty.

From an economic standpoint, the best way to counter rivals like China or Russia is by staying a reliable leader in global markets.

Nope, wrong, dead wrong. The status quo you're clinging to is precisely what has lead to the rise of the China and the substantial, long-term decline of the US. The same people who bush this boomer talking point were the ones absolutely convinced that China would be a liberal democracy by now and they were wrong, so any further predictions from people with this model of the world should be discarded. And the US is already a leader in global markets - that's done precious little to actually stop Russia.

My hottest of takes is Ive never believed that China would overtake the US economy simply because a) The capitalist system is has is always going to perform better long-term vs a communist system

They have a market based economy

and b) the US has a reputation for reliability built over 80 years. Now Im not so sure, because if China can occupy the space the US is leaving behind maybe they could.

You can't be serious.

China?

China, the country that waged a trade war against Australia because our prime minister called for an investigation into the origins of covid?

A country that itself makes extensive use of trade restrictions, requires companies to open factories in china to be able to sell to china, steals US intellectual property along with a smorgasbord of other unfair trade and commerical practices?

A country that disappears and disenfranchises it's own CEOs for saying anything critical about the Chinese government?

A country whose government subsidises the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl to help fuel drug crises?

You're predicting that because the US engages in tariffs and doesn't support limitless, unconditional financial and military aid to a country it has nothing to do with (legitimately), a country with extremely unfair trade practices, political censorship and the biggest supporter or Russia is going to take America's place?

Come on dude.

I think it's a fair deal for peace, but Russia needs to come up with some concessions to, like maybe allowing the Ukraine to join the EU or an investment in rebuilding Ukraine in partnership with the EU etc.

They don't "need" to do anything. They're not begging for a peace deal, it's Ukraine begging Russia to leave. I'm not saying Ukraine should accept any given deal, but they can't afford to be demanding the stuff they're demanding.

The critical minerals deal is a waste for the US, Ukraine currently doesn't mine a lot of that stuff and its material value is unclear.

Their reserves are what is valuable, not their current mining operations: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20le8jn282o

And how is it a waste? The alternative is aid with no minerals.

 

[enoilgam]

Nope, wrong, dead wrong. The status quo you're clinging to is precisely what has lead to the rise of the China and the substantial, long-term decline of the US. The same people who bush this boomer talking point were the ones absolutely convinced that China would be a liberal democracy by now and they were wrong, so any further predictions from people with this model of the world should be discarded. And the US is already a leader in global markets - that's done precious little to actually stop Russia.

The status quo might not be perfect, but blowing it up by being crass towards Allies and levying tariffs against Allies isn't going to make America Great Again. It's the wrong solution to the right problem (story of Donald Trump tbh). The US has mishandled foreign policy traditionally when it has gotten directly involved. The US wants to reverse that trend which is probably a good idea. All they have to do is say to Nato, we want to pull back and you to take over, this is how we will support you to do so.

You're predicting that because the US engages in tariffs and doesn't support limitless, unconditional financial and military aid to a country it has nothing to do with (legitimately), a country with extremely unfair trade practices, political censorship and the biggest supporter or Russia is going to take America's place?

Come on dude.

I mean, if the world becomes as transactional as you say, China can move into that space if they play their cards right. You have a very right wing view of the world, but not everyone else does. Some people may eventually see China as really not that much worse than the US. In that case, China fills the space. China, when they arent going all wolf warrior can be quite good with the realpolitik at times.

As I said, you look at the world through a distinctly right wing lens. I look at the world based on my career in government - Im a details/relationships/practical person (Im also in HR, so dealing diplomatically with fiery personalities and conflicts is my lens as well). Ive seen governments/Ministers come and go of different political persuasions and the best ones I worked for weren't right or left, they were the ones that grasped the details. With the US at the moment, I see a lot of posturing and point scoring but not much in the way of a workable, effective plan.

 

[SylviaB]

The status quo might not be perfect, but blowing it up by being crass towards Allies and levying tariffs against Allies isn't going to make America Great Again.

Again, Ukraine isn't an ally, and as for the rest of Europe, again, they were insultingly and constantly critical of Trump constantly for the best part of the past 8 years. If they can't take it back, then the status quo was too fragile to ever be maintained in the first place.

It's the wrong solution to the right problem (story of Donald Trump tbh). The US has mishandled foreign policy traditionally when it has gotten directly involved. The US wants to reverse that trend which is probably a good idea. All they have to do is say to Nato, we want to pull back and you to take over, this is how we will support you to do so.

The US is NATO.

I mean, if the world becomes as transactional as you say, China can move into that space if they play their cards right. You have a very right wing view of the world, but not everyone else does. Some people may eventually see China as really not that much worse than the US.

Again, this is so insane.

People are freaking out because Trump isn't being anti-Russia enough, and the end result is they become close to...Russia's closest ally. Absurd shit.

In that case, China fills the space. China, when they arent going all wolf warrior can be quite good with the realpolitik at times.

Fills the space with what? The "space" is US military protection. That's it. China is not going to militarily protect Europe from Russia. And even if it's economy, why would anyone invest in China instead of the US? They're not more stable or reliable - they were engaging in the kind of punitive trade policies you're so furiously condemning Trump for!

People are abandoning the US because Trump isn't anti-Russia -> They're moving towards Russia's closest major ally instead

People are abandoning the US because of Trump's tariffs -> They're moving towards a country with a much greater perchant for unfair and putinitive trade practices

Completely incoherent


What's actually happening right now is that people are hysterically freaking out and throwing a tantrum the very instant that the US doesn't do everything that they demanding it does and have convinced themselves they can get on without the US. But once they realise that there is not alternative and all their pledges to defend Ukraine are worthless without the US, they will come back around because they have no other choice.

As I said, you look at the world through a distinctly right wing lens. I look at the world based on my career in government - Im a details/relationships/practical person (Im also in HR, so dealing diplomatically with fiery personalities and conflicts is my lens as well). Ive seen governments/Ministers come and go of different political persuasions and the best ones I worked for weren't right or left, they were the ones that grasped the details. With the US at the moment, I see a lot of posturing and point scoring but not much in the way of a workable, effective plan.

YOUR way has resulted in the long-term decline of countries like the US. People are freaking out about Trump because he's a president who has stopped the government putting American interests last.

And nobody against Trump has a workable effective plan for Ukraine. Nobody. They've deluded themselves into thinking that another $100 billion of weapons is going to result in Ukraine's military victory despite being wrong about literally ever single prediction they ever made about this war.

Trump is the one who actually sees the writing on the wall, that this war can't end without Ukraine making a peace deal with Russia. And Ukraine is unlikely to be in a better bargaining position in a year or two's time than they are today (and can't afford to send another 100,000 men to their death).

 

[SylviaB]

Trump has secured $1.7 trillion in private sector investment already, more than Biden did in four years

And your argument is that if he doesn't kowtow to zelenskyy, nobody will invest in the US? Ridiculous

 

[enoilgam]

Fills the space with what? The "space" is US military protection. That's it. China is not going to militarily protect Europe from Russia. And even if it's economy, why would anyone invest in China instead of the US? They're not more stable or reliable - they were engaging in the kind of punitive trade policies you're so furiously condemning Trump for!

People are abandoning the US because Trump isn't anti-Russia -> They're moving towards Russia's closest major ally instead

People are abandoning the US because of Trump's tariffs -> They're moving towards a country with a much greater perchant for unfair and putinitive trade practices

Completely incoherent

Im saying China can fill the space as a trading partner, as a military partner no, but if the US is backing out from its commitment to Allies then most countries will back their own military. If China sees the US imposing tariffs and being "unreliable", China can move in an offer more favourable trading terms. This is where your bias comes in, you see China as unreliable, but other governments who don't share your view may start to change their perception of the US and China. That's where the damage happens. Just because you think its stupid (I dont think you are wrong), doesnt mean it wont happen.

At the end of the day, the great leaders of America's "Golden Age" (FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, LBJ and even Reagan) would never have gone down this route. Donald Trump is trying to "Make America Great Again", but his tactics reflect nothing of what made America great to begin with. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a period where America embraced isolationism and tariff led protectionism. That was the 30s and if memory serves correct, it wasnt a great time for the US. The golden age came about when America embraced its role as a leader of the world and projected its soft power (i.e. the 50s onwards). So there is a very valid argument there that Trump's ideas may not work.

To be clear my opinion is as follows, the War in Ukraine must end and Europe must do more for itself (there Mr Trump and I agree). Yelling at Zelensky in the Oval and generally being hostile to Allies, there we digress.

YOUR way has resulted in the long-term decline of countries like the US.

I dont have a way, Im just all about details. Im generally a centrist (except when I'm at work, there I do whatever the Government of the day requires), but from behind the scenes observation I think the best governments create policies with merit, adjust them for context and have a grasp of administrative details to carry them out. It's those details that separate good from bad to me even moreso than political ideology.

Going a bit off topic, but what most of the public dont realise is 90% of being in government is managing boring and mundane non-partisan crap most people dont think about. With Trump, I dont see him as being very good at that 90%.

 

[Ilikedrivingbymycarandthe]

I jumped into this forum bc I was bored and ppl r already debating lol.

tbh I use to somewhat share similar opinions to you, over the dependence of the world on the USA which is especially prevalent in terms of voting ( like when Europeans urge Americans to vote in light of European interests rather than what’s best for Americans).

However, I definitely do believe what Trump and JD Vance did to Zelensky was incredibly petty/rude + how they’ve treated EU countries is general. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great for the US to build a stronger relationship to Russia but calling Zelensky a “ dictator” and completely ignoring the kidnapping of Ukrainian children by the Russian government is absurd. Putin’s justification for the war is also terrible too—> it would make sense ( but not justifiable) if he was still arguing about past treaties/ Russia being threatened as they wanted Ukraine as a buffer state to stop NATO expansionism as they previously signed a treaty on that regard with the US/ which was ignored by the US. Instead recently Putin’s has been yapping about Ukraine being Russian territory since who know when- some revanchist delusion that rlly ruins any credibility in Ukraine’s invasion.


Trump could definitely make a peace deal work with Ukraine and Russia- but he simply favours Putin’s to much to prioritise Ukraine’s interests and the EU’s interest which he should as they are the USA’s allies ( NOT Russia). The argument that happened in the Whitehouse was petty and just flat out bullying tbh. Trump in particular ( who’s prioritising the American ppl as he says) should do more research before he passes new laws + speaks in general as the EU/ other western countries like Australia r honestly the realest allies of the US who generally stick and support them regardless. If Trump pushes them away/ disrespects them to much—> not only will they become more self-reliant but will also grow in trade with China ( which is bad for the US). The US is a world power ( in trade + military) but nearly half of that is thanks to the support EU/ their allies give—> which really shouldn’t be disregarded.

Trump has some “ good” intentions but fails the experience and knowledge to execute them and isn’t willing to educate himself to make better decisions ( not only hurting the USA’s stance in the global economy but the US people as well). + Elon Musk’s hyper-involvement in US government despite his clear idiocy is killing me

- did want to note that the only reason Ukraine was invaded by Russia in the first place was bc of the US, so it’s pretty shallow that they’re ditching Ukraine now.

Again, Ukraine isn't an ally, and as for the rest of Europe, again, they were insultingly and constantly critical of Trump constantly for the best part of the past 8 years. If they can't take it back, then the status quo was too fragile to ever be maintained in the first place.



The US is NATO.



Again, this is so insane.

People are freaking out because Trump isn't being anti-Russia enough, and the end result is they become close to...Russia's closest ally. Absurd shit.



Fills the space with what? The "space" is US military protection. That's it. China is not going to militarily protect Europe from Russia. And even if it's economy, why would anyone invest in China instead of the US? They're not more stable or reliable - they were engaging in the kind of punitive trade policies you're so furiously condemning Trump for!

People are abandoning the US because Trump isn't anti-Russia -> They're moving towards Russia's closest major ally instead

People are abandoning the US because of Trump's tariffs -> They're moving towards a country with a much greater perchant for unfair and putinitive trade practices

Completely incoherent


What's actually happening right now is that people are hysterically freaking out and throwing a tantrum the very instant that the US doesn't do everything that they demanding it does and have convinced themselves they can get on without the US. But once they realise that there is not alternative and all their pledges to defend Ukraine are worthless without the US, they will come back around because they have no other choice.



YOUR way has resulted in the long-term decline of countries like the US. People are freaking out about Trump because he's a president who has stopped the government putting American interests last.

And nobody against Trump has a workable effective plan for Ukraine. Nobody. They've deluded themselves into thinking that another $100 billion of weapons is going to result in Ukraine's military victory despite being wrong about literally ever single prediction they ever made about this war.

Trump is the one who actually sees the writing on the wall, that this war can't end without Ukraine making a peace deal with Russia. And Ukraine is unlikely to be in a better bargaining position in a year or two's time than they are today (and can't afford to send another 100,000 men to their death).

 

[Ilikedrivingbymycarandthe]

Im saying China can fill the space as a trading partner, as a military partner no, but if the US is backing out from its commitment to Allies then most countries will back their own military. If China sees the US imposing tariffs and being "unreliable", China can move in an offer more favourable trading terms. This is where your bias comes in, you see China as unreliable, but other governments who don't share your view may start to change their perception of the US and China. That's where the damage happens. Just because you think its stupid (I dont think you are wrong), doesnt mean it wont happen.

At the end of the day, the great leaders of America's "Golden Age" (FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, LBJ and even Reagan) would never have gone down this route. Donald Trump is trying to "Make America Great Again", but his tactics reflect nothing of what made America great to begin with. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a period where America embraced isolationism and tariff led protectionism. That was the 30s and if memory serves correct, it wasnt a great time for the US. The golden age came about when America embraced its role as a leader of the world and projected its soft power (i.e. the 50s onwards). So there is a very valid argument there that Trump's ideas may not work.

To be clear my opinion is as follows, the War in Ukraine must end and Europe must do more for itself (there Mr Trump and I agree). Yelling at Zelensky in the Oval and generally being hostile to Allies, there we digress.



I dont have a way, Im just all about details. Im generally a centrist (except when I'm at work, there I do whatever the Government of the day requires), but from behind the scenes observation I think the best governments create policies with merit, adjust them for context and have a grasp of administrative details to carry them out. It's those details that separate good from bad to me even moreso than political ideology.

Going a bit off topic, but what most of the public dont realise is 90% of being in government is managing boring and mundane non-partisan crap most people dont think about. With Trump, I dont see him as being very good at that 90%.

Totally support, especially the off topic part - its why he’s been passing/doing so many crazy stuff without fact checking lol

 

[enoilgam]

Totally support, especially the off topic part - its why he’s been passing/doing so many crazy stuff without fact checking lol

Since you mentioned it, I have to bring it up, maybe to lighten the mood, but did you know the NSW Government has an agency called "Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW". It's role, as the name implies is to have oversight of those who provide post-death services in NSW and ensure the state has enough space for the dead. Guaranteed to stir the loins of partisan politics in NSW. I have joked to a few managers over the years that I would like to pursue development opportunities in that space.

 

[Ilikedrivingbymycarandthe]

Since you mentioned it, I have to bring it up, maybe to lighten the mood, but did you know the NSW Government has an agency called "Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW". It's role, as the name implies is to have oversight of those who provide post-death services in NSW and ensure the state has enough space for the dead. Guaranteed to stir the loins of partisan politics in NSW.

Hahaha omg. I didn’t know that lol. I’m looking forward to this year’s election- the dynamic between Dutton and Albanese is pure gold. Super off topic but had to be said

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

Okay, so you're saying the only alternative is world war three? Why haven't you signed up to die on a battlefield already then? Or are you happy to be safe and comfortable in Australia viciously demanding that Ukraine feeds more military slaves into the meat grinder on your behalf? If the fate of the world hangs in the balance, why aren't you standing up?



Ukraine is not an "ally" of the US. They had no real connection other than corrupt financial interests (by no less than the former president himself). The US did not and does not owe Ukraine anything, and the support to date has not been for the sake of helping the people of Ukraine. And you know it! The US political and military establishment do not care about the people of Ukraine, they care about Russia. They would happily trade the lives of every last Ukrainian if it meant weakening Russia to the point of regime change. You think European leaders are freaking out right now because they're worried about the people of Ukraine? NO! Ukraine's value is entirely instrumental - they're not cherished "allies", Ukraine is nothing more than a bulwark for their own countries

And let's be clear - "maintaining the international order" over the past 25 years has included invading sovereign states and causing, directly and indirectly, over half a million primarily civilian deaths in wars that caused millions of people in the middle east and north africa. And let's not even start on the hypocrisy of most of these states supporting or never really standing up to Israel.

