mitsho
Deity
Location: some golf course in Florida.
Clown Car V: 2020 version!
- Thread starter Estebonrober
- Start date
- Status
Location: some golf course in Florida.
If he is removed by the Senate, he theoretically loses all perks and favours, including his pension, but not the lifetime security detail.
For all practical purposes, he got elected with one mandate, China. Theoretically there could have been bipartisan support there, as well as international support. So now let's roll the tape.
No Alliance, no momentum, nobody taking up the torch, no significant trade deal.
Hong Kong was lost under his watch.
No Alliance, no momentum, nobody taking up the torch, no significant trade deal.
Hong Kong was lost under his watch.
Ferocitus
Deity
It was never America's or the UK's to lose.
Ferocitus
Deity
Fair enough. They beat a journalist with American flags in Hong Kong too, so there are definitely important social customs in common with the USA.
It was never America's or the UK's to lose.
That doesn't change under whose watch it was lost.
But, that's not really a counterpoint to my observation. He had one actual mandate, and he failed.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
The hour is later than that. An American mandate is insufficient to constrain China. A much wider mandate is needed, and a wider one he never had. Granted, rhetorically pissing on your allies is no way to build such a mandate, but still. After all the breathless shock that Americans and Canadians(one example) would spar over soft lumber(going on 250 years now) it is sort of hard to conceive that it was ever truly possible.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
He chose the labor issue upon which his American mandate, such as it was, was built. I mean, I agree with the TPP having had been helpful squaring off against the PRC, but politics don't have to make sense. El is the one arguing "China" was the mandate, but I don't think that's exactly what people were voting for. "American labor and international trade" would have been closer, regardless of the hot takes of the wisdom of electing Trump to do that. "China" just would simply have been the best possible expression of that sentiment, and I think that's too optimistic and refined.
I don't know enough if TPP would have been useful or if it was the standard selling out that politicians do, but I do know there isn't a network of alliances that will continue to look out for American interests on the topic after his departure.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
That would have degraded with evolving balance of power anyhow, to think it wouldn't is gravely naive. Fear or antipathy for another will drive the push for such, if they reemerge, not else.
But hey, friendlier optics with the subcontinent than in an age. It's the only real single player that has a shot at it in the foreseeable.
But hey, friendlier optics with the subcontinent than in an age. It's the only real single player that has a shot at it in the foreseeable.
It wasn't that strong. But it would have cut into China's economic muscle. But Obama was Black, so TPP had to go.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
A quick short term win, though it seems like the US and China just bludgeoned each other
Ironically its the Chinese stimulus spending that is saving the US steel industry.
Trumps mandate was to break things and reverse 30 years of exporting jobs. He succeeded in the first and failed in the second.
You forgot the minigolf course!
I think he'd lose the security detail, which in his case might prove beneficial for him. Do they get a lifelong retirement and pension like judges do?Sommerswerd said:
Don't forget "The Wall" and everything that it represented, symbolized and implied...conscious and subconscious... that was part of his mandate.
Yes, they do.
Taking that away would a) defund his cause and b) send the message that you cannot get yourself a sinecure just like that. GO GO GO!
- Status
Similar threads
