Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Exactly! This is an interesting difference between Sonic and Amy. Sonic moreso values individual interests. Amy moreso values social harmony. Funny thought, Amy may lean Japanese collectivist while Sonic may lean toward more American invidualism.

11,283 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Joe Rogan is a Democrat and a Republican: “I am liberal in every social way…. I'm very liberal in terms of civil rights, gay rights, and women's rights, all those core issues that make a person a progressive.” “I'm also a hunter. I'm very Pro Second Amendment, I'm also very Pro military, I’m very pro police, very Pro first responders, Fire Department…. So in that regard, I'm very right-wing” “I'm politically homeless… I think there's more people in the center than there are even on both sides now because one of the things that happened during the Trump administration and during the pandemic, a lot of people did not feel like they belong on one side or the other but they're in communities where you have to support one side or the other or you don't feel like you have a tribe, and everybody wants to be a part of a tribe and it takes real courage to stand out away from your tribe and say, ‘I don't agree with that.’” A heavy majority of Americans fall in a similar position as Joe Rogan described in this clip. Some of you may lean more left and a little right, some of you may lean to both sides equally, and some of you may lean more right and a little left; but you are all the same in that you don’t align with one party exactly and you are politically homeless. This video is important because it shows you this is not just ok, it’s what a majority of people feel. The future of political parties is literally no political party. When did you become politically homeless👇🏻

End Tribalism in Politics

546,026 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Hegseth’s message to Europe could hardly be clearer: the US is pivoting toward the Asian model of alliance management - pragmatic, interest-driven, and results-oriented - rather than the old European model of values-based diplomacy laced with moralizing and lectures on human rights and the “rules-based order.” For Asian countries (Singapore, Philippines, etc.), relations with the US have always been structured more on common interests than common values. Singapore and Asian states are pragmatic and are willing to work with whoever occupies the White House because America’s role as the balancer in Asia remains indispensable. Even non-aligned countries such as India and former adversaries such as Vietnam now recognize this. They appreciate hard power and credible deterrence more than pretty speeches, which is perfectly in line with the US's new national security strategy. Managing the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and other hotspots requires credible deterrence and military capability far more than human rights resolutions. Asia’s focus on this aligns with the need to impose costs on revisionist behavior. Basing your foreign policy on human rights and democracy, you risk losing nations that don't exactly hold the American variant of democracy in high regard. Hegseth praised “model allies” who are “capable, clear-eyed, and ready to defend their national interests.” His use of "clear-eyed" is important here. It means that to be an ally, you must agree on what the threat is. That should be the starting point. From there, national interests converge. Note how European "allies" diverge from this framework. You have many European nations now characterizing the US as the threat to the global order instead. This is the opposite of clear-eyedness. In a world where China presents a serious, long-term challenge to the regional order, utility and resolve matter more than shared ideology. Asia adapted after the collapse of the TPP by building CPTPP and RCEP; it managed Trump’s hard-power instincts and Biden’s style alike by staying focused on interests. The US, facing its own fiscal and strategic realities, is now explicitly choosing to reward and prioritize that same pragmatism. Western Europe would indeed do well to take note.

Melissa Chen

95,459 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

What this video really exposes is Japan’s strategic humiliation. Sanae Takaichi can say, “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency,” and posture as if Japan were drawing red lines with China. But the confidence behind that line comes not from Japanese sovereignty, only from domestic populism and the assumption that the United States will remain the ultimate backer. That is Japan’s dilemma. It wants to act tough toward China, while constantly making itself useful and obedient enough not to be discarded by Washington. And that is exactly why Trump-style America is so dangerous for Tokyo. Trump does not respect loyalty; he's obsessed with power. The more Japan flatters, the less equal it becomes. Because Trump discards imperial pets faster than enemies — he only respects those who have the ability to say “no.” This is why postwar Japan remains trapped between performance and dependence: outwardly feigned strategic autonomy while outsourcing its security identity to its master. And unlike Europe, Japan faces a deeper problem in China: it is not dealing only with rivalry, but with an unresolved civilizational wound. China does not hate Japan merely because Japan is pro-American. China hates Japan because Japan invaded, massacred, and brutalized it on a historic scale. What makes Japan even less respected is that it shows arrogance toward the people it once slaughtered and still tries to project itself as a moral actor in Asia, while showing extraordinary obedience toward the power that bombed Tokyo and atomized Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the Chinese, that is what makes Japan uniquely contemptible: arrogant toward its victims, submissive toward its master, and still pretending to stand upright.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

45,863 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад