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.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
Libertarians are just as bad tbh. Most of them are just Republican Lite.
Libertarianism is Communism through the negative image filter. Fantastic concept until you actually think about if for more than five minutes.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..
I am curious. What do you base that on?
The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
Sure it’s possible that Mueller is keeping something close to vest... but so far.? I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Is impeachment of the current President a requirement for the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election to have been justified and/or productive?
I get that the current White House is leaking like a sieve, but that isn't actually the norm.
Please, do not attempt to normalize such highly dysfunctional behaviour by expecting the same level of incompetence from the Mueller investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
whembly wrote: It’s the economy stupid. (I forget who coined that).
Meaning....as long as jobs/economy is still rocking, he’ll have a more than a fighting chance at a 2nd term.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, I’m hoping he doesn’t go after the 2nd term and goes out “while he’s winning”. But we all know his ego won’t allow that,,,
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
I'm curious, how does 5 guilty pleas and something like 19 indictments indicate it'll amount to nothing, especially when some of the charges are conspiracy against the US?
He's saying there is nothing tying Trump yet.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
Oh crap I am posting here again.
Wait, so despite Russians connections to basically everyone in trump's campaign, including "secret" meetings with them at trump tower, and a letter dictated by trump, there's nothing tying trump to the russians. Not even the weird little fact he's never attacked russia over anything, even though he'll attack our closest allies or his own staff?
But despite all of that, there's nothing tying trump to the russians? I call bs, and just because we don't know what Mueller has doesn't mean there is nothing.
Since it doesn’t look like the mueller investigation will amount to anything, (snip)..
I am curious. What do you base that on?
The plea deals are for process crimes (ie, lying to the FBI). Manafort is being charged for things unrelated to the campaign. None of those will be enough to impeach from the House & removed from office by super-majori Senate.
Sure it’s possible that Mueller is keeping something close to vest... but so far.? I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Flynn and Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians to investigators. It's dishonest to say they were "just" lying to the FBI, when they were lying about Russian contacts. And Rick Gates was charged with conspiracy against the United States. On top of that, Kilimnik and Manafort have now been charged with witness tampering.
On the subject of Gate's charge, it states (bold mine) "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both", and the bold part basically means “impair or obstruct the lawful function of any part of the government." according to Lisa Kern Griffin. However, the reason they're being charged with that is partly because "...their failure to adequately disclose their lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act"
The non bold part comes in because making lying about lobbying for foreign governments, not filing reports about foreign bank accounts, and lying to investigators is a crime.
Basically, all of this points to them working for the Russians more or less, which is a far cry from "nothing there!" that fox news spouts. I seriously recommended turning fox off and reading almost anything else. Even the onion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 00:03:47
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
The other point to consider is this. If the Democrats sweep in 2018, there will be great pressure on non Democrats to vote for Trump, to avoid complete control.
As a non Democrat, I'd sooner vote Libertarian. Let's be honest, the Republican party as a bastion of conservatism has died. It's a freak show now, with nothing to offer us but hollow promises and conspiracy theories.
We need a return to the Bull Moose party.
Yeah but my party punted hard with Johnson/Weld and we have not much coming up in the ranks. dont count on us to save anything anytime soon.
Da Boss wrote: Trumps behaviour at the G7 is fething unacceptable. I hope we treat the US with the same contempt it has shown us, in future.
No, treat TRUMP that way, please. The rest of us don't deserve it.
Elections have consequences. I've said it before, the US cannot survive without the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can survive without the US, and that's a lesson that some people need to learn.
Not if we decide it doesn't...
Yes, I'm sure that will be productive. "Give us what we want and we won't blow you up." The 'North Korea' school of diplomacy in action there...
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
If you started World War 3, I missed it, but I would not be surprised if you did.
