so can't argue there

when?

Nah I mean fuck most of the other countries let's get pre world war America back, no intervention, strong trade relationships, will only go to war for very close allies like the UK or for actual US interests

Well the thing is, that's basically surrendering the whole rest of the world to be China's hegemon

is the us not still the world hegemon? or are we simply saying it isn't because their grip on the world is not as strong as it was immediately following the death of their rival geopolitical bloc?

death?

yes

the eastern bloc died

the soviet empire

lol, it morphed, not died

US needs to oppose China now or China will "peacefully rise" by gobbling up all of asia and africa and bully europe around, and ultimately start a war with US

it morphed into russo-china

it did die what exists now is just a product of russia reasserting itself

During Trumps WH summit where Tim was at, the media was outside stuck and bitching at everything they could hear.
OH THE SALT
https://youtu.be/0d2eTFA7eIM

dab

and funnily despite the fact that russia is quite a bit weaker than the ussr they're managing to expand

And we care for the rest of the world why? Trade ties would be enough to keep a lot of the allies, and we could still oppose China without being super involved

Cut trade ties

Watch China fall

It helps the US if the world likes the US

and if you surrender the world to China, you're just feeding a bigger monster that will eventually try to eat you too

i would be fine with pulling out of the most the world and focusing on building a sphere around the anglosphere and western hemisphere

China has initiated huge wars every single time it "rose", which is like 4 or 5 times

they started with aggression towards neighbors, gobbled everything up they could, they found the biggest target, started a war, lost, and fell apart

it's an enormous mistake to let them do that again

China is a non threat rn if the US stops trade with China China's whole economy crashes when America feels slight shockwaves at most

I think that's an exaggeration. there is a risk of China leapfrogging the US with different military tech. and china's economy is super self sufficient, way more than the US

if china and US cut ties tomorrow, china would be fine, US would have lots of major shocks as the cheap chinese crap isn't available anymore

it would adjust of course, which is good, but it would take time

And we'd still trade with the world if we need to and have actual allies that would fight for US, like the UK would sail to the US mainland to protect the US but most of our "allies" wouldn't

Fuck the ones that wouldn't

only if you hadn't already sold the world down the river

they certainly wouldn't sail to help trump. they hate him with every bone in their body

even the UK I think literally couldn't help

their own defense department has warned that their own multiculturalism may prevent them from taking military action in certain parts of the world

US would feel pretty big Short term effects if they cut ties with China but the Chinese economy is only strong at the moment because it uses the US as a foundation

ie: imagine the UK decided to join the US in some war. basically most of the UK would riot. left wingers, muslims, young people, pretty much all immigrants of any kind, etc, have no investment in helping the UK help the US. only the old generation would

Remove that and China is still economically strong

I think we're past the point of no return with China's self sufficiency

But not superpower level

yes continuing to feed into it is a bad idea and the US needs to foster self sufficiency again

dunno i've found WGAP side-splitting the second i heard him talk about them politicians

which is why trump's tarrif strategy is a good one

The other thing I mentioned was military tech. US seems to be a bit stuck in the 20th century. China is leapfrogging straight to space weapons and hypersonic rail guns.

If china can develop effective anti-ship railguns, that pretty much counters the whole strategy of the US military. If they can railgun the aircraft carriers, what's the US gonna do?

The us could easily be almost entirely self sufficient in a few years if our leaders had any clue what to do

the US also has little will to fight, though that might be changing

yes agree, US is well poised, but it would be a big effort

and even a 0.1% GDP cost would have the corporate media howling at trump's anti-market agenda blah blah

look at brexit -> hey we can have sovereignty again but it will cost us a couple percent of GDP

oh heavens tebetsy

I think the us populace in some level realize like there's was no reason to be in Vietnam or other similar wars

well, there was a reason. communism

it's not a reason for them to be involved

and the US successfully stopped communism from spreading around the world

But like Japan and 9/11 no one was against it

this only matters to the ruling class

that's why vietnam was continued and escelated by 5 different presidents from both republicans and democrats

they thought it was important to do, and we don't know how it would have turned out if the US didn't do that

Why is it our job to save you dumbasses when you all fuck up, if we remove the safety net you'll have to learn

communism is an inherently violent, expansionist and seditious ideology. the US was right to vociferously oppose it's spread

and look now how cultural marxism finally has a foothold in the US and the west

lol

what you're calling "cultural marxism" is the product of liberalism

This

totally disagree

So much this

the key difference is marxist power dynamics (oppressed/oppressor) and identitarianism

liberalism without those 2 things is very different from what we have today

the oppressed/oppressor dynamic is a feature of liberalism and has been since before marxism even existed

don't agree

think sargon but left of centre

marx's class analysis was influenced by liberal philosophy

influenced maybe, but it's not the same

of course it's not the same

to me, liberalism is basically the opposite of those 2 things

Also for the record there's a middle ground between the US being world police and the US being Switzerland and the world getting fucked without us

liberalism is there to enforce equal treatment under the law, and to compensate for being dealt a bad hand

compensating for being dealt a bad hand means that you are not limiting egalitarianism to equal treatment under the law

I mean in terms of universal health care and that kind of thing

In the semi modern age like mid 1900s liberalism and marxism have been driven by the same 2 things profit and some sort of freedom or equality

social liberalism already opened the door to the sort of egalitarianism we see from progressives by prescribing political action to rectify inequalities that transcend legal inequalities

They are strongly related

one thing that truly baffles me is how identitarianism became synonomous with liberalism. why can't people see that's a backslide?

that isn't to say that progressivism is entirely liberal, but it mostly is, and the illiberal strands carry the power they due by virtue of their proximity to ruling class ideology

well that's still an identitarian idea. if everybody is equal under the law, black/white/gay/etc then we don't need these grand scales-on-thumb actions like affirmative action etc

Also for the record calling yourself a classic liberals is a special way to say literally conservative

if you're for striving for equality of opportunity and you recognize that inequality of opportunity stems from an idententarian basis then doesn't it logically follow

but if everybody is equally entitled to universal healthcare, free education, etc, then there's nothing to fix

I don't call myself a classic liberal

because the idea is that these groups still face inequalities of opportunity by virtue of their identity

social liberal maybe? anti-identitarian liberal?

Yeah but I just wanted to say class liberal as a term is retarded

Phone autocorrect is too

I don't think identity should play literally any role in politics

why

because skin color doesn't matter

Well identity isn't just race

"conservatives" are just the centrist libs of your parent's generation and the progressives of your grandparent's generation