Trump 2.0 official thread

[TPenglake]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These two articles perhaps belong in the Chinese soft power thread, but I do think within the content of both articles is a fact that's relevant to this thread. That being the claim this trend of Chinamaxxing is a reaction to the malaise Gen-Z and below Americans feel about their own country. I feel like its important to dive into this pessimism, because its not a simple case of knee jerk reactions to things like the cost of living and Trump's shenanigans. That would imply people have this expectation that things will turn a corner with a Democrat president and some still make this argument to highlight the American system's superiority to China's. But this time, the rot is far deeper. To funnily enough quote the John Wick movies, everything now comes down to rules and consequences, or for that matter the lack of in modern American politics.

Let's start with the latter, everyone thought that the Epstein files would be a gotcha moment for Trump and that's basically fallen flat. There was of course never a way to hold him legally liable since the files basically amount to he said, she said, which ain't admissable in court, but even the type of reputational damage that's put Starmer's career on the line hasn't happened to Trump. His fans are as loyal as ever because to them, even a pedo is more preferrable to a lib.

And then we get to the lack of rules. Its a given Trump has expanded the power of the executive in ways no recent US president has done. Fair to assume he's doing so with the hope that he can make himself dictator, but if a Democrat becomes president next time around, guess what? The Democratic constituency are going to expect that their new president to operate with the same disregard of checks and balances that Trump did. Really is a simple case of he did it, so why can't we? And more importantly it'll be a case of we have to, in order to undo all the damage that the Republicans did during their four years. And then if the Democrats screw up and a Republican becomes president, they'll be Trump on steroids because on top of disregarding checks and balances being the new Republican modus operandi, they'll say the Democrats did it so why can't we? It's a slippery slope of disregarding limits on executive power from a public that's so polarized, ideaology takes presedence over preserving the integrity of the Republic.

That's the key here, no matter how bad a Western democratic leader is, elections are supposed to function as the light at the end of the tunnel, the American people have stopped believing that.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These two articles perhaps belong in the Chinese soft power thread, but I do think within the content of both articles is a fact that's relevant to this thread. That being the claim this trend of Chinamaxxing is a reaction to the malaise Gen-Z and below Americans feel about their own country. I feel like its important to dive into this pessimism, because its not a simple case of knee jerk reactions to things like the cost of living and Trump's shenanigans. That would imply people have this expectation that things will turn a corner with a Democrat president and some still make this argument to highlight the American system's superiority to China's. But this time, the rot is far deeper. To funnily enough quote the John Wick movies, everything now comes down to rules and consequences, or for that matter the lack of in modern American politics.

Let's start with the latter, everyone thought that the Epstein files would be a gotcha moment for Trump and that's basically fallen flat. There was of course never a way to hold him legally liable since the files basically amount to he said, she said, which ain't admissable in court, but even the type of reputational damage that's put Starmer's career on the line hasn't happened to Trump. His fans are as loyal as ever because to them, even a pedo is more preferrable to a lib.

And then we get to the lack of rules. Its a given Trump has expanded the power of the executive in ways no recent US president has done. Fair to assume he's doing so with the hope that he can make himself dictator, but if a Democrat becomes president next time around, guess what? The Democratic constituency are going to expect that their new president to operate with the same disregard of checks and balances that Trump did. Really is a simple case of he did it, so why can't we? And more importantly it'll be a case of we have to, in order to undo all the damage that the Republicans did during their four years. And then if the Democrats screw up and a Republican becomes president, they'll be Trump on steroids because on top of disregarding checks and balances being the new Republican modus operandi, they'll say the Democrats did it so why can't we? It's a slippery slope of disregarding limits on executive power from a public that's so polarized, ideaology takes presedence over preserving the integrity of the Republic.

That's the key here, no matter how bad a Western democratic leader is, elections are supposed to function as the light at the end of the tunnel, the American people have stopped believing that.

It is a crisis of faith in the neoliberal rule based disorder and it was facilitated by the series of spectacular PRC wins starting December 2024. At the end of the day soft power and propaganda does not matter as much as the pedo cannibals believe them to be precisely because the ground reality is not decided by who can push their agenda the hardest. Real power comes from innovation, industrial capacity, and quality of life, not how high your stock valuation is or how much your meme coins are worth. Dow Jones can hit 100,000 tomorrow and it wouldn’t matter if the U.S. wants to reshore semiconductor or refine rare earths.

The latest Epstein disclosures only helped add fuel to the fire. We are seeing a perfect storm of geopolitical headwinds that’s even more severe than what the Soviets faced during the waning days of the Cold War. Competition with China is no longer the primary concern — maintaining the legitimacy of the ruling class is.

 

[Wrought]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2022943476627972321

The misspelling of "kinetic" seems to be from the twitter account, not from Hegseth himself.

 

[Matcher6130]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These two articles perhaps belong in the Chinese soft power thread, but I do think within the content of both articles is a fact that's relevant to this thread. That being the claim this trend of Chinamaxxing is a reaction to the malaise Gen-Z and below Americans feel about their own country. I feel like its important to dive into this pessimism, because its not a simple case of knee jerk reactions to things like the cost of living and Trump's shenanigans. That would imply people have this expectation that things will turn a corner with a Democrat president and some still make this argument to highlight the American system's superiority to China's. But this time, the rot is far deeper. To funnily enough quote the John Wick movies, everything now comes down to rules and consequences, or for that matter the lack of in modern American politics.

My apologies to the mods for going off topic, but this sparked a light that I can't get out of my head.

For a little while, I've been making the argument that the current arc of American sentiments towards China was like Japan: Evil -> Weird/infantilized -> Admired. But your statement made me realize that's not it at all: it's 1970s all over again.

Bruce Lee and Hong Kong Cinema rode the New Wave in the 1970s, which anchored Sinophere tropes in American culture: case and point in Star Wars "the Force" is literally 气 (Qi). The 70s US also suffered heavily from a major recession which is now remembered ad "The Great Inflation". You can even go a step further: Sinosphere culture first took root among Black Americans and remains a persistent to this day (if largely overshadowed by Japanese Anime). Who's credited for Gen Z's interest in China? Darrin "iShowSpeed" Watkins, a Black American.

The politics are even the same. Modern American anti-government beliefs started from this era with Boomer Hippies grewing having grown up and stopped paying lip-service to social equity in favor of open racism, fringe politics, and fundementalist Christianity. Replace Televangelists with Streamers and tell me Joe Rogan isn't the new Jim Bakker.

They say history doesn't repeat but rhymes. So I wonder how long this positivity towards China will continue before it becomes stale, or degrades back into biogotry.

 

[Ringsword]

We live in dangerous times. That‘s why it‘s important that major Asian countries like India and China put aside their petty problems and stop worshiping whites. Japan is a lost cause. Who knows what these guys would try.

India is also very much a lost cause-no mutually beneficial border treaty,nor mutually beneficial trade agteemeent-one word.one look,one snap of the west's finger and india will stab China in the back ;just to please the west.

 

[Wrought]

A 2025 retrospective evaluation on MAGA after year one, as per their own stated goals. Is Trump making America great again? (Spoiler: lol no).

This report assesses whether the Trump administration’s second-term approach toward China has produced measurable gains for the United States after one year. It evaluates the administration’s four stated objectives: reindustrializing the U.S. economy, maintaining leadership in artificial intelligence (AI), reducing strategic dependencies on China, and restoring U.S. global standing. The report does not challenge or critique the objectives the administration has set for competing with China. Rather, it measures the United States’ performance against the objectives the administration has identified. The findings point to a consistent pattern across policy domains: ambition and rhetoric have outpaced tangible results.

Overall, the Trump administration’s first year record shows strong signaling but limited durable gains. Turning rhetoric into results will hinge on follow-through in the second year, with sustained execution, policy stability, and restoring domestic and international confidence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[jospence]

India is also very much a lost cause-no mutually beneficial border treaty,nor mutually beneficial trade agreement-one word.one look,one snap of the west's finger and india will stab China in the back ;just to please the west.

In a truly ideal world, India almost certainly would like to get rid of its reliance on foreign weapons, technology, and support to even half the degree China has. However, India is not in this position, and from their current geopolitical position, it makes sense from a selfish perspective. Unfortunately, India and Pakistan are bitter enemies which has only been intensified by hypernationalism, particularly in India. This makes Pakistan it's primary threat, with China being a secondary threat for both providing arms to Pakistan and territory conflicts in the Himalayas.

India's failure to transition from an agrarian economy to a factory based manufacturing economy in the mid 20th century is one of the single biggest reasons for their current position and why they are so reliant on the West. Yes there were mistakes made during the Great Leap Forward and subsequent economic policies, but ultimately China was able to transition its population and economy from agriculture to manufacturing. This laid the groundwork for China's eventual economic independence by the 21st century and the eventual maturation of highly technical fields (aviation, engines, batteries, renewable energy, nuclear, ect.), which is where China finds itself today. This is of course on top of decades of careful economic planning to make this possible, China's economic transition didn't pave the way for this alone. In doing this transition along with the communist revolution, China was able to deal with or severely diminish many of the old cultural contradictions and hierarchies. India never resolved these contradictions, still hasn't properly transitioned away from having such a large agrarian society, and has a systemic culture of corruption and poor forward planning. All of this means that India doesn't have a choice at the moment to divest from the West, they will need to repeat and undergo many of the growing pains china experienced from 1990 - 2015, and make the proper managed long term choices to complete the transition.

