Recount Opinions

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by punch it in

61% disapprove of him now. However i was referring to the entire world,...
A world poll would be more like 85%. They think the guy is bat shit crazy across the pond. Possibly because he is. Lol

I really, truly, do not give one rat's ass what the world thinks of our choices. Same would be true if HC had won.

What I care about is US security and secure trade. Obviously, US's security is increased in a stable world. To the extent our military commitments enhance that, great. However, through our investment in military spending and the commitment of young American men and women to be the "trigger point" for US involvement (the latter be the MUCH more important investment), we end up shouldering the vast majority of risk of instability. To that end, STFU world.

You want a secure world? Pay for it. We do and we have our boys and girls risking their lives on your land so that if folks mess with you, they know they are messing with us.

You want to continue with expensive social welfare policies that are affordable because WE provide you with a stable safe world in which we can all sing kum-by-yah without fear of invasion (again, unless your enemy is willing to kill OUR kids which we have sent to your country to be fodder for stability)? Fine, but you lose the right to bitch when decide that the cost of that investment of blood and money is more than we are willing to pay and not worth the return.

Am I afraid that Trump's midnight tweets will set off Armageddon? Nope.

Am I concerned that Trump's lack of easy predictability in foreign affairs will increase concerns of instability by countries that rely on us to provide stability and that the increased concerns may lead to actual instability? Yes.

... but that is for us to watch and monitor and to, ultimately, balance against our self-interest, expressed through our investment, in world stability. If "the world" is concerned about instability, then don't f'ing put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. American money and blood) and then bitch when the owner of the basket starts wondering if carrying everyone else's eggs is worth keeping its eggs safe as well.


Well, that was very rant like, but the left's "oh me oh my, what do they think of us" attitude towards world opinion is as lacking in nuance as the "Murica!" crowd's world view and just pisses me off.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I really, truly, do not give one rat's ass what the world thinks of our choices. Same would be true if HC had won.

What I care about is US security and secure trade. Obviously, US's security is increased in a stable world. To the extent our military commitments enhance that, great. However, through our investment in military spending and the commitment of young American men and women to be the "trigger point" for US involvement (the latter be the MUCH more important investment), we end up shouldering the vast majority of risk of instability. To that end, STFU world.

You want a secure world? Pay for it. We do and we have our boys and girls risking their lives on your land so that if folks mess with you, they know they are messing with us.

You want to continue with expensive social welfare policies that are affordable because WE provide you with a stable safe world in which we can all sing kum-by-yah without fear of invasion (again, unless your enemy is willing to kill OUR kids which we have sent to your country to be fodder for stability)? Fine, but you lose the right to bitch when decide that the cost of that investment of blood and money is more than we are willing to pay and not worth the return.

Am I afraid that Trump's midnight tweets will set off Armageddon? Nope.

Am I concerned that Trump's lack of easy predictability in foreign affairs will increase concerns of instability by countries that rely on us to provide stability and that the increased concerns may lead to actual instability? Yes.

... but that is for us to watch and monitor and to, ultimately, balance against our self-interest, expressed through our investment, in world stability. If "the world" is concerned about instability, then don't f'ing put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. American money and blood) and then bitch when the owner of the basket starts wondering if carrying everyone else's eggs is worth keeping its eggs safe as well.


Well, that was very rant like, but the left's "oh me oh my, what do they think of us" attitude towards world opinion is as lacking in nuance as the "Murica!" crowd's world view and just pisses me off.

MURICA!!!

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I really, truly, do not give one rat's ass what the world thinks of our choices. Same would be true if HC had won.

What I care about is US security and secure trade. Obviously, US's security is increased in a stable world. To the extent our military commitments enhance that, great. However, through our investment in military spending and the commitment of young American men and women to be the "trigger point" for US involvement (the latter be the MUCH more important investment), we end up shouldering the vast majority of risk of instability. To that end, STFU world.

You want a secure world? Pay for it. We do and we have our boys and girls risking their lives on your land so that if folks mess with you, they know they are messing with us.

