Didn't take the Donald long, little over a month out and he has already flushed

[MAGA MAN]

:0) You're not only a racist, you're an idiot.

You haven't destroyed shit .. just told me what you think as if I care.

This: "his failures as measured in real terms by the slow economic growth rate, the decrease in labor participation, the increase of those on government assistance, the rise of radical Islam, the doubling of the national debt, the reduction on creditworthiness of the US and the Dollar...." isn't what I think, but facts. It's apparently what set you off to play the race card this time. Next comes IA, with you spouting off more nonsense...

 

[anatta]

With your political acumen brother, I suggest that you not suggest anything politically for at least the next 100 years. :0)

you are dodging the very article you posted and projecting on Trump..I have gone over the reasoning why I voted ABC ="Anybody But Clinton"
I have said repeatedly "see how it goes".
My political acumen is just fine; unlike yourself I am waiting for the election results to crystalize into form..

Keep the crow on ice until then please.

 

[WillReadmore]

please...look at the author's p.o.v.here. he applauds the TPP/China in the WTO, etc.


Trumps foreign policy is finally being called what I called it months ago - "transactional" - it's all deal making.
So this thing about 1 China isn't some neo-con infatuation with Taiwan; it's a negotiating stance.
It's not a bad place to start -it's the same as "America First"- you gotta at least understand that has been lacking in US foreign relations..

But it's all going to come down to success or failure of implementation..i.e. "see how it goes"

"Transactional" means that every bit of progress we ever make is always on the table and never applies to anyone else.

With no norms or foundation agreement, every time we discuss anything with any nation nothing that has come before or has applied in any other deal is operative.

Conducting foreign policy like that is absolutely idiotic. It is the denial of all principles, leaving us open to those who follow the far stronger course that we have been following to date - the process used by the rest of the world.


The absence of the US in world policy making will not stop there being policy and trade deals made by the rest of the world. But, we won't be leading that - and those who do will be less interested in the US, because we're less interested in that non-"transactional" process.

And, anyone who thinks the "one China" policy is something China will accept as being on the table, to be repurchased by each succeeding trade or defense negotiation is just plain nuts.

 

[anatta]

"Transactional" means that every bit of progress we ever make is always on the table and never applies to anyone else.

With no norms or foundation agreement, every time we discuss anything with any nation nothing that has come before or has applied in any other deal is operative.

Conducting foreign policy like that is absolutely idiotic. It is the denial of all principles, leaving us open to those who follow the far stronger course that we have been following to date - the process used by the rest of the world.


The absence of the US in world policy making will not stop there being policy and trade deals made by the rest of the world. But, we won't be leading that - and those who do will be less interested in the US, because we're less interested in that non-"transactional" process.

And, anyone who thinks the "one China" policy is something China will accept as being on the table, to be repurchased by each succeeding trade or defense negotiation is just plain nuts.

good post.
but "transactional" doesn't mean everything is up for grabs every time- aspect of policy are.
Once settled ( almost like stare decisis) it would take a revolutionary event to call to er-negotiate.

For instance NAFTA needs to be re-negotiated ( per Trump) buit once it's done -does it need constant re-negotiations -
or can we have a working accord? I think the later.

The TPP was a corporatist's dream come true. even Clinton - when she wasn't denying it in her secret Wall St Speeches -was opposed to it.
She was for it, then against it, but eventually she would have had to make a decision and stick with it.

Look for more bi-lateral trade agreements; we do better with those

 

[WillReadmore]

good post.
but "transactional" doesn't mean everything is up for grabs every time- aspect of policy are.
Once settled ( almost like stare decisis) it would take a revolutionary event to call to er-negotiate.

For instance NAFTA needs to be re-negotiated ( per Trump) buit once it's done -does it need constant re-negotiations -
or can we have a working accord? I think the later.

The TPP was a corporatist's dream come true. even Clinton - when she wasn't denying it in her secret Wall St Speeches -was opposed to it.
She was for it, then against it, but eventually she would have had to make a decision and stick with it.

Look for more bi-lateral trade agreements; we do better with those

Why would Trump get to negotiate it any more than any other president or leader of any of the NAFTA member states?

How many times does it get to be renegotiated?

You say "once settled", but there is no "once settled" in a "transactional" approach where the sides get to decide to rengeotiate any time they want.

And, when Trump leaves off "one China", it makes the point that even the most fundamental aspects of our relationship with China are seen by the US as optional.


TPP was seen as good before it went through the congressional sausage grinder. So, yes, people didn't like what came out.

NAFTA WAS essentially bi-lateral. It wasn't as if members other than the US, Canada and Mexico twisted the agreement. So, you're just suggesting we need to have agreements with each of the central American nations? That is, of course, NUTS. And, if we ignored them, then they become the path around NAFTA.


You are trying to "have your cake and eat it too", as they say. "Transactional" means something.

 

[archives]

A high level as determined by a small board of directors.

Yeah, no one would remember Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, or Steve Jobs...

That's funny, in two hundred years all you could come up with are those three, two of which are more famous for what they invented or bought to the Nation rather than being the head of a company, should I list all those famous people educated by those Harvard professors?

 

[MAGA MAN]

That's funny, in two hundred years all you could come up with are those three, two of which are more famous for what they invented or bought to the Nation rather than being the head of a company, should I list all those famous people educated by those Harvard professors?

Famous people probably had first grade teachers too. Why not tout on about them?