I Don't Think I Can Defend a Trump Presidency

Actually, she made mention of that interview in her book. It turns out that the man had mistranslated the question, and that the questioner was asking about President Obama's policies, not Clinton's. Just an example of how a mistranslation can turn any good conversation into an argument.(This is also why I want to buy these type of books in the future. Only way to know the system is to intimately know the people in it.)

We've seen from Donald Trump how a runoff can work in the favor of a minority party. If you splinter off the vote, and get a majority of the remaining percentage then you'd win. The issue of course, lies in getting a majority of that percentage. To simplify, let's say that 15% of the vote goes to the Republicans(Mainstream Conservatives) in the foreseeable future. That leaves 85% left of the electorate to fight over.

At a minimum, we would have to get 43% of the vote to win that election. It'd be 43%-42%-15%(Again, presuming you have a 100% full number.) It doesn't of course always work like that. There are undecideds who don't vote.(And as we can see, among undecided and independents, we have a clear advantage because hell, that's the group we're from.)

As long as Republicans are the disenfranchised, incapable party that they are, we have a pretty long and sustainable road map forward to power in this country.

And I agree with Ricky: As Nationalists, we don't want more war. If we wanted that, we'd be satisfied with the status quo. I cannot speak for every Nationalist's foreign policy. But I know mine is inspired by two American events: Detente(Nixon) and Manifest Destiny(James F. Polk.)

Long before a Donald Trump existed, Richard Nixon's policy of Detente broke through the silent wall of Sovietism and was the start of the long negotiations that met a crucial point with Ronald Reagan. Nixon also reached out to the Chinese. Nixon's policy of Detente was the opposite of the Democratic-led Vietnam War and it paved the path for peace.

http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/detente

In short, the current President rejects Containment. I see containment as a necessity. Rather than the outbreak of military factions, I'd like to see ironclad alliances posing as both an opportunity for countries and a deterrent for would-be aggressors. Further, I disagree that Reagan "signaled the end of Detente" as History would put it.

No, Reagan's belief in peace through strength was only possible through the diplomatic ground work that Nixon achieved. It was only in meeting with Gorbachev that they would take the wall down and restore relations not only with the US, but a unified Germany as well. Peace through strength was accomplished with peace first. Both of these presidents through their separate efforts, created an effective foreign policy. Is it any surprise that having abandoned the work of Detente, the situation around the world worsened? Because we emboldened factions, we didn't disempower them.

But first and foremost, Manifest Destiny. The absolute right and assurance of the United States. A superpower can only be such, when it recognizes itself. In yesterday's terms, that was Polk annexing the territories of Texas and California. In today's terms, it's far more economic: The re-working of the trade deals. The common alliances in the Eurasian Sphere.

It means reasserting our rights in the Pacific Hemisphere and working with Japan to protect the Pacific Ocean from any possible calamities or influence(In other words, I pursue a shared alignment with Japan in the Pacific. With the US-Japan mutually strong and overlooking the Pacific, there will be no incursions into the Pacific.) And thus meaning that an ocean war would be impossible because we could head them off before they even begin their assault.

I would also like to open up a much bigger diplomatic front, involving China or Russia. The key is which one we can come to terms with sooner. And coming to terms with one of these regional powers means different things.

Benefits to Chinese Relations:
If we ally(as in a peace-military/defense type of treaty) with the Chinese, we might see China push hereto unprecedented pressure on the North Koreans. We could also
gain a crucial ally against Russia.
It would allow us to easily side with the European Union against Russia. In short, a US-Chinese front would allow us to control Central Asian politics and present a two-way front with Russia. Forcing Russia to either surrender or to join the coalition.

However, as things currently(and historically stand), a US-Chinese front would mean losing Japan and thus, losing the US-Japanese front that I spoke about on the Pacific. So the only way we can ally with China, is if we can get China-Japan to end their historic 100's years of feuding to become allies. I think we're in a unique position to do it. And if we do do it, we'll be in control of Central Asia for the foreseeable future.

