02-05-2017, 12:43 PM
(02-04-2017, 04:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(02-04-2017, 12:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It would also be an improvement over the other option, now that Hillary is no longer relevant, of taking Trump's belligerent rhetoric seriously, in which case we could be in for a rough ride after all.
And that is a real possibility since Trump has revealed himself to be serious and literal about the conservative aspects of his program (e.g. immigration restriction, ending Obamacare) although less so about the non-conservative aspects (he has reversed himself on government health care programs negotiating for better drug prices). Omnidirectional belligerence (with the exception of Russia) is a conservative-friendly stance and so something on which maybe we should take Trump seriously and literally.
The Russian stance is curious. Both Putin and Trump are alpha males. The US is far stronger than Russia, so why is Trump being submissive?
Yes, it's a concern.
As for the Russia bit, come on! Everybody knows you don't bully people who can effectively fight back. That's like Bullying 101.
To which the natural rejoinder is, what about China? It's an interesting question, and in so far as I, who don't know the parties involved personally, can speculate on their motivations, I would say that there is a realist streak (classic balance of power, ally with number 2 on the Continent versus number 1), and perhaps an intent to use saber-rattling as a negotiating tactic versus somebody who unlike Russia is a major trading rival. Possibly a racially motivated bit as well (pushing around little yellow people versus other white people) which could influence the calculus of what they feel they can get away with, which would be unfortunate and likely to cause problems.
All in all, I am hopeful that this sort of omni-directional belligerence (a little Larrison, huh?) is just a cover for exactly the sort of aggressive withdrawal you mentioned (which I support), while cognizant that there are extreme risks involved as well.