What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

We won't know for sure until the Canadians decide they should have a military.

This tells me that at least some Americans are not able to consider a world in which there isn't something like what the United States used to be.

Oh, I can consider such a world.  It's not a desirable one, but it is the one where we are rapidly approaching.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, I can consider such a world.  It's not a desirable one, but it is the one where we are rapidly approaching.

Oh good. So can we then agree that you should stop posting about Canada taking the place of the United States of America.

[grumbler]

We won't know until you build a navy, will we?  You don't kill people not because you are more moral but because you are simply impotent. 

If overnight Canada and the United States switched navies, here's what would happen. The US would still keep blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats and Canada wouldn't.  Because blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats doesn't turn on the size of your guided missile frigate fleet or your amphibious lift capacity.  It turns on not being completely out of your mind.  Which means that still more than half the nations of the world qualify, regardless of fleet strength.  Unfortunately, it seems the USA is not in that half anymore.

We won't know for sure until the Canadians decide they should have a military.

Sub-par trolling, Raz you can do better than that.

Sounds like Raz doesn't believe that Canada has a navy because he's never seen a Canadian Navy ship. She is from the "show me state after all.

[Razgovory]

Oh, I can consider such a world.  It's not a desirable one, but it is the one where we are rapidly approaching.

Oh good. So can we then agree that you should stop posting about Canada taking the place of the United States of America.

No, I don't find a world where pirates regularly disrupt commerce and Taiwan getting invaded by China to be a desirable one.  So hop to it, show us how do things right.  Go defend Europe and the Pacific.  Prevent the Middle East from completely spinning out of control.  Keep shit in order.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, I can consider such a world.  It's not a desirable one, but it is the one where we are rapidly approaching.

Oh good. So can we then agree that you should stop posting about Canada taking the place of the United States of America.

No, I don't find a world where pirates regularly disrupt commerce and Taiwan getting invaded by China to be a desirable one.  So hop to it, show us how do things right.  Go defend Europe and the Pacific.  Prevent the Middle East from completely spinning out of control.  Keep shit in order.

You may have missed the point.

[Razgovory]

Oh, I can consider such a world.  It's not a desirable one, but it is the one where we are rapidly approaching.

Oh good. So can we then agree that you should stop posting about Canada taking the place of the United States of America.

No, I don't find a world where pirates regularly disrupt commerce and Taiwan getting invaded by China to be a desirable one.  So hop to it, show us how do things right.  Go defend Europe and the Pacific.  Prevent the Middle East from completely spinning out of control.  Keep shit in order.

You may have missed the point.

Was it: America bad?  Cause you've been on that one for 25 years now.

[grumbler]

If we really cared that much only about expenditures...we could have just as easily pull out of bases in Europe, and reduce the spending specifically oriented towards Europe, while still also saying "we are fully committed to NATO and Article 5". 

But nope, our current administration has to be stupid for no apparent gain.

That is precisely what Project 2025 plans to do. Would the non-US members here agree that that is still within their understanding of NATO obligations?

[crazy canuck]

Was it: America bad?  Cause you've been on that one for 25 years now.

No, actually the opposite. Malthus used to accuse me of being too much of an American fanboi. Sadly that is no longer possible.

[Zoupa]

But even if you're right and they were idiots, the current state of affairs is primarily the result of American policy priorities (whether the people developing and implementing them were idiots or not).

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is primarily the result of American policy priorities?  Chinese occupation of the South China Sea is a result American policy priorities?  European rearmament in response to Ukraine is a result of American policy priorities?  Your comment is inexplicable to me.

When Jacob references the current state of affairs, he probably means the NATO structure, military spending of the members etc. This was the topic you were discussing.

This is what I mean when I say it's exhausting to try and discuss with you. It's like you purposefully look to misread posts.

[Admiral Yi]

When Jacob references the current state of affairs, he probably means the NATO structure, military spending of the members etc. This was the topic you were discussing.

This is what I mean when I say it's exhausting to try and discuss with you. It's like you purposefully look to misread posts.

I'm unsure what Jacob means, as demonstrated by the abundant question marks.  You're unsure what Jacob means, as demonstrated by the word probably.  Yet I'm exhausting and you're presumably not.

I think that good faith is demonstrated by a willingness to ask for clarification in situations of perceived ambiguity and attempts at clarification when it is asked for.  Yet that is exactly what you attack me for.  Is there an alternate method of demonstrating good faith you would like to propose?

[Jacob]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is primarily the result of American policy priorities?  Chinese occupation of the South China Sea is a result American policy priorities?  European rearmament in response to Ukraine is a result of American policy priorities?  Your comment is inexplicable to me.

By "the current state of affairs" I meant "the way NATO and the security structure of the Western world is organized, as well as the way the international economy is structured". No other actor has had as much influence on how those were shaped as the US.

I was taking a long view, looking at the development of the state of the world post WWII culminating in the current moment, including the reaction to Sept. 11th. The US has largely set the direction, and its allies have more or less followed.

On Ukraine, the US had (and still has) the power to swing the balance in either direction. If the US went all in on fighting a proxy war against Russia (including encouraging Europe to do the same), Russia would be a wreck by now. Conversely, if the US went all in on cutting Ukraine off (including leaning on Europe to do the same), Ukraine would probably be lost by now. The US has been charting a middle path here, presumably because it aligns with its policy objectives.

For China it's hard to say if the US could've done anything to prevent the current resurgence and assertiveness of China. If so, the time to make a difference was probably 20 or 30 years ago; but perhaps the rise of China and its assertiveness in the South China Sea was unavoidable. In any case, if any one nation had the capability of altering that trajectory if would've been the US; and I believe its allies - in Europe and in Asia - would largely have followed the US' lead where ever it might have chosen to lead.

[Jacob]

Fairness, like favors, is a currency in relationships.  The further you go on the take side of "give and take", the less willing people are to cut you a break because they value being on your good side.

That's reasonable enough, though I'll note that "fairness" is a highly subjective quantity. It is possible for both sides of an exchange to feel they've been given an unfair deal.

[crazy canuck]

Fairness, like favors, is a currency in relationships.  The further you go on the take side of "give and take", the less willing people are to cut you a break because they value being on your good side.

That's reasonable enough, though I'll note that "fairness" is a highly subjective quantity. It is possible for both sides of an exchange to feel they've been given an unfair deal.

And often that is when you know you have reached a good agreement involving compromise by all involved.

[Razgovory]

Was it: America bad?  Cause you've been on that one for 25 years now.

No, actually the opposite. Malthus used to accuse me of being too much of an American fanboi. Sadly that is no longer possible.

When was this?  1988?  You've been very unhappy with us for a very long time.  It gets tiresome.

[The Minsky Moment]

If all that is true, why should the US keep nagging?

1. To bolster political allies in other NATO countries pushing to raise their country military budgets
2. To protect themselves against domestic political attacks in the US.