I (and I believe zoraptor meant the same) meant politically though, not domestically or economically.

Yeah, that's an interesting question. I'm hoping the political axis reorients around left and right libertarianism (in the lower-case sense). With maybe a cleaner defining of what social nets should be in place, and how to keep the market from becoming a racket. There is too much throwing babies out with bath water and I'm not purist when it comes out societal systems.

 

I think we need a cultural shift though before the political shift really bears any fruits though. I'm not entirely convinced my generation "millennials" are situated to have that discussion. If nothing else though the balkanizing of my generation (despite many being collectivists in ideals) is almost a renormalization of individualism by the account of people's actions. (My generation is very individualist, but less so politically, but what I'm saying is the localized ideals contradict how the political ideals play out.) So that is a good start, plus it's hard to control a highly divided nation, the only real way is through economic means and while we need to sort of the stagnating wages it's not like the middle class isn't watching the technological state improve around them. Of course a divided nation does mean a unified upper class get's to more or less float on a settled sea, but there will never not be that upper echelon. The real fight to be had will be reeling back the growing oligarchical class.

Economically the US is absolutely safe until such time as the USD isn't reserve currency. Nobody is going to call in loans when doing so makes the repayments, many of your investments and much of the world's economy effectively worthless. Owning debt is also good leverage, though limited due to the first reason. Domestic US politics is pretty opaque to foreigners, it could be close to some sort of systemic collapse and no one would know because people are always saying it's close to some sort of collapse.

 

I don't think the US tried to learn any sort of lession from Putin's success, this is part of a pattern that has been slowly growing over decades

 

Putin is shorthand for the phenomenon, certainly. He's the prominent current example of a 'decisive' leader and there's a certain obsession about him and a need to either beat him- or be like him- from many in the US including Trump. That contrasts to, say, Shi Jinpeng in China who is just as authoritarian but less directly assertive/ confrontational, internationally, and has far more soft power but only attracts relatively small amounts of attention.

 

(The phenomenon itself probably goes back to Alex the Great- or Julius Caesar. Veni vidi vici, alea iacta est; it's like politicians desperately want to get similarly 'decisive' achievements to be remembered by while not remembering that JC wasn't exactly concerned with legalities and norms; and should have been utterly curbstomped by Pompey in Greece because he ignored reality)

Arguably the phenomenon existed as far back as there was any chieftan with ambitions.

 

Though there is a difference between a competent decisive leader (Putin) vs an incompetent decisive leader (Trump, though I wouldn't call him 'decisive', not in the usual meaning anyway), a competent leader with an authoritarian bent would be more dangerous as they'd be able to work the system more subtly, whereas Trump is flailing around and trying to see what sticks.

Agreed, that's kind of why I mentioned Shi. For the US system he's a far better model strongman type than Putin as he's a lot more subtle about things while being immovable when he thinks it necessary, and both China and the US have huge economic clout that can be used as influence. Which- apart from gas, and that's a double edged sword- Russia lacks almost entirely.

Only loosely political: Donald Trump Jr.'s wife Vanessa is leaving him, says she’s "uncomfortable" with the Trump family. An additional excerpt from a semi-related story:

 

"Vanessa told The New York Times in 2006 that Donald Trump had introduced her to his son at a fashion show twice within five minutes. The pair did not hit it off during the awkward interactions.

 

Six weeks later, they met again at a mutual friend's party. They didn't recognize each other until after an hour-long conversation.

 

"Then suddenly, something clicked: Wait, you were at that fashion show. Wait, you're 'the one with the retarded dad!' Vanessa blurted out," The Times reported."

 

lmao

Edited March 15, 20187 yr by Bartimaeus

I would be hard pressed to come up with a more selfish or reprehensible individual in American politics today than her. You really want to know why we are stuck with the Donald Trump chaos show? Right here. Sneering condescension and extreme narcissism does not play well to an American public whose economic fortunes have been brought low. Even now she can't get over herself. Donald Trump is President today because enough people found him to be less repulsive than her. That saddest thing of all is there were other options. And before anyone trots out the whole "third party can't win" trope if enough people decided  both Clinton and Trump were equally bad and voted a third party they would have won. It would have been helpful had Johnson been invited to the debates . But the Committee for Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrat and Republican politicians. The only they they agree to work together on is to keep everyone else out of their clubhouse. But this notion of there only being two choices is only true because too many people think it is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=3KKPpjN5PTc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/14/in-fundraising-speech-trump-says-he-made-up-facts-in-meeting-with-justin-trudeau/

 

Sounds like my coworkers, with this bull****ting.

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

Edited March 15, 20187 yr by Terminator

I would be hard pressed to come up with a more selfish or reprehensible individual in American politics today than her. You really want to know why we are stuck with the Donald Trump chaos show? Right here. Sneering condescension and extreme narcissism does not play well to an American public whose economic fortunes have been brought low. Even now she can't get over herself. Donald Trump is President today because enough people found him to be less repulsive than her. That saddest thing of all is there were other options. And before anyone trots out the whole "third party can't win" trope if enough people decided  both Clinton and Trump were equally bad and voted a third party they would have won. It would have been helpful had Johnson been invited to the debates . But the Committee for Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrat and Republican politicians. The only they they agree to work together on is to keep everyone else out of their clubhouse. But this notion of there only being two choices is only true because too many people think it is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=3KKPpjN5PTc

 

Trump is an unworthy piece of ****, but my god she sounds delusional here.

 

We have idle populations in the heartland that want to work. We have poor working class whites who are increasingly turning to the labor politics of Bernie Sander's, yes in red states. Her accreditation of GDP to a specific population is a flawed argument from the start because wealth and cash flows are arbitrated and controlled. In fact tons of GDP gets accredited to people who are essentially rent-seakers. Then there is the whole issue of pushing the surplus population "out of the kingdom" where they are of the wrong background to share in the state sponsored opportunities that she pretends to create. He party is the one against victim blaming, you'd think she'd see the irony. Instead she willfully turns the working class population into something she can resent, absolutely disgusting.

 

Hillary cannot be a more out of touch person. To think how many supporters she has that threw in behind her back when Obama was campaigning, a lot of those same people now act like Obama was their savior. People who will hitch themselves to anything that expedites their moral standing amongst the left collective, those are especially as deplorable as any of the identitarian collectivist right. I can't believe people still cling Hillary's every word.

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

Edited March 15, 20187 yr by smjjames

Dayum, Tomi Lahren is a smokeshow. That is all.

Dayum, Tomi Lahren is a smokeshow. That is all.

Apparently she kicked dogs, though, or so the top Google returns indicate

Yeah that's the story that prompted me to look her up again. Dayum!

Yeah that's the story that prompted me to look her up again. Dayum!

 

Well to each their own, but she's just ok.  

 

As for Clinton, yeah, not sure why she can't just retreat to private life and be quiet. You'd think she would go for that, means not dealing with this bull**** all the time or having Trump talk about you, etc.

It's the only thing that keeps her relevant now a days. Plus with our "victimhood is empowering" culture we have, I don't blame her for sticking around. Let her keep talking and maybe the ones who were accusing sexism! for not voting for her will finally get in their heads that she was ****.

 

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

 

 

Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points,  from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. 

 

So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. 

 

Yeah that's the story that prompted me to look her up again. Dayum!

 

Well to each their own, but she's just ok.

 

As for Clinton, yeah, not sure why she can't just retreat to private life and be quiet. You'd think she would go for that, means not dealing with this bull**** all the time or having Trump talk about you, etc.

 

 

While it does appear sexist to tell Clinton (a woman) to retreat to private life and be quiet and it does have a touch of sexism to me, but sometimes it's best to just exit stage left (or right). Especially when she really isn't helping things.

 

 

It's the only thing that keeps her relevant now a days. Plus with our "victimhood is empowering" culture we have, I don't blame her for sticking around. Let her keep talking and maybe the ones who were accusing sexism! for not voting for her will finally get in their heads that she was ****.

 

I'm not accusing sexism, just that it does have the appearance of sexism, but in this case, it really would be best if she stopped talking since it's not helping Democrats.

 

 

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

 

 

Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points,  from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. 

 

So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. 

 

 

Not to mention that doing a pre-emptive strike has the potential to do the same effect as a smashing a hornet nest. Kim Jong Un pretty much has to respond or he'll lose face, but the question is how will he respond? Will it be restrained (short of all out war) or will he go all-out-no-holds-barred?

