Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yes... we're not at WAR nor there's some AUMF against Russia.

Note that it does not require war. Only that the countries be enemies, which, frankly, is the reality on the ground, atm.

Only a madman would say that. Or someone who does not really know what "enemies" means. Or someone who is deliberately exaggerating for dramatic effect.
Point is, Russia and the US are not enemies. Rivals, certainly, but enemies? No. Russia and the US still work together in many areas. Enemies don't do that. Enemies fight each other. The US and Russia do not fight each other. At most the US and Russia get involved in an angry shouting match every now and then. Describing Russia as "the enemy" is extremely detrimental to Russia-US relations. It is very dangerous to say such a thing. Say it often enough, and it becomes truth. And if Russia and the US ever become enemies, well, then a lot of people are going to die. And I sincerely hope you are not one of those warmongers who would look forward to that.

Describing Russia as "the enemy" is extremely detrimental to Russia-US relations.

So is meddling in internal elections and unlike calling Russia "the enemy" it's something that actually matters rather than a semantical game played by sycophants.

Sorry but it's delusion to think that the US and Russia aren't at odds in a very severe way. Rivals and enemies are matters of semantics. The US and Russia are at odds in most parts of the world where they encounter one another, except when Trump is running things in which case Trump is either awkwardly appeasing or bizarrely deferential.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Enemies fight each other. The US and Russia do not fight each other

If you think the US and Russia haven't been fighting, you haven't been paying attention.


https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-behind-the-us-russia-cyberwar-10624116

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/21/did-the-u-s-hack-back-at-russia-heres-why-this-matters-in-cyberwarfare/?utm_term=.56ac7842da2c

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/america-can-beat-russia-cyber-war-despite-trump/

 KTG17 wrote:

snip

IOW, "Dems were MEAN!", both sides are equally bad fallacy, and giving credit to trump for Obama's work. Obama's numbers under Obama were "bad" but under trump they're suddenly "good", and the right's spin that Obama was a terrible president despite the shitfest he was handed to him by Bush. Also trump's economic impact won't be felt for a few years after the new tax plan takes effect (and something like 1.5 trillion is added to the national debt over the next few years), and he's done literally jack gak to help the economy. In fact, the stock market has taken 3 of it's 5 biggest drops under him.

However, without a really comprehensive test hitting every single issue it's impossible to judge who is what based on a few issues someone decides to post as "proof" especially if it's a fairly incomplete list that you appear to have mostly grabbed from isidewith's political test. It's far easier to judge someone based on the things they actively defend or support.

On top of that, you're sporting a trump avatar, trump signature, and tout him as the best president in 20 years.

I'd already said it, but you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. If you defend X party on almost everything, you're part of X party.

Don't play with the trolls - they do not play well with others.

And 'troll' is not a term for 'people that I disagree with' - there are people in this thread that I can have perfectly sane and rational discussions with in nearly any other topic on these forums, but here I want to hit them with a Wiffle bat, to hear the loverly hollow 'Thoonk!' sound as it bounces off of their skulls. (The bat being hollow, not necessarily their skulls.)

The Auld Grump

 LordofHats wrote:
The names Putin has thrown out for Americans he wants to "interview" are pretty interesting. It might as well be titled "the intimidation list of Americans I'd love to troll right now" and he's probably laughing his ass off watching Trump dance like a fool doing the trolling for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
It's literally treason, but it's not technically treason.

And if Futurama's taught me anything, it's that technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Even I think treason is strong, but at this point I also think we've crossed the threshold of gross incompetence on Trump's part. I've always thought impeachment was unnecessarily dramatic, and unnecessary cause I thought the US could survive 4 years of Trump but now I'm wondering. This whole little saga playing out over the past few days is absolutely mind bending. I actually don't know if the US can endure another two and a half years of this monkey running things without irreparable damage.

If you think getting rid of Trump is a good idea, make sure you get Pence do, or you are just trading whiny annakin for palpatine.

As much as I dislike Pence's politics and find his willingness to go to bat for Trump even more spineless than I've come to expect of the GOP fair, I also recognize the Pence is in a awkward position because he's VP and thus far simply backing Trump when it's straight up the only play you have isn't enough for me to declare gross incompetence. Besides. My issue with Trump at this point is less his party or general positions as much as his method, demeanor, and inability to not make an outright fool of himself at every turn.