And the Caribbean is a bad example as the US generally plays reasonably nice with it's neighbors as far as territorial claims go. They don't, for example, claim that Cuba is a break away province and that any war between them is an internal matter. Nor, surprisingly, do they arm those island with nuclear delivery systems. Frankly, if the Philippines did invade those territorial claims, they'd be more than justified due to China's placement of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction on their doorstep.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Kilkrazy wrote: Amusingly, other countries aren't shaking their fists in impotent rage at Putin, because there are sanctions and so on. But we are shaking our fists with impotent rage at Trump, who is supposed to be a close ally and is behaving like an idiot hooligan. (It's easier to understand Putin's thinking.)
However, sanctions in the form of increased tariffs on various US goods are coming in July, and it will be interesting to see what happens then.
If you REALLY want to change American policy, enact policies that hit (or even just restrict) the average American corporate executive. You know, the ones with more money than they know what to do with. When they feel the pinch, you can bet they'll be on the phone to their contacts in Congress saying "Fix this or kiss your campaign funds goodbye!"
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.
As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 01:21:23
The international order will be tested fir sure with another 4 years of trump..but we’re Marylyn talking about changing deals right? Those can be changed again with a different potus.
As repeated over and over again, why would anybody ever negotiate with the US again? There's no point doing it when the Dems are in the White House and don't control congress due to Republican obstructionism and the now fact that a republican president will throw any agreement into the bin, and there is no point doing it when the Republicans are in power as they are completely detached from reality on pretty much every international issue.
There isn't if you are just negotiating with the Pres. You have to negotiate actual treaties that are constitutionally passed by Congress and signed.
To what point? The Republicans will just vote to tear it down when they get back in power, even if it's a really good deal, just because the Democrats did it.
As of right now, there is NO hope for anyone having long-term political agreements or treaties with America. NONE. That's what Trump and the current Congress has done for us.
What international treaty that was ratified by a previous session of Congress has been rescinded by the current session of Congress? I’ve seen Trump withdraw executive branch support from treaties that Obama supported but Congress never ratified but I don’t see Congress voiding ratified treaties. You may not like what Trump is doing, I don’t like all the things Trump is doing but he’s playing by the same rules governing foreign treaties that previous presidents have followed. The laws haven’t changed and they’re unlikely to change anytime soon, the US will still have existing obligations to ratified treaties and we’ll ratify our commitments to more treaties in the future. The incessant hyperbolic freak out over anything that Trump does has grown tiresome.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think you would see the opposite effect. Consider China invaded Vietnam over the Khmer Rouge, the US had little to nothing to do with that. Neither Russia Nor China has any reason to legitimately fear the US. We are not going to invade either of them. Even when directly fighting the Chinese in Korea, we did not attack China.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 02:03:39
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression.
By invading their neighbors and committing aggression themselves? By violating international waters? By extending their territorial claims right up onto the beaches of their neighbors? Please Try Again.
If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
Russia does that on a regular basis. In the Caribbean, hilariously, when conducting joint exercises with Cuba and certain other Latin American countries. Please Try Again.
Easy E wrote: Trump's election is clearly all cultural, and it is derived from a certain form of "hopelessness" that then leads to Nihilism. Hence, the more "petualant" and "stick it to 'em" he is to other nations, the more his popularity will increase.
What are the Democrats going to bring to the table to help the voters find "hope" in the Mid-terms and want to vote for them? I haven't seen much Nationally, but maybe there is more at the local level.
It varies in each of the races. The biggest issue with Newsom is that he’s very much a SSDD candidate. He doesn’t move the needle for the Democrats. He’s running for governor in CA one of our largest and most influential states and what should be a leading state for the impending “Blue Wave” coming for the midterms and only 20% of the voters turned out for the primaries in CA because choosing the right candidate just isn’t that important to 80% of the voters. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2018 and if there’s not much enthusiasm among Democrats then the midterms aren’t going to go as well for them as they want. The most powerful ally for the GOP and Trump’s agenda, whatever that is, is low voter turnout and so far it doesn’t look like a majority of voters are invested in the midterm elections right now.