 

 

Well so what is USA going to do something about North Korea what do you think? I don't know but for some reason some Finnish forums are full of people who believe USA actually will take military action, but I know it is a tough choice to make and I don't have any specific beliefs regarding that subject but I keep an open mind for possibilities.

 

Speculation in Finnish forums hit so far that some believed USA would attack after Winter Olympics and now Winter Olympics is over.

 

In the news currently relationship between UK and Russia hit rock bottom after ex Russian spy was murdered in UK the Uk has now as responce deported many Russian diplomats that were in UK.

 

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks.

 

It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo.

 

So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day.

 

edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything.

 

 

Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points,  from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. 

 

So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. 

 

Here is what I think you go wrong and you are from Finland like me so I don't consider you an super expert, not saying I am super expert but I was curious about USA people thoughts on the matter.

 

China would not attack USA if USA attacks North Korea. There is risk of China envolment of course if whole region erupts into chaos

Japan currently even have a valid more or less military alliance with Australia and that military alliance is pretty much against China.

 

Japan really hates China and Japan has steadily grown as military power in recent years. If China attacks USA we pretty much have a hornet nest World War 3 on horizon.

 

Look I have played Battlefield 3 and was thinking of maybe buying cheaply Battlefield 4 that is USA war against China and Russia.

 

I tell you what if China attacks USA on basis that USA attack Northkorea then Japan and Australia will support USA they hate very much China. China best interest in conflict USA vs NorthKorea is to stay out of the military action.

 

Best response it is pretty much about Trump what he decides also if he decides war there will be war and I don't believe one minute China will declare war on USA if USA attacks NorthKorea and don't accidentally attack China forces.

 

If you realistically want to eperience USA vs China war then you can buy Battlefield 4 computer game.

Edited March 15, 20187 yr by Terminator

 

 

Yeah that's the story that prompted me to look her up again. Dayum!

 

Well to each their own, but she's just ok.

 

As for Clinton, yeah, not sure why she can't just retreat to private life and be quiet. You'd think she would go for that, means not dealing with this bull**** all the time or having Trump talk about you, etc.

 

 

While it does appear sexist to tell Clinton (a woman) to retreat to private life and be quiet and it does have a touch of sexism to me, but sometimes it's best to just exit stage left (or right). Especially when she really isn't helping things.

 

 

It's the only thing that keeps her relevant now a days. Plus with our "victimhood is empowering" culture we have, I don't blame her for sticking around. Let her keep talking and maybe the ones who were accusing sexism! for not voting for her will finally get in their heads that she was ****.

 

I'm not accusing sexism, just that it does have the appearance of sexism, but in this case, it really would be best if she stopped talking since it's not helping Democrats.

 

 

Well, not sexist in least as my main reasons were her age (there's better stuff to do with your time left than bother with political garbage) and the fact that her time has passed, in that the climate's changed, there are younger people in the wings, etc., etc. and she's had a very full run, being FLOTUS, Senator and SoS.

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

She was planning to give 4-8 of her life as a "civil servant" I'm not surprised she still has the itch for the limelight. We'll be living with hillary flare ups for a while still.

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

 

Yeah, f*ck those gulaged millions of people as long as they are not dying on my yard

Exactly, war with the US (either direct or by proxy) is the last thing China wants, both because of economic interconnections and because their navy isn't a threat to ours.

 

They have said that they'd support NK if the US strikes first, but how far they'd go, I'm not sure. They'd definetly demand that the US not get too close to the NK/China border for sure. However, they've also said that if NK strikes first, NK is on their own. A pre-emptive strike seems to be in that grey area between definite first strike in a war and not intending to start a war.

 

 

If shots are fired Kim will fight like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark, He has to figure once shooting starts nothing short of regime change will suffice. And he's right. If would be a waste of blood and treasure to fight any conflict that leaves him in power. So unless we're going to go all the way, don't go at all. Better to take the latter option, He can stay in power until he dies for all I care. As long as he stays on his side of the DMZ everything is fine. Now the trick is making HIM understand that.

 

I like that analogy actually, heh.

 

Anyways, yeah, that's the problem with doing a pre-emptive strike, and NK doesn't need nukes to do massive damage.