Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

On Trump flouting norms and why this is a negative development: "[One of the] remarkable things about Donald Trump—and uniquely among American politicians—is that he has violated norms that have been in place, such as: you don’t boast, you don’t blatantly lie. I mean, all politicians lie because all...

275,039 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

I spoke with Prof. Arora (Pooja Arora) about how the postwar norm against aggressive war drove decades of declining violence—and how today’s “might makes right” politics, embraced by leaders like Putin and Trump, now threaten that hard-won peace. Me: The norm that countries do not go to war except in self-defense and with authorization of the UN Security Council has been rejected both by Putin and Trump. Of course, there were often violations of that in the past, including the United States invading Iraq, for example. So it’s not as if that norm was always followed. But still, it was a change from hundreds—maybe thousands—of years of history, and that norm, I think, does deserve credit for the decline of interstate and great-power war since World War II. In my books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, I’ve plotted the rate of battle deaths since 1946. I don’t know if my image is reversed or not—whether it goes left to right from your point of view—but it goes down. It has ups and downs, and in the last couple of years, because of the wars you pointed to—Ukraine, Gaza, and even more so East Africa, in Sudan and Ethiopia—there has been an uptick. Still, that uptick has not wiped out all the progress we’ve made. We are still at a more peaceful time than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s. We’re back to around the late 1990s level. But it has gotten somewhat worse, and it could get worse still if that norm is permanently shattered. It is certainly being threatened. We don’t know whether it will reassert itself—given that Ukraine has been very costly to Russia, and given that Donald Trump says a lot of things he doesn’t do. I still think it’s unlikely the United States will apply military force in Greenland. But there’s no question the norm is being threatened, and I do think it’s a serious risk to world peace. Pooja Arora: It just appears that realism is back with a bang, and that “might makes right” may win. Me: Well, it is back, certainly. And the Trump administration is very explicit about that. They have basically said “might is right.” The question is, will that prevail? It might. On the other hand, there were good reasons to have the liberal international order—namely, that it prevented war. And wars, as the bumper sticker from my childhood said, are not healthy for children or other living things. There are huge disadvantages to war. Countries get tired of them. People revolt against governments that engage in them. We’re seeing that in Iran right now. One grievance is that the ayatollahs have wasted national resources on proxy wars across the Middle East at the expense of their people. There could very well be a backlash in the United States if it gets involved in wars and American soldiers start losing their lives. So yes, there is a definite movement toward what’s called realism. I think it’s a bad term, because I don’t think it’s particularly realistic. It’s actually quite realistic to believe that avoiding stupid wars is a much better path to prosperity and well-being. Still, cynical, zero-sum competition is being embraced by major world leaders. The question is whether the disadvantages will ultimately bring the liberal international order back. The European Union is still committed to it, as is much of the rest of the world, East Asia. So it’s not dead—but it is certainly threatened.

Steven Pinker

89,098 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

SNYDER: The balance between the oligarchy and fascism is different in Russia and the US. I think Putin, unlike Trump, actually believes in some world beyond the visible world. In which what’s true is will and there’s a mystical past which contains the essence of the nation. And by taking violent action in the present, we can return to that mystical past. I think Putin actually believes stuff like that, and in that sense, he’s more of a fascist than Trump. For Trump, he says fascist things, he does fascist things, and he certainly has people around him who are fascists. But for him, the balance is different. It’s more about, "I need to make more money." In fairness to Trump, Putin already has $200, $300 billion. Whereas Trump is gonna die a kind of petty billionaire by that scale. Maybe if Trump had $200, $300 billion, he would also have wild fantasies. But anyway, in the world we’re in, that’s difference. For Trump, it’s more about using white supremacy. Trump is happy to have people hurt. And happy to have us be happy that people are hurt, but he’s not willing to do some of the things that Putin is willing to do. Putin has been willing to watch easily a million of his people, probably well over, get killed and maimed in war that Russia is going to lose. Whereas Trump is willing to watch 5 people, or 10, or 15, or 20, maybe 100 people get killed. But no way Trump has wherewithal to say, "We’re going to have a full-scale invasion of another country and hundreds of thousands of you are going to die, but that’s going to be worth it." He just doesn’t believe in anything enough to demand that other people believe in some cause like that. His ability to control his own political future by starting foreign wars is limited because his ability to fight foreign wars is very limited. Because he’s willing to cause pain, but he can’t stomach that much pain, and he can’t really imagine that other people would. Whereas Putin really does think that other people are going to care about Russian glory. Trump doesn’t care about American glory. I don’t think he can really imagine that other people can care about American glory. And so, I think in his case, the oligarchy or his desire to be a rich oligarch is the dominant factor, and it actually constrains his ability to use the more militaristic stuff.

Kate from Kharkiv

14,539 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Now the special envoy has flown back to the United States, where he will report back to his boss, U.S. President Donald Trump. And to that, Landry says: ‘I will report back to him that ever since he began talking about Greenland back in 2016, he has actually put Greenland on the map. And what he essentially did was recognize that the United States, prior to President Trump, had neglected Greenland.’ Q: Some of the people we have spoken to feel somewhat offended by the tone coming from the United States. Do you think there is something in the rhetoric from the U.S. that people here simply do not understand, or what is it really about?” “Well, listen, I have never paid much attention to what people say about me. People make memes and jokes and say harsh things. I will always say that people should judge me by my actions, not my words,” Landry replies before turning to Trump. “Donald Trump is definitely a man of action. And he always wants to create opportunities for people. He wakes up every day working to make life better for Americans. And I believe that is the same kind of prosperity he wants to bring to Greenland as well. And it begins with security.” The journalist tells Jeff Landry that some of the people DR has spoken to still believe that President Trump wants to take over Greenland. ‘And I have to ask you: Is that still the mission?’ ‘The mission is to bring this country under the Monroe Doctrine in a way that is beneficial to Greenland. When I spoke with Greenlanders, every question was about this: Do you want the United States to be here? Not everyone says no — some want a closer relationship.’ ‘And they are not only saying it with words, they are also showing it physically in a very clear way. So again, I would say those are the people Donald Trump cares about. And I certainly do as well,’ Jeff Landry explains. (The interview took place yesterday.) —DR

Orla Joelsen

23,738 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

🚨 BREAKING: ABC just tried to grill Marco Rubio for the US giving Putin the "red carpet" and President Trump having a "warm handshake" - and Rubio was having NONE of it. "When I hear people say that, 'oh, it elevates him.' Well, all we do is talk about Putin all the time! All the media's done is talk about Putin all the time for last four, five years. That doesn't mean he's right about the war. That doesn't mean he's justified about the war. Put all that aside. It means you're not going to have a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. You're not going to end a war between Russia and Ukraine without dealing with Putin!" "That's that's just common sense. I shouldn't even have to say it! So people can say whatever they want. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we have to get the Russian side to agree to things that they don't want to agree to if we're going to have peace. If not, there'll just be a war." "They'll keep k*lling each other and life will go on in America and in the rest of the world, but not for Ukraine. So the president has invested a lot of time in trying to bring an end to this war. He deserves credit for doing that. He gets criticism for doing that. He could have just let this war go on. The president could have just said, 'this is Biden's war, it started under him, we'll do what we can for Ukraine, but we're going to focus on other things.' He could have easily said that. But he's the only leader in the world that got Putin to a meeting to talk about serious things."

Eric Daugherty

1,058,669 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I think the presenter is on to something big, but where I disagree with her is that she accuses African leaders and gives a subtle pass to African citizens. It is not true that African citizens were oblivious to what Trump or Epstein are. They knew, but they simply did not have the ability to think critically that when Trump talks about LGBT issues, it is not necessarily that he does not support them, but that he understood there is a group of foolish people out there who would buy into that rhetoric without interrogating why he was deploying it. Some of Trump’s best friends, like Peter Mandelson, are gay, yet some Africans were foolish enough to believe that Trump is anti-gay. He simply understood how human beings operate, that there are times when people fail to think, a tragic failure to think, and they just go with the flow. If you ask Africans today what they gained from the perceived homophobia that Trump projected, which we know was political theatre targeted at a particular audience, they will not be able to tell you. Trump might be many things to many people. I do not like him and everybody knows that, but the one thing I respect him for is that he understands his audience. He knows what to say when he is talking to foolish people. He knows what to say when he is talking to idiotic people. He knows what to say when he is talking to sycophants. He knows what to say when he is talking to people who do not understand the world of politics, and he gets away with it. And for that, I give it to him. He becomes a political superstar precisely because you then have black people in Africa supporting him. That in itself shows you the scale of political illiteracy that exists, where people rally behind rhetoric crafted to manipulate them, not to advance their interests.

Hopewell Chin’ono

20,339 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce