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.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
You need to understand your point is absolute junk. Pure fiction. Trash.
The Iran deal states that on a finding by the IAEA that Iran was found with a prohibited program or capability, or was failing to provide the IAEA with the required access, the previous sanctions regime could be immediately re-instated. That is enforcement, it is a sword hanging over Iran, that if they ever breach the treaty they would find themselves back in economic strangulation they suffered from roughly 2005 to 2015.
So stop posting utter nonsense.
he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 03:04:43
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
We're not dealing with stupid people here...
You are not, but I am. Just because it is vulnerable does not mean we are not breaking our word when we back out of an AGREEMENT.
So would that mean Russian money may have been used to pay off Daniels? That's. ...huh.
Exactly!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You need to understand your point is absolute junk. Pure fiction. Trash.
The Iran deal states that on a finding by the IAEA that Iran was found with a prohibited program or capability, or was failing to provide the IAEA with the required access, the previous sanctions regime could be immediately re-instated. That is enforcement, it is a sword hanging over Iran, that if they ever breach the treaty they would find themselves back in economic strangulation they suffered from roughly 2005 to 2015.
So stop posting utter nonsense.
Stop reflectively posting anything Trump does is... bad. I
It was an agreement that contained loopholes galore... predicated on the idea that Iran would choose to become a responsible player internationally, abandons terrorism (Hezbella and Hamas), publically 'fess up it's nuclear ambitions (it did not), and ceases its threats to the region and our allies.
d-usa wrote: So nothing Trump says or does actually means that the US is doing anything?
Pretending that the elected leader of the US does not speak for the US is pretty silly. It’s right up there with “he’s not my president” level nonsense.
Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
I know you are a red stooge here to defend your team. But this doesn't even make sense. Leaving an AGREEMENT the country made is not going back on its word? Did you actually read what you wrote?
I did.
The Iran deal did not represent America’s word, it represented Obama’s word. Our Constitution and our laws are no secret.
EVERYONE...our allies and Iran would know that a president has no power unilaterally bind the US to an international agreement. We give our word when we enact a treaty or pass some legislative laws to lock in those commitments.
...like the Paris Accord...
and so forth.
He is the American President. His word is out word. Much like Trump's word is out word, as depressing as that sounds. He is our representative on the international scene. What the President says to other countries is in fact, our word. Just because you do not like Obama, does not take away from the fact that he is our representative.
I'm not saying President Obama didn't represent the US on the international scene.
Read.What.I'm.Typing: If any international agreement doesn't get it's backing from Congressional statute or treaty functionary, then in INTERNATIONAL scene would know full well, that such agreement is vulnerable.
We're not dealing with stupid people here...
You are not, but I am. Just because it is vulnerable does not mean we are not breaking our word when we back out of an AGREEMENT.
Read.What.You.Typed.
Why should a current potus hold a previous administration's "gentleman's agreement" as sacrosanct?
Should President Booker not be able to rescind any international agreement Trump has made via "the pen and w/o congressional blessing" at his discretion?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Trump is like adding together all the past Republican presidents, but making each part just that little bit more stupid. Russia collusion is like stupid Watergate. The tax cut is like Reagan's tax cut, but stupider. And now we have Bush's adventurism in the middle east, but somehow even stupider.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Oh... by all means please demonstrate that Pruitt is trashing the environment...
Until this point I at least thought you were above seahorsing, whembly. Poor form.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 03:33:59
“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.
whembly wrote: Leaving an agreement from previous administration is not breaking the countries' word.
Pedantic gibberish. When another country deals with the US it wants to know that any deal it commits to will be upheld by the US. What we've seen now is that any deal made with the US is only good for the duration of that president, with his replacement free to completely change policy without even articulating a coherent reason for the change.
It shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand why this means the US is surrendering its place driving international agreements. If you want to get hung up on the exact meaning of 'breaking your word', well of course that's what you're going to do, because it lets you ignore the responsibility you have for supporting the collection of idiots and con artists known as the Republican party, who are directly responsible for America ceding its place in world leadership.
Ceding it's place in world leadership?
Okay... go with that seb.
Didn't we tango on this subject similarly with the Paris Accord? Did any fallout out from that manifest?
Let me put it another way. Anytime POTUS make any international agreements backed only by his personal say-so, the agreements has no force on future administrations. No more so than any promises I make to my neighbors about what I will do with my property. I give my word, I have an obligation as long as I’m the owner. Future owners can freely disregard any promises I made, though they may find it advantageous to stick to the arrangement, depending on what benefits flow their way.