Now, let's talk about the other way around:

Alliance with Russia:
Now, the alliance with Russia gained steam among US Political commentators on here in 2014, when Putin made strong suggestions against terrorism(due to their own problems with the Chechnya incidents. The Pentagon has shown a complete incapability to dealing with terrorism, including when the Russians gave us clues to the Boston Marathon bomber and we didn't take it. For many Americans, the terrorist threat is one of the biggest threats we face.

And Libertarian cries not withstanding, I too, refuse to hold the prospect of my death or the death of family members(or yours) on the account of 'we were unlucky that day'. No! No nation deserves to suffer under the scourge of terrorism. And a common front on this enemy of humanity is most welcomed.

There's also economic(oil) concerns that we can utilize as well, to ween ourselves off OPEC. A US-Russian economic deal in this way, would go a great deal to lowering energy prices and helping with our consumption needs. The President points out our own production, all the more reason to join with other producers to create a new, fairer system(at the most) and at least, to share it amongst ourselves.

Of course, I do share concerns about human rights in Russia. About criminal cronyism in Russia and the lack of a political opposition. But unlike Hillary, I'm not about to go to WWIII for it. And I don't necessarily think it's a game breaker. If it's a concern, we should strengthen the UN to be able to deal with these problems. But they're not the problems of a US that needs to govern its own geopolitical affairs for its interests.

Basically: Oil-Rich and anti-terrorist Russia is a strong ally on two major US fronts of interest. Also, China is supporting North Korea's regime, a regime that has threatened us with nuclear weapons, threatened our allies with nuclear weapons and in my opinion, this is the country that will pose the most problems in the future. Russia also happens to believe in a policy of containment(in Eurasia anyway) just as we do.

It's not recreating the Soviet Bloc. If it were, we would've already seen a much more aggressive Russia. Russia's playing a policy of defense, not offense.

With a US-Russia alliance, the US-Japanese front in the Pacific can be maintained and in fact significantly strengthened. Since Russia is no longer on China's side, China looks around and sees there isn't any other Asian Power besides itself against the United States. China is now in the same predicament Russia is in: Either they'd be foolish enough to entertain a front against US-Russia(entirely possible, but not probable.) Or to cede to our demands.

On this equation, the EU replaces Japan as the ally-at-risk. But I think we can negotiate a deal with the EU-Russia, with the US as a balance breaker. We can have Russia join NATO, and thus clearing up Russia's fear of NATO as a balwark against Russia. And in exchange, Russia's joining NATO(and the guarantee not to attack another member State) will ensure peace and prosperity in the Baltics.

Ironically, in Hillary's leaked emails, a businessman laid out my course of action(Not in specifics), a merger of super powers will allow us to maintain peace in Eurasia and Pacific, and will actually let the developing countries grow. This is the same circumstance that existed from 1960-2001(the start of the War on Terror.) And this is what we have to get back to.

And yes, let's dump the ME as a dumpster fire for everyone involved. As long as a US-Israeli joint alliance is seen, Israel will always be antagonistic towards other ME countries and the other ME countries will be antagonistic towards Israel. Breaking the alliance has two possible outcomes: Israel does invoke it's MAD policy but now that the US is a neutral country, we can be more than prepared to offset any Israeli offensive. Something that changes that map completely.

Or, in a middle eastern awakening caused by our neutrality, Israel pursues allies in the region and meanwhile the other countries see a neutral but still hawk watching USA as a warning not to do anything stupid. We'll have more influence being neutral, than by picking a side.

It's not that we want more war, we just see the map for what it is. And the Pentagon should be crucified for its incompetence. I know that hurts Hillary's little feelings, but there's only two factors that are important: Success or failure, and they've failed. Both in maintaining peace and in maintaining US Supremacy.

 

Unfortunately, the Chinese are fundamentally set up to be our adversaries, and there is virtually no way we can ever have a true alliance with them. Despite what they say, the Chinese want to replace the United States as the world's El Hefe and create a new world order based on their model. The best we can hope for is not going to war with them and keeping relations stable.

 

Yes, his policies are not the problem. His personality is just killing him with people, and some of the things he says are flat-out stupid when your trying to win an election this late in the game. The fact that he keeps doing this, even now, shows just how impulsive he is.

Hmmm, I'm not sure what pundit or intellectual I'd choose if I could. Perhaps Sam Harris? I think Sam Harris is reasonable enough and has enough integrity to do a good job, though he is too much of a globalist, in my opinion.

 

If I were POTUS and that was China's position, then that is indeed unfortunate. It then pushes me towards Russia, and getting the Russo-EU agreement in place. And then strengthening Japan(as well as the other Asiatic countries.) Since China has supported its proxy North Korea, that I see as the most dangerous country in the world right now.

If we don't defuse or topple the NK regime, I have great fears that NK will soon be the aggressors. Hence the need to breakup the Chinese-Russian relationship as soon as possible. We've seen the kind of behavior of NK numerous times in the past. The so-called country claiming that it wants 'funds' or 'assistance' and a few short years later, that country is now attacking.

This time, with nukes. I think negotiation and diplomacy with North Korea has been exercised to its fullest. I'm under no delusion and I'd tell Kim Jong that. Whereas Republicans focused on 'Iran, Iran, Iran', they didn't even give the slightest concern to this would-be genocidal power in Asia. And with China's explicit support, they're going to go on the aggressive sooner rather than later.

Especially if your call on China is right. The Chinese will feel when the moment is right, to ally themselves militarily with North Korea.

I love all humans, indiscriminately. It should be my wish that no war is ever launched. But sometimes(as the two world wars showed us), the way to prevent a war is to display a show of force against would be aggressors. And right now, North Korea's propaganda is dangerous as a would be aggressor. I fear it'll turn from "would be" to "actual" aggressor in perhaps a couple of years.

The sanction dog-and-pony show doesn't matter to a regime focused solely on its weapons department.

 

The Chinese view the north as a buffer zone for China and nothing more. More importantly, they don't want millions of NK refugees storming their northern border if/when America topples the NK regime, so they maintain their support, though not very enthusiastically. When I was in China, the general perception of North Korea wasn't terribly different than our own, though they actually have NK citizens who live and work in China. In fact, I actually went to a North Korean restaurant!

The Chinese have had their eyes on domination since Mao, maybe even before, and Deng Xiaoping was not asleep when Japan was kicking our ass back in the early 80's. To understand modern China you really have to understand Deng Xiaoping and the way he thought about things. Back during The War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and into the fifties, Mao actually thought Deng was a right-winger and considered him a major threat. Deng spent many years banished to the countryside, on multiple occasions, but never admitted to being a rightist. Of course, as soon as he gained power he pretty much abandoned communism in its entirety and converted China into a fascist regime--that they are still called the CCP is one of life's great absurdities. One of the things he wanted was to see China eventually come to dominate global affairs, though he never said so openly. Only recently have we come to learn that Deng always intended for China to eventually supplant the US, and he laid quite a foundation toward that end. None of the things that have happened in our relationship have been random, and this is game plan far beyond the ability of our incompetent leaders to address.

One prominent general wrote a book titled "The China Dream, (中国梦）" in which the long term strategy of China and their perspective on world affairs is fully revealed. I read the translation of the book for a class, and let me just say that it is quite chilling--if you can find it I highly recommend it. There are other things that point to a long-term game plan that is detrimental to our well-being, but I won't bore you with anymore details lol.

China doesn't want a major war, but they want to shut us down and supplant us. They want us to play according to their rules, and they are actively trying to make it happen.

 

I have not read this book(but then, it may very well be in Chinese and despite my listening to J-Pop, I cannot profess to have a bilateral tongue. Is that strange BTW? To absolutely love foreign music, and at best reading the subtitles but not really grasping it?) I feel like the Japanese singers just have deeper music, rather than our own discombobulated culture.

Getting back on topic, from what you said(and what I read in Kissinger's book, the Grand Chessboard), it would appear China's Celestial Kingdom is an economic, rather than military dominance with Shanghai at its center. China would want to be the hub for all things Asia(very similarly to Japan's Greater Far East sphere.) And it would want to neutralize the powers from Eurasia(Russia) and the West(US).

In a way, if my analysis is correct, the US-Chinese policy is actually a mirror of each other. Just coming from different regions. In all honesty, if we weren't allied with Japan or into the East, the US-Chinese friendship could exist. Unfortunately, I cannot see myself giving up our presence in Asia(and specifically with regards to Japan) as we share the Pacific-Western Hemisphere.

I can understand and sympathize with China's concerns with refugees(see: Our own Syrian concerns). I suppose, I should detail what I think for the World. Indeed, it's not just a US-foreign policy. I'm going bigger than that: How should the world conduct itself.

I dub it the Separation of Powers Doctrine. If I had it my way, Mexico would have its sphere of influence So would the U.S have it's sphere, England its own sphere, etc and on it goes. Mutually accepting and understanding the separate powers, without unnecessary interference whatsoever. In short, I see the map similarly to the Three Kingdoms(since we're talking China.)

If All powers are equal, they're neutralized out. And if a power regulates and governs its jurisdiction in a just fashion regarding human rights, there would be no need for proxy states/actors. Idealistic? Very much so. Pragmatic? I believe so. Where Globalism failed, was it tried to shoehorn everyone into this box. But the only true way for the human race to reach out to each other, is to talk like this and to reach out our hands.

We'll never like each other 100%, so let's stop trying for 100%. Let's try for 50% and then working on the other 50% later, together.

 

Just more reasons why it makes sense for the U.S.A to help build up China's economy by sending our jobs over there.

(rolls eyes)

 

Any system can support dominating the World, this is not exclusive to Nationalism, the Communists supported similar, and Communists are generally the antithesis of Nationalism.

 

Trump on the inverse can appeal to a lot of Union Democrats, who are tired of the elites cutting their throats by handing jobs to foreigners by exporting jobs, and importing illegals.

The problem is not Trump's agenda, it's Trump's mouth.

 

Truth be told, power itself is always up for grabs. Even including this democracy(Hillary's comments, and the comments of that US Army general should suffice to rationalize it.). The difference is in the utilization of power.

Communism(The 'elevation' of the worker's class, ultimately through 'sameness' and not coincidentally filters money to the top), Democracy(dispenses with the 'community' crap and just flat out tells you your life is for and by corporatism.) And Nationalism/Third Position: An agreement reached by both corporations and citizens to support the Country over their selfish wishes, thereby complimenting each other and creating the Ideal State for all involved.

It'd be for the best if every Nation was Nationalistic(IE: Every nation took care of the wellbeing of its citizens) instead of the pure corporate welfare that has resulted in warfare.

 

Which nationalist countries would there be?

The closest would be Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and China?
(All have high economic growth)

 

Contrary to popular belief, most 20th century wars the U.S.A was involved with were done by Democrats.

WW1 - Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

WW2 - Democrat F.D.R.

Korea - Democrat Truman.

Vietnam - Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

Afghan - Soviet war - Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Bosnia - Democrat Bill Clinton.

Kosovo - Democrat Bill Clinton.

 

I find it hilarious that democrats, ostensibly the party of anti-corporatism, have never managed to make this connection. Even Plato understood this, 2,500 years ago! The merchants ultimately manipulate the people into doing their bidding, and it has always been this way.

 

I didn't understand it until a Hillary supporter(way back in 08 ) told me I couldn't vote, so my opinion didn't matter(I was an Obama supporter at the time) at 16 years old. And I'm like. "Yeah...okay"(totally shattered) but it made me leave the party and as you can plainly see: More politically intelligent for it. I'm kind of thankful in a weird, sadistic sense. Wouldn't be anywhere close to the thinker I am now if not for the jerkwad.

