Jesus H. Christ! Look at this mess! Trump hastens the U.S.' gradual march to irrelevance...

[westwall]

Lots of revealing stuff but this one makes a subtle point ---

​

Not the green or the orange but the grey. Rump has the fewest respondents who are not sure.

That's as polarized as it can get.

Wow, look at that....globalists favor the globalist over the nationalist. Who woulda thunk it. The fact is the US can go it alone. And the more I watch the globalists screw over the middle classes of the world in favor of their elitist pals I say we should.

That post has nothing to do with the "globalist" or "the nationalist" -- whatever they are. That post is an observation that more respondents are polarized by Rump than by anybody else.

Not that that should be any kind of a surprise.

Bull poo. merkle is a globalist. The entire EU is a globalist group. They wish to enrich themselves and their cronies by ripping off the American taxpayer. I find it amusing that you people think that a group, run by the likes of junker, could ever do anything positive for the world as a whole. They don't give a flying poo about the people. They only care about wealth and power, that's why they hate trump and his nationalist ideals.

Screw them.

 

[westwall]

The world rapidly is losing confidence in the U.S. as a result of Trump. "The share of the global public that voices a favorable view of America is on the decline. Across the 37 countries that Pew Research Center has tracked over the past several years, only in Russia has the image of the United States improved by a large margin. Elsewhere, attitudes have taken a dramatic turn for the worse, especially in Western Europe."

The U.S. foreign policy, thus its stature as the leader of the world, is waning with its allies, yet America's adversaries approve of the direction American foreign policy is headed under Trump.

​

And here're the key reasons: (1) Trump cannot be trusted and (2) Trump cannot be trusted! And as if that alone isn't bad enough, the stuff he does say ranges from insulting to utterly preposterous, all the while terrifying our friends and emboldening our adversaries!


The simple fact is that Trump's inane capriciousness has given the world pause. Whereas, before Trump, sacrosanct lay America's place as the leader of the planet, it isn't now because in the quest for sagacious and reliable guidance, the rest of the world has begun to scry for alternatives, something that wasn't even a vague notion among anyone other than radical/splinter groups and their apologists. Now, however, there is clearly a leadership vacuum and other heads of state vie, with varying degrees of schadenfreude but nonetheless pursuing their countries' increase, to fill it.

The gains are most especially evident on the economic front where America's place was already dubious insofar as it's long been clear that the market potential, thus gains from trade, of China and India multiply dwarf that of the U.S. and Western Europe. A market that is literally three billion people strong, physically connected, and that is in its ascendancy needs nothing but time, and not a lot of it, to relegate the U.S. and Europe to oh-yeah-them status. China and India are today the exact same kind of emerging market that the U.S. was in the 19th and 20th centuries, and they are going to do exactly the same things the U.S. did when it enjoyed that status.

Quite simply, "the genie's out of bottle." Even if America's primacy isn't completely abridged, that the world now considers that there are alternatives to the model of "where goeth America, we shall follow," the U.S.' has a tougher road to hoe from this point forward. If that paradigm shift weren't already underway, Trump, in his abjectly ignorant awareness of world politics and global economics, jump started it.


Then there's the DPRK situation. Just above I wrote about the economic ascendancy of China and India. Well, God forfend there be a war that allows either nation to accelerate their growth just as WWI and WWII did in the U.S., yet that appears to be precisely where Trump would have us go with North Korea. That's just what we need, an armed conflict with an opponent who is more than willing to explode nukes on/over U.S. soil. Just how many of them have to hit -- recognizing that with nuclear explosions, like "horseshoes and hand grenades," close counts -- to materially diminish America's economic might?