I suspect everyone who he was making those promises to were well aware of that. This isn't hard seb... Like that thing with Australia, where Obama agreed that we would take those 1200 refugees (or however many it was). Trump didn’t like the deal, and he could have walked away from it. But, that has costs too. He kept the deal, likely because he thought the benefits of future cooperation with Australia outweighed the fact that he thought we really were getting screwed on the deal.
Read the words I wrote, and stop playing stupid games to protect your little bubble. Go, go read the words. Learn.
“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.
Frazzled wrote: Again, CNN is reporting a Russian related fund gave Cohen $500k, some of which was used to pay off Daniels.
And AT&T paid $200,000 in to the same shell company, at the time the AT&T merger was meeting resistance from Washington. It was for 'consulting', Mr Cohen was meant to be giving AT&T lots of insight into Trump's administration or something.
I don't think anybody gets to pretend they're surprised at the corruption of Trump and lackeys. But I am surprised at the laziness involved. This guy is Trump's handpicked bagman, and the guy was using a single shell company to bring in bribes and pay out for NDAs. And he didn't even bother to hide his position controlling the company, he was listed right there as the sole director. They're just such lazy crooks.
“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.
So would that mean Russian money may have been used to pay off Daniels? That's. ...huh.
I knew there was something more to this when Giuliani just volunteered out of nowhere that Trump knew about the payments. Trump and Giuliani knew the details of payments in to Cohen's shell company were coming, they wanted to get ahead of the story, figured it was best that people believed Trump paid Cohen back, even if it meant Trump would then be culpable of a breach of financing laws, it was better than a story that Cohen was repaid by money coming from a Russian oligarch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
He's arguing irrelevant trash. The specific legalistic operations of the constitution are irrelevant in a world in which US politicians act with responsibility to ensure a broadly consistent foreign policy. That was the world in which the Iran deal was made.
Think of it this way, in terms of the law and constitution there is literally nothing stopping the US president from declaring a 'police action' and beginning a shock and awe campaign of immense devestation against any other country on earth. Given that legal, constitutional reality, then every country in the world should invest massively in missile screens and nuclear retaliation to stop the US president deciding to do that against their country on a whim. But that doesn't happen, way beyond US legal and constitutional concerns, what other countries respond to is how the US actually behaves. Because the US doesn't, with one remarkable exception, go about devestating military attacks for no good reason, the rest of the world responds to that.
With the Iran deal, the US had a lawful sanctions regime it built with P5+1, and it agreed to drop that sanctions regime in exchange for inspections. The ability to return to that sanctions regime was a real, enforceable threat on Iran. That's what matters, that is a real thing.
The stuff about what is defined as enforceable this or that under this part of that of the constitution is pointless side blather, and it is only attempted by people trying to avoid addressing the actual matters of substance that should be debated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Stop reflectively posting anything Trump does is... bad. I
It was an agreement that contained loopholes galore... predicated on the idea that Iran would choose to become a responsible player internationally, abandons terrorism (Hezbella and Hamas), publically 'fess up it's nuclear ambitions (it did not), and ceases its threats to the region and our allies.
It failed, miserably.
There is nothing in the Iran deal that hopes would suddenly play nice. That's ridiculous nonsense you've just made up, or possibly something some clown you like to read made up, which you ate up without applying any critical thought at all. It's the Middle East. Saudia Arabia and Israel don't play nice. There is a constant struggle for regional dominance between the major players, and they all use proxies to further their own aims.
The Iran nuclear deal is completely unrelated to that. You might as well complain that your local persian place still won't open for lunch, so what good is the Iran nuclear deal?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 04:09:38
“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.
Frazzled wrote: he is citing the Constitution. You are the one posting nonsense. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Washington, but load heavy because no one tangles with ghost Washington.
He's arguing irrelevant trash. The specific legalistic operations of the constitution are irrelevant in a world in which US politicians act with responsibility to ensure a broadly consistent foreign policy. That was the world in which the Iran deal was made.
Think of it this way, in terms of the law and constitution there is literally nothing stopping the US president from declaring a 'police action' and beginning a shock and awe campaign of immense devestation against any other country on earth. Given that legal, constitutional reality, then every country in the world should invest massively in missile screens and nuclear retaliation to stop the US president deciding to do that against their country on a whim. But that doesn't happen, way beyond US legal and constitutional concerns, what other countries respond to is how the US actually behaves. Because the US doesn't, with one remarkable exception, go about devestating military attacks for no good reason, the rest of the world responds to that.
No. The US Constitution isn't irrelevant to the world.
Any diplomatic negotiations that ignores how our laws works domestically and what authority the constitutions grants our President... will be sorely disappointed.
With the Iran deal, the US had a lawful sanctions regime it built with P5+1, and it