Worst day of year: Dow down 900 points.
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
I want to believe Tulsi Gabbard can prevent WW3 until the midterms but I know how desperate the deep state is to nuke something.
Trump is trying as well.
But notice that the doomsday clock has not moved.....drink the best wines now is still the wise man move.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
The billionaires made a bad decision. Trump is the opposite of the Midas touch.
Let's see how it fares for the enterprise called America.
We have 1408 days.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Alienating the allies is not a good move, is it?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Isolationism then?
Bro, zoomers got me back into wine. I have no idea what to buy, so it's always a surprise when I take that first sip. I liked that Lapis Luma Zinfandel but it's what I expect from the North Coast of California, I spent a lot of time there.
It's time for me to learn about wines I can't find in a grocery store.
Learning about wines, and cooking with wines, has been a great time....I Recommend.
Times are about to get very hard.....those who have nothing to offer must take a hike in my world.
I lead by example here at JPP.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Why did so many Americans support isolationism?
AI Overview
+4
Americans have supported isolationism for a variety of reasons, including avoiding foreign conflicts, protecting the economy, and avoiding war debts.
Avoiding foreign conflicts
- World War I: Americans were wary of future foreign wars after the trauma of World War I.
- The Great Depression: Americans focused on domestic issues during the Great Depression.
- International unrest: In the 1930s, international unrest included Japan's occupation of Manchuria, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, and Nazi Germany's remilitarization.
- Repaying war debts
Americans wanted to focus on repaying debts to foreign powers after World War I. - Promoting domestic industries
Americans believed that isolationism would promote domestic industries and economic growth.
- Avoiding permanent alliances
Early American leaders believed that the U.S. should avoid permanent alliances that didn't serve American interests.
- Avoiding entangling itself in European wars
Supporters of neutrality argued that America should avoid entangling itself in European wars.
Because what we have been doing has been bad for us.
Because live and let live was always the better idea.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
So isolationism it is for you.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Why did isolationism fail?
AI Overview
+8
Isolationism, the policy of non-involvement in international affairs, ultimately failed because it proved impractical in a rapidly interconnected world, especially after events like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor forced the US into World War II, discrediting isolationist arguments.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
AI Overview
+8
Isolationism, the policy of non-involvement in international affairs, ultimately failed because it proved impractical in a rapidly interconnected world, especially after events like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor forced the US into World War II, discrediting isolationist arguments.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
- World War II and Pearl Harbor:
The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 shattered the illusion of isolation and forced the US into World War II, ending the era of American non-intervention.
- Economic Interdependence:
The modern global economy relies on international trade and cooperation, making it difficult for any nation to thrive in isolation.
- Missed Opportunities:
Isolationism can lead to missed opportunities for a nation to exert influence on the global stage and to benefit from international collaboration.
- Stifled Innovation:
By retreating from global markets and the flow of ideas, isolationism can hinder innovation and economic growth.
- Global Supply Chains:
US industries depend on the efficient movement of goods and materials across borders, and isolationist policies that impose tariffs and trade restrictions can raise costs for businesses and consumers.
- Moral Imperative:
As the world faced increasingly dangerous situations, many felt that a moral duty to act and help prevent further suffering and loss of life outweighed the desire to avoid conflict.
- Rise of Totalitarianism:
The rise of totalitarian regimes in the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in Europe, highlighted the dangers of inaction and the need for international cooperation to address threats to peace and stability.
- Shifting Public Opinion:
Events like the sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbor shifted public opinion away from neutrality and towards intervention, as people saw the dangers of remaining isolated.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Whether Donald Trump can be classified as an isolationist depends on how you define the term and interpret his actions and policies. Isolationism traditionally refers to a foreign policy that avoids entanglement in international alliances, conflicts, or economic commitments, focusing instead on national self-reliance. Let’s break it down based on Trump’s record and rhetoric.
During his presidency (2017–2021), Trump often criticized multilateral institutions and agreements, which some interpret as isolationist tendencies. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing it disadvantaged American workers, and withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), claiming it hurt U.S. economic interests. He also renegotiated NAFTA into the USMCA, prioritizing bilateral deals over broad multinational frameworks. His "America First" slogan emphasized domestic concerns over global cooperation, which aligns with isolationist vibes in spirit—focusing on U.S. sovereignty and reducing overseas commitments.
On the flip side, Trump wasn’t a pure isolationist by historical standards. He didn’t completely shun international engagement. He maintained and even strengthened some alliances, like with Israel (e.g., moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem) and NATO—though he famously pressured NATO allies to pay more for defense, calling the alliance "obsolete" before walking that back. He engaged in high-profile diplomacy, like his meetings with Kim Jong Un, and took aggressive stances against adversaries like Iran (e.g., ordering the strike on Qassem Soleimani). His trade wars with China, while reducing economic interdependence, were proactive rather than withdrawal-focused—hardly the hands-off approach of a classic isolationist like, say, pre-WWII America.
Rhetorically, Trump’s often leaned into an isolationist vibe—railing against endless wars and nation-building, promising to bring troops home from places like Afghanistan and Syria. Yet, troop levels didn’t always drop as much as advertised, and he escalated drone strikes compared to Obama. So, the isolationist label fits more as a posture than a consistent policy.
Since leaving office, his 2024 campaign rhetoric (as of my last update) doubles down on "America First," criticizing globalism and foreign aid—think his jabs at Ukraine funding—but he’s also floated big ideas like a U.S.-led "anti-China axis," which isn’t exactly retreating from the world stage. X posts from supporters and critics alike reflect this split: some cheer him as a guy who’ll keep America out of messy wars, others blast him as a hypocrite who’ll still meddle when it suits him.
So, is Trump an isolationist? Kinda, but not fully. He’s more of a nationalist who picks and chooses global involvement based on what he thinks benefits the U.S. directly—less "leave the world alone" and more "deal with it on our terms." What’s your take on it? Anything specific from his record you’re thinking about?
During his presidency (2017–2021), Trump often criticized multilateral institutions and agreements, which some interpret as isolationist tendencies. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing it disadvantaged American workers, and withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), claiming it hurt U.S. economic interests. He also renegotiated NAFTA into the USMCA, prioritizing bilateral deals over broad multinational frameworks. His "America First" slogan emphasized domestic concerns over global cooperation, which aligns with isolationist vibes in spirit—focusing on U.S. sovereignty and reducing overseas commitments.
On the flip side, Trump wasn’t a pure isolationist by historical standards. He didn’t completely shun international engagement. He maintained and even strengthened some alliances, like with Israel (e.g., moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem) and NATO—though he famously pressured NATO allies to pay more for defense, calling the alliance "obsolete" before walking that back. He engaged in high-profile diplomacy, like his meetings with Kim Jong Un, and took aggressive stances against adversaries like Iran (e.g., ordering the strike on Qassem Soleimani). His trade wars with China, while reducing economic interdependence, were proactive rather than withdrawal-focused—hardly the hands-off approach of a classic isolationist like, say, pre-WWII America.
Rhetorically, Trump’s often leaned into an isolationist vibe—railing against endless wars and nation-building, promising to bring troops home from places like Afghanistan and Syria. Yet, troop levels didn’t always drop as much as advertised, and he escalated drone strikes compared to Obama. So, the isolationist label fits more as a posture than a consistent policy.
Since leaving office, his 2024 campaign rhetoric (as of my last update) doubles down on "America First," criticizing globalism and foreign aid—think his jabs at Ukraine funding—but he’s also floated big ideas like a U.S.-led "anti-China axis," which isn’t exactly retreating from the world stage. X posts from supporters and critics alike reflect this split: some cheer him as a guy who’ll keep America out of messy wars, others blast him as a hypocrite who’ll still meddle when it suits him.
So, is Trump an isolationist? Kinda, but not fully. He’s more of a nationalist who picks and chooses global involvement based on what he thinks benefits the U.S. directly—less "leave the world alone" and more "deal with it on our terms." What’s your take on it? Anything specific from his record you’re thinking about?
Basic human decency and respect for others is how I roll, but I have been cursed to live in a profound dark age.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Helping others is how I roll.
It might be the selfish gene.
Paradoxically there is selfish profit in altruism.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
AI Overview
+2
While altruism, or selfless concern for the well-being of others, is often seen as a selfless act, research suggests that engaging in altruistic behaviors can also benefit the individual, potentially leading to increased happiness, health, and well-being, and even having positive business implications.
Here's a more detailed look at the relationship between altruism and profit:
Altruism and Personal Benefits:
Altruism and Business:
+2
While altruism, or selfless concern for the well-being of others, is often seen as a selfless act, research suggests that engaging in altruistic behaviors can also benefit the individual, potentially leading to increased happiness, health, and well-being, and even having positive business implications.
Here's a more detailed look at the relationship between altruism and profit:
Altruism and Personal Benefits:
- "Warm Glow" Effect:
Studies show that engaging in altruistic acts can trigger a positive emotional response, often referred to as the "warm glow effect," which is linked to pleasure and reward centers in the brain.
- Increased Happiness and Well-being:
Research indicates that volunteering and other altruistic behaviors are positively correlated with self-reported happiness, health, and overall well-being.
- Reduced Isolation and Sense of Belonging:
Helping others can foster a sense of belonging and reduce feelings of isolation.
- Perspective and Gratitude:
Engaging in altruistic acts can help individuals gain perspective and appreciate the good things in their lives.
Altruism and Business:
- Earning to Give:
Some people choose careers with high earning potential to maximize their capacity for charitable giving, a concept known as "earning to give".
- Effective Altruism:
The philosophy of effective altruism encourages individuals to identify and prioritize the most effective ways to do good, often focusing on addressing global problems with the greatest impact.
- Business as a Force for Good:
Some companies are adopting a social purpose approach, prioritizing social impact alongside profit, demonstrating that altruism and business can be aligned.
- Altruistic Doctors and Better Outcomes:
A study found that doctors who prioritize patient care over income achieve better health outcomes, highlighting the potential benefits of an altruistic approach in healthcare.
- Sustainability as a Business Strategy:
Aligning sustainability initiatives with core business values can drive both positive social impact and business performance.
- Altruism and Cooperation:
Cooperative strategies in business can lead to more profitable long-term outcomes, especially when firms employ multiple agents.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Grok, is Trump altruistic?
Assessing whether someone like Donald Trump is altruistic—acting selflessly for the benefit of others—requires looking at his actions, motivations, and public perception, all of which can be interpreted in different ways. I’ll break it down based on what’s observable, steering clear of mind-reading or definitive moral judgments.
Trump’s supporters often point to specific moves as evidence of altruism. For instance, during his presidency (2017–2021), he donated his $400,000 annual salary to various government agencies, like the National Park Service and the Department of Education. That’s a concrete action that doesn’t directly benefit him financially. He also pushed policies—like tax cuts (e.g., the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) or deregulation—that he and his base argued were for the "greater good" of American workers and businesses, even if the outcomes disproportionately favored the wealthy (e.g., the top 1% saw a bigger tax break relative to lower earners, per IRS data). Supporters might say this reflects a selfless vision for economic growth.
On the flip side, critics argue his behavior leans more self-interested. His real estate career and branding—think Trump Tower, Trump steaks, or even Trump University (which settled fraud claims for $25 million in 2018)—suggest a focus on personal gain and image. Politically, moves like refusing to release his tax returns (breaking decades of precedent) or leveraging his office to host events at his properties (e.g., Mar-a-Lago) fuel the narrative that he prioritizes himself over others. His public rhetoric—often brash, self-aggrandizing ("I alone can fix it," from his 2016 RNC speech)—doesn’t scream humility or self-sacrifice either.
Data’s mixed too. Charitable giving via the Donald J. Trump Foundation looked generous on paper (millions donated over years), but investigations—like the 2018 New York AG lawsuit—found it was partly used for personal or campaign purposes, leading to its dissolution. Compare that to, say, someone like Warren Buffett, who’s pledged 99% of his wealth to charity via the Giving Pledge. Trump’s never signaled that level of detachment from his fortune.
So, is he altruistic? Depends on who’s judging. His fans might say he’s sacrificed a cushy private life for public service, taking flak to "save America." Detractors see a pattern of self-enrichment and ego-driven decisions. Reality’s probably a blend—humans aren’t usually all one or the other. What do you think, based on what you’ve seen of him?
Assessing whether someone like Donald Trump is altruistic—acting selflessly for the benefit of others—requires looking at his actions, motivations, and public perception, all of which can be interpreted in different ways. I’ll break it down based on what’s observable, steering clear of mind-reading or definitive moral judgments.
Trump’s supporters often point to specific moves as evidence of altruism. For instance, during his presidency (2017–2021), he donated his $400,000 annual salary to various government agencies, like the National Park Service and the Department of Education. That’s a concrete action that doesn’t directly benefit him financially. He also pushed policies—like tax cuts (e.g., the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) or deregulation—that he and his base argued were for the "greater good" of American workers and businesses, even if the outcomes disproportionately favored the wealthy (e.g., the top 1% saw a bigger tax break relative to lower earners, per IRS data). Supporters might say this reflects a selfless vision for economic growth.
On the flip side, critics argue his behavior leans more self-interested. His real estate career and branding—think Trump Tower, Trump steaks, or even Trump University (which settled fraud claims for $25 million in 2018)—suggest a focus on personal gain and image. Politically, moves like refusing to release his tax returns (breaking decades of precedent) or leveraging his office to host events at his properties (e.g., Mar-a-Lago) fuel the narrative that he prioritizes himself over others. His public rhetoric—often brash, self-aggrandizing ("I alone can fix it," from his 2016 RNC speech)—doesn’t scream humility or self-sacrifice either.
Data’s mixed too. Charitable giving via the Donald J. Trump Foundation looked generous on paper (millions donated over years), but investigations—like the 2018 New York AG lawsuit—found it was partly used for personal or campaign purposes, leading to its dissolution. Compare that to, say, someone like Warren Buffett, who’s pledged 99% of his wealth to charity via the Giving Pledge. Trump’s never signaled that level of detachment from his fortune.
So, is he altruistic? Depends on who’s judging. His fans might say he’s sacrificed a cushy private life for public service, taking flak to "save America." Detractors see a pattern of self-enrichment and ego-driven decisions. Reality’s probably a blend—humans aren’t usually all one or the other. What do you think, based on what you’ve seen of him?