• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Taiwan Call

Skeptic Ginger said:
You do know the difference between lots of social services programs and communism, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is why I called him a socialist and not a communist. In terms of government policy Nixon has a lot in common with Bernie.

It is a mark of how far to the right the country has shifted.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That is why I called him a socialist and not a communist. In terms of government policy Nixon has a lot in common with Bernie.

It is a mark of how far to the right the country has shifted.
Click to expand...

Guess we'll have to wait for Darth Rotor to explain what he thinks Nixon sold out on.
 
Is Trump preparing to usher in a new era of foreign policy by rash, spur-of-the-moment, midnight twitter outbursts?

That should go well. And he could just get rid of the whole State Dept., since he isn't using it anyway.

Presidency by Tweet™, brought to you by Trump, Inc.
 
quadraginta said:
Is Trump preparing to usher in a new era of foreign policy by rash, spur-of-the-moment, midnight twitter outbursts?

That should go well. And he could just get rid of the whole State Dept., since he isn't using it anyway.

Presidency by Tweet™, brought to you by Trump, Inc.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure that the State Department would be considered experts in their field and in this post-factual age, experts can always be safely ignored :rolleyes:
 
The Don said:
Well, I'm sure that the State Department would be considered experts in their field and in this post-factual age, experts can always be safely ignored :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You're not quite up to date grandad, it is only experts that say what you don't want to hear that should be ignored!
 
Interesting new information on the TTTT (Trump's Taiwan Tit for Tat). I think this part is bang on:

The newspaper formerly of record is so accustomed — and predisposed — to a foreign policy in which our friends are snubbed to make our adversaries happy that its reporters can’t understand a policy that reverses this approach except in terms of lobbying and lucre. And it is so accustomed — and predisposed — to taking Donald Trump for a fool, that its reporters can’t fathom that he’s probably the one calling the shots, and calling them rationally.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
Are you saying that no undemocratic government in history was legitimate? Is democracy the only "true" source of state power? I ask because the overwhelming majority of states in history were, according to that logic, illegitimate.
Click to expand...

That would be correct, sir. They are little more than gigantic hostage situations. A free people would have a right to help them become free, for that matter. If they choose not to, it is for practical reasons and has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
That would be correct, sir. They are little more than gigantic hostage situations. A free people would have a right to help them become free, for that matter. If they choose not to, it is for practical reasons and has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I don't see a definition of "legitimacy" that requires popular support or participation. Whoever holds the power holds the power. I happen to prefer democracies, of course.
 
Beerina said:
That would be correct, sir. They are little more than gigantic hostage situations. A free people would have a right to help them become free, for that matter. If they choose not to, it is for practical reasons and has nothing to do with ethics or morality.
Click to expand...

And so why do the votes of the people of Taiwan not count in this, they seem to like their status ok.
 
Argumemnon said:
I respectfully disagree. I don't see a definition of "legitimacy" that requires popular support or participation. Whoever holds the power holds the power. I happen to prefer democracies, of course.
Click to expand...

That is a tautology, of course whoever holds the power holds the power. The question is a moral one.

Under our ethical framework, who is worthy of being recognized as the legitimate voice of their country:
- Louis XIVth
- Charles deGaulle
I’d say the one with the mandate from the people rather than the one who’s there because of bloodline.

Dictators have the same – moral – claim to recognition as powerful gangsters do in certain neighborhoods. I.e. an unfortunate fact of life that has to be worked around or sometimes with… but are to be deplored. And their ‘subjects’ should be viewed as hostages invalidating, rather than as citizens validating, any claim to respectability.
 
Giz said:
That is a tautology, of course whoever holds the power holds the power. The question is a moral one.

Under our ethical framework, who is worthy of being recognized as the legitimate voice of their country:
- Louis XIVth
- Charles deGaulle
I’d say the one with the mandate from the people rather than the one who’s there because of bloodline.

Dictators have the same – moral – claim to recognition as powerful gangsters do in certain neighborhoods. I.e. an unfortunate fact of life that has to be worked around or sometimes with… but are to be deplored. And their ‘subjects’ should be viewed as hostages invalidating, rather than as citizens validating, any claim to respectability.
Click to expand...

Prior to the Revolution I would bet a majority of the French people felt Louis XIV was the legitimate voice of France and the thought of overthrowing the king was anathema.

And deGaulle got his power by seizing it. He, without any authority, declared himself leader of the Free French. I don't believe they held a vote.
 
Spindrift said:
Prior to the Revolution I would bet a majority of the French people felt Louis XIV was the legitimate voice of France and the thought of overthrowing the king was anathema.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm trying to ask based on current morality. Presumably, autocracy and slavery and the like are no longer seen as 'legitimate'.

Spindrift said:
And deGaulle got his power by seizing it. He, without any authority, declared himself leader of the Free French. I don't believe they held a vote.
Click to expand...

Ha - that's what I get for picking an unclear example (I was thinking post-war, where he was an elected head of state).
 
Giz said:
The question is a moral one.

Under our ethical framework, who is worthy of being recognized as the legitimate voice of their country...
Click to expand...

In international relations, and in many other areas, legitimacy is not a moral question, it is a legal one. The difference and distance between the two is considerable.
 
Oystein said:
In international relations, and in many other areas, legitimacy is not a moral question, it is a legal one. The difference and distance between the two is considerable.
Click to expand...

I would day it is a practical matter. And legal recognition follows practical necessity rather than morality.
 
Giz said:
That is a tautology, of course whoever holds the power holds the power. The question is a moral one.
Click to expand...

Really? When has "legitimate" ever meant something in the moral sense? It's a legal construct. In a monarchy, for instance, a succession is legitimate if it follows the rules in place. However, an usurper that solidifies his power quickly becomes "legitimate" anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom