US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

What fence? I don't like the guy. I don't like most of his policies.If the fence is to chose who is the "lesser evil", Trump or his adversaries, than, sorry, I will hardly get off it. I really don't see Trump as anything completely different in the political spectrum. He sells himself like that, but I do not buy it. I also don't buy that he is the greatest possible evil. Of course that there is a deeper political game being played, and the "stupid" label is over simplistic, but the narrative is far more complex than a few paragraphs too.

think I've already stated that I won't bother discussing US politics with you. So let's just table this

 

[Federberg]

You are going back to election meddling and mixing it up with Russian benefits from Trump's economic policies. You said Russia would benefit from American protectionism and/or addressing a trade deficit... I can think of plenty of countries who would benefit to some degree, but Russia wouldn't be high on the list. American exports are primarily service-based - so where would Russia benefit particularly with that?

lol! American exports are not primarily service based mate. Where on earth did you get that idea. You're waaaaay off base.

And no I didn't say something as simplistic as Russia would benefit from protectionism. The concern is far more profound than that. Russia benefits from the fracturing of the post-World War 2 framework. And frankly any breakdown in the global trading system benefits sanctioned countries by default. This is just basic common sense

 

[britbox]

I think I'm on record in this very forum stating that I think the financial system is busted. I am also on record, here, stating that I believe the end of US dollar hegemony began in August 2008. So..... whatever inference you're trying to make from my comments you've strayed on to a wrong path

Fair enough, I'm of the mind that there is no general solution and it's all about managed decline unless proven otherwise.

 

[britbox]

lol! American exports are not primarily service based mate. Where on earth did you get that idea. You're waaaaay off base.

And no I didn't say something as simplistic as Russia would benefit from protectionism. The concern is far more profound than that. Russia benefits from the fracturing of the post-World War 2 framework. And frankly any breakdown in the global trading system benefits sanctioned countries by default. This is just basic common sense

OK, I'll clarify this as it wasn't clear - US Service exports are where they are in surplus, not a deficit.

 

[Federberg]

Fair enough, I'm of the mind that there is no general solution and it's all about managed decline unless proven otherwise.

I don't think managed declines are possible mate. In a hybrid fractional reserve system things can be fairly binary. There are solutions but it involves severe pain. We should all regret that Keynes won the argument not von Mises

 

[britbox]

lol! American exports are not primarily service based mate. Where on earth did you get that idea. You're waaaaay off base.

And no I didn't say something as simplistic as Russia would benefit from protectionism. The concern is far more profound than that. Russia benefits from the fracturing of the post-World War 2 framework. And frankly any breakdown in the global trading system benefits sanctioned countries by default. This is just basic common sense

But here is the thing... I'm failing to see why Russia being "better off" is somehow a disastrous scenario. Who gives a f**k?

 

[Federberg]

OK, I'll clarify this as it wasn't clear - US Service exports are where they are in surplus, not a deficit.

Ok, but you'll have to explain to me why that's relevant

 

[britbox]

Ok, but you'll have to explain to me why that's relevant

Because you'll protect a surplus not a deficit.

 

[Federberg]

But here is the thing... I'm failing to see why Russia being "better off" is somehow a disastrous scenario. Who gives a f**k?

Lol! Are you losing the thread mate? I'm not the one saying Russia is a red herring. You are

 

[Federberg]

Because you'll protect a surplus not a deficit.

Perhaps you'd better start from the beginning mate, because I'm not getting your point. Of course I might just be too stupid to see it, but you're not making much sense to me on multiple fronts

 

[britbox]

Lol! Are you losing the thread mate? I'm not the one saying Russia is a red herring. You are

Yep it is a red herring. You're the one who keeps bringing Russia up. I'm basically saying who cares?

 

[Federberg]

Yep it is a red herring. You're the one who keeps bringing Russia up. I'm basically saying who cares?

Well.. evidently I do. And so it seems do a majority of Americans, and also the US intelligence and judiciary. That's cool if you want to be on the other side

 

[britbox]

Well.. evidently I do. And so it seems do a majority of Americans, and also the US intelligence and judiciary. That's cool if you want to be on the other side

LMAO. Divorce the election meddling agenda with Cold War v2 for a minute fella. This anti-Russian stuff has gone off the charts in some quarters. Explain what benefits the Russians would get from an "America First/America Alone" agenda?

Weapon sales maybe... outside of that... I'm stumped.

 

[Federberg]

LMAO. Divorce the election meddling agenda with Cold War v2 for a minute fella. This anti-Russian stuff has gone off the charts in some quarters. Explain what benefits the Russians would get from an "America First/America Alone" agenda?

Weapon sales maybe... outside of that... I'm stumped.

Mate I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that Putin and Trump could hold hands together on tv and admit their wrong doing and you would still claim otherwise. Don't know why but that's your thing. That's cool.

But please.. .don't pretend to miss the obvious. You are evidently far smarter than this question. The fracturing of US alliances, particularly with Europe (NATO) is evidently in the interests of Russia's Putin. I cannot believe that the same guy I had a decent debate about Syria policy doesn't get that, so clearly you're playing some sort of game..

Anyway mate... let's pause for now. I've been looking forward to this match for some time

 

[britbox]

Cool. More some other time. Thiem is bossing the show like you predicted.

 

[mrzz]

think I've already stated that I won't bother discussing US politics with you. So let's just table this

In fact you stated that you wouldn't discuss about Hillary Clinton, but I'm ok with it either way.

 

[Federberg]

In fact you stated that you wouldn't discuss about Hillary Clinton, but I'm ok with it either way.

no offence intended, but it's hard to know how to respond if you make a factual inaccuracy and I point out you might want to read up more on an issue, and you tell me you can't be bothered. That's cool, and that's your choice. But then there's not much I can do with that from a debating perspective

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No govt. works this hard. Two pardons every day! :lulz2:

 

[Federberg]

Wow! So now Trump is advocating for Russia to rejoin the G7. Forget about the fact that Russia was kicked out for invading Ukraine. But of course there's no collusion right?

And in other news, just to show what a complete retard Trump is, he's now talking about pardoning Muhammed Ali. Never mind the fact the Supreme Court expunged the charges. It's particularly ironic that he was indicted for refusing to fight in Vietnam. Yet Trump calls NFL players who kneel for the anthem 'sons of bitches' and opines that they should be kicked out of the country Does he even get how untenable and obvious his race baiting is?

 

[mrzz]

no offence intended, but it's hard to know how to respond if you make a factual inaccuracy and I point out you might want to read up more on an issue, and you tell me you can't be bothered. That's cool, and that's your choice. But then there's not much I can do with that from a debating perspective

This is old, I did not reply instantly because otherwise we would just keep debating while agreeing not to debate. But just to get things straight for future debates: I did not make a factual inaccuracy. I said that HRC is a proven liar, which is a fact in practically any way you look at it. Then you replied with a long analysis of her psyche/background/political inclinations, saying that you need all this to understand her actions. Fair enough, but it is about that that I can't be bothered.

The debate I did not want to enter, but it seems to be impossible to escape, is the TrumpxHRC one. But, to set one thing straight: One of the reasons I was "happy" for Trump winning is that I was pretty sure that it would be worse for the US -- and even if I don't have anything against it, I don't like an hegemonic power calling all the shots in the world. The best thing that could happen (to the world at that time) was an incompetent US president.