No matter how you cut it Pence is an improvement.

Also, look at Pence's fiscal record in Indiana. He at least knows how to govern, which is already a marked improvement over Trump.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

In the UK, all EU citizens can vote in local elections as well as EU elections, and Irish citizens can vote in General Elections.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

In the UK, all EU citizens can vote in local elections as well as EU elections, and Irish citizens can vote in General Elections.

I think the Netherlands follows the same system as in Spain. Every EU citizen can vote in local elections, plus citizens of all those countries with whom there is a reciprocity agreement (most of them in South America, but also New Zealand, Norway or Iceland).

Still just citizens for anything above the local level.

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

In the UK, all EU citizens can vote in local elections as well as EU elections, and Irish citizens can vote in General Elections.

I think the Netherlands follows the same system as in Spain. Every EU citizen can vote in local elections, plus citizens of all those countries with whom there is a reciprocity agreement (most of them in South America, but also New Zealand, Norway or Iceland).

Still just citizens for anything above the local level.

Not exactly, local elections in the Netherlands aren't based on reciprocity agreements for non-EU citizens but two demands, first your stay here must be legal and second it has to have been 5 years (coincidentally when a lot of welfare service become available to non-citizens) of that person residing in the Netherlands. So yes, as an American if you live in the Netherlands you can vote in the second local election cycle, make use of the welfare state to a good extent and you get the same healthcare as Dutch citizens regardless of time spent in country.

Europe has a bit of a patchwork approach, but many EU countries let EU citizens vote in their local elections regardless of how long they have been living in said locality.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Europe has a bit of a patchwork approach, but many EU countries let EU citizens vote in their local elections regardless of how long they have been living in said locality.

Not many, all of them.

The only exception is Luxembourg because the EU law has a provision if non-nationals make up more than 20% of the population, so Luxembourg is allowed to require a few years residency before allowing the vote.

jouso wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Europe has a bit of a patchwork approach, but many EU countries let EU citizens vote in their local elections regardless of how long they have been living in said locality.

Not many, all of them.

The only exception is Luxembourg because the EU law has a provision if non-nationals make up more than 20% of the population, so Luxembourg is allowed to require a few years residency before allowing the vote.

I wasn't exactly sure if the newest members already allowed so, but so it is. The only patchwork part is non EU citizens in that case. But its more extensive than in the US.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Enemies fight each other. The US and Russia do not fight each other

If you think the US and Russia haven't been fighting, you haven't been paying attention.


https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-behind-the-us-russia-cyberwar-10624116

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/21/did-the-u-s-hack-back-at-russia-heres-why-this-matters-in-cyberwarfare/?utm_term=.56ac7842da2c

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/america-can-beat-russia-cyber-war-despite-trump/

Sensationalist press publishing rumours over 'cyberwarfare' does not mean that it actually is warfare. Real cyberwarfare is quite different from what has been going on so far, which falls more into the realm of espionage rather than war.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

In the UK, all EU citizens can vote in local elections as well as EU elections, and Irish citizens can vote in General Elections.

I think the Netherlands follows the same system as in Spain. Every EU citizen can vote in local elections, plus citizens of all those countries with whom there is a reciprocity agreement (most of them in South America, but also New Zealand, Norway or Iceland).

Still just citizens for anything above the local level.

Not exactly, local elections in the Netherlands aren't based on reciprocity agreements for non-EU citizens but two demands, first your stay here must be legal and second it has to have been 5 years (coincidentally when a lot of welfare service become available to non-citizens) of that person residing in the Netherlands. So yes, as an American if you live in the Netherlands you can vote in the second local election cycle, make use of the welfare state to a good extent and you get the same healthcare as Dutch citizens regardless of time spent in country.

Europe has a bit of a patchwork approach, but many EU countries let EU citizens vote in their local elections regardless of how long they have been living in said locality.

Actually, by the time you have stayed in the Netherlands legally for 5 years you can already apply for Dutch citizenship if you speak the language (unless you work for a foreign government), so I guess it makes sense to allow those people to vote.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

In the UK, all EU citizens can vote in local elections as well as EU elections, and Irish citizens can vote in General Elections.

I think the Netherlands follows the same system as in Spain. Every EU citizen can vote in local elections, plus citizens of all those countries with whom there is a reciprocity agreement (most of them in South America, but also New Zealand, Norway or Iceland).

Still just citizens for anything above the local level.

Not exactly, local elections in the Netherlands aren't based on reciprocity agreements for non-EU citizens but two demands, first your stay here must be legal and second it has to have been 5 years (coincidentally when a lot of welfare service become available to non-citizens) of that person residing in the Netherlands. So yes, as an American if you live in the Netherlands you can vote in the second local election cycle, make use of the welfare state to a good extent and you get the same healthcare as Dutch citizens regardless of time spent in country.

Europe has a bit of a patchwork approach, but many EU countries let EU citizens vote in their local elections regardless of how long they have been living in said locality.

Actually, by the time you have stayed in the Netherlands legally for 5 years you can already apply for Dutch citizenship if you speak the language (unless you work for a foreign government), so I guess it makes sense to allow those people to vote.

Yeah I know, but some people might not want to or don't feel the need to, as it frequently requires you to give up your other nationality.

 LordofHats wrote:
As much as I dislike Pence's politics and find his willingness to go to bat for Trump even more spineless than I've come to expect of the GOP fair, I also recognize the Pence is in a awkward position because he's VP and thus far simply backing Trump when it's straight up the only play you have isn't enough for me to declare gross incompetence. Besides. My issue with Trump at this point is less his party or general positions as much as his method, demeanor, and inability to not make an outright fool of himself at every turn.

No matter how you cut it Pence is an improvement.

Pence would just be better at achieving his desired goals than Trump is. Unless you want a theocracy that isn't something you should think better of him for. That Trump is too much of a garbage fire for the truly nasty bastards clinging to his administration to finally fully ban abortion or homosexuality is a blessing.

This just reveals how empty the liberal opposition to Trump is. The dude is the head of an administration that's building concentration camps and what you have against him is that he's a lout.

Interesting analysis on Trump and Putin. Trump may have weathered the storm because frankly, his base don't give a damn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/donald-trump-rides-out-critics-with-putin-white-house-invitation

I think the key line is this:

The steady drumbeat of anti-Trump news has largely numbed Republicans who are still with him. When minor things are said to be an indication of his unfitness office, major things don’t have that much effect.”

We had this during the Brexit referendum. There are people in the USA and the UK who are so poor, that if you threaten to take away money that they don't have, it just bounces off them. And that was the mistake that Clinton and the Pro-EU side made during the respective elections. You can't threaten people who have nothing to lose.

And when those people have a vote, and a vote that actually means a damn for the first time in their lives, that power is intoxicating, and that is one of the reasons why we got Brexit and Trump.

And in the last 2 years, the other side have never understood that.

It's far easier to say the voters are stupid/racist/influenced by Putin etc etc etc

Problem is, most people who think they have nothing to lose, actually do have quite a lot to lose.

Farmers can already have it rough these days, for example, and Trump's little trade war is going to make things even worse for them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting analysis on Trump and Putin. Trump may have weathered the storm because frankly, his base don't give a damn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/donald-trump-rides-out-critics-with-putin-white-house-invitation

I think the key line is this:

The steady drumbeat of anti-Trump news has largely numbed Republicans who are still with him. When minor things are said to be an indication of his unfitness office, major things don’t have that much effect.”

We had this during the Brexit referendum. There are people in the USA and the UK who are so poor, that if you threaten to take away money that they don't have, it just bounces off them. And that was the mistake that Clinton and the Pro-EU side made during the respective elections. You can't threaten people who have nothing to lose.

And when those people have a vote, and a vote that actually means a damn for the first time in their lives, that power is intoxicating, and that is one of the reasons why we got Brexit and Trump.

And in the last 2 years, the other side have never understood that.

It's far easier to say the voters are stupid/racist/influenced by Putin etc etc etc

I feel this is a pretty bad mischaracterisation as far as the quoted part goes. It pretends its the boy who cried wolf effect when in essence the wolf has been there and never left since the first cry. Anti-Trump news didn't numb Republicans, they were already numb when they willingly voted for one of the most obvious incompetent candidates in living history. It not threatening or numbing anything, its reflecting a basic truth that his base never wanted to hear and has been apologetic about from the start.

Its trying to flip the blame for their support on others. And those people having nothing to lose is BS either. Just look at all the farmers who voted for Trump and are going to be hit by retaliatory tariffs. Those tariffs are specifically aimed at Trump's base because they do have something to lose. If the US economy falters due to Trump's economic war with the world these people do have something to lose. If these people no longer have jobs and Trump cuts social securities to pay for the budget defecit his tax cuts cause they do have something to lose. So yes, the idea that as a voter you have nothing to lose is stupid, because they fundamentally misunderstand that it could be worse and that voting in the incompetent or those that horribly mismanage will make it worse. This isn't about people with nothing to lose, just look at the numbers, about 2/3rds of white voters backing Trump had a household income above the national average. Its a total myth that these people had nothing the lose, the only thing they had to 'lose' was a weird sense of losing their culture identity politics.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Problem is, most people who think they have nothing to lose, actually do have quite a lot to lose.

Farmers can already have it rough these days, for example, and Trump's little trade war is going to make things even worse for them.

I don't know to be honest. As I've said before, during the 2016 election, I read a ton of features on the forgotten towns of small town America, and it was heart-breaking to see people struggle to survive in the richest country in the world.

A few miles from the Pentagon, you had people so poor, they had to rely on volunteer doctors and dentists in an open air clinic, to cure their medical problems. And then you remember the 1 trillion dollars wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan. And then you remember that man who claimed to be able to fix a meeting with the Taliban, and they give him 50 million dollars, and he was never to be seen again.

And then you remember the US taxpayer paying for Afghan villages to have laptops, even though they never had electricity or running water in their entire lives...

And then you think back to the poor of Virginia a few miles from the Pentagon...

Trump is burning down the house, and his supporters probably know he would do this. But if a house burns down, at least you see something for your money, and I know that sounds weird, but I can understand that mindset and where Trump voters are coming from. They wanted change, any kind of changed, because the cosy consensus of the last 30 years have not been kind to them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting analysis on Trump and Putin. Trump may have weathered the storm because frankly, his base don't give a damn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/donald-trump-rides-out-critics-with-putin-white-house-invitation

I think the key line is this:

The steady drumbeat of anti-Trump news has largely numbed Republicans who are still with him. When minor things are said to be an indication of his unfitness office, major things don’t have that much effect.”

We had this during the Brexit referendum. There are people in the USA and the UK who are so poor, that if you threaten to take away money that they don't have, it just bounces off them. And that was the mistake that Clinton and the Pro-EU side made during the respective elections. You can't threaten people who have nothing to lose.

And when those people have a vote, and a vote that actually means a damn for the first time in their lives, that power is intoxicating, and that is one of the reasons why we got Brexit and Trump.

And in the last 2 years, the other side have never understood that.

It's far easier to say the voters are stupid/racist/influenced by Putin etc etc etc

I feel this is a pretty bad mischaracterisation as far as the quoted part goes. It pretends its the boy who cried wolf effect when in essence the wolf has been there and never left since the first cry. Anti-Trump news didn't numb Republicans, they were already numb when they willingly voted for one of the most obvious incompetent candidates in living history. It not threatening or numbing anything, its reflecting a basic truth that his base never wanted to hear and has been apologetic about from the start.

Its trying to flip the blame for their support on others. And those people having nothing to lose is BS either. Just look at all the farmers who voted for Trump and are going to be hit by retaliatory tariffs. Those tariffs are specifically aimed at Trump's base because they do have something to lose. If the US economy falters due to Trump's economic war with the world these people do have something to lose. If these people no longer have jobs and Trump cuts social securities to pay for the budget defecit his tax cuts cause they do have something to lose. So yes, the idea that as a voter you have nothing to lose is stupid, because they fundamentally misunderstand that it could be worse and that voting in the incompetent or those that horribly mismanage will make it worse. This isn't about people with nothing to lose, just look at the numbers, about 2/3rds of white voters backing Trump had a household income above the national average. Its a total myth that these people had nothing the lose, the only thing they had to 'lose' was a weird sense of losing their culture identity politics.

My response to Tannhauser is also directed at your comment. But I will add that average voters don't pore through studies on the benefits of immigration or care about GDP, tariffs or balance of payments.

It's the here and now: local shops closing down, jobs going up in smoke, hardship, poverty. When you're in the gutter, you'll roll the dice and take a chance with anybody, even Trump.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Problem is, most people who think they have nothing to lose, actually do have quite a lot to lose. Farmers can already have it rough these days, for example, and Trump's little trade war is going to make things even worse for them.

Or how last week the importer of MAGA hats said they'll probably rise significantly in price due to the China/US tariffs and countertariffs. They could rise from the current 9-12 dollars to 20. If you're already poor a small price hike on the cheap foreign goods you have to buy (instead of pricier "made in the USA") will make a good dent in your wallet. But I guess stigginit is worth it.

That's a terrible analogy, its like saying you went to your doctor about a scar on your face and he couldn't help you. So you go home and blow your brains out, because at least its doing something!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting analysis on Trump and Putin. Trump may have weathered the storm because frankly, his base don't give a damn

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/20/donald-trump-rides-out-critics-with-putin-white-house-invitation

I think the key line is this:

The steady drumbeat of anti-Trump news has largely numbed Republicans who are still with him. When minor things are said to be an indication of his unfitness office, major things don’t have that much effect.”

We had this during the Brexit referendum. There are people in the USA and the UK who are so poor, that if you threaten to take away money that they don't have, it just bounces off them. And that was the mistake that Clinton and the Pro-EU side made during the respective elections. You can't threaten people who have nothing to lose.

And when those people have a vote, and a vote that actually means a damn for the first time in their lives, that power is intoxicating, and that is one of the reasons why we got Brexit and Trump.

And in the last 2 years, the other side have never understood that.

It's far easier to say the voters are stupid/racist/influenced by Putin etc etc etc

I feel this is a pretty bad mischaracterisation as far as the quoted part goes. It pretends its the boy who cried wolf effect when in essence the wolf has been there and never left since the first cry. Anti-Trump news didn't numb Republicans, they were already numb when they willingly voted for one of the most obvious incompetent candidates in living history. It not threatening or numbing anything, its reflecting a basic truth that his base never wanted to hear and has been apologetic about from the start.

Its trying to flip the blame for their support on others. And those people having nothing to lose is BS either. Just look at all the farmers who voted for Trump and are going to be hit by retaliatory tariffs. Those tariffs are specifically aimed at Trump's base because they do have something to lose. If the US economy falters due to Trump's economic war with the world these people do have something to lose. If these people no longer have jobs and Trump cuts social securities to pay for the budget defecit his tax cuts cause they do have something to lose. So yes, the idea that as a voter you have nothing to lose is stupid, because they fundamentally misunderstand that it could be worse and that voting in the incompetent or those that horribly mismanage will make it worse. This isn't about people with nothing to lose, just look at the numbers, about 2/3rds of white voters backing Trump had a household income above the national average. Its a total myth that these people had nothing the lose, the only thing they had to 'lose' was a weird sense of losing their culture identity politics.

My response to Tannhauser is also directed at your comment. But I will add that average voters don't pore through studies on the benefits of immigration or care about GDP, tariffs or balance of payments.

It's the here and now: local shops closing down, jobs going up in smoke, hardship, poverty. When you're in the gutter, you'll roll the dice and take a chance with anybody, even Trump.

They don't have to pore through studies, there are plenty of unbiased experts who can explain it quite correctly. But then some people got tired of experts trying to talk sense into them.

And again, stop with the gutter talk. 2/3rds of Trump voters are above average household income. Its a complete fantasy. If only the poorer part of his voter base had shown up he would habe been absolutely crushed in the polls. Saying you want to go back to the 1950's doesn't make it possible, no matter how hard you believe. Trump represents everything they should despise, from employing illegal labor to using overseas manufacturing because its cheaper. These people are in the 'gutter' because of people like him, amd he just made people like him a lot richer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Problem is, most people who think they have nothing to lose, actually do have quite a lot to lose. Farmers can already have it rough these days, for example, and Trump's little trade war is going to make things even worse for them.