• The Port of Los Angeles | Finance
  
• The Port of Seattle’s Economic Impact
  
• Alaska's Strategic Role in the Defense of the United States and the Vital Role of Missile Defense

Now, the DPRK situation was not created by Trump, but the fact remains that as POTUS, it's his situation to manage to a peaceful solution, or at least to attenuate it to so that it doesn't erupt into a war yielding calamity in the U.S. Accordingly, POTUSes who did/didn't do "whatever" before Trump matters materially to no one other than chroniclers of history and individuals who'll read the record to inform subsequent action, and we know informing himself of the "forest and the trees" of foreign relations, or much of anything, is not something Trump embraces doing.

What matters materially is what Trump does now, and one's concurrence with that has no bearing on whether it does. Nobody thought a student, Gavrilo Princip, mattered on Saturday, yet on Sunday he became among the most important people in the world. Even though nobody thought Gavrilo mattered, he did, and in a very big way. In an instant on Sunday, he shaped world history for the remainder of history. The situation with the DPRK and what matters about how Trump handles it, notwithstanding what his predecessors did, is nowhere near as befogged, as was Gavrilo's import.

And just what has Trump done to mollify the DPRK situation? Nothing good. He's threatened the DPRK, and KJU doesn't give a damn. He's insulted China's Xi Jinping, the leader of the one nation that holds material political and economic sway with the DPRK. He's said that if China won't solve our problem for us, he will, but Trump's done nothing but talk sh*t, and KJU just successfully tested an ICBM that's even more capable than is the one he fired off last month. Trump's given rise to Europe's and Japan's questioning America's military commitment to them. So what can the U.S. expect of them if the DPRK situation escalates into an armed conflict, to say nothing of it becoming a nuclear one, which KJU seems more than happy to let it do? They can't rely on "Ameri-Trump," he/we thus have no rightful basis to rely on them.

The stuff I've noted above is just the beginning. Trump has managed in six short months to f*ck and create a clusterf*ck of U.S. primacy, alliances, and economic dominance. And then there are the Trumpkins, people whose most noteworthy traits is there procrustean sycophantism for Trump and that they are, as a group, are about the only people in the U.S. who are, unbelievable as it is, dumber and more ignorant about everything than is their eponymous leader.

I had a discussion with someone who works for the DOJ--who travels a lot and just came back from Europe. Trump is a joke to them. You''re final paragraph hit's it on the head. His supporters are ignorant of policy--either foreign or domestic economic knowledge, and yet the irony is he won on ignorance.
A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains

Yeppers, the obummercare architects relied on your stupidity to get it passed. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Pogo]

I'll take Trump over Merkel or Hillary any day, and I'm not a Trump fan.

Merkel?

Why?

It's not because she can put a coherent sentence together is it?

Funny how the left absolutely loves Merkel. You claim the right is loyal to Putin, but in reality the left loves Merkel more than their own President.

You get all that from the word "why", do ya?

 

[Tresha91203]

I'll take Trump over Merkel or Hillary any day, and I'm not a Trump fan.

Merkel?

Why?

It's not because she can put a coherent sentence together is it?

It's because they're women.

WTF? I'm a woman. What a ridiculous thing to say about me. My primary pick was Fioreno, THE WOMAN, as I stated on this board at the time.

 

[Pogo]

Lots of revealing stuff but this one makes a subtle point ---

​

Not the green or the orange but the grey. Rump has the fewest respondents who are not sure.

That's as polarized as it can get.

Wow, look at that....globalists favor the globalist over the nationalist. Who woulda thunk it. The fact is the US can go it alone. And the more I watch the globalists screw over the middle classes of the world in favor of their elitist pals I say we should.

That post has nothing to do with the "globalist" or "the nationalist" -- whatever they are. That post is an observation that more respondents are polarized by Rump than by anybody else.

Not that that should be any kind of a surprise.

Bull poo. merkle is a globalist. The entire EU is a globalist group. They wish to enrich themselves and their cronies by ripping off the American taxpayer. I find it amusing that you people think that a group, run by the likes of junker, could ever do anything positive for the world as a whole. They don't give a flying poo about the people. They only care about wealth and power, that's why they hate trump and his nationalist ideals.

Screw them.

You don't seam to be able to reed reel good.

Again --- I guess we'll keep repeating until it sinks in to the denser crania --- it's (still) an observation of how few respondents are unsure about how they feel about Rump. The least of the bunch.

That, in turn, means he's a polarizing figure. The most polarizing in the set compared.

You can try to twist the topic of my post all you like but English is English. You cannot change my words.

Just for the record Rump has no "nationalist" ideals. That would imply something outside Numero Uno. He has no ideals whatsoever other than narcissistic attention-craving. It's really as simple as that --- always has been.

---- which leads directly back to my point; nobody likes a narcissist. Hence the polarization. Et voilà.

 

[westwall]

Lots of revealing stuff but this one makes a subtle point ---

​

Not the green or the orange but the grey. Rump has the fewest respondents who are not sure.

That's as polarized as it can get.

Wow, look at that....globalists favor the globalist over the nationalist. Who woulda thunk it. The fact is the US can go it alone. And the more I watch the globalists screw over the middle classes of the world in favor of their elitist pals I say we should.

That post has nothing to do with the "globalist" or "the nationalist" -- whatever they are. That post is an observation that more respondents are polarized by Rump than by anybody else.

Not that that should be any kind of a surprise.

Bull poo. merkle is a globalist. The entire EU is a globalist group. They wish to enrich themselves and their cronies by ripping off the American taxpayer. I find it amusing that you people think that a group, run by the likes of junker, could ever do anything positive for the world as a whole. They don't give a flying poo about the people. They only care about wealth and power, that's why they hate trump and his nationalist ideals.

Screw them.

You don't seam to be able to reed reel good.

Again --- I guess we'll keep repeating until it sinks in to the denser crania --- it's (still) an observation of how few respondents are unsure about how they feel about Rump. The least of the bunch.

That, in turn, means he's a polarizing figure. The most polarizing in the set compared.

You can try to twist the topic of my post all you like but English is English. You cannot change my words.

Just for the record Rump has no "nationalist" ideals. That would imply something outside Numero Uno. He has no ideals whatsoever other than narcissistic attention-craving. It's really as simple as that --- always has been.

---- which leads directly back to my point; nobody likes a narcissist. Hence the polarization. Et voilà.

ALL politicians are narcissists silly boy. It's why they go for the job in the first place. The fact that you don't understand that very simple fact means your entire post is worthless. As is your opinion.

 

[Faun]

Donald Trump: Making liberalism irrelevant since 2016.

LOL

In just a few years, rightards will be calling Trump a Liberal; like many did with Bush. So not so irrelevant.

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Dragonlady]

I'll take Trump over Merkel or Hillary any day, and I'm not a Trump fan.

Merkel?

Why?

It's not because she can put a coherent sentence together is it?

It's because they're women.

WTF? I'm a woman. What a ridiculous thing to say about me. My primary pick was Fioreno, THE WOMAN, as I stated on this board at the time.

There is no way that any woman in her right mind can support the misogyny and ignorance of Donald Trump over either of these two women. And yes, it is possible to be a misogynist and a woman.

 

[usmbguest5318]

God, you 'Conservatives' are dumb fucks.

To be fair, it's not all conservatives, just many of the ones who post here.

the treasonous fat senile old orange clown has yet to have a budget of his own.

Yes. Although much about foreign policy, which is the primary focus of the OP, has little to do with the budget, be it Trump's or Obama's. Accordingly, there's no relevance, other than that they have no substantive rebuttal on the central point of the the OP -- Trump has mismanaged and totally screwed up the U.S.' role as the global leader -- of folks mentioning the budget. I guess it's a matter of "if one cannot refute or rebut a point directly, one must deflect to a different topic."

Quite frankly, the instant I see someone deflect, engage in tu quoque lines of remarking, or resort to unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary, I know they haven't any topically apt response. Whether such individuals admit it or not, I know I've won the point of argument I introduced. I've spent enough time debating to know that the instant one goes off topic, one has by default ceded the point under debate, thus lost the debate.

 

[OldLady]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

 

[Rustic]

The world rapidly is losing confidence in the U.S. as a result of Trump. "The share of the global public that voices a favorable view of America is on the decline. Across the 37 countries that Pew Research Center has tracked over the past several years, only in Russia has the image of the United States improved by a large margin. Elsewhere, attitudes have taken a dramatic turn for the worse, especially in Western Europe."

The U.S. foreign policy, thus its stature as the leader of the world, is waning with its allies, yet America's adversaries approve of the direction American foreign policy is headed under Trump.

​

And here're the key reasons: (1) Trump cannot be trusted and (2) Trump cannot be trusted! And as if that alone isn't bad enough, the stuff he does say ranges from insulting to utterly preposterous, all the while terrifying our friends and emboldening our adversaries!


The simple fact is that Trump's inane capriciousness has given the world pause. Whereas, before Trump, sacrosanct lay America's place as the leader of the planet, it isn't now because in the quest for sagacious and reliable guidance, the rest of the world has begun to scry for alternatives, something that wasn't even a vague notion among anyone other than radical/splinter groups and their apologists. Now, however, there is clearly a leadership vacuum and other heads of state vie, with varying degrees of schadenfreude but nonetheless pursuing their countries' increase, to fill it.



Xelor


Please just paste a snip, or small portion of the copied material, a link and then your comment.

Western Europe are nothing more than socialist parasites living off other countries money, energy and food…

 

[OldLady]

Trump has squandered a lot of US soft power around the world.

Other world leaders consider him toxic... Merkel is fast becoming the trusted voice in the west... Trump can't behave in the way he does and expect others to adopt his views... The GOP will regret not having the courage to back away from him earlier...

Trump is way out of his debt and has been shifting the chairs on the Titanic since November... If his numbers don't rise soon the GOP will have to cut bait or otherwise expect problems in 2018...

I'm afraid this may lead to much more serious things than the 2018 vote.

 

[easyt65]

The world rapidly is losing confidence in the U.S. as a result of Trump. "The share of the global public that voices a favorable view of America is on the decline. Across the 37 countries that Pew Research Center has tracked over the past several years, only in Russia has the image of the United States improved by a large margin. Elsewhere, attitudes have taken a dramatic turn for the worse, especially in Western Europe."

The U.S. foreign policy, thus its stature as the leader of the world, is waning with its allies, yet America's adversaries approve of the direction American foreign policy is headed under Trump.

​

And here're the key reasons: (1) Trump cannot be trusted and (2) Trump cannot be trusted! And as if that alone isn't bad enough, the stuff he does say ranges from insulting to utterly preposterous, all the while terrifying our friends and emboldening our adversaries!


The simple fact is that Trump's inane capriciousness has given the world pause. Whereas, before Trump, sacrosanct lay America's place as the leader of the planet, it isn't now because in the quest for sagacious and reliable guidance, the rest of the world has begun to scry for alternatives, something that wasn't even a vague notion among anyone other than radical/splinter groups and their apologists. Now, however, there is clearly a leadership vacuum and other heads of state vie, with varying degrees of schadenfreude but nonetheless pursuing their countries' increase, to fill it.



Xelor


Please just paste a snip, or small portion of the copied material, a link and then your comment.

The poor wittle globalist misses Baa-wee.

 

[TNHarley]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

Do you think people give a shit? The actions you listed is WHY HE WON. America rejected the status quo. Thats why the corrupt bitch is throwing up vodka in NY instead of DC.
And please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power." Good luck BTW

 

[OldLady]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

Do you think people give a shit? please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power.". America rejected the status quo. Thats why the corrupt bitch is throwing up vodka in NY instead of DC.
And please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power." Good luck BTW

please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power."
I don't know--it was in the article I was talking about. So don't be yammering at me about it.