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
For some reason it was in my new phones spell check. I had to put feth in here but Blagojevich, LG got me!
whembly wrote: Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
whembly, I have explained to you maybe a half dozen times now that Wisconsin didn't matter and was never going to matter. There was 229 EV that Trump won by more than 3%, this was Trump's base of votes, the stuff he was sure to get in anything but a horrific blow out. From there Trump had to pick up enough swing states to reach 270, and this election the states in play were Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Florida (29).
Now do the maths. Try and figure out the combination in which Wisconsin tips the election. Because if Trump wins Florida, then all Trump needs is to pick up either Michigan or Pennsylvania to win. Wisconsin doesn't matter either way, if Trump gets neither Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin can't get him to 270, and if Trump wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania then he wins with or without Wisconsin.
The only way Wisconsin actually plays a role in deciding the election is if Trump lost Florida, but won Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which case then Wisconsin would decide the election. But that's a very, very silly scenario and Clinton and everyone else was quite right not to focus on it.
This isn't to defend Clinton's campaign, which was dreadful. But it was dreadful for lots of lots of reasons that had nothing to do with electoral vote strategizing, where the Clinton camp figured out the lay of the land perfectly well. Afterall, Clinton visited Michigan and Pennsylvania lots more that Wisconsin, and her vote decline there was much worse, which tells you a lot about the effect of Clinton's stump speeches.
The point is that I've explained this to you a lot of times now, whembly. And you still refuse to understand it, because you don't like how it challenges how you would prefer to understand the 2016 campaign and the electoral college system. This is the problem whembly. You are knee deep in a culture that simply doesn't process unwelcome information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crispy78 wrote: Fox News made a bit of a slip the other day, host referred to 'the two dictators' meeting in Singapore...
The most fun thing about that is the reporter who made the slip is Abby Huntsman, the daughter of Jon Huntsman, who is currently the US ambassador to Moscow
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 02:46:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 03:02:57
Interesting article on why people support abhorrent policies.
Holy crap that was good.
"See, the people who are sure that Surely There Will Be Exceptions are very comfortable with the idea of justice being decided on a case-by-case basis. They've always had teachers, bosses, bureaucrats, even traffic cops giving them some slack for reasons of compassion and logic."
It makes it clear that a lot of this really is a product of people not realising that society doesn't work for other people the way it works for them. Extreme laws for possessing pot don't bother people who smoked a bit as kids, because instinctively they understand that if they'd been caught the policeman and courts would give them leniancy in a way that many people in society will not get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elemental wrote: If I had to guess, I'd say Putin is what Trump thinks he is / wants to be. A charismatic strongman who cultivated a reputation as the icon of his country, and a "magnificent bastard" who leaves other countries shaking their fist in impotent rage at his latest show of strength. The difference being that Putin is smart.
Trump certainly has a thing for the strong man. There's a kind of interior decorating style, mockingly called dictator chic. It's that style of oversized rooms, gold and marble finishings, with everything produced in an old, ornate style, typically 18th century French, sometimes roman, but never with actual antiques. The purpose of every element is the projection of power and wealth. The idea of doing anything simply because it is beautiful or functional isn't even considered, it is all about projecting status. It's the style of Hussein, Milosevic, Ceausescu, Gaddafi, and Trump. Long before Trump ever thought of being a world leader, his buildings showed his affinity was with dictators who like him see everything as a means to project one's own power and status..
Trump was already primed to like Putin, and then Putin did what he did during the election, and ingratiated himself with Trump after Trump won. In comparison, the other leaders of G7 just keep talking to Trump about stuff like mutual growth and sustaining world order, and never once talk about helping him build hotels. Of course Trump would treat having to attend as a chore, turn up late for each sessions, sit with arms folded saying nothing, and leave wishing Putin was there with him.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 03:31:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
No, I'm not misunderstanding at all. China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys, simple as that. And the US regularly invades other countries. The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed, by force, anybody who didn't do what we wanted. I see no reason why China and Russia shouldn't do in their backyards as America did in ours through the 1970s (officially).
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 03:42:33
Vaktathi wrote: Reviewing the events of the weekend, the US President has managed to make himself look like a petulant child to our closest allies and economic partners, has engaged in direct ad-hominem attacks on said allies, appeared to be cosying up to Putin in calling for Russia to be re-included, and ultimately was hoist by his own petard so to speak, with basically nothing positive coming out of the G7 talks for the US...
People are doing a lot of theorising about Trump doing all that nonsense at G7 because he was working for Putin etc... but those theories are loose and not needed. Trump acted as he did because he didn't want to go, he does't like the G7 leaders, and doesn't like doing all that thankless, hard work stuff like building collective policy frameworks.
...and Merkel now increasingly shouldering the mantle of "Leader of the Free World" in terms of who the "free world" looks to for *actual* leadership.
A few years ago people were upset at Germany taking too much control in directing the EU. Now we're saying maybe Germany should just take over doing everything.
And 87% of his party approves of his job performance.
Yep. And its a vicious circle, because as long as Trump is popular then Republicans and their loyalist media won't risk their place by speaking out about dear president, but unless some are willing to do that then the base will never hear about how bad Trump really was, which means he won't lose popularity, which means people will still be afraid to speak out.
Trump will one day be recognised as a terrible disaster. And when that happens, it will happen very suddenly, much like what happened to GW Bush, when he dropped from mid-40s to mid-10s over about a year. This wasn't because voters suddenly realised in 2006 that Iraq wasn't going well, and housing hadn't tanked yet. It was because Bush wasn't runing for office again so there was no partisan reason to defend him, and so when his support wavered conservatives felt more comfortable attacking him, which dropped support further, and so on.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
I think your misunderstanding. Having a region of the sea where you're the de facto dominant power isn't remotely comparable to claiming a huge swath of international waters as a personal fiefdom. You're comparing sour apples to donkey-caves. The US hasn't claimed the Carribean sea and demanded everyone else sailing through pay fees.
No, I'm not misunderstanding at all. China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys, simple as that. And the US regularly invades other countries. The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed, by force, anybody who didn't do what we wanted. I see no reason why China and Russia shouldn't do in their backyards as America did in ours through the 1970s (officially).
JohnHwangDD wrote: And how big is the Caribbean? We also started WW3... China is entitled to the same territorial control
To be fair, the US doesn't claim the entire Caribbean as it's territorial waters or exclusive economic zone the way China does the South China Sea. We're not pretending that islands off the coast of Mexico give us territorial waters within literal sight of Veracruz for example the way China does with Vietnam or the Phillipines.
Not that the US hasn't done horrifically scummy things in the past.
The US has de facto control over those waters, and that's precisely the point of what China and Russia are doing to secure their borders from likely American aggression. If the Russians and Chinese were to make it a policy to park Warships within sight of our coastal cities, it'd be exactly like Cuba all over again.
If the US were willing to pull ALL of our troops back to US soil and harbors, I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would do the same.
That would be naieve in the extreme. Even if they had no directly aggressive imperialist intentions of their own (which would be extremely suspect given basic human nature), there's lots of reason to want to project power (to assist allies, stabilize neighbors, etc), and there are other axis of power besides just the US/China/Russia (the EU would obviously have a gap to fill, India is increasingly a major player on the world stage, etc).
It's not like we don't see China and Russia doing the same things against other nations that they do with/against the US. India and China just recently narrowly avoided a shooting war over a stupid pedantic argument over a road in the literal middle of nowhere.
EDIT: not that I wouldn't mind US withdrawal in some instances, but lets not make it out like there wouldn't be vacuums that China and Russia would fail to exploit.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
"Sure it's bad for Mr China to barge into his neighbor's house with a gun and take control, but Mr USA parks his car in his neighbor's driveway like he owns the place and also got in trouble for barging into other people's houses in the past. So that makes it OK for Mr China."
Ouze wrote: On further reflection, the worst part of this thread is that all the particpants are now being forced to try to spell "Blagojevich" over and over.
The worst part is me realising that despite typing that word out maybe two dozen times now, I still don't know how to spell it.
TBH after the first time I just started copying and pasting it from a google tab. Gun to my head I can't spell it either.
Steelmage99 wrote: Is impeachment of the current President a requirement for the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential election to have been justified and/or productive?
When Whembly said that the Mueller investigation won't amount to much, I think he's actually right. I'm not saying there isn't lots of stuff to find: for something decried as a "witch hunt", it sure has turned up a lot of witches.
No, but imo to have actually have been useful - not a word you used, but it's what I am going to use - it would have rooted out foreign influence in the 2016 election, and spurred measures to remediate them.
That is already clearly not going to happen, because the apparatus to make meaningful change denies the problem exists and admitting it exists means they have to admit that either they were deeply corrupt, or useful idiots. Not a good look either way. There will be no further laws passed to prevent foreign influence, nothing to control how foreign governments purchase advertising in the US, nothing meaningful in response to hacking. So, that won't be useful.
We all know, or should know, that impeachment isn't going to happen. The numbers aren't there and they won't be there no matter what Mueller finds because that is how our government works now and presumably for the foreseeable future. He is going to issue a report, and the right wing is going to deny everything in it regardless of what he finds or how accurate it is. He's too conservative of a investigator to try indicting POTUS directly - I think it would be constitutional but it's definitely an open question, I think, and he's not going to be the one to try.
He's going to build a careful foundation and a workmanlike case and a terrific prosecution only to find the jury box is empty and the judge is doodling dicks on a pad and hasn't heard a word he said.
And since partisanship is strong, 40+% of the US will agree that the whole thing was a bunch of nonsense, after all.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 04:16:28
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Sure it's bad for Mr China to barge into his neighbor's house with a gun and take control, but Mr USA parks his car in his neighbor's driveway like he owns the place and also got in trouble for barging into other people's houses in the past. So that makes it OK for Mr China."
Let's be clear that Mr. USA fething murdered the inhabitants of his mansion, along with everyone who used to live in what is now his gated, fortified compound.
When Mr. China and Mr Russia move into the neighborhood, and see that's how things are done, it's hard to blame them for following suit.
JohnHwangDD wrote: China and Russia demand the same level of territorial integrity and defense in depth that the US enjoys
They already have territorial integrity. No one on Earth is insane enough to go to war with Russia or China because Russia didn't Annex Chrimea, or because China didn't seize an entire body of water. Hell if anything those two things overtly harm the territorial integrity of both countries because no one likes it when nation states make overtly hostile land grabs. That's nonsense, not to mention hypocritical. Japan, Vietnam, Ukraine, and Estonia etc etc aren't entited to the territorial integrity that comes from neighbors who don't try to act like global thungs?
And the US regularly invades other countries.
Yeah and it's a pretty dick thing to do. When countries have to fall back on "but the US did it" they've already lost anything approaching a high ground, which just makes the "stop being so unfair to my country" bit feel like watching a kindergartner scream "not fair" at the top of their little lungs.
The only reason the countries south of the US are "friendly" to the US is because we removed
Now you definitely don't understand. Most of South America save for Columbia, Mexico, and sometimes Chile (depending on their personality disorder of the decade) have governments that overtly and openly dislike the US. They cooperate mostly because of economics. There aren't exactly a large number of choice trading partners, and that itself really just goes back to the above point. US foreign policy, even before Trump started burning it to the ground, wasn't exactly something to aspire too.
1970s
You realize its 2018 right? The people who were calling the shots in the 70s mostly aren't even alive anymore.
And yet, is it not obvious that the continuous use of US power to protect our interests requires China and Russia to do the same?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and this isn't much different. You're calling for the kind of national one upsmanship that set Europe on course for World War I. That the US does dick things is hardly justification for the rest of the world to start doing dick things in turn, and that still doesn't address that 1) the United States hasn't destroyed a neighboring government and annexed territory from said neighbor since 1848, and 2) we've never overtly demanded that the world give us control of international waters.
