Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[mr friendly guy]

It's not that $30 billion of trade is now gone it's that the items currently under increased tariffs encompass $30 billion of trade. I don't know how these tariffs actually affected China and US and whether the effects are symmetrical. In any case at this point it's a fraction of $30 billion not actually $30 billion and it's not significant for US or China as a whole.
However US is not escalating the exact same tariffs for every single country in the world. Just yesterday Trump approved tariffs on $50 billion dollars of Chinese goods. In other words US is in a position to first increase pressure on one country and then move on to another. So unless US decides to simultaneously increase tariffs at the same rate against every country in the world your scenario simply won't happen.

Ok, admit it, I have been playing STO so I couldn't reply until now.

1. I know its not the $30 billion gone, its just tariffs on that value of trade. But unless you have a crystal ball, its most probably easier to assume they are affected equally on either side if you're going to argue who is less exposed.
2. The US might not be increasing tariffs at the same rate, but they are targeting several nations / trading blocs with large economies and who engage in decent amount of trade. So far China, EU, Canada, oh and as I just found out, India as well.

I do think that if EU looses US as an export market EU will have a surplus production and will certainly not be in the mood to accept the surplus goods that China will also have. In any case this scenario depends on US simultaneously escalating tariffs against both EU and China at the same intensity.

I don't see why you need the same intensity of tariffs. But lets say, the US focusses mainly on China and less on the EU. Lets say 99% of the value of goods targeted by tariffs is against China. China becomes more exposed to the US, because even if the Chinese retaliate the same amount on US goods, its still a larger percentage of their GDP as China has a smaller economy (assume for a moment that extra 1% isn't enough to tip things in China's favour). However those countries that make up the other 1%, will certainly be less exposed than the US as that 1% is going to be a small fraction of their economy, while the US faces a value 100 times that. All this does by focussing mainly on one trading partner, leads to the US being less exposed than one of its trading partners, not all of them. Now you might say, well the US can just focus on one at a time. Sure they can, but that's not what they are doing. I am not sure why they would do this, when Trumps advisors eg that idiot Navarro actually thinks if you just cut down imports, you'll have GDP growth because you subtract imports when calculating GDP. So why would they stop at one country. (Navarro doesn't realise you subtract imports so you don't count the value twice. Its like saying why do I have to subtract cost from revenue to work out profit, why can't I just add it to revenue? Or to take that conclusion the other way, since I have to subtract cost, I can get the cost down to zero by just not buying the raw materials for my final product. ).

As I point out, countries who have proposed putting retaliatory tariffs are China, EU, Canada, and India.

Add on - and in google I found out Mexico has also put tariffs on the US despite being even more exposed than Canada on US trade.

[Kane Starkiller]

Ok, but is that really so? How exactly is the US more insulated than others?

Well because international trade comprises lesser percentage of its GDP.

Ok, admit it, I have been playing STO so I couldn't reply until now.

1. I know its not the $30 billion gone, its just tariffs on that value of trade. But unless you have a crystal ball, its most probably easier to assume they are affected equally on either side if you're going to argue who is less exposed.
2. The US might not be increasing tariffs at the same rate, but they are targeting several nations / trading blocs with large economies and who engage in decent amount of trade. So far China, EU, Canada, oh and as I just found out, India as well.

Yes they are targeting several nation but major focus is on China. Trump just threatened extra $200 billion tariffs for China alone. Your scenario assumed that all countries are rising tariffs against US at the same rate which is how you arrived at the figure than China wold be less exposed than US. This is not what's happening.

I don't see why you need the same intensity of tariffs. But lets say, the US focusses mainly on China and less on the EU. Lets say 99% of the value of goods targeted by tariffs is against China. China becomes more exposed to the US, because even if the Chinese retaliate the same amount on US goods, its still a larger percentage of their GDP as China has a smaller economy (assume for a moment that extra 1% isn't enough to tip things in China's favour). However those countries that make up the other 1%, will certainly be less exposed than the US as that 1% is going to be a small fraction of their economy, while the US faces a value 100 times that. All this does by focussing mainly on one trading partner, leads to the US being less exposed than one of its trading partners, not all of them. Now you might say, well the US can just focus on one at a time. Sure they can, but that's not what they are doing. I am not sure why they would do this, when Trumps advisors eg that idiot Navarro actually thinks if you just cut down imports, you'll have GDP growth because you subtract imports when calculating GDP. So why would they stop at one country. (Navarro doesn't realise you subtract imports so you don't count the value twice. Its like saying why do I have to subtract cost from revenue to work out profit, why can't I just add it to revenue? Or to take that conclusion the other way, since I have to subtract cost, I can get the cost down to zero by just not buying the raw materials for my final product. ).

As I point out, countries who have proposed putting retaliatory tariffs are China, EU, Canada, and India.

Add on - and in google I found out Mexico has also put tariffs on the US despite being even more exposed than Canada on US trade.

US has entered into conflict about tariffs with many nations that is true but again not nearly with the same intensity. US is in fact focusing in China far more than other countries.
Of course Mexico won't just take additional tariffs lying down and will retaliate. That doesn't change the fact it's far more vulnerable than US and that the level of tariffs is nowhere near those levied against China.
Another important aspect of a national economy is not just GDP, as in yearly production, but total national wealth which will provide a buffer against any temporary economic problems. US has a GDP of about $19.3 trillion but also a wealth of $93.5 trillion which is 33.4% of the world. In comparison EU has $72.4 trillion and China $29 trillion. EU,China,India,Canada and Mexico have a total combined wealth of $115.6 trillion as in 24% more than US which is a single unified country as opposed to disparate countries with various interests and even mutual conflicts. Even the EU members faces major problems when trying to agree on a unified policy towards the US.
US exports to the rest of the world are 1.7% of its wealth while Chinese exports to US are 1.4% of its wealth. In other words taken as a percentage of total wealth China is almost as exposed to US as US is to the entire world. And again US won't take on the entire world simultaneously with the same intensity.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, it's easier for China to find alternate markets for its exports specifically to the US than for the US to find alternate markets for its exports to the entire world. If we're pissing off every major world economy at the same time with these tariffs, everyone is going to be raising the barriers against us, whereas China is only seeing a barrier raised against itself in one direction.

[mr friendly guy]

Yes they are targeting several nation but major focus is on China. Trump just threatened extra $200 billion tariffs for China alone. Your scenario assumed that all countries are rising tariffs against US at the same rate which is how you arrived at the figure than China wold be less exposed than US. This is not what's happening.

Er no I don't actually have to assume every country is raising tariffs against the US at the same rate. My example previously has the 99% of tariffs on China. The point is, if the US focussed on one trading partner, it will likely come out less exposed mainly on that country it is focussing on, lets say China. Against all the others, they come ahead of the US because most of the tariffs go against China, and Chinese tariffs go against the US. In effect, your suggestion just leads to China and the US weakening themselves while the other US trading partners are less affected. So you can claim in this scenario the US is less exposed than one country, but not against all its trading partners AT THE SAME TIME.

Another important aspect of a national economy is not just GDP, as in yearly production, but total national wealth which will provide a buffer against any temporary economic problems. US has a GDP of about $19.3 trillion but also a wealth of $93.5 trillion which is 33.4% of the world. In comparison EU has $72.4 trillion and China $29 trillion. EU,China,India,Canada and Mexico have a total combined wealth of $115.6 trillion as in 24% more than US which is a single unified country as opposed to disparate countries with various interests and even mutual conflicts. Even the EU members faces major problems when trying to agree on a unified policy towards the US.
US exports to the rest of the world are 1.7% of its wealth while Chinese exports to US are 1.4% of its wealth. In other words taken as a percentage of total wealth China is almost as exposed to US as US is to the entire world. And again US won't take on the entire world simultaneously with the same intensity.

If you're going to use total wealth instead of GDP, it makes your comparison pretty weak. Essentially both are hurt by wow, less than 2%. Each year the percentage will likely get even smaller, because both countries will still have some growth so their total wealth still gets higher. The US can brag its equally exposed as China with a whopping 1-2%. That really isn't going to hurt those countries that much. I mean if the government took 2% of my total wealth I would be pissed, but essentially my living standards would be utterly unaffected.

[FaxModem1]

Another first for Trump....

NBC News

U.S. withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council
The announcement comes a day after the U.N.'s top human rights official criticized the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy.
by Abigail Williams and Associated Press / Jun.19.2018 / 12:16 PM ET / Updated 4:47 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The United States is withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council citing "chronic bias against Israel," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Tuesday.

Her announcement makes good on repeated threats to leave the 47-member body that Haley slammed as "hypocritical and self-serving."

"For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias," Haley said, according to remarks prepared for delivery, adding that the "essential reforms" that would have ensured continued U.S. participation had not been achieved.




Haley at UN: 'Double standard' against Israel 'working overtime'
MAY.15.201806:22
"Therefore, as we said we would do a year ago, if we did not see any progress, the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council," Haley said.

Recommended

Trump unveils new health plan; Democrats call it 'junk insurance'


Trump: We will have the Space Force, 'separate, but equal'
Her announcement comes just a day after the U.N.'s top human rights official, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, criticized the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has resulted in the separation of nearly 2,000 children from their parents at the border.

"The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable," he said Monday in an address to the council.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted his thanks to the Trump administration for withdrawing from the "so-called" human rights council.

"Instead of dealing with regimes that systematically violate human rights, the UNHRC obsessively focuses on Israel, the one genuine democracy in the Middle East," Netanyahu said.


Benjamin Netanyahu
✔
@netanyahu
Israel thanks President Trump, Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Haley for their courageous decision against the hypocrisy and the lies of the so-called UN Human Rights Council.

4:38 PM - Jun 19, 2018
3,034
1,541 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Haley criticized the body as recently as March for its treatment of Israel.

"When the Human Rights Council treats Israel worse than North Korea, Iran, and Syria, it is the Council itself that is foolish and unworthy of its name. It is time for the countries who know better to demand changes," Haley said in a statement at the time, pointing to the council's adoption of five resolutions condemning Israel for its posture toward Palestine. "The United States continues to evaluate our membership in the Human Rights Council. Our patience is not unlimited."

Previous administrations expressed concerns regarding the U.N. Human Rights Council, as well — often questioning the body's willingness to have notorious human rights abusers as members of the council.

John Bolton, now President Donald Trump's national security adviser, has opposed the council since its creation in 2006. As the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. during the administration of President George W. Bush, he voted against the resolution creating the institution, rejecting the simple majority vote required to elect members and demanding exclusionary criteria to keep gross abusers of human rights off.

"We must not let the victims of human rights abuses throughout the world think that U.N. Member States were willing to settle for good enough. We must not let history remember us as the architects of a Council that was a compromise and merely the best we could do rather than one that ensured doing all we could do to promote human rights," Bolton said at the time.

The Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's position, and the U.S. was first elected as a member of the council in 2009.