Or how last week the importer of MAGA hats said they'll probably rise significantly in price due to the China/US tariffs and countertariffs. They could rise from the current 9-12 dollars to 20. If you're already poor a small price hike on the cheap foreign goods you have to buy (instead of pricier "made in the USA") will make a good dent in your wallet. But I guess stigginit is worth it.

You would think true Trump patriots would only buy MAGA hats made in the US, its almost like they don't really care and its just a cover for identity politics they claim to despise so much

I agree with a lot of what Disciple is saying. After all, the GOP are trying to disenfranchise some of America's poorest people with their voting ID laws.

Jesse Ventura was spot on when he said if you have to choose between a $35 ID card or eating that week, you'll choose the food.

What America's poor needed was Bernie Sanders. Instead, they got Hilary Clinton.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I agree with a lot of what Disciple is saying. After all, the GOP are trying to disenfranchise some of America's poorest people with their voting ID laws.

Jesse Ventura was spot on when he said if you have to choose between a $35 ID card or eating that week, you'll choose the food.

What America's poor needed was Bernie Sanders. Instead, they got Hilary Clinton.

The issue being, Sanders couldn't drum up enough support to beat Clinton even. Sure his voters were motivated, but even if he might have gotten in, he would still have the entire Congress against him, trying to stop all his policies. Sanders was a nice dreamy candidate for a lot of people, but realisitcally speaking he wouldn't have been able to achieve a lot of the things that made him so dreamy to them. There are structural issues that require a lot more political will than their currently is to solve or can be solved by one candidate, partly because the electorate defends that part of politics that fights hardest to prevent reform. A lot of the issues facing poor people can be solved by policies that would require some tax raises, see how fast most of the electorate would turn against you even if the ideas are solid.

As for voting, people vote based on feelings, it is what it is, but its pretty strange when voting can have such a pronounced effect on your life. You wouldn't want to have a doctor operate on you based on a hunch he has by eyeballing your chest. Its this idea that the candidate won't be bad for you, but as said farmers found out, that is pretty naive.

 Wolfblade wrote:
IOW, "Dems were MEAN!", both sides are equally bad fallacy, and giving credit to trump for Obama's work. Obama's numbers under Obama were "bad" but under trump they're suddenly "good", and the right's spin that Obama was a terrible president despite the shitfest he was handed to him by Bush. Also trump's economic impact won't be felt for a few years after the new tax plan takes effect (and something like 1.5 trillion is added to the national debt over the next few years), and he's done literally jack gak to help the economy. In fact, the stock market has taken 3 of it's 5 biggest drops under him.

However, without a really comprehensive test hitting every single issue it's impossible to judge who is what based on a few issues someone decides to post as "proof" especially if it's a fairly incomplete list that you appear to have mostly grabbed from isidewith's political test. It's far easier to judge someone based on the things they actively defend or support.

On top of that, you're sporting a trump avatar, trump signature, and tout him as the best president in 20 years.

I'd already said it, but you can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. If you defend X party on almost everything, you're part of X party.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Don't play with the trolls - they do not play well with others.

And 'troll' is not a term for 'people that I disagree with' - there are people in this thread that I can have perfectly sane and rational discussions with in nearly any other topic on these forums, but here I want to hit them with a Wiffle bat, to hear the loverly hollow 'Thoonk!' sound as it bounces off of their skulls. (The bat being hollow, not necessarily their skulls.)

The Auld Grump

LOL look at this! Two trolls right here! One accusing me of something that I am not after I just went and explained myself on a number of issues that do not align myself with the Republican party, and the other who calls me a troll because I am defending myself against someone who refuses to read my posts. Love your contributions to this thread guys.

Rule #1! Be polite!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting analysis on Trump and Putin. Trump may have weathered the storm because frankly, his base don't give a damn

Many on the right think China is enemy #1 right now, and they are probably right. Trump is probably hedging his bets a little, like everyone else does. Not that Russia has that much to offer economically, but if you settle the dust there a little so you can focus on South East Asia, its probably a decent strategy. I am not a fan of Russia lately, but I am definitely anti-China. We'll be going to war with China long before we go to war with Russia.

Does that mean Russia is going to stop being a shady SOB? No. I don't think anyone really believes that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What America's poor needed was Bernie Sanders. Instead, they got Hilary Clinton.

With a Republican Congress? Bernie would have given them nothing. Also, Bernie wouldn't even know how to deliver on some of his promises. Break up the big banks? Please. Free college education for anyone who wants one? Right. Keep dreaming Bernie.

Can we drop the Sanders thing? Its been two years. He did not win the Democratic Nomination because he is not a democrat. He did not represent the will of the democratic party. And immediately after losing, he returned to being the independent that he his.

We got Trump because many Americans thought he would be best for the country and other Americans did not realize how fragile the gains made by Obama were.

As it has been mentioned a few times, the democrats are going through some introspection. Right now, there is a battle on if they should energize their base or try to appeal to moderates/disappointed republicans. However, its looking more and more that democrats will have to move to the left and are become less willing to compromise. But I am not sure that they will be able to keep up the motivation. It has to be demoralizing that the other side (in this case the high percentage of Republican Trump supporters) ignores facts and do not have the shared American values (like not ripping children from their mothers or basic decorum) that many on the left thought they did.

I am interested in the years following Trump and his effect on international relations theory.

While I don't think Trump has a favored school of thought, from the outside looking in he seems to be both a irrational realist and realism in action. He is projecting American anxiety on the world which is helping is some way to relieve it here in the states and he is also not supporting liberal and neo-liberal institutions in the expected manner of a realist. All the while seemingly committing policies that have a good chance of producing negative results on the country.

So while a realist would forsake international institutions for benefit, Trump seems to be doing it for disadvantage but at the same time doing things realism theorists (I wish I could recall some of them at this time by name) have been saying the US should do at some point.

It might be demoralizing, but it should also be incredibly motivating. What does it say about you as a voter if you're content to let a quarter of the population who doesn't care about trivialities such as objective facts run your country and you just stay at home because your candidate just can't woo you with their way of words? I hope enough people wake up from this senseless political nihilism in the US, but we will see, sad though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I am interested in the years following Trump and his effect on international relations theory.

While I don't think Trump has a favored school of thought, from the outside looking in he seems to be both a irrational realist and realism in action. He is projecting American anxiety on the world which is helping is some way to relieve it here in the states and he is also not supporting liberal and neo-liberal institutions in the expected manner of a realist. All the while seemingly committing policies that have a good chance of producing negative results on the country.

So while a realist would forsake international institutions for benefit, Trump seems to be doing it for disadvantage but at the same time doing things realism theorists (I wish I could recall some of them at this time by name) have been saying the US should do at some point.

But neorealists from a international theory perspective care little for neoliberal institutions because true power is wielded by the state, not some outside institution, which was more expressed by GW Bush and the UN in regards to Iraq (although neoconservatism has some elements of classical realism). Supporting them is more of a neoliberalist approach to international relations, or neoliberal institutionalism if you will. If anything Trump is drifting more towards hardcore classical realism (as in outdated, not only about power but his own perception in and of the world, still doesn't fit well though). He is drifting further into realism than any president since WW2.

The theorist you're thinking about that might sort of align vaguely is Mearsheimer (which as an offensive realist and who wrote quite a bit on China and the US should fit Trump more than a defensive realist like Waltz). But that would be hard to pin down as Trump's international relations approach isn't rational, while that is the assumed starting position in the first place.

Let's be brutally honest here.

Before Trump, US foreign policy gave us:

The Iraq and Afghanistan debacle.

Torture and rendition.

Guantanamo Bay.

Civilians killed by Obama's drone strikes.

Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos going up in smoke, and various CIA backed coups all over South America etc etc

So when people say that Trump is upsetting the international apple cart, I have to laugh. Trump is a logical continuation of what went before him.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I hope enough people wake up from this senseless political nihilism in the US, but we will see, sad though.

I don;t thinkt he nihilism is just political. I think it is also cultural.