3 ms·

Discouraging stuff. Seeds sown in pettiness by one generation will be reaped by destruction in the next. A key to America's prosperity is that we have not shar

Discouraging stuff. Seeds sown in pettiness by one generation will be reaped by destruction in the next. A key to America's prosperity is that we have not shared a border with an adversary for over 200 years. This madness is not just pissing off a (literally) close ally, it's making a foundation for future unresolved conflicts. This administration does not understand history, and takes peace for granted.

thomassmith65 2y ago
They may just have different priorities than you and I. Global stability, peace, preserving what's left of America's affable reputation... these things certainly are important to me, but maybe not to them.
narratives1 2y ago
[flagged]
- toast0 2y ago
  > Trump has an incredible track record of deal making, his entire career is built off rubbing shoulders and negotiating and making deals. Certainly he makes a lot more deals than me. He also ends up with bankrupt companies and defaulting on payments a lot more often than me. I've lived through a County bankruptcy [1], and I would rather not deal with a federal bankruptcy because someone wanted to make a deal, without worrying about the long term consequences. [1] https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/06/heres-how-orange-county-went-broke/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/06/heres-how-orange-count...
  - narratives1 2y ago
    Doing big impactful things is hard, of course he’s failed here and there. On balance, it’s made him a billionaire. His successes minus his failures still far and away surpass your abilities in this area (deal making). Any argument that rests on “Donald Trump is not doing a good job at negotiating here” is suspect by default
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > - Do we want China or Russia or America to most shape the global order? Those are the choices As things stand now it won't be Russia, they've gotten themselves into a mess in Ukraine that's significantly draining their economic and military resources. Between China and the US, China is not the one currently burning bridges around the globe. US hegemony relied on mostly positive relations and power projection (both soft and hard). Scrapping our soft power and trading it for a bigger stick that's also being threatened with dismantling is unlikely to help the US retain its hegemony. Not to mention the military is an expensive stick and the cuts to revenue will result in even bigger deficits if it's maintained at its current level.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  That is a very wordy and hostile way to defend unilaterally annexing part of Canada.
  - narratives1 2y ago
    See through the noise. It’s not in American interests to annex Canada. This is negotiation
    - thomassmith65 2y ago
      One squints through the fog and sees nothing coherent except, perhaps, market manipulation. Regardless, it would be indefensible as a negotiating tactic. We're not cavemen.
toast0 2y ago
Over 200 years is a bit overstating. The Pig war of 1859 [1] is less than 200 years ago (and sure, relatively minor). The Mexican American War of 1846-1848 [2] was much more significant and also less than 200 years ago. But since those times, lots of peace and goodwill with our neighbors, which is condusive to prosperity. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War
dragonwriter 2y ago
> A key to America's prosperity is that we have not shared a border with an adversary for over 200 years. That's simply not true, as the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, the various border conflicts with Mexican forces and factions during the Mexican revolution, etc. Also, the conflicts with Britain (which includes Canada) through mid-19th Century (particular flashpoints including the Pig War. Aroostock War, and Trent Affair.)
- legitster 2y ago
  I am stretching a bit with 200 years, and my point also brushes away a lot of tribal conflicts that came about from Manifest Destiny and the Civil War itself. But the key point here is that some US leaders clearly understood it as a principle pretty early on even if they struggled to enact it at first.

thomassmith65 2y ago

They may just have different priorities than you and I. Global stability, peace, preserving what's left of America's affable reputation... these things certainly are important to me, but maybe not to them.

narratives1 2y ago

[flagged]

toast0 2y ago
> Trump has an incredible track record of deal making, his entire career is built off rubbing shoulders and negotiating and making deals. Certainly he makes a lot more deals than me. He also ends up with bankrupt companies and defaulting on payments a lot more often than me. I've lived through a County bankruptcy [1], and I would rather not deal with a federal bankruptcy because someone wanted to make a deal, without worrying about the long term consequences. [1] https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/06/heres-how-orange-county-went-broke/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/06/heres-how-orange-count...
- narratives1 2y ago
  Doing big impactful things is hard, of course he’s failed here and there. On balance, it’s made him a billionaire. His successes minus his failures still far and away surpass your abilities in this area (deal making). Any argument that rests on “Donald Trump is not doing a good job at negotiating here” is suspect by default
Jtsummers 2y ago
> - Do we want China or Russia or America to most shape the global order? Those are the choices As things stand now it won't be Russia, they've gotten themselves into a mess in Ukraine that's significantly draining their economic and military resources. Between China and the US, China is not the one currently burning bridges around the globe. US hegemony relied on mostly positive relations and power projection (both soft and hard). Scrapping our soft power and trading it for a bigger stick that's also being threatened with dismantling is unlikely to help the US retain its hegemony. Not to mention the military is an expensive stick and the cuts to revenue will result in even bigger deficits if it's maintained at its current level.
thomassmith65 2y ago
That is a very wordy and hostile way to defend unilaterally annexing part of Canada.
- narratives1 2y ago
  See through the noise. It’s not in American interests to annex Canada. This is negotiation
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    One squints through the fog and sees nothing coherent except, perhaps, market manipulation. Regardless, it would be indefensible as a negotiating tactic. We're not cavemen.

toast0 2y ago

Over 200 years is a bit overstating. The Pig war of 1859 [1] is less than 200 years ago (and sure, relatively minor). The Mexican American War of 1846-1848 [2] was much more significant and also less than 200 years ago. But since those times, lots of peace and goodwill with our neighbors, which is condusive to prosperity. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

dragonwriter 2y ago

> A key to America's prosperity is that we have not shared a border with an adversary for over 200 years. That's simply not true, as the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, the various border conflicts with Mexican forces and factions during the Mexican revolution, etc. Also, the conflicts with Britain (which includes Canada) through mid-19th Century (particular flashpoints including the Pig War. Aroostock War, and Trent Affair.)

legitster 2y ago
I am stretching a bit with 200 years, and my point also brushes away a lot of tribal conflicts that came about from Manifest Destiny and the Civil War itself. But the key point here is that some US leaders clearly understood it as a principle pretty early on even if they struggled to enact it at first.