The U.S. move to withdraw extends a broader Trump administration pattern of stepping back from international agreements and forums under the president's "America First" policy.

Although numerous officials have said repeatedly that "America First does not mean America Alone," the administration has retreated from multiple multilateral accords and consensuses since it took office.

Since January 2017, it has announced its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, left the U.N. educational and cultural organization and pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Other contentious moves have included slapping tariffs on steel and aluminum against key trading partners, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the U.S. Embassy to the holy city from Tel Aviv.

Haley has been the driving force behind withdrawing from the human rights body, which would be unprecedented in the 12-year history of the council. No country has ever dropped out voluntarily. Libya was kicked out seven years ago.

Well, seems we're becoming more withdrawn from the international stage in general....

[The Romulan Republic]

Nah, we're not simply becoming withdrawn. We're realigning, from the Western Democratic world order to the authoritarian nationalist strong man model of Russia and North Korea.

Also saw on CNN today that we will be cutting foreign aid to countries that are sources of immigrants to the US.

Fuck this fascist government.

Also, regarding Trump's "space force": Look, I know the context is completely different, but I can't help but cringe a bit when I hear the phrase "separate but equal" coming from Donald Trump.

[Tribble]

From an optics standpoint the USA withdrawing looks bad, and the reasoning behind it is flawed... but let's be honest, the UN Human Rights Council is kind of a joke. Were it not for the fact that this is Trump and its just a continuation of his campaign of turning the USA into a dictatorship... I wouldn't really care all that much.

[The Romulan Republic]

From an optics standpoint the USA withdrawing looks bad, and the reasoning behind it is flawed... but let's be honest, the UN Human Rights Council is kind of a joke. Were it not for the fact that this is Trump and its just a continuation of his campaign of turning the USA into a dictatorship... I wouldn't really care all that much.

Yeah, but Trump IS doing it as part of his campaign of turning the US into a dictatorship. Or, more specifically, of transitioning from the Western Liberal Democratic model* to the Russian/Putanist-style model of nationalist authoritarian states run by strongmen and their clique of fellow oligarchs/Mafioso.


*And yes, I know that the Western Liberal Democratic model has a lot of problems- but those problems lie mainly in its failing to consistently live up to its promises/ideals. The Neo-Authoritarian Nationalist model is premised on underlying ideals (or, arguably, a lack of ideals) that are fundamentally despotic, and represents in some respects a return to a very dangerous past.

Because whatever the flaws of the turn-of-the-millennium status quo, we should remember that there ARE worse possible worlds to live in. There's a reason why most of the world adopted the Globalist Liberal Democratic model in the first place- that being that we tried the nationalist authoritarianism model, and the ultimate result was twelve million genocided and 70-plus million war deaths in a span of six years before the rest of the world managed to forcibly put down the responsible parties.

What we should be doing is trying to improve on the faults of the Liberal Democratic model, to move forward to something better. Not backwards into a dark and ugly past that we had hoped we had left behind.

[mr friendly guy]

A nation with fake human rights credentials withdrawing from an organisation with fake human rights credentials. Wow. This isn't a big deal in and of itself. However... I suspect the human rights council still has the perception of legitimacy so that could weaken the US.

One of the hallmarks of US propaganda, er I mean American hype is that it convinced people it was for human rights even as they had police brutality (particularly against minorities), torture, drones strikes on their own citizens without trial, invading other nations under false pretences, providing military aid 70% of the world's autocracies etc. It wielded the human rights baton to give it a leg up when settling geopolitical scores. At least under Trump this wool might be pulled away from people's eyes. And you know what the funny thing is, its not necessarily because Trump is much worse (I mean he hasn't invaded a country over imaginary WMDs), its because Trump's opponents are only zoning in on this, because its Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

A nation with fake human rights credentials withdrawing from an organisation with fake human rights credentials. Wow. This isn't a big deal in and of itself. However... I suspect the human rights council still has the perception of legitimacy so that could weaken the US.

One of the hallmarks of US propaganda, er I mean American hype is that it convinced people it was for human rights even as they had police brutality (particularly against minorities), torture, drones strikes on their own citizens without trial, invading other nations under false pretences, providing military aid 70% of the world's autocracies etc. It wielded the human rights baton to give it a leg up when settling geopolitical scores. At least under Trump this wool might be pulled away from people's eyes. And you know what the funny thing is, its not necessarily because Trump is much worse (I mean he hasn't invaded a country over imaginary WMDs), its because Trump's opponents are only zoning in on this, because its Trump.

Oh good, some more both sides and whataboutism to defend Trump.

This is verging on Trump apologism in my opinion, but it does provide a certain useful insight into why some people who don't necessarily support Trump's policies or like his personality may have voted for him, particularly on the "anti-establishment" Left. That being the belief that everyone is actually corrupt, so why not vote for someone who's "honest" about being an asshole? Hell, the Lincoln quote in my sig is basically expressing a similar sentiment, in part.

Personally, though, I view it a somewhat different way. I don't cynically dismiss those ideals as merely "propaganda" to pull the wool over peoples (don't you mean "sheeples"?) eyes. Some people may use them in that way, certainly- but ideas matter. Even if they're not lived up to, they fucking matter. Because they set a standard to aspire to, to rise towards, even if we never perfectly live up to it. They acknowledge at least the concept that the world could be better, and that that is worth working towards.

So I don't prefer an open tyrant to a hypocritical advocate of liberty and human rights. Because at least the advocate of liberty is acknowledging the concept of right and wrong, of trying to make the world a better place. And at least that's a starting point to improve upon.

The tyrant will never be anything like a tyrant, because he never imagines a better world, and wants to make sure that no one else can either.

Maybe that seems more "honest" to some people. No doubt its a view that appeals to the incurably cynical. But that's not my view. Thomas Jefferson may have been a slave. But the world is still a better place because he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Only 70% you say? But, those also happen the some of history's most notable autocrats from Napoleon to Nasser to Marcos to the Argentine and Chilean juntas ofbthe 70s and early 80s to Pol Pot to the whole frigging House of Saud, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, and that's not even mentioning the Christian religious terrorists and baby killers brave Irish freedom fighters, Al Qaeda Toyota warriors, and Taliban shitheads.

For a land of the free, we Americans have thrown our support behind a great many shitheads. Some of which we actually put in office.

P.S. Get stuffed, Rom. We've normalized this shit way before we, the craven fucking cowards, put our man Trump in office, and started blaming foreigners for it, like we always do, when we don't want to take responsibility for our actions.

Don't like it? Can't face it? Then, by all means, feel free to double down on sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming the tune of American Exceptionalism over and over, like some others have chosen to do. You won't be the first. You certainly won't be the last.

But, your name will be amongst those cursed by future generations. Goddamn us all to hell.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh good, some more both sides and whataboutism to defend Trump.

This is verging on Trump apologism in my opinion, but it does provide a certain useful insight into why some people who don't necessarily support Trump's policies or like his personality may have voted for him, particularly on the "anti-establishment" Left. That being the belief that everyone is actually corrupt, so why not vote for someone who's "honest" about being an asshole? Hell, the Lincoln quote in my sig is basically expressing a similar sentiment, in part.

I am going to be generous and assume you misunderstood what I said. So I put it right out there. Its a criticism of mainstream media, or so called establishment media who did not raise a stink with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush junior, Obama when they did it, but only does it when Trump does it. Its not a defense of Trump as I have pretty criticised him for lots of things before. Its an attack on shitty media, who frankly are seemingly engaging in tribalism. Its only bad when Trump does it. And that's the problem. When Trump is gone, the same shit will happen again, because the next leader is most probably a bit more smarter than to go on twitter saying stupid stuff.

Personally, though, I view it a somewhat different way. I don't cynically dismiss those ideals as merely "propaganda" to pull the wool over peoples (don't you mean "sheeples"?) eyes. Some people may use them in that way, certainly- but ideas matter. Even if they're not lived up to, they fucking matter. Because they set a standard to aspire to, to rise towards, even if we never perfectly live up to it. They acknowledge at least the concept that the world could be better, and that that is worth working towards.

Its not the ideal of human rights that is the propaganda. Its the ideal that (the US) actually follow human rights that is the propaganda.

So I don't prefer an open tyrant to a hypocritical advocate of liberty and human rights. Because at least the advocate of liberty is acknowledging the concept of right and wrong, of trying to make the world a better place. And at least that's a starting point to improve upon.

I dislike both, but I am going to say the open tyrant commits one less moral wrong, all other things being equal. He isn't lying at the same time.

The tyrant will never be anything like a tyrant, because he never imagines a better world, and wants to make sure that no one else can either.

That's actually not historically true. Several Asian monarchs abdicated to follow a religious path. The Russian Tsar was eventually convinced to stand down (rather than civil war) for the good of the Russian Empire. Granted, he already fucked up the country, but still.

Not that it matters, because my point is the US behaves like this regardless of whether its Trump or someone else. I mean Trump hasn't drone strike his own citizens like Obama did.

Maybe that seems more "honest" to some people. No doubt its a view that appeals to the incurably cynical. But that's not my view. Thomas Jefferson may have been a slave. But the world is still a better place because he wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Yes I am cynic. But like I said earlier, and to paraphrase Darth Wong, the lying hypocrite commits a second wrong.

[Simon_Jester]

P.S. Get stuffed, Rom. We've normalized this shit way before we, the craven fucking cowards, put our man Trump in office, and started blaming foreigners for it, like we always do, when we don't want to take responsibility for our actions.

What does this even mean? TRR isn't in favor of any of the bad things you're talking about, he isn't somehow trying to pin Trump's election entirely on foreigners.

Don't like it? Can't face it? Then, by all means, feel free to double down on sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming the tune of American Exceptionalism over and over, like some others have chosen to do.

Exactly how is he even doing this? He's saying "look, the US shouldn't be like this, shouldn't be doing this, is supposed to be less bad than this or even (gasp) better than this."

Because guess what, no shit it is. Not because of American exceptionalism making the US a shining city on a hill, but because we should in fact be doing better than this shit, and past generations of Americans valued the idea of us doing better than this shit, even as they often failed to live up to their own standards.

But, your name will be amongst those cursed by future generations. Goddamn us all to hell.

See, the thing is, the whole 'nihilistic drama llama' act doesn't really include a lot of mental room for actually making things better. Because it's all screwed and doomed and we're sad and damned and horrible and stained and so on. Great is the depth of our darkness, et cetera.

If you can't even bear to listen to someone say "it's not supposed to be like this, dammit" without saying "it was always like this, damn us all," then you are stressed and bitter enough to be badly compromised in terms of your ability to be helpful to The Cause. To the point where you're going to start scoring own-goals.

[mr friendly guy]

I think the problem with that people sometimes miss the crux of the matter. Jimmy Dore put it nicely, Trump is merely the symptom, not the source of the disease. The source is right in the society that tolerated these actions for so long. When Trump is gone, the same shit will continue (maybe less blatant, maybe even lesser in scale to an extent, even though Bush junior did worse). By targeting Trump like is the source of most of the problems, kind of misses the forest for the trees.

[Simon_Jester]

If you see a person who actually comes out and says "there's nothing wrong with our institutions except that Trump somehow inexplicably got to be in charge of them," then yes, that is a valid point.

Otherwise, it's at best a complete waste of time, and at worst a form of concern trolling. That is to say, "the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion."

And such discussion is indeed being undermined. If we can't talk about how Trump is genuinely changing the tone of US foreign policy by genuinely being more nativist, isolationist, and authoritarian than past presidents, because 'if we don't fix the media it'll all happen again' or whatever... That really isn't helping anyone except the Trumpistas.

I don't have to think the media is flawless to think that removing the plank from thine own eye is more important than removing the dust speck from thy neighbor's.

[Civil War Man]

Yes they are targeting several nation but major focus is on China. Trump just threatened extra $200 billion tariffs for China alone. Your scenario assumed that all countries are rising tariffs against US at the same rate which is how you arrived at the figure than China wold be less exposed than US. This is not what's happening.

Er no I don't actually have to assume every country is raising tariffs against the US at the same rate. My example previously has the 99% of tariffs on China. The point is, if the US focussed on one trading partner, it will likely come out less exposed mainly on that country it is focussing on, lets say China. Against all the others, they come ahead of the US because most of the tariffs go against China, and Chinese tariffs go against the US. In effect, your suggestion just leads to China and the US weakening themselves while the other US trading partners are less affected. So you can claim in this scenario the US is less exposed than one country, but not against all its trading partners AT THE SAME TIME.

Another important aspect of a national economy is not just GDP, as in yearly production, but total national wealth which will provide a buffer against any temporary economic problems. US has a GDP of about $19.3 trillion but also a wealth of $93.5 trillion which is 33.4% of the world. In comparison EU has $72.4 trillion and China $29 trillion. EU,China,India,Canada and Mexico have a total combined wealth of $115.6 trillion as in 24% more than US which is a single unified country as opposed to disparate countries with various interests and even mutual conflicts. Even the EU members faces major problems when trying to agree on a unified policy towards the US.
US exports to the rest of the world are 1.7% of its wealth while Chinese exports to US are 1.4% of its wealth. In other words taken as a percentage of total wealth China is almost as exposed to US as US is to the entire world. And again US won't take on the entire world simultaneously with the same intensity.

If you're going to use total wealth instead of GDP, it makes your comparison pretty weak. Essentially both are hurt by wow, less than 2%. Each year the percentage will likely get even smaller, because both countries will still have some growth so their total wealth still gets higher. The US can brag its equally exposed as China with a whopping 1-2%. That really isn't going to hurt those countries that much. I mean if the government took 2% of my total wealth I would be pissed, but essentially my living standards would be utterly unaffected.

Just injecting my thoughts into your discussion with Kane here. Talking about trade and tariffs in terms of wealth and GDP, with whoever has the lowest exposure being the winner or whatever, is also a gross oversimplification, because not all trade goods are created equal. A tariff on a traded good is going to affect the price of both that good and any other good or service that relies on that good, so tariffs on critical resources are going to have a much bigger affect than an identical tariff on a luxury.

Take two hypothetical countries with the same GDP, the same amount of wealth, and the same amount of imports and exports as a percentage of their GDP. For all intents and purposes, they are two identical countries trading with each other. Suddenly, Country A puts tariffs on gasoline being imported from Country B. In retaliation, Country B matches those tariffs with ones on whiskey being imported from Country A. If you just go by exposure as a percentage of GDP then both countries would be identically affected by these tit-for-tat tariffs, but that doesn't make sense if you put any thought into it. A country that puts a tariff on imported gasoline is going experience a much bigger affect than an identical country that puts an identically-sized tariff on whiskey, because unless an alternate source is found, the country with the gasoline tariff is going to see the cost of living and the cost of doing business go up for every resident and local industry that uses gasoline, while the one with the whiskey tariff is pretty much only going to see it go up for bars, restaurants, and private citizens who drink whiskey.

A nation with fake human rights credentials withdrawing from an organisation with fake human rights credentials. Wow. This isn't a big deal in and of itself. However... I suspect the human rights council still has the perception of legitimacy so that could weaken the US.

The Human Rights Council may not have been particularly effective or useful, but by pulling out of it while simultaneously openly committing crimes against humanity, the US government is sending the message that it's not even going to pretend to give a shit about human rights, which is a big deal considering the US's economic and political clout, even if the US's records on human rights has never been as good as many Americans pretend it is.

[mr friendly guy]

If you see a person who actually comes out and says "there's nothing wrong with our institutions except that Trump somehow inexplicably got to be in charge of them," then yes, that is a valid point.

Otherwise, it's at best a complete waste of time, and at worst a form of concern trolling. That is to say, "the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion."

What should be the "genuine discussion" about? But if you think I anyone is trolling, go and report them instead of this passive aggressive bullshit and strawman.

And such discussion is indeed being undermined. If we can't talk about how Trump is genuinely changing the tone of US foreign policy by genuinely being more nativist, isolationist, and authoritarian than past presidents, because 'if we don't fix the media it'll all happen again' or whatever... That really isn't helping anyone except the Trumpistas.

