Hacker News Reader

Comment by llm_nerd | Hacker News Reader

Trump believes everything on this planet is zero sum, and the only way you can benefit is if the other party hurts. His entire history on this planet betrays this, where he is an unreliable scumbag to everyone he has ever dealt with, to the point where the guy couldn't find vendors or a bank outside of Russia to deal with him. And then Americans said "this is the guy we should put in charge".

It is a particularly interesting position when the US is trying to counter China. The only hope the US had was an alliances with other Western-style nations, but instead it has been nothing but attacks and diminishing.

View on HN

If only things were zero sum stick-in-bicycle meme decision making would benefit others

> It is a particularly interesting position when the US is trying to counter China.

The US put countering China way behind on its priority list, below "owning the libs" and settling old scores. I am convinced that if the Iran decapitation had worked like Venezuela, which seems to have been what they expected, then Cuba would have been next.

And then greenland.

If the goal of a presidency was to destroy the country one could not do a better job than trump.

Cuba doesn't have oil.

The point is to prop up Putin.

> The point is to prop up Putin.

Attacking one of Russia's few allies and weapon suppliers is counterproductive to such a goal, even if higher oil prices also help the Russian state finances.

This ill-conceived, Kegsbreath-run operation depleted weapons stocks, gave enormous levels of intel on its systems (which both Russia and China are loving), burned through hundreds of billions in spend, and made Ameirca look like an impotent pathetic joke.

Yes, the Iran operation 100% served Russia and China. It could not have gone better for them.

And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win.

I think it is equally likely that Benny convinced the administration to attack Iran, emboldened by the 'success' in Venezuela.

> Yes, the Iran operation 100% served Russia and China. It could not have gone better for them.

China yes, Russia no.

> And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win.

For this to be intentional, the USA would have needed to intend Hormuz to be closed, rather than surprised and upset by it.

(Not that it matters much, but estimates I see say about $50bn, which is closer to the destruction of Wildberries than it is to $100bn).

I am surprised the USA has not attacked Cuba yet. I am guessing the rundown on missile stocks has eliminated the possibility of a 100 percent air/navy campaign like they failed at in Iran.

Why should they?

Cuba is completely insignificant beyond some ideological value.

Because of the ideological value

Exactly. Cuba is a pain in the US politics since generations now. If Trump would solve it, that would boost him. But if it fails, with declared victory but significant partisan warfare afterwards - not so much.

It would look worst for Rubio. The status quo is that 5.1% of Florida turns out for this. But Florida is no longer a swing state.

Why should they?

To get an easy win compared to Iran just before the midterms? Of course, it could end up in a mess, but it's a mess already anyway.

They've been farming the Cuba thing since the boomers were children. Every election there are bitter Floridian descendants of Cuban exiles to court. It would be insane for them to permanently resolve the issue, and any actual resolution would inevitably be a disappointment to them.

“Winning” in Cuba would also be very difficult. Sure Venezuela looked cool but what really changed?

Russia doesn’t think so.

It is unfortunately that the choices didn't have counter China in the list. It was status quo or trump. I wasn't happy with either option there.

"The only hope the US had was an alliances with other Western-style nations"

Maybe Trump bets on his great relations with Putin and Kim instead.

Trump is the avatar of a segment of Americans that believe that all transactions are zero sum at best. They simultaneously believe they're "pro-capitalism."

How are those two things squared? Capitalism to these people isn't about free markets, it's about privatized gains and socialized losses.

The proof is trying to tell their solutions apart from socialism:

- when the executive branch owns 11% of Intel. Can I get in line for them to buy 11% of my company, cash?

- when “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls” can come from both Trump and Sanders, about the government manipulating consumer choices.

Not "to these people". Capitalism isn't about free markets. It's about privatised gains and socialised losses.

Capitalism and free markets, in fact, cannot coexist.

Negative sum, not zero sum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com