Donald Trump

For those who don't get the contrast between lions and lambs, I offer another quote:

"

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!

Perhaps that will clarify the sentiment. ='[.]'=

it wasn't a misunderstanding of sentiment in the quote, just a little topical humor relating to a dentist shooting a lion and how corporate America is going to shoot Donald's Lion for sport, because that is what we will be getting, unfettered sport for corporations, up to and including seizing of privatly owned land in the name of profit, if Donald's track record is admissable.

"

Disrupted wrote:

Now whether that's good or not to run a country depends entirely on what moves and where you play your cards. and frankly I havent seen enough of the deck to judge it myself.
He can play audiences, that's for sure.


I disagree with the "negotiating from a point of power" being bullshit, America is a superpower, if anything its stupid to not to use the influence you have to leverage bargains (that does not necessarily imply military intervention, if you meant it that way then Its another case). Any nation should be concerned with protecting their own sovereignty first and foremost, while not forgetting all of the other players. one real problem with the average voter with good intentions is that they forget that the world isnt as kind as you are, and your good intentions can easily be answered with an intent to crush you. Like in business, one does not rise to the top and stay there without improving yourself and crushing the competition. and you dont need to crush the little guys (thought often they are indirectly crushed, but that isnt necessarily the truth for international politics), just cull the most threatening.

Well, US has used too much strength already. If someone gave me a coin each time US behaved like a bully (not just with guns, they like to sabotage countries economically and politically for some random realpolitik reason) I'd be rich. I wish the rulers in US behaved with wisdom rather than with strength. US has already too much strength for no good reason. Here in South America there are a lot of people hostile to US because of some things they have done in the past. Negotiating from strength is bullshit. Knowing what to do with less strength is more valuable. Cunning is more preferable.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

For those who don't get the contrast between lions and lambs, I offer another quote:

"

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!

Perhaps that will clarify the sentiment. ='[.]'=

You don't get it. That kind of thought can make life hell. Think of Theon Greyjoy, and how his wish to live "like a lion" ended...The life of iron and salt sucks.

Also, think of Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost ("Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven").

It's not one pride, one's actions can affect other people. Some times is better to be humilliated rather than bring death and suffering to many people. Sometimes is better to be on your knees.

also big ups to Iranian people for voting in a moderate to what would definitely pass for liberal in Iran government, on the back of America's 'weakness'.

^before I make a wrong assumption:

what do you mean?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, US has used too much strength already. If someone gave me a coin each time US behaved like a bully (not just with guns, they like to sabotage countries economically and politically for some random realpolitik reason) I'd be rich.

True true. I didnt particularly meant to refer to embargoes (wich while having the objective of hurting their leaders, just ends up as making the innocent populace suffer) or destabilization of middle east, shark deals forced on poor countries and whatnot, but rather just hard-sell economic trade deals with stronger ones.
I think there are some rising superpowers that need to be tackled rather than poor underdeveloped countries.
Its easy to prey on the weak, and that to me isnt strength at all.

I think the world is better off with mr. Trump than any of the other candidates. The only other guy i would consider is Mr. Bernie Sanders, however sadly he has no chance due to the massive corruption in the "democratic" party.

Just please americans save the world from Hillary... that women is evil itself.
a vote for Hilary is vote for corporate global slavery, islamic terrorism , genoicide and endless war... probably even a 3. world war.

Ohh and a side note about the frequently played racist-card :

the " if you don't agree you are a racist" arguement is pretty stupid, even though the neo-liberal media uses it to play on it's fake moral-imperialism, do not fall to it.

You can easily disagree without beeing racist,facist, or "hitler".

Well, his tariff solution for China is going to backfire horribly. I don't trust him to solve anything about trade. It maybe a problem (US is winning with trade deals overall, but the people that lost were fucked because safety nets are socialist or something), but he is just asking for crude protectionism.

If anything, other countries are getting fucked by trade deals rather than US. China has an advantage because they are not forced to treat their citizens properly, and they don't care about intellectual property, but that's it.

Automation is more to blame for the current labor problems in the world than anything, what US needs is to make easier for their citizens to learn new skills and adapt to the world, rather than let them rot.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't trust him to solve anything about trade.

how come u don't trust someone with trade, who basically spent his whole life with trading pretty succesfully? I mean going from 1 million$ loan to 10$billion company seems pretty impressive to me.

"

tr1gg3r3d wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I don't trust him to solve anything about trade.

how come u don't trust someone with trade, who basically spent his whole life with trading pretty succesfully? I mean going from 1 million$ loan to 10$billion company seems pretty impressive to me.

Winning money and knowing about macroeconomics are not the same thing. Hell, some hedge fund managers are ignorant as fuck.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It's not the problem strength per se, it's the fact that the rhetoric of some implies that strength is a necessary quality in a leader (it's not, I'd say charisma, wisdom. and skill to coordinate with others are what matters). I don't care about a leader that brags about strength, and Trump is a colossal braggart full of hot air. Forget racism, that's not the main flaw of Trump (I'd argue that he is just cynically manipulating the xenophobic impulses of some people, rather than believing what he says, so the constant trolling). "Negotiating from a position of strength" is bullshit, and you know it.

The concept of "Negotiating from a position of strength" isn't a philosophy, or an opinion. It is a de facto outcome. Strength in this case isn't always physical strength, but can include resolve, strength of will etc.

Take the black lives matter campaign. One individual does not have a powerful voice and will have a very difficult time stopping governmental forces. A large number of people bring strength to the movement. It's not just the voices, but the physical presence that makes a difference.

An ant negotiating against a human shoe that is getting ready to step on the ant would be an extreme example of a lack of strength.

An accountant that is the only one who understands his company's financial ledgers would be have some additional strength in negotiating with his bosses.

Blackmail is an illegal example of negotiating with a position of strength.

Iran's recent negotiations to get out from under all the international restrictions were accomplished how? It certainly wasn't because of moral considerations, or ambassadorial skill, or that they had advantageous latitude and longitude numbers.

They were negotiating from a position of strength. They had two things the international community wanted - vast amounts of oil and money. Without those two strengths, they would still be languishing under sanctions.

Another example - the south China Sea islands. China is moving in. Smaller countries that lay claim to the islands are complaining, but China isn't listening. Those smaller countries do not have any strength relative to China. History tells us how that scenarios is going to play out.

The only way China will not continue to occupy and fortify those islands, is if an strong nation or group of nations tells China it needs to move out. The ONLY negotiations that will be fruitful for that scenario are from a position of strength.

"Negotiation" is the potential weasel word depending on the exact scenario, but thinking that 'negotiating from strength' is not a real world thing, is like thinking that second law of thermodynamics is not a thing. Both have been demonstrated repeatedly so many times that they are a foregone conclusion.

Whether the outcome is moral or beneficial, when that outcome is derived from utilizing 'negotiating from a position of strength' depends on the people making the decisions and the situation itself.

Strength of character and strength of resolve are also important characteristics for a leader. Someone whose political will is easily broken will struggle to accomplish their goals when opposed. I'd agree it isn't the only factor, and not even the deciding factor, but at the minimum, a leader has to have a perception of strength, or most people will not follow.


TL/DR - negotiating from a position of strength is like Usain Bolt racing against Bernie Sanders in the 100 meter dash.

edit - update - maybe Bernie's "fans" could help him beat Usain?