I realize you'd be happy if we had no foreign obligations, allies or anything else. However, your attitude is extreme and is far from the attitude of the normal Trump voter. They don't want a big bang up war. Ironically, neither do you, but the shakeup in the system could lead to one. Whether you LIKE it or not.

And that comment about Hillary leads me to believe she's not the only one doing shots today.

 

[TNHarley]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

Do you think people give a shit? please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power.". America rejected the status quo. Thats why the corrupt bitch is throwing up vodka in NY instead of DC.
And please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power." Good luck BTW

please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power."
I don't know--it was in the article I was talking about. So don't be yammering at me about it.

I realize you'd be happy if we had no foreign obligations, allies or anything else. However, your attitude is extreme and is far from the attitude of the normal Trump voter. They don't want a big bang up war. Ironically, neither do you, but the shakeup in the system could lead to one. Whether you LIKE it or not.

And that comment about Hillary leads me to believe she's not the only one doing shots today.

Well, you are the one that stated it, here. So why state something, not be able to back it up, and then not take credit?
You are taking my beliefs and making them extreme lol. We need allies. We need trade. But we should think about our citizens first. Is that REALLY so extreme? I hate the idea of war over us taking care of ourselves, but if the frog wants to jump...
My belief is actual solutions to problems are never easy. If they were, we wouldnt be a nation of "bandaids"

 

[OldLady]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

Do you think people give a shit? please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power.". America rejected the status quo. Thats why the corrupt bitch is throwing up vodka in NY instead of DC.
And please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power." Good luck BTW

please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power."
I don't know--it was in the article I was talking about. So don't be yammering at me about it.

I realize you'd be happy if we had no foreign obligations, allies or anything else. However, your attitude is extreme and is far from the attitude of the normal Trump voter. They don't want a big bang up war. Ironically, neither do you, but the shakeup in the system could lead to one. Whether you LIKE it or not.

And that comment about Hillary leads me to believe she's not the only one doing shots today.

Well, you are the one that stated it, here. So why state something, not be able to back it up, and then not take credit?
You are taking my beliefs and making them extreme lol. We need allies. We need trade. But we should think about our citizens first. Is that REALLY so extreme? I hate the idea of war over us taking care of ourselves, but if the frog wants to jump...
My belief is actual solutions to problems are never easy. If they were, we wouldnt be a nation of "bandaids"

Trump withdrawal from Asia trade deal a boon for China
China’s Influence Grows in Ashes of Trans-Pacific Trade Pact
Forbes Welcome

There's a million of them. Here's a couple. Of course, I've heard it said many times. So have you, no doubt, but it gives you something to squabble about.

 

[TNHarley]

There was quite an article in the paper this a.m. about a growing call in South Korea for nuclear armament due to being "unsure" of Trump's support for them in the event of an attack by North Korea. If they have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the U.S., would we risk nuclear war to retaliate? South Korea is no longer sure of our response.

Trump has criticized South Korea for not paying its fair share, and for it's "terrible" trade situation with the U.S. He pulled out of the TPP, which gives more power to China in the region. He has toyed with isolationist and nationalist policies that don't seem to respect our alliances as much as the diplomats say we do. They're nervous.

This is what matters, imo, in the "popularity" or "opinion" of Trump in other countries. Not whether he is their favorite personality, but whether or not he will stand by the commitments to them that have been in place for years and have kept a relative peace. North Korea is a matchbox sitting on the stove. Unfortunately, to steal a phrase from rightwinger, WE WARNED YOU. We warned you against Trump's personality and how it would affect foreign affairs. Six months and here we are, and Trump is pushing that matchbox closer to the flames by ineffectively waffling around and sputtering nonsense insults on twitter, including toward China, who is probably the only power that could effectively de-escalate this situation without gunpowder. No one knows how our President will react and he seems to not have a plan. THAT is why others' opinion of him is important, and it is a crying shame.

Do you think people give a shit? please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power.". America rejected the status quo. Thats why the corrupt bitch is throwing up vodka in NY instead of DC.
And please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power." Good luck BTW

please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power."
I don't know--it was in the article I was talking about. So don't be yammering at me about it.

I realize you'd be happy if we had no foreign obligations, allies or anything else. However, your attitude is extreme and is far from the attitude of the normal Trump voter. They don't want a big bang up war. Ironically, neither do you, but the shakeup in the system could lead to one. Whether you LIKE it or not.

And that comment about Hillary leads me to believe she's not the only one doing shots today.

Well, you are the one that stated it, here. So why state something, not be able to back it up, and then not take credit?
You are taking my beliefs and making them extreme lol. We need allies. We need trade. But we should think about our citizens first. Is that REALLY so extreme? I hate the idea of war over us taking care of ourselves, but if the frog wants to jump...
My belief is actual solutions to problems are never easy. If they were, we wouldnt be a nation of "bandaids"

Trump withdrawal from Asia trade deal a boon for China
China’s Influence Grows in Ashes of Trans-Pacific Trade Pact
Forbes Welcome

There's a million of them. Here's a couple. Of course, I've heard it said many times. So have you, no doubt, but it gives you something to squabble about.

Yes, it doesnt give china more power. It just gives us less. The retarded hacks spun the shit to attack him. Anyone could go after that. It will just probably be china as they have more $
Trade is sacrificed for higher domestic output. Kinda like the premise for Brexit.
IDK if that will result in positive growth, but he was willing to take that chance. I would have too.
The American people voted against the status quo. One thing he has done he was elected to do.
Bernie Sanders would have done the same thing. Did they attack him for it?
Nothing was said when hillary said she would back out of it either..

 

[usmbguest5318]

please explain how backing out of TPP gave china "more power."

Seriously??? In addition to what OldLady has shared....

• Strategic Consequences of U.S. Withdrawal from TPP
  The TPP aimed to further the [United States'] strategic interests in at least in three ways. First, U.S. leaders and strategists saw it as a way to strengthen the country's leadership in Asia by complementing its diplomatic and military power. Second, the TPP served as part of a broader effort to shore up an international order premised on market economics and liberal [philosophical sense -- regardless of party, nearly all Americans are liberals; not political party sense -- whether one advocates for/against providing/ensuring liberty via negative or positive approaches] values. Third, the pact aimed to strengthen key partners; most notably Japan and Vietnam, by spurring badly needed domestic economic reforms and boosting growth.
  
  The TPP thus served as an important component of the rebalance to Asia initiative. It also informed the U.S. approach to a rising China. By strengthening its leadership, bolstering its alliances and partnerships, and revitalizing an international order, Washington hoped to provide China strong incentives to integrate into and support a U.S.-led order.
  
  America's withdrawal from the TPP in January 2017 marks a major blow to these ambitions.
  
  Another important consequence of the TPP's unraveling has been a further fracturing of the international order. Once again, the TPP's fate has both embodied and added to this trend. Symptomatic of this development, China and Russia have intensified criticism of longstanding international norms and values, a trend exacerbated by declining U.S. and European advocacy for democratic governance and human rights. Similarly, China has advanced rival institutions that duplicate in function Western-led institutions, but that reflect illiberal values. Indeed, China greeted the news of the U.S. withdrawal from TPP by advancing its own trade pact, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The TPP's failure also leaves unresolved the stalled state of international trade regimes.
  
  In the dawning era of a contested international order, countries may agree on the importance of international laws, rules, and norms, but disagreements over how to define them threaten to render international disputes even more intractable and volatile. China, for example, has called for countries in Asia to “adhere to international laws” to resolve maritime disputes, but has reserved for itself the right to determine how those laws should be interpreted in Asia. The collapse of international support for the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ruling on the South China Sea, once China made clear its opposition, illustrated well the fragility of such a contested international order.
  
