Republican primary voters most popular issues: This is the way
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
What would be an example of that?
Saying that you want to ban ballot harvesting (strategy) but using it while it is allowed (tactical)?
I recently read his book. Rather interesting, although obviously I'm not obsessed with maintaining US hegemony, let alone willing to wage a war for it. I'd rather have China be a peer competitor so that we can play off the US against China, to our benefit.
I hope so, but I'm not sure. Simply self-interest decrees that he should be more pro-establishment, at least when he wins and he cannot be displaced.
We both know why that is, because DeSantis is his opponent. There is no chance of a reconciliation between Trump and the establishment. I do worry that DeSantis will reconcile, because the establishment is far more valuable than GOP populists.
How does his youth give him 30 years? It's not as if president is a lifetime appointment.
For now. I agree that DeSantis is very good, except on foreign policy (where he is still better than most GOP), and I hope he remains that way.
I think the neocons are very happy for us 'stealing' that money, because it gives the US all the more leverage over us. That is the reason European foreign policy is dictated by the US. It used to be called a protectorate. When your forces occupy another country, you are basically in control of that country.
$33 billion is pocket change to the neocons. If they can use it to control an entire continent, they will gladly do it.
Eh, no one kisses their asses. It is out of self-interest that they did it. If they'd pay $33 billion to occupy china and disband the PLA, they'd do it as well, and it would be a bargain!
Agreed.
Principles? The founding of the US & US Constitution. Did a very good job of taking some ragtag colonies & turning them into the most powerful country in the world.
Yes that works.
I'm trying to have my girlfriend read it. I took a pic of her with the book on the beach but it was probably too lewd for him to retweet. XD
Everyone thinks that until they actually deal with China & realize how much China sucks & wants to just be a bully Han ethnostate empire that kicks everyone around & throws a hissy fit over trivial things.
I think populism is the dominant force in the GOP now. Trump & DeSantis are both fighting over the populist vote while Pence & Haley are pandering to the elites with their joke tier polling numbers.
8 years as President then decades more in Congress &/or other high level roles as leader of the Party.
+1 I believe he will keep on winning.
I don't think we got anything for our money except to fight Europe's wars for it.
Neocons wanted it because 1) they are libs & love Europe 2) they vacation & have friends in europe & want their asses kissed. They trade billions in US taxpayer dollars so they can get flattery.
libs spending other people's money for their benefit.
They do! Liberal EU elites absolutely flatter the shit out of visiting US neocon policy elites.
I'm not entirely sure, I think it's dumb luck - if only European leaders had the wits to help the Confederacy become independent, then we would still be at the top of the world because we'd have a Ukraine on America's doorstep harassing it and keeping it from being great. Still, point taken.
Do be a bit careful though. You are even better at antagonizing people than I am, and you know full well how paranoid I am about revealing any information.
That's the beauty of it. They won't be able to throw a fit, because America is a peer competitor. China will have to be on its best behavior, or we will temporarily switch our allegiance to the Americans. Then when the Americans start pulling crap like blowing up infrastructure, China will bid for our support.
Among voters, not among elites and those who actually have power. That incentivizes defrauding voters and ensuring that you retain the support of the elites.
How do you reconcile such ideas with realism? No realist would say that "loving Europe" or a desire to get one's ass kissed (which your slaves in Europe would do regardless) explains any of thing. I think Mearsheimer has said the same thing I did: that the Americans are not unhappy with Europeans not spending much on defense, because it givces them complete leverage.
All the US has ever done is to try to prevent peer competitors from arising: first by driving Europeans out of the American continent, then by preventing Germany's quest for hegemony in World War I and II, then dismantling the British Empire with lend-lease and pressuring countries like France to abandon their colonial possessions, then by defeating the USSR's alleged quest for hegemony. Now China, it's the same old same old. The US wants to break up countries, encourage independence movements in order to prevent an empire or country strong enough that it can challenge the US.
I think you would be very happy to spend $33 billion to neutralize China as a military power, not?
Not because of any money that you spend, and the population sure as hell doesn't like them. EU elites flatter them because they hope for plum sinecures in NATO, IMF and other organizations controlled by the Muricans.
Though it's funny that we both think that we're getting screwed. If European leaders were 1/100 as effective at not being worms as you think they are, I'd actually be happy with them.
