gradyandrew wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=International%20sanctions%20have%20been%20imposed,began%20in%20late%20February%202014.

Martin, here's a link for countries who have sanctions against Russia. Majority of the world?

Why is this a relavent, deciding factor? …For anything but a finite list of those who have taken action? You don’t think there is a possibility countries don’t take sanction actions along the way for some quite obvious reasons?

Not all countries can just up and sanction other countries, because of reasons. Like Germany has been dependent on Russian oil for a long time, so know you know why Merkel was favoring those types of relationships. Like that.

When you decide to EXCLUDE the very NATO countries that have very direct, actionable reasons to sanction Russia and then ask why countries who are very much LESS affected by Russia are not also taking the same steps, what type of response are you looking for? This is trivial.

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:
As it pertains to the election, I like Trumps foreign policy more than Harris's.

Foreign policy is the main thing I look at because while the president has limited influence on domestic issues, they pretty much have carte blanche in foreign policy.

Does this make me a fascist? I don't think so. Tbh the president's only job should be in service of us national interests. I don't see how conflict with Russia and China benefits America.

Perhaps you can explain what Trump's foreign policy is? Best I can tell from his previous term it was centered around cozying up to Strong Men in order to garner favor in greasing the skids for Trump's person enrichment to build or gain advantage for his international Hotels and Golf Courses.

Not sure what information they're blocking you from in China but the conflicts with Russia and China are much more than the rhetoric about saving the world from facism. That is messaging for public consumption. US is protecting its own national interests. Ukraine provides the US base metals and agricultural products. Also a stronger NATO means a greater stability across US ally countries from both a trade and security perspective. With China it's likely about protecting US currency as the dominant global standard as well as trade with Taiwan. US imports over $100 Billion of goods from Taiwan including 45% of our semi-conductors which go into both computer logic and memory chips. Having China control this would be extremely detrimental to US positioning as a leader in AI as well as computation and military applications.

A US isolationist policy as MAGA supporters push for would likely be devastating for both US interests and as a consumer marker. Trumpseems to only care about what is good for Trump and like a spoiled child is too narcissistic to understand the nuance of international policy and it's long term effect on US interests. He was somewhat shilded from this in his first term by having some functional people around him. For his current platform the 2025 proposal is to surround him with loyalists who do not offer divergent opinions. Not sure how you would agree that would be prudent for any type of sustainable foreign policy.

Are you really any different than MAGA supporters who seem to not be studied on what is actually going on with this guy?

Trump's already been president for four years so I think we can just refer to 2016-2020 for his foreign policy. What problems did you have with his first run? Him not bombing Russia for interference in our elections? The Abraham Accords?

As part of the two agreements, both the UAE and Bahrain recognized Israel's sovereignty, enabling the establishment of full diplomatic relations. Israel's initial agreement with the UAE marked the first instance of Israel establishing diplomatic relations with an Arab country since 1994, when the Israel–Jordan peace treaty came into effect.[

Your response to what Trumps foreign policy is includes the decision to not bomb Russia? And that’s the high level?

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=International%20sanctions%20have%20been%20imposed,began%20in%20late%20February%202014.

Martin, here's a link for countries who have sanctions against Russia. Majority of the world?

Why is this a relavent, deciding factor? …For anything but a finite list of those who have taken action? You don’t think there is a possibility countries don’t take sanction actions along the way for some quite obvious reasons?

Not all countries can just up and sanction other countries, because of reasons. Like Germany has been dependent on Russian oil for a long time, so know you know why Merkel was favoring those types of relationships. Like that.

When you decide to EXCLUDE the very NATO countries that have very direct, actionable reasons to sanction Russia and then ask why countries who are very much LESS affected by Russia are not also taking the same steps, what type of response are you looking for? This is trivial.

I think sanctions are a pretty accurate measure of being "up in arms about Putins invasion " How the he'll can anyone prove or disprove an okie dokie proposition?

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Not sure what information they're blocking you from in China but the conflicts with Russia and China are much more than the rhetoric about saving the world from facism. That is messaging for public consumption.

How familiar are you with Chinese media? Does consuming both make me less informed?

No, it makes us wonder what you can and cannot read or have access to. Because none of us know.

I just spent the last two months in Pennsylvania. And it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that living in America somehow means you are better informed. We can all agree with that.

Oh here's a big surprise I learned after watching about 10 hours of Trump rallies this week- dude actually loves to share the spotlight. His rallies have tons of call outs to people in the crowd, anecdotes about them, and regularly calling people up for testimonials. Watch a rally from start to finish.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Not sure what information they're blocking you from in China but the conflicts with Russia and China are much more than the rhetoric about saving the world from facism. That is messaging for public consumption.

How familiar are you with Chinese media? Does consuming both make me less informed?

No, it makes us wonder what you can and cannot read or have access to. Because none of us know.

I just spent the last two months in Pennsylvania. And it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that living in America somehow means you are better informed. We can all agree with that.

You make assumptions.

We do not know if you have a lack of resources as you have expressed you live in China.

Why do you think we knew you also had lived in PA for a couple of months?

People are literally trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because of your personal living country and you have turned it to something else.

Do you not understand this?

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=International%20sanctions%20have%20been%20imposed,began%20in%20late%20February%202014.

Martin, here's a link for countries who have sanctions against Russia. Majority of the world?

Why is this a relavent, deciding factor? …For anything but a finite list of those who have taken action? You don’t think there is a possibility countries don’t take sanction actions along the way for some quite obvious reasons?

Not all countries can just up and sanction other countries, because of reasons. Like Germany has been dependent on Russian oil for a long time, so know you know why Merkel was favoring those types of relationships. Like that.

When you decide to EXCLUDE the very NATO countries that have very direct, actionable reasons to sanction Russia and then ask why countries who are very much LESS affected by Russia are not also taking the same steps, what type of response are you looking for? This is trivial.

I think sanctions are a pretty accurate measure of being "up in arms about Putins invasion " How the he'll can anyone prove or disprove an okie dokie proposition?

That’s great. What about those countries that don’t have the means to provide sanctions for whatever reason.

You counting those or not so much?

Why is your assumption that only those countries that have enacted sanctions meaningful?

You have dodge a big hole in my Germany example. Care to address or just blithely skip over?

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Not sure what information they're blocking you from in China but the conflicts with Russia and China are much more than the rhetoric about saving the world from facism. That is messaging for public consumption.

How familiar are you with Chinese media? Does consuming both make me less informed?

No, it makes us wonder what you can and cannot read or have access to. Because none of us know.

Russia and China are trying to spread their system of government across the world?

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Not sure what information they're blocking you from in China but the conflicts with Russia and China are much more than the rhetoric about saving the world from facism. That is messaging for public consumption.

How familiar are you with Chinese media? Does consuming both make me less informed?

No, it makes us wonder what you can and cannot read or have access to. Because none of us know.

Russia and China are trying to spread their system of government across the world?

gradyandrew, I’m trying to explain to you that the rest of us are wondering if your information is limited because of where you live in the world. I don’t think that’s an unusual take.

You don’t make things easier on yourself or anyone you are interacting with. We are literally giving you the benefit of doubt.
That’s all.

Candidly, I don’t understand what your response above means.

I do wonder what his foreign policy is in regards to stolen classified information.

Is that a good takeaway?