But notice how none of this "maintaining the international order" in recent history has ever involved direct or indirect conflict with major powers? This isn't analogous to anything in recent history, and truthfully isn't not even vaguely analogous to nazi germany in the lead up to the war.

You're really just reciting tired old boomer talking points.

i think you're vastly misunderstanding what i was saying and straw-manning it to the moon. various armed conflicts have been fought since the end of WWII with major state actors acting through proxies without it being regarded as WWIII. i haven't signed up to die on a battlefield because i'm not particularly interested in defending a state that has spent the last few decades mostly making policy decisions detrimental to the majority of its citizens and establishing an economic framework to benefit the exorbitantly wealthy on a fallacious foundation of 'trickle-down economics'. nothing in my previous post suggested anything to the effect of putting Ukranian forces through a 'meat-grinder'; its nothing but an observation that the so-called 'meat-grinder' doesn't actually stop in the case of the 'peace' agreement trump is proposing.

i also never referred to the US towards the end of my post; there are more states involved in international peacekeeping than the united states of america, and the US is not the only permanent member of the security council. the majority of europe has been fiercely stagnant in their response to the conflict, albeit initially in recognition of the requirements of Art 51 of the UN charter to circumvent the Art 2(4) prohibition on the use of force.

i don't think anyone is contesting the fact innumerable loss of life and needless violence has occurred in the name of 'peacekeeping'. you simultaneously dismiss the analogy to previous major global conflicts but draw comparison to the current conflict involving Israel, which at the least comes across as not turning your mind to the holistic aspects of the topic you're speaking on.

i'm also not particularly sure how i can be 'reciting' 'boomer talking points' when i'm really just speaking from my own evaluation of the debate from an international law perspective, having studied public international law, private international law, war law, as well as humanitarian law and the use of force. i don't have a particular stake in the economic merits of any such conflict, i am just of the view that the current public international law framework falls apart when the, in effect, judiciary of the last line of enforcement, happens to be clearly guilty of the crime of aggression.

 

[SylviaB]

i think you're vastly misunderstanding what i was saying and straw-manning it to the moon. various armed conflicts have been fought since the end of WWII with major state actors acting through proxies without it being regarded as WWIII. i haven't signed up to die on a battlefield because i'm not particularly interested in defending a state that has spent the last few decades mostly making policy decisions detrimental to the majority of its citizens and establishing an economic framework to benefit the exorbitantly wealthy on a fallacious foundation of 'trickle-down economics'.

You accuse me of straw-manning and then put trickle down economics in inverted commas as if you're referring to the formal name of an economic policy. But that's simply a fabrication.

FWIW though, Australians have a much higher material standard of living on average than most of the rest of the world - do you imagine this is because the average Australian worker is more intelligent or hardworking than the rest of the world's workers?

Also, Ukraine has much greater inequality than Australia - would you be willing to die for Ukraine if you were Ukrainian? Why should anyone else?

nothing in my previous post suggested anything to the effect of putting Ukranian forces through a 'meat-grinder'; its nothing but an observation that the so-called 'meat-grinder' doesn't actually stop in the case of the 'peace' agreement trump is proposing.

That's not why people are against it. Zelenskyy says the war isn't over until Ukraine gets all its territory back, which means he is explicitly anti-peace. And Europe wants to the war to go on as long as possible because they want Russia to be weakened as much as possible for their (europe's) own sake. They're happy for the entire fighting age male population of Ukraine to die fighting against russia if it means the war goes on long enough to make Russia unable to threaten any other european country. So again, they're explicitly anti-peace.

i also never referred to the US towards the end of my post; there are more states involved in international peacekeeping than the united states of america, and the US is not the only permanent member of the security council. the majority of europe has been fiercely stagnant in their response to the conflict, albeit initially in recognition of the requirements of Art 51 of the UN charter to circumvent the Art 2(4) prohibition on the use of force.

What exactly do you imagine could be done about Russia in this regard?

i don't think anyone is contesting the fact innumerable loss of life and needless violence has occurred in the name of 'peacekeeping'. you simultaneously dismiss the analogy to previous major global conflicts but draw comparison to the current conflict involving Israel, which at the least comes across as not turning your mind to the holistic aspects of the topic you're speaking on.

There is no analogy to nazi germany. There is no reason to think Russia intends to or believes it can take over anywhere in western europe and thatanything other than complete martyrdom of young ukrainian men as a demographic will result in this takeover.

More civilians died in a year of fighting in gaza than have been killed in three years of fighting in ukraine. Europe's de facto or de jure support for israel shows their rhetoric around Ukraine and Russia is purely self-interested and not based on principle. And then Trump's attacked for suggesting that America's self interest matters.

i'm also not particularly sure how i can be 'reciting' 'boomer talking points' when i'm really just speaking from my own evaluation of the debate from an international law perspective, having studied public international law, private international law, war law, as well as humanitarian law and the use of force.

Who gives a shit about international law? International law can say whatever you want - all that matters at the end of the day is what is happening and what is possible in practice.

You can come up with whatever convulsed legal arguments for Putin being the literal offspring of hitler and satan, if you don't have a way of forcing russia out of ukraine then it's all for nothing.

i don't have a particular stake in the economic merits of any such conflict, i am just of the view that the current public international law framework falls apart when the, in effect, judiciary of the last line of enforcement, happens to be clearly guilty of the crime of aggression.

Again, what do you imagine international law is supposed to do in a practical sense? This or that motions or rulings or statements are worthless unless they lead to particular practical actions which you are yet to explain.

All that matters is the practical actions to be taken.

 

[SylviaB]

Im saying China can fill the space as a trading partner, as a military partner no, but if the US is backing out from its commitment to Allies then most countries will back their own military. If China sees the US imposing tariffs and being "unreliable", China can move in an offer more favourable trading terms. This is where your bias comes in, you see China as unreliable, but other governments who don't share your view may start to change their perception of the US and China.

So you apparently believe that European leaders are morons?

Because you're saying that they're going to abandon the US for China because the US is doing things China is doing to an even greater extent?

That's where the damage happens. Just because you think its stupid (I dont think you are wrong), doesnt mean it wont happen.

Yeah, it's not happening. China has nothing to offer Europe that it doesn't already offer.

At the end of the day, the great leaders of America's "Golden Age" (FDR,

The America was in the great depression for the entirety of FDR's presidency and he failed to end it. It wasn't a golden age.

Eisenhower,

Eisenhower was an ineffectual, mediocre leader. America's economic growth was because the rest of the developed world had been destroyed in WW2, not because of Eisenhower's leadership. And notably, Eisenhower failed to counter the growth in soviet power.

Nixon, LBJ and even Reagan) would never have gone down this route. Donald Trump is trying to "Make America Great Again",

They lived through completely different situations than that facing the current US, and in any case the end result of of their governments was the US being put on (or staying on) the trajectory of long-term decline. The success of the US has been in spite of, not because of, it's modern leaders. Do you think America's catastrophic war in vietnam made america great?

but his tactics reflect nothing of what made America great to begin with. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a period where America embraced isolationism and tariff led protectionism. That was the 30s and if memory serves correct, it wasnt a great time for the US.

1. You JUST SAID IT WAS A GOLDEN AGE!

2. America primarily had protectionism in the 19th century, the period in which it underwent industrialization. It is the free trade policies of the later 20th century that correspond to the period of deindustrialisation and offshoring.

Oh, and America had vastly more restrictive immigration policies for most of its history than it has before Trump's second term and no pre-modern leaders would have ever tolerated destructive drugs like fentanyl pouring across the border.

The golden age came about when America embraced its role as a leader of the world and projected its soft power (i.e. the 50s onwards). So there is a very valid argument there that Trump's ideas may not work.

Nope, like I said, it was a result of America's manufacturing boom after the rest of the developed world had their industrial capacity destroyed, and everything snowballed from this.

And you keep using the words 'soft power' - but you're literally referring to hard power.

To be clear my opinion is as follows, the War in Ukraine must end and Europe must do more for itself (there Mr Trump and I agree). Yelling at Zelensky in the Oval and generally being hostile to Allies, there we digress.

Again, UKRAINE IS NOT AN AMERICAN ALLY

And if Europe is going to abandon trading with the US because Trump isn't prostrating himself before zelenskyy, they deserve to be conquered by Russia.

I dont have a way, Im just all about details. Im generally a centrist (except when I'm at work, there I do whatever the Government of the day requires), but from behind the scenes observation I think the best governments create policies with merit, adjust them for context and have a grasp of administrative details to carry them out. It's those details that separate good from bad to me even moreso than political ideology.

Then this simply means that there are no good governments in recent European or American history.

Going a bit off topic, but what most of the public dont realise is 90% of being in government is managing boring and mundane non-partisan crap most people dont think about. With Trump, I dont see him as being very good at that 90%.

Again, the people you think have been "good at that 90%" have led to the long-term decline in the US in most respects.

This is what I mean - your model of the world is wrong. The status quo wasn't working and yet you're criticizing Trump because he's not maintaining the status quo.

 

[SylviaB]

However, I definitely do believe what Trump and JD Vance did to Zelensky was incredibly petty/rude + how they’ve treated EU countries is general.

European leaders spent the past 8 years publicly insulting Trump and saying he isn't fit to be president.

Now you're mad that Trump is doing the same to them? Get bent

Trump could definitely make a peace deal work with Ukraine and Russia- but he simply favours Putin’s to much to prioritise Ukraine’s interests and the EU’s interest which he should as they are the USA’s allies ( NOT Russia).

Ukraine is not an American ally.

And he doesn't favor Putin - he just understands that this incessant whining that Russia should just leave ukraine and give up all captured territory and let ukraine join nato is just impotent rage. He wants the war to end, and he understands this can't happen without deep concessions from ukraine. He wants this for his own reasons, not to help putin.

If Trump pushes them away/ disrespects them to much—> not only will they become more self-reliant

You mean the thing that Trump has been calling for since he first became president?

but will also grow in trade with China ( which is bad for the US). The US is a world power ( in trade + military) but nearly half of that is thanks to the support EU/ their allies give—> which really shouldn’t be disregarded.

Again with this crap

China is a direct ally and supporter of Russia

China used trade policies to punish other countries for things as minor as their statements (see what they did to Australia because scomo called for an investigation of covid's origins).

The EU doesn't buy anything from America instead of China out of friendship - they do it because its in their own self interest. What the EU imports from the US can't easily be replaced by China.

Trump has some “ good” intentions but fails the experience and knowledge to execute them and isn’t willing to educate himself to make better decisions ( not only hurting the USA’s stance in the global economy but the US people as well).

What a crock of shit. The US has been in decline for the past 40 years due to leaders doing the opposite to Trump. The policies you support don't work, while trump is returning things to how they were when america was growing.

+ Elon Musk’s hyper-involvement in US government despite his clear idiocy is killing me

How embarrassing that an "idiot" is so much more successful than you will ever be. What a great injustice!

Do you think Kamala Harris was smart? If so, your view of the world is catastrophically flawed.

did want to note that the only reason Ukraine was invaded by Russia in the first place was bc of the US, so it’s pretty shallow that they’re ditching Ukraine now.

Another crock of shit.

 

[Socialism]

can sylvia clutch the 1v3?

 

[enoilgam]

Again, the people you think have been "good at that 90%" have led to the long-term decline in the US in most respects.

This is what I mean - your model of the world is wrong. The status quo wasn't working and yet you're criticizing Trump because he's not maintaining the status quo.

Sorry, Im struggling to understand, in your view when was the US actually great? I thought the MAGA movement defined that period as being the mid-20th century. Or was it the 19th century? Im a little confused.

That 90% of stuff is non-partisan and is a product of understanding efficiencies, systems and administration. It has nothing to do with left-wing vs right-wing and everything to do with administrative prowess. The latter is a skill Mr Trump lacks (not a problem necessarily) but by bringing in loyalists, he hasn't done much to improve himself in this area.

Overall, this where you and I fundamentally differ in view. I think that the modern world is pretty good and Im glad Im alive in this period. Things are absolutely not perfect today, but they are better than the past. Even in the years since Ive finished HS, Ive noticed that a lot of things have improved such as healthcare, our understanding of mental health (we are generally nicer to each other now) and technology despite its flaws has made live much easier and more accessible.

To be honest, I think a lot of the worlds problems come down to individuals who are unhappy with their lives and choose to blame the government, immigrants, climate change, big corporations, the unions etc for their problems. So they choose to follow the path of blowing things up rather than looking in the mirror and taking charge of their own lives. That's one of the few things I liked about Menzies-style conservativism, it put the onus on you.

 

[Ilikedrivingbymycarandthe]

Woah, someone’s mad

I honestly do think you need to do more research on what Trump’s policies are + how international relations work because your understanding of Trump and the EU r so generalised. Not to say Kamala is better, I honestly think Trump> Kamala but BOTH r terrible so there’s no need to meat ride one over the other.

also not you meat riding Elon Musk? Success from where? Being born into extreme wealth? Firing US government members for attempting to expose his illegal behaviour? The way he treats his kids? Not even a month after Trump was inaugurated he was already causing severe problems. He doesn’t even understanding the coding on the US welfare system + is hiring 18 year old Ivy League kids who have a past record of selling sensitive information for profit. Need I say more Just because someone can “ manage” ( that‘s me being generous) a business, doesn’t mean they’re suitable for government lol.

I get the Trump wants the Ukraine war to end, but he clearly needs to hear Ukraine out a lot more + do more research on the impacts the Russia had on Ukraine *cough cough kidnapping Ukrainian children*—> bc Russia ain’t returning them ; and Trump hates research. Peace agreements shouldn’t be a quick, done and over lol. Also EU leaders probably wouldn’t have hated Trump as much as they did if he had just treated them with respect/earnestly during his first presidency. People don’t like his arrogant behaviour— it’s undiplomatic and rude. TBH I don’t mind such behaviour in DOMESTIC affairs but on an international scale is too much lmao.


I very much do hope the war will end, but I know it will be at the cost of Ukrainian civilians since the USA sold Ukraine out the minute Russia retaliated. Honestly the war + it’s escalation only pretty much started thanks to the USA, they should do better.


Btw your point about the US’s decline is true; it has mostly been caused by corruption, cronyism and nepotism amongst leaders. Look at Biden and the Clinton family- they’ve been in politics for generations ( despite not being very good at what they do), they also rather make quick profit then protect the interests of the US ppl long term; the US got sold out a long time ago. Maybe Trump might fix that but he probably won’t; his family ( Ivanka, Kai, etc) is already trying to get a slice of the pie despite being hyper unqualified, and other billionaires attempting to further sell the US people out r cozying up to him. It’s sad to see bc I genuinely do like some of Trump’s ideas but his execution and the ppl around him ( including his own family) r greedy and r giving him wrong understandings about the world which he’s following lol.

European leaders spent the past 8 years publicly insulting Trump and saying he isn't fit to be president.

Now you're mad that Trump is doing the same to them? Get bent



Ukraine is not an American ally.

And he doesn't favor Putin - he just understands that this incessant whining that Russia should just leave ukraine and give up all captured territory and let ukraine join nato is just impotent rage. He wants the war to end, and he understands this can't happen without deep concessions from ukraine. He wants this for his own reasons, not to help putin.



You mean the thing that Trump has been calling for since he first became president?



Again with this crap

China is a direct ally and supporter of Russia

China used trade policies to punish other countries for things as minor as their statements (see what they did to Australia because scomo called for an investigation of covid's origins).

The EU doesn't buy anything from America instead of China out of friendship - they do it because its in their own self interest. What the EU imports from the US can't easily be replaced by China.



What a crock of shit. The US has been in decline for the past 40 years due to leaders doing the opposite to Trump. The policies you support don't work, while trump is returning things to how they were when america was growing.



How embarrassing that an "idiot" is so much more successful than you will ever be. What a great injustice!

Do you think Kamala Harris was smart? If so, your view of the world is catastrophically flawed.



Another crock of shit.