Man you love your strawmen don't you? Here is a hint, the "it'll all happen again," isn't referring to the US being more nativitst, isolationist and authoritarian. Its referring to human right violations the US has done before Trump and likely will under Trump and after Trump. Its kind of obvious when I gave examples of done under Bush and Obama. Just in case it wasn't obvious, the lines of "Trump hasn't done X yet," kind of gives it away, but apparently not. Is this a symptom of Trump derangement syndrome the Right goes on about? Like the loss of ability to read what is written in favour of a way to attack Trump? I mean literally when people bring up problems deeper in US society which precedes Trump and helps give rise to Trump, we're met with "but you're helping the Trumpistas," blah blah. It's just a pathetic attempt to shut down debate.

Edit - "you're helping the Trumpistas" seems to the Left's version of "you're inadvertently helping the terrorists by criticising policy X."

[mr friendly guy]

Just injecting my thoughts into your discussion with Kane here. Talking about trade and tariffs in terms of wealth and GDP, with whoever has the lowest exposure being the winner or whatever, is also a gross oversimplification, because not all trade goods are created equal. A tariff on a traded good is going to affect the price of both that good and any other good or service that relies on that good, so tariffs on critical resources are going to have a much bigger affect than an identical tariff on a luxury.

True, not all trade is equal. However I am pointing out even by Kane's numbers and his logic, the US doesn't come out less exposed to every one of its trading partners. Maybe some, but not all.

Take two hypothetical countries with the same GDP, the same amount of wealth, and the same amount of imports and exports as a percentage of their GDP. For all intents and purposes, they are two identical countries trading with each other. Suddenly, Country A puts tariffs on gasoline being imported from Country B. In retaliation, Country B matches those tariffs with ones on whiskey being imported from Country A. If you just go by exposure as a percentage of GDP then both countries would be identically affected by these tit-for-tat tariffs, but that doesn't make sense if you put any thought into it. A country that puts a tariff on imported gasoline is going experience a much bigger affect than an identical country that puts an identically-sized tariff on whiskey, because unless an alternate source is found, the country with the gasoline tariff is going to see the cost of living and the cost of doing business go up for every resident and local industry that uses gasoline, while the one with the whiskey tariff is pretty much only going to see it go up for bars, restaurants, and private citizens who drink whiskey.

The Human Rights Council may not have been particularly effective or useful, but by pulling out of it while simultaneously openly committing crimes against humanity, the US government is sending the message that it's not even going to pretend to give a shit about human rights, which is a big deal considering the US's economic and political clout, even if the US's records on human rights has never been as good as many Americans pretend it is.

No, they are still pretending to care about human rights, just not as part of the Human Rights council.

Take Nickey Haley's statements

"Human rights abusers continue to serve on, and be elected to, the council,"

"The world's most inhumane regimes continue to escape its scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in its ranks."

The statement on its own would suggest they publicly quit the Human rights council because its currently not serving the cause of human rights.

[Elheru Aran]

Do you really think the Trump administration *cares* about human rights?

That's cute.

[Simon_Jester]

If you see a person who actually comes out and says "there's nothing wrong with our institutions except that Trump somehow inexplicably got to be in charge of them," then yes, that is a valid point.

Otherwise, it's at best a complete waste of time, and at worst a form of concern trolling. That is to say, "the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion."

What should be the "genuine discussion" about?

Gee, I dunno. Since this is a foreign policy thread, presumably it'd be about all sorts of foreign policy issues, including both the US's human rights stance and its participation in international norms.

Here, your response to "under Trump, the US is realigning itself towards an authoritarian bloc" was "the US's human rights stance has always been hypocritical, so let's talk about that instead." That's the kind of thing that's very effective at derailing what people are trying to say.

But if you think I anyone is trolling, go and report them instead of this passive aggressive bullshit and strawman.

On the contrary, the charitable assumption would be that you are wasting all our time.

The thing is, you're wasting all our time by doing the same thing a concern troll would do under the circumstances: throwing a big slab of "well what about X" into the debate.

If you know why concern trolling is bad (namely, that it's disruptive and prevents discussion of other issues), you should be able to make the connection that what you're doing presents the same problem.

And such discussion is indeed being undermined. If we can't talk about how Trump is genuinely changing the tone of US foreign policy by genuinely being more nativist, isolationist, and authoritarian than past presidents, because 'if we don't fix the media it'll all happen again' or whatever... That really isn't helping anyone except the Trumpistas.

Man you love your strawmen don't you? Here is a hint, the "it'll all happen again," isn't referring to the US being more nativitst, isolationist and authoritarian. Its referring to human right violations the US has done before Trump and likely will under Trump and after Trump. Its kind of obvious when I gave examples of done under Bush and Obama. Just in case it wasn't obvious, the lines of "Trump hasn't done X yet," kind of gives it away, but apparently not.

Yes. That's kind of the point. Someone said something about what Trump was doing, in the Trump foreign policy thread, the one place you'd expect to be a good place to discuss the foreign policies of, specifically, President Trump. Where Trump-foreign-policy specific discussions would have right of way over fully generic complaints about the litany of American crimes that you could equally well be making if Clinton were president.

You'd think so, given the thread title.

Is this a symptom of Trump derangement syndrome the Right goes on about? Like the loss of ability to read what is written in favour of a way to attack Trump? I mean literally when people bring up problems deeper in US society which precedes Trump and helps give rise to Trump, we're met with "but you're helping the Trumpistas," blah blah. It's just a pathetic attempt to shut down debate.

Edit - "you're helping the Trumpistas" seems to the Left's version of "you're inadvertently helping the terrorists by criticising policy X."