 

Very true.

Once you get sucked in to either partisan void, your mind is basically destroyed. The people who blindly follow these clowns, no matter how intelligent they may seem, are fundamentally flawed in their ability to reason about the world. They just don't get it, and they never will.

 

I agree. Once you join a party, any party(even Nationalism should not be so devout as a concept as to be blind to any challenges or changing times), you lose that crucial element of discernment which is necessary for anyone to critically think. In my little venture into the void of philosophy, I had also brought a Game Theory lecture course. I love learning a lot. It's just, I get frustrated with myself when I don't grasp something quickly(or when there's alot to digest in general.)

Because I'm so used to getting it quickly. Kind of a pride thing. Foolish? Yeah, but hey we've all got our quirks. So I can understand why Donald doesn't/didn't want to take that time prepping for the debate. But I'm prepping even now for my 2018 run. Why? Because I don't want to lose, that's why. If it takes time, I'm just gonna swallow my pride and take the time.

 

You really, really need to start small. I mean really small, and then get a feel for things. Do you really think you could win any high-level office in the near future? I'm not sure you are being pragmatic about this, no offense.

The thing about math is that it is all about delaying gratification. It takes years of study before you ever get to learn anything interesting, and this is precisely why I never went far with it. I wanted to learn physics, was told I would need grad school, and ultimately said (*)(*)(*)(*) it and pursued foreign language.

 

Well, we've got people with no experience(Ben Carson) running for freaking president. If these people can run for president with no experience, then I can run for a House seat. Of course, running as an independent has its unique challenges. And maybe I would be *better off* trying to be an intern. But I know I'm qualified for this job.

I know I'm more qualified than the two outstanding idiots we're about to pick. With that knowledge, I just have to work the technical details of getting on the ballot and then letting my ideas shine on the debate stage. It's also because I hate being a voter, or a part of a cog machine. The only way you have power to change the system, is to be in it.

If it sounds like a line for line quote from Hillary, it's because on that at least, we completely agree.

 

Fascism is a form of Corporatism though, where Corporations are managed to benefit the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

We don't have Corporatism, we have what Mussolini referred to as Super Capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapitalism_(concept_in_Italian_Fascism)

 

Corporatism, as Mussolini mentioned it, was perhaps an accurate term for 20th century terms(In the same way that Liberalism and Classical Liberalism are two inherently different entities). Mussolini was not referring to Corporatism, as in a Corporate-ran State(what he identifies here as Super Capitalism).. No, we can use the words Cooperative State, to inference the Fascist/Third Position mindset.

It doesn't suffice that a Corporation can exist on its own, or that people would exist on behalf of corporations. And neither does it suffice that government(which regulations aside does not have a financial incentive or product) should enter the markets voluntarily. All three components: Corporations, Government and People must work together to create a State.

Corporations must(and by their function) create jobs for people to be productive. And Government must utilize the efficiencies of Corporations and of the People to micromanage the economy in as efficient of a way as possible. Government must do this, as an independent broker. The best way to allow everyone to have the most gains, is to maintain a level of order within the financial system so that the consistency enables growth.

The worst thing in the market has been ebbs and flows, and systematic crashes. A system that is thus regulated and at the same time enabled to flow, this delicate balance being achieved is what will lead to a recovery.

 

I'm not sure why you guys insist on micromanaging everything. There is no reason we can't keep regulations minimal at the low level and focus on the big guys. This is what China does, and I think it is quite effective.

 

I Don't Think I Can Defend a Trump Presidency

I can't either.
However I'd rather be in a position to not defend a Trump Presidency than in a position to oppose a Hillary Presidency..

 

I certainly can not defend a Trump presidency, but I can't defend a Clinton presidency either.

 

Or perhaps the foot he is always sticking into it.

 

What if he "hires a dream team" to help out with public policies?