Just want to respond to the rest of your points since you are clearly making the much appreciated effort to engage in an honest exchange of ideas.
foosballnick wrote:I think that you are potentially taking a narrow view of the US regarding international relations. There's a nuance, and every country/issue has different circumstances. Start with the premise that the US is at it's core a highly consumer driven society/economy with significant reliance on the global market for goods and services. While you seem to be preaching for isolationism, in actuality, every move that is made internationally is to either secure long term US Security and Trade interests.
Agree 100% about the benefits of international trade to the US economy. I'll go one step further and add that if foreign governments are willing to subsidize American consumers by decreasing capital costs for exporters, the US government, acting on behalf of the majority of Americans,
should be happy to accept their ill- considered generosity. Free trade is about lowering consumer costs and nothing else.
In terms of the supply side, my suspicion is that tariff increases are meant to be bargaining chip in opening up China to US tech firms AI services, since this is the next big thing, but I have no evidence to support that idea.
Re: "While you ...Security and trade interests" my view is that there's been a steady erosion of those over the past two decades vis a vis China, not because of any nefarious planning by the CCP Politburo but by a series of unforced errors in American foreign policy and overspending on the military rather than on infrastructure. I thought Obama's foreign policy was pretty good and Trump's decisions to exit the TPP, Iran deal, and the climate deal with China were mistakes. When Biden took office he was pretty forthright about rebalanced relations with China. I don't find any strong evidence of that happening besides at least that the two militaries are talking with each other again.
So I'm not a fan of Trump's first term foreign policy or of Biden's. I slightly lean Trump here because I don't think he was really in the driver's seat for a lot of his foreign policy in his first term and he seems like someone who's more willing to negotiate a compromise so he can get a win. On Harris's side, I really like that Walz has extensive experience in China as more or less a regular citizen. It's a tall ask but I hope the debate can clarify at least some of their differences.
foosballnick wrote:To the points you are made...... - The middle east has oil but is unstable politically across a confluence of countries, religions/sects and socio-economic differences. This is why it is necessary to form stable relationships- as distasteful as it may be - without monarchies such as the Saudi's to help drive stability and exert proxy control across the region.
Agree again here. Let's push it further and say that Venezuela, Russia, and Iran are all distasteful. As far as I know, Putin, Maduro, and the mullah have never been accused with something as distasteful as what happened to Kashoggi. Also, plenty of similarities between Ukraine and Yemen. And here's the thing, the "we need oil" argument made sense 20 years ago, but the US is now a net exporter. My ideal candidate would favor unrestricted trade along with a relatively open immigration policy for asylum seekers from undemocratic regimes.
foosballnick wrote:- Just a guess - but the US meddling in Hong Kong is likely meant to rattle chains about Taiwan As I previously mentioned - the US has significant trade partnerships with Taiwan in Semi-conductors & chips.
And sadly dissident Joshua Wong pays the price when the US government gives him a handy (public support) but no happy ending (pretty sure US rejected his request for asylum)
foosballnick wrote:Also - not sure what factors would lead you to believe that there would be a greater chance at nuclear conflict with Harris vs. Trump beyond what I had previously shared. It was not only about controlling the nuclear arsenal. Further, Trump is 78 years old and showing signs of derangement and thirst for vengence. Further - if elected, he will likely surround himself with "yes" men as he has shown a significant history of not liking nor seek any dissenting opinions. Not sure how you would equate that to a model of being able to handle international crisis in a sane way.
I guess the answer here is that Trump has stated he will end the war in Ukraine on day one.