You're still comparing things that are not alike, and relying on really flimsy whataboutisms to dance around the issue that those things are still unjustifiable. EDIT: As an side, there's something of an irony in a world where Iran, a country that mostly plays by the same rules as everyone else and is villified for it, is called an axis of evil but two countries who are overtly trying to circumvent and break the rules everyone plays by are hapless victims of American neo-colonialism.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/06/12 04:38:26
whembly wrote: Both parties ignore small states at their own peril. There are even memes about HRC not campaigning enough in WI thinking they had that in the bag.
whembly, I have explained to you maybe a half dozen times now that Wisconsin didn't matter and was never going to matter. There was 229 EV that Trump won by more than 3%, this was Trump's base of votes, the stuff he was sure to get in anything but a horrific blow out. From there Trump had to pick up enough swing states to reach 270, and this election the states in play were Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Florida (29).
Now do the maths. Try and figure out the combination in which Wisconsin tips the election. Because if Trump wins Florida, then all Trump needs is to pick up either Michigan or Pennsylvania to win. Wisconsin doesn't matter either way, if Trump gets neither Michigan or Pennsylvania then Wisconsin can't get him to 270, and if Trump wins either Michigan or Pennsylvania then he wins with or without Wisconsin.
The only way Wisconsin actually plays a role in deciding the election is if Trump lost Florida, but won Michigan and Pennsylvania, in which case then Wisconsin would decide the election. But that's a very, very silly scenario and Clinton and everyone else was quite right not to focus on it.
The point wasn't WI was vitally important... it was the fact that HRC lost it on the belief as part of the vaunted "Blue Wall" that it'd be a gimmie state. WI is a small state that likely won't impact the collective EV tally. The point is that *it could* in the future elections, especially since it's trending purplish now (ala CO).
This isn't to defend Clinton's campaign, which was dreadful. But it was dreadful for lots of lots of reasons that had nothing to do with electoral vote strategizing, where the Clinton camp figured out the lay of the land perfectly well. Afterall, Clinton visited Michigan and Pennsylvania lots more that Wisconsin, and her vote decline there was much worse, which tells you a lot about the effect of Clinton's stump speeches.
True.. I think it was you that said Clinton was to technocratic, rather than repeating easily understood stump speeches.
The point is that I've explained this to you a lot of times now, whembly. And you still refuse to understand it, because you don't like how it challenges how you would prefer to understand the 2016 campaign and the electoral college system. This is the problem whembly. You are knee deep in a culture that simply doesn't process unwelcome information.
I understand what you are trying to convey. I understand the point Peregrine has advocated... and even muskiteer and Tanner's point.
I just disagree with the unstated premise that ya'll push that the EC system is an antiquated undemocratic system and believe going to a popular vote system would fundamentally change how politics would operate in the worst way imaginable..
The founders had the EXACT SAME fears and arguments about highly populated regions v. the less populated regions. Those concerns are just as valid as they are now.... hence how the EC was devised.
Can we at least agree that we have divergent opinions on this?
JohnHwangDD wrote: LOL, you seem to think that might doesn't make right.
Because it doesn't.
That's the excuse of donkey-caves who want to do donkey-cave things.
Not to mention hilarious in this case, since both examples being used here don't even qualify as might makes right. It's more like weakness makes right cause both issues are embarrassingly well summarized as the result of inferiority complexes (EDIT: Although I suppose we could qualify most international bs that countries pull is easily summarized as inferiority complexes...).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 05:02:41
Tl-dr, trump has all the cards. Interesting article. Thoughts?
The US is the most powerful country in the G7 by far and has always held all the cards. Remember isn't a meeting of the most powerful countries, but a meeting of the most powerful developed, wealthy, liberal democracies.
In the past that power mattered and the US definitely took the lead, but it didn't matter all that much because all of G7 had shared values and a shared understanding of what is best for G7 and the world as a whole. What has changed is Trump no longer shares those values.
It's like G7 agreed to play a game down in the local park. America owns the ball and has always owned the ball. But that never came up before because America wanted to play just as much as everyone else does. Now Trump is saying he'll take the ball and go home unless everyone lets him score all the goals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/12 05:11:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
-- $k 
-- 4k 
-- 