Slavery would have ended eventually & most if not all of the confederate states would have peacefully rejoined the Union. It just might have taken a few more decades. Maybe the deep south never would have rejoined, but honestly it wouldn't be a big loss. Imagine if the US as it stood today had a much smaller black population? Much better place to live.
You'd think so, but they can't help themselves. Duterte in the Philippines LOVES China & hates the US, he tried super hard to court China. The Philippines has enormous strategic importance re: Taiwan. It was a golden opportunity for China. What did they do? They shat all over him & started bullying him over little islands until he was forced to crawl back to the US.
Neocons are not realist. They are IR liberals. They believe in delusions. No realist would behave that way, but Neocons would.
Dependency is not leverage. Europeans are like dating a young girl who is useless & being her sugar daddy. She costs you a lot of money & she can't do anything beyond giving you a young hole. Good allies aren't useless dependents.
British did that themselves, LL didn't do it.
Not only did we not do this, we helped them fight the Vietnamese by giving them lots of aid.
We don't care about the rise of the EU, which is bigger/stronger than China, or Japan's rise, etc.
We don't care unless a hegemon is hostile & wants to harm us.
It never works that way, though. Look at US aid to Israel. Israel takes the money & we don't get anything for it. The moment our bribes stop, Israel will be a huge asshole to us.
If the US pulls most troops out of Europe, then the euro politicians will be forced to actually build up their militaries again.
Even a year into the war, Confederate nationalism had grown to quite a point to make 'peaceful reunion' quite unlikely. And obviously, countries like France would not help except with the understanding that the Confederacy will remain independent (and a thorn in the side of the US), otherwise there's no point in it.
I think you underestimate the importance of not having a mortal foe on your doorstep. The US would never have become a regional hegemon, and thus never in a position to tyrannize the rest of the world. That's worth the immorality of backing the Confederacy in my mind.
The attitudes of the puppets at the top do not matter. What does the regime think? Realist logic dictates that the Philippines should hate China, because China is the strongest power nearby and therefore most in a position to try to subvert it and its independence, regardless of what China does or Duterte supposedly thinks.
Even if this is true, that would be because it's close by. I don't see them doing this with Spain. And they're not stupid either.
I mean that realists would disagree with your assessment of why neocons do what they do. No realist accepts that anyone has as a motivation 'being loved by Europe' or 'getting his ass kissed'.
Also, neocons are not liberals. Liberals believe in international institutions. Neoconism is just a competing form of realism cloaking itself in 'muh democracy' screeching - the perfect form of hypocrisy and self-righteousness to fit a country like the US, which goes around the world destroying one country after another while screaming bloody murder after its provocations and hostile actions provoke Russia or China into striking back.
Rest assured that the US would have dumped the Europeans long before if this were true. It isn't, of course. The US is preventing the Europeans from getting stronger and from a country dominating Europe and thereby becoming a peer competitor.
It most certainly did. Even as the Soviet Union received assistance for free (because it had nothing to give), Roosevelt drove a hard bargain with the British, stealing every last bit of gold and leasing military bases. It's smart, but I'm not happy about the destruction of the British empire.
That's not true. Only very late in the game, and then not out of any love for the French, but for fear of communism. Also forced the French to withdraw from Suez, and undermined French Algeria. US threats to withdraw Marshall aid also forced the Dutch to grant Indonesia independence.
And that's not even talking about the Monroe Doctrine and how the French-backed Mexican Empire was undermined by the US, and the Spanish and English were driven out of their colonies in the Americas.
Being a US enemy is dangerous, but being an ally is lethal!
As a realist, you know full well that supposed 'intentions' do not matter, as intentions can change. In the 1970s the US was big friends with China under Mao, while fearing Japan because it was getting too strong. You don't fear the EU right now because it's a pathetic bleating sheep. If it were stronger, we'd suddenly see "worries about human rights in the EU" and claims that the EU engages in unfair trade practices (which is true btw).
This is just realism cloaked in liberalism.
Imagine for a moment that you could prevent the Chinese from being asshoe for $33 billion a year, is that not a great bargain?
That is bad for the US, because it will have less leverage over Europe, and bad for Europe, because that will inevitably lead to war. Or do you think France will stand by as Germany expands its military once again, when there is no guarantee for its security?