 

[reservior dogs]

In a truly ideal world, India almost certainly would like to get rid of its reliance on foreign weapons, technology, and support to even half the degree China has. However, India is not in this position, and from their current geopolitical position, it makes sense from a selfish perspective. Unfortunately, India and Pakistan are bitter enemies which has only been intensified by hypernationalism, particularly in India. This makes Pakistan it's primary threat, with China being a secondary threat for both providing arms to Pakistan and territory conflicts in the Himalayas.

India's failure to transition from an agrarian economy to a factory based manufacturing economy in the mid 20th century is one of the single biggest reasons for their current position and why they are so reliant on the West. Yes there were mistakes made during the Great Leap Forward and subsequent economic policies, but ultimately China was able to transition its population and economy from agriculture to manufacturing. This laid the groundwork for China's eventual economic independence by the 21st century and the eventual maturation of highly technical fields (aviation, engines, batteries, renewable energy, nuclear, ect.), which is where China finds itself today. This is of course on top of decades of careful economic planning to make this possible, China's economic transition didn't pave the way for this alone. In doing this transition along with the communist revolution, China was able to deal with or severely diminish many of the old cultural contradictions and hierarchies. India never resolved these contradictions, still hasn't properly transitioned away from having such a large agrarian society, and has a systemic culture of corruption and poor forward planning. All of this means that India doesn't have a choice at the moment to divest from the West, they will need to repeat and undergo many of the growing pains china experienced from 1990 - 2015, and make the proper managed long term choices to complete the transition.

There are many obstacles that India must overcome to have hope to industrialize. The biggest obstacle is that the Gandhi government left the same powers in charge of the country after they formed. As Mao famously said, power came out of the barrel of the gun. The CPC seize power by overthrowing the existing power with military. This means they have absolute control over the country. They own all the land, all the factories, all the buildings. This paved the way for all the great infrastructure projects that came later. Gandhi, on the other hand, rose through nonviolent means. While that is commendable, it also mean the same powers were running the country after he came to power. The land owners were still there after the country formed. Each power center acting on its own best interest without regard to how that impacts the country. Each region also have their own agenda. There is no way to change this structure unless someone managed to militarily overthrow the existing structure and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The other was in how the politicians behave between the two countries. The CPC focus on the longer term. During their rise, the Chinese were very low key for a very long time until they were so big that it was no longer possible. They focus on things that move the country forward, infrastructure, arms, education, general health of the population. They don't care if people on the outside call them dictators. On the Indian side, I see a lot of posturing, Optics. Even if they suffered adversity, nothing was learned and years later, things still work the same. DRDO is an example that no op for decades are accepted. As long as the politician can spin it as a win, or India will be a superpower in 2050, that is all that matters.

Finally, in the age of automation and AI, the window for a poor country catching up is fast closing. While China was rising, cheap labor was valuable. Soon, it may become irrelevant. If the Chinese can truly get commercially viable fusion power working, even the countries that are already industrialized may revert back to agrarian. Given that call centers deal with a very limited set of scenarios, it is a prime target to be taken over by AI.

 

[jospence]

There are many obstacles that India must overcome to have hope to industrialize. The biggest obstacle is that the Gandhi government left the same powers in charge of the country after they formed. As Mao famously said, power came out of the barrel of the gun. The CPC seize power by overthrowing the existing power with military. This means they have absolute control over the country. They own all the land, all the factories, all the buildings. This paved the way for all the great infrastructure projects that came later. Gandhi, on the other hand, rose through nonviolent means. While that is commendable, it also mean the same powers were running the country after he came to power. The land owners were still there after the country formed. Each power center acting on its own best interest without regard to how that impacts the country. Each region also have their own agenda. There is no way to change this structure unless someone managed to militarily overthrow the existing structure and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The other was in how the politicians behave between the two countries. The CPC focus on the longer term. During their rise, the Chinese were very low key for a very long time until they were so big that it was no longer possible. They focus on things that move the country forward, infrastructure, arms, education, general health of the population. They don't care if people on the outside call them dictators. On the Indian side, I see a lot of posturing, Optics. Even if they suffered adversity, nothing was learned and years later, things still work the same. DRDO is an example that no op for decades are accepted. As long as the politician can spin it as a win, or India will be a superpower in 2050, that is all that matters.

Finally, in the age of automation and AI, the window for a poor country catching up is fast closing. While China was rising, cheap labor was valuable. Soon, it may become irrelevant. If the Chinese can truly get commercially viable fusion power working, even the countries that are already industrialized may revert back to agrarian. Given that call centers deal with a very limited set of scenarios, it is a prime target to be taken over by AI.

I don't want this to become too OT and upset the mods, but I agree with everything except for the last paragraph. Automation and AI may make it seem impossible, but human history has shown us that no matter the economic conditions and system, countries are able to rise and fall. It will take some time to find out how, and I'm not sure anyone knows, but some countries will be able to manage. It might take a long time, but that also depends on how long this age of AI lasts and how the world evolves. The conditions of the world will be very different 50 years from now.