Zelenski and Trump debate :0 (1 Viewer)

[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.