Meanwhile 60% of top diplomats leave State Dept

nice deflection. Are you claiming you have no clue what soft power is or how it is wielded on the world stage?

Are you suggesting that the notional effects of TAX reform and repatriation of foreign profits is somehow evidence that strong and effective soft power isn't required?

If your post isn't a deliberate attempt at deflection but a sincere position, then perhaps these links will provide you with a base line to facilitate any dialogue between us. Particularly the economist article on china's strategy.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/revi...05-01/soft-power-means-success-world-politics

http://foreignpolicy.com/2006/02/23/think-again-soft-power/

https://www.economist.com/news/chin...ng-china-spending-billions-make-world-love-it

 

You claimed that billions were walling out the door, when billions more are being invested, specifically crediting trump. I would like a link that in any way supports this theory.

 

You confuse the value of an organization's human capital and its concomitant institutional "memory/knowledge" with cash.

here's a primer for ya.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/humancapital.asp

https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=468

 

I took the train from Detroit to Chicago in 1997.


The Amtrak passed thru a section of huge burned out buildings,
and enormous piles of concrete, and rubble, which used to be a
bunch of skyscrapers and highrises.


Chicago looked like It had been hit by the A-bomb, and the U.S. Government censored and hid the fact from the citizens.


I am not even joking. I don't have an over active imagination from watching too much Doctor Who. The Amtrak passed by right by these huge ruins, piles of steel girders, cable, cement.


That being said, if the A-bomb or nuclear missles ever hit America,
do you think the American Government would even tell us?








...​

 

Ok, I would like you to dial the hostility back a bit, and not talk down to me. I am a clever guy. I am trying to figure out if you said something stupid, and will never admit it, or said something interesting, be it right or wrong. If in fact it is interesting, I am asking if you have a source for this... or if it is just "what you think", which I suspect. You said:

Now had you just said intellectual and institutional capital, it would be easier to accept that you werent talking about money... but you said billions. That means cash. And it would be a hiatus of 4 to 8 years IF what you believed were so... which I am still waiting on a source for.

 

What has Mommie given you that you don't like?

 

??? Im not pounding my fist or feet. I said Dick Durbin is the one who first reported that mean Donald said "shithole"

 

My mother is dead....so she can't give me anything. How do you think that makes you look, with such a dumbass statement like you just posted up?

 

Is what we call a 'joke'. kiddiewinkie. Ask your teacher about those.

 

I'm not surprised. The state department has always been heavily Democratic, liberal, call it what you may. Their job, relations with other countries, trying their best to get along with other countries, working with people who want visa, running humanitarian efforts and the like attracts those of the more liberal persuasion. Those of the more conservative nature seem to prefer the military.

Bringing the state department into a more hard line stance would definitely grate against those with the more leftist and humanitarian point of view. Whereas a hard line stance would suit those in the military just fine. But regardless of what one's point of view is, whether in the state department or the military, their job is to do the president's wishes.

 

The trouble is that right-wing Americans seem to use 'liberal' to mean what the rest of the world calls human or civilized. It's the effect of slavery, I imagine. What they call 'a hard line stance' is what we call Nazism..

 

Bad joke.....since she is dead!

I can't ask Sun Tzu as he is dead too.

Nor can I ask Bruce either.

Be water my friend.

 

Yes, , the state department is part of the government apparatus designed to carry out the current administration's foreign policies. It is independent of partisanship.

It is one corner of the triad of soft power. It isn't an extension of the DNC or the RNC. Its AMERICA FIRST. Ironic.

Meanwhile the CiC is oblivious as are his acolytes of exactly how American power is actually projected besides bombs and bullets.

There is no room for partisanship only patriotism when America turns its attention and power to the world. Or at least that is what it says in all them liberul movies from that hollywood den of iniquity.

 

Actually he did not go to the media first. He talked to some colleagues who whispered into an ear and a reporter then confronted him. Unlike trump toadies he wasn't going to deny or lie.

REfreshing wot?

 

mea culpa.

I see where the confusion lies. Assets are measured in dollars. The cost to replace those assets is measured in dollars. human capital is measured in value as well as hard dollars.

And then there is notion of "opportunity costs" which measure in dollars. Its an abstraction but nonetheless an important data point for management decisions.

If you are looking for an exact figure, I don't have one. I SSWAG'd it.

 

How refreshing to see the swamp draining itself. Now that's progress!

 

Especially when all that muck drains all over America. Yep real progress if your into that sorta thing.

 

I don't. I would actually classify myself as either a Classic Liberal or a traditional conservative. Probably the last one left alive.

 

I personally believe that any nation should put their own interest ahead of any other. That goes for the united states and or any other country.

 

I totally concur. OTOH, In this world often times that nation might find that their own self interests are best served by compromise and cooperation with other nations that have something they want.

America has ALWAYS put their interests before every other nation. America is big enough to offer accomodations but if you think that recent history isn't America first, I guess you missed those two wars in the middle east.

 

No you aren't. although you should be able to discern the differences between the two ideologies with ease.

 

I agree. At least the occupant of the Oval Office always perceived he was putting America first. Always looking out for the best interests of the U.S. Now other will disagree in what the best interest were or are and come to the conclusion we were wrong. Now that is the way of the world.

 

Both put individual freedoms at the top of the list. Both believe in individual rights and the state to protect those rights to include ownership of property. Both are against monarchies, aristocracies, rule by the elites. Both believed in small government or a government with limited powers. Hence Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

there are probably differences, but the main thought is the same.

 

thanks for the clarification. I was referring to the rather stark differences of the two especially from a social progress perspective.

 

The Clintonistas need to run for the hills.