You want to continue with expensive social welfare policies that are affordable because WE provide you with a stable safe world in which we can all sing kum-by-yah without fear of invasion (again, unless your enemy is willing to kill OUR kids which we have sent to your country to be fodder for stability)? Fine, but you lose the right to bitch when decide that the cost of that investment of blood and money is more than we are willing to pay and not worth the return.

Am I afraid that Trump's midnight tweets will set off Armageddon? Nope.

Am I concerned that Trump's lack of easy predictability in foreign affairs will increase concerns of instability by countries that rely on us to provide stability and that the increased concerns may lead to actual instability? Yes.

... but that is for us to watch and monitor and to, ultimately, balance against our self-interest, expressed through our investment, in world stability. If "the world" is concerned about instability, then don't f'ing put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. American money and blood) and then bitch when the owner of the basket starts wondering if carrying everyone else's eggs is worth keeping its eggs safe as well.


Well, that was very rant like, but the left's "oh me oh my, what do they think of us" attitude towards world opinion is as lacking in nuance as the "Murica!" crowd's world view and just pisses me off.

The world right now is the most unstable since the Cuban Nuclear Crisis in my opinion. Obama left it terrible.

Oh by the way, we opened relations with Cuba again this year with zero concessions on our part. The holding of political prisoners, the oppression of the freedom of speech, communication (internet, phone), etc. We told Cuba keep doing what your doing, just let Jay Z and Obama vacation there.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I really, truly, do not give one rat's ass what the world thinks of our choices. Same would be true if HC had won.



What I care about is US security and secure trade. Obviously, US's security is increased in a stable world. To the extent our military commitments enhance that, great. However, through our investment in military spending and the commitment of young American men and women to be the "trigger point" for US involvement (the latter be the MUCH more important investment), we end up shouldering the vast majority of risk of instability. To that end, STFU world.



You want a secure world? Pay for it. We do and we have our boys and girls risking their lives on your land so that if folks mess with you, they know they are messing with us.



You want to continue with expensive social welfare policies that are affordable because WE provide you with a stable safe world in which we can all sing kum-by-yah without fear of invasion (again, unless your enemy is willing to kill OUR kids which we have sent to your country to be fodder for stability)? Fine, but you lose the right to bitch when decide that the cost of that investment of blood and money is more than we are willing to pay and not worth the return.



Am I afraid that Trump's midnight tweets will set off Armageddon? Nope.



Am I concerned that Trump's lack of easy predictability in foreign affairs will increase concerns of instability by countries that rely on us to provide stability and that the increased concerns may lead to actual instability? Yes.



... but that is for us to watch and monitor and to, ultimately, balance against our self-interest, expressed through our investment, in world stability. If "the world" is concerned about instability, then don't f'ing put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. American money and blood) and then bitch when the owner of the basket starts wondering if carrying everyone else's eggs is worth keeping its eggs safe as well.





Well, that was very rant like, but the left's "oh me oh my, what do they think of us" attitude towards world opinion is as lacking in nuance as the "Murica!" crowd's world view and just pisses me off.

It is nice that you think all this. It is nice that Trump "says" all this.
What is too bad is that Trump just hired Goldman Sachs to make it happen. Lmao. Good luck with that. Good luck with the precedent he just set by paying Carrier to keep 40% of their work force here. Unsustainable strategy to say the least. Wonder how many other companies are going to threaten Trump now that he just bent over and took it up the ass. Fucking dog and pony show. "Im gonna tell them fuck off and go to Mexico than they are going to pay 35% tax to sell it back to us"! Lmao. He did the exact opposite. And tax incentives is another word for we dont want to get into detail about what exactly we gave them. He will release the details with his tax returns. Lol. Carriers parent company is a huge defense contractor. Everything this guy has done so far should be raising huge red flags.
This is not about left vs right, or republicans vs democrats. This is about a guy who just lied to millions of people to get elected, and is blatantly ,in actions, proving he lied. Yet somehow the Trumpers applaud him and move him one space closer to the "pass messiah and collect 200 dollars " every time he contradicts himself. What has this two bit con artist ever done to get so many people to follow him blind? It is mind numbing.
Change was needed. I do not deny that. He is changing it for the worst. How can you not see that? So far? These appointments and this deal give rise to a new form of putridness.