  
• U.S. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Effects of Alternative Trade Integration Scenarios in the Asia-Pacific
  [The paper's not long, but the way it's organized doesn't lend itself to my quickly copying and pasting the results of the analysis and being able to expect that readers will comprehend the pasted passage. The content's not complicated; it's just that the authors use a ton of acronyms and scenario references that I'd need to explain for a quoted passage to be literally and contextually clear, germane and thus comprehensible.]
• Jan. 2017 -- TPP: Why the U.S. Withdrawal Could Be a Boon for China
• June 2017 -- The Art of the Trade Deal: Quantifying the benefits of a TPP without the United States -- This report's "modelling and analysis show how Canada and other TPP signatories would fare under a TPP11; what the U.S. stands to lose; and, how the agreement would affect different sectors of the economy, including how changes in one sector will impact other sectors. The findings provide quantitative evidence to each country as it decides whether to forge ahead on the pact without the U.S."
• June 2017 -- Consequences of the U.S. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
  
  In recent years, China, already the biggest economy in the world and the main trading partner for many countries in the Asia-Pacific area, has been pursuing its own agenda for regional economic integration. The most advanced project is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which is officially an ASEAN idea but in fact, China is its driving force. RCEP encompasses 16 states from the Asia-Pacific region—10 ASEAN members and six countries that have an FTA with ASEAN (Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, South Korea and China). In short, RCEP excludes the United States. China has perceived this initiative as a counterbalance to TPP (with the U.S.) and an instrument to enhance the country’s influence in the region through stronger trade and investment bonds between participating states. RCEP is less ambitious than TPP since it concentrates on lifting duties and non-tariff barriers to trade rather than creating high-level norms and standards. Nevertheless, it could provide better access to the markets of all participating states. It is especially important for countries that do not have an FTA with each other, such as Japan and China or Japan and South Korea. In this regard, with the U.S. distancing itself from engagement in multilateral agreements, countries in the Asia-Pacific region may be more interested in investing the political capital and human resources in negotiations on RCEP. Until now, there have been 18 rounds of RCEP negotiations and the aim is to conclude them by the end of 2017.
• Legal Perspective of the United States’ Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement
  
  An important aspect of the TPP is its geopolitical significance as an attempt to counter the formation of a new economic order centered on China in the Asia-Pacific region. If so, Japan would be better off concluding this pro-U.S. liberal framework—even in the form of the TPP11—ahead of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) led by China. In particular, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and Peru are beginning to explore the possibility of bringing China into the TPP (Reuters January 25, 2017; Inside U.S. Trade (Daily News) February 3, 2017; The New Paper January 25, 2017; The Guardian January 23, 2017). If realized, this would turn the TPP into a framework that is, in substance, infinitely close to that of the RCEP. It would make the possibility of the United States returning to the TPP even more remote.
  
  From the pragmatic viewpoint, the prospect of finding itself at a disadvantage in securing market access to the member countries of the TPP11 in the event of its coming into force would serve as a good incentive for the United States to ratify the TPP. For Japan, having the TPP and improving market access among its member countries, even without the United States, would give a boost to its ongoing efforts to negotiate FTAs under various frameworks including the RCEP and the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Even if the Trump administration pursues a bilateral FTA with Japan, it would not contradict the TPP11. In a joint statement issued following the Japan-U.S. summit on February 10, 2017, the two countries reaffirmed the importance of their efforts in promoting trade, economic growth, and high standards through the Asia-Pacific region through a bilateral framework as well as by "continuing to advance regional progress on the basis of existing initiatives." This seems to indicate the U.S.' green light for the promotion of the TPP11. Provisions of the TPP will probably serve as the basis for negotiating a Japan-U.S. FTA, and if so, the bilateral FTA will become a passage through which the United States will join the TPP11 in the future.