Well in this case, you're pretty blatantly trying to override an existing statement about the implications of a specific Trump foreign policy decision, in a Trump foreign policy thread, to talk about this deeper problem that you think is more important.

Which, one, is very much a disruption... And, two, does have the net effect of making it less possible to talk about what Trump, specifically, is doing in the name of hijacking all political discussions and turning them into bland rehashed lectures along the lines of "you Americans need to feel bad about

• "

[mr friendly guy]

Do you really think the Trump administration *cares* about human rights?

That's cute.

No. My statement is that they will continue to PRETEND to care about human rights.

[mr friendly guy]

Here, your response to "under Trump, the US is realigning itself towards an authoritarian bloc" was "the US's human rights stance has always been hypocritical, so let's talk about that instead." That's the kind of thing that's very effective at derailing what people are trying to say.

Actually it was a response to "U.S. withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council," you know the title of the linked article that prompted my comment on the US humans rights records. Hence mentioning about its both the human rights record of the council and the US is utterly relevant dumbass. But we both know you'll persist with this strawman.

The thing is, you're wasting all our time by doing the same thing a concern troll would do under the circumstances: throwing a big slab of "well what about X" into the debate.

If you know why concern trolling is bad (namely, that it's disruptive and prevents discussion of other issues), you should be able to make the connection that what you're doing presents the same problem.

So you think I am trolling, but you lack the confidence in that conviction to report me. Why am I not surprised?

Yes. That's kind of the point. Someone said something about what Trump was doing, in the Trump foreign policy thread, the one place you'd expect to be a good place to discuss the foreign policies of, specifically, President Trump. Where Trump-foreign-policy specific discussions would have right of way over fully generic complaints about the litany of American crimes that you could equally well be making if Clinton were president.

You'd think so, given the thread title.

Read the title of the article moron. "US withdraws from the UN Human Rights council". Someone posts an article about it, and I talk about. But since you're a little slow today, let me repeat how that is relevant to Trump Foreign policy. Because withdrawing from the UN human rights council is a foreign policy.

But wait there is more. I said in my first post the significance of this move, ie not much. A comment on the significance, or lack of significance for a Trump policy is relevant to a thread about Trump policies. Yeah I know right, what a revelation. Oh wait, I am only allowed to talk about the significance if I toe the company and conclude that it does move the US towards a more authoritarian stance? Because it seems like if I didn't say that, you will accuse me of saying nothing relevant about Trumps foreign policy. Genius you are.

Going on, I also justified why I think not much would change (yeah I know right, justifying an argument, totally not the Simon Jester way). You in turn, ignore the fact I made a conclusion about it, and focus on my justification and start going on about how the justification is derailing and hurting your feelings as an American.

You can disagree with me whether it makes little difference, but you're utterly delusional if you say that comment has nothing to do with Trump's foreign policy.

BTW can you tell me how you managed to conclude Trump is "genuinely being more nativist, isolationist, and authoritarian than past presidents" in terms of Foreign policy, without also breaking your rule of not raising "generic complaints about the litany of American crimes." I know you're a little conceited here, but you would have to compare Trump to previous presidents to draw that conclusion. So its apparently wrong for me to compare it to past presidents and say that he is less worse in some areas. Like for example if I say he hasn't done something as worse as Iraq, that's suddenly bringing up past American crimes. Maybe if I just said, Trump is less than Bush with no justification, totally ok right? Or maybe we have to toe the company line and say Trump's foreign policy makes the US worse in every single respect even if I don't believe so.

Which, one, is very much a disruption... And, two, does have the net effect of making it less possible to talk about what Trump, specifically, is doing in the name of hijacking all political discussions and turning them into bland rehashed lectures along the lines of "you Americans need to feel bad about

• "

OMG, I made you feel bad. How would you ever forgive me? Oh wait a minute. Making you feel bad was not my intention, but nice to see you give ammunition to the Right calling the Left snowflakes.

Maybe my point was (which flew right over your head) is, this particular Trump policy didn't make much difference because of reasons x,y,z. You then go, reasons x,y,z makes me feel bad, wah wah. Grow the fuck up Simon.

[Simon_Jester]

Here, your response to "under Trump, the US is realigning itself towards an authoritarian bloc" was "the US's human rights stance has always been hypocritical, so let's talk about that instead." That's the kind of thing that's very effective at derailing what people are trying to say.

Actually it was a response to "U.S. withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council," you know the title of the linked article that prompted my comment on the US humans rights records. Hence mentioning about its both the human rights record of the council and the US is utterly relevant dumbass. But we both know you'll persist with this strawman.

People started a discussion in a thread about Trump's foreign policy about how the US withdrawal has implications for Trump's foreign policy. You decided you'd rather have a discussion about its implications for Obamabushclintonreaganjohnsoneisenhower's foreign policy instead.

You can make an excuse for it being in context, but it is an excuse.

The thing is, you're wasting all our time by doing the same thing a concern troll would do under the circumstances: throwing a big slab of "well what about X" into the debate.

If you know why concern trolling is bad (namely, that it's disruptive and prevents discussion of other issues), you should be able to make the connection that what you're doing presents the same problem.

So you think I am trolling, but you lack the confidence in that conviction to report me. Why am I not surprised?

I have no idea if you are trolling, you horrible little man, but I do know that you are doing exactly the thing that a concern troll would do. If you are not a troll, you'll be thinking "gee, maybe I shouldn't repetitively whatabout threads where other people have started discussing an article in terms of one thing.

Yes. That's kind of the point. Someone said something about what Trump was doing, in the Trump foreign policy thread, the one place you'd expect to be a good place to discuss the foreign policies of, specifically, President Trump. Where Trump-foreign-policy specific discussions would have right of way over fully generic complaints about the litany of American crimes that you could equally well be making if Clinton were president.

You'd think so, given the thread title.

Read the title of the article moron. "US withdraws from the UN Human Rights council". Someone posts an article about it, and I talk about. But since you're a little slow today, let me repeat how that is relevant to Trump Foreign policy. Because withdrawing from the UN human rights council is a foreign policy.

But wait there is more. I said in my first post the significance of this move, ie not much. A comment on the significance, or lack of significance for a Trump policy is relevant to a thread about Trump policies. Yeah I know right, what a revelation. Oh wait, I am only allowed to talk about the significance if I toe the company and conclude that it does move the US towards a more authoritarian stance? Because it seems like if I didn't say that, you will accuse me of saying nothing relevant about Trumps foreign policy. Genius you are.

Going on, I also justified why I think not much would change (yeah I know right, justifying an argument, totally not the Simon Jester way). You in turn, ignore the fact I made a conclusion about it, and focus on my justification and start going on about how the justification is derailing and hurting your feelings as an American.

"Hey, instead of talking about Trump's foreign policy and speculating that he's trying to realign the US on the international stage, a large scale thing that this particular thing is just one small illustration of, let's talk about Obamabushclintonreaganjohnsoneisenhower's foreign policy instead, with a healthy side order of calling out Americans for the 837th time!"

Because that shit's always nice and fresh... It makes a great way to snuff out conversations about anything else, and it's always the same. Ever-young. So convenient.

[The Romulan Republic]

Only 70% you say? But, those also happen the some of history's most notable autocrats from Napoleon to Nasser to Marcos to the Argentine and Chilean juntas ofbthe 70s and early 80s to Pol Pot to the whole frigging House of Saud, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, and that's not even mentioning the Christian religious terrorists and baby killers brave Irish freedom fighters, Al Qaeda Toyota warriors, and Taliban shitheads.

For a land of the free, we Americans have thrown our support behind a great many shitheads. Some of which we actually put in office.

P.S. Get stuffed, Rom. We've normalized this shit way before we, the craven fucking cowards, put our man Trump in office, and started blaming foreigners for it, like we always do, when we don't want to take responsibility for our actions.

Don't like it? Can't face it? Then, by all means, feel free to double down on sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming the tune of American Exceptionalism over and over, like some others have chosen to do. You won't be the first. You certainly won't be the last.

But, your name will be amongst those cursed by future generations. Goddamn us all to hell.

You know, if I went off on another poster with an unprovoked, defamatory, flame-laden rant like this (as you have to me on multiple occassions now), I would probably be accused of lying and shit-posting, and possibly threatened with a ban. Just saying.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey Simon, I notice you haven't actually answered why is it ok to discuss Trump's foreign policy by comparing to previous presidents, but when I do it, its magically derailment. You are clearly comparing Trump's policy to past presidents, you even state it. Your lack of self awareness would be comedic if it wasn't so pathetic.

People started a discussion in a thread about Trump's foreign policy about how the US withdrawal has implications for Trump's foreign policy. You decided you'd rather have a discussion about its implications for Obamabushclintonreaganjohnsoneisenhower's foreign policy instead.

You're really grasping at straws to make that strawman aren't you? Can you point out where I said how Trump's decision to withdraw from the UN council affects Obama's policy? Because that would kind of require time travel. Just show where I said what you alleged to say, and you can blow me out of the metaphorical water. Oh wait, that'll never happen because you're too busy setting fire to the strawmen.

BTW since you choose to be deliberately dense, I am pretty much stated what implications Trump's policy had on the UN humans rights council and the US standing. Very little. It said in my post straight after the article.

You can make an excuse for it being in context, but it is an excuse.

It becomes to harder to handwave it away as an excuse, when you also compare Trump's policies to past presidents. Try harder buddy, I am sure you'll eventually make something stick.

I have no idea if you are trolling, you horrible little man, but I do know that you are doing exactly the thing that a concern troll would do. If you are not a troll, you'll be thinking "gee, maybe I shouldn't repetitively whatabout threads where other people have started discussing an article in terms of one thing.

Ah, now I see the problem. Every time someone says, while Trump believe it or not compares better than past president in this metric, its whataboutism. Don't you know, its only ok to compare to past presidents when we point out how shitty Trump is. Gotcha.

Hey, instead of talking about Trump's foreign policy and speculating that he's trying to realign the US on the international stage, a large scale thing that this particular thing is just one small illustration of, let's talk about Obamabushclintonreaganjohnsoneisenhower's foreign policy instead, with a healthy side order of calling out Americans for the 837th time!"

Because that shit's always nice and fresh... It makes a great way to snuff out conversations about anything else, and it's always the same. Ever-young. So convenient.

Good thing I did talk about Trump's foreign policy. I stated it makes little change to previous policy in terms of actual human rights. The article was about human rights council, but lets talk about how the policy affects American isolation instead, on an article about the human rights council.

PS, before you jump in about how people wanted to talk about American isolation rather than the human rights per, I should point, two other posters also talked about the effect this had on human rights / human rights council as well. I am sure being the intellectual honest person you are, you will also call them out right? Right?

PPS - the thread is titled "Trump Dump foreign policy", not "Trump is trying to realign the US on the international stage". Just making sure you understood this, since you soooo love pointing out the title of the threads/articles to justify what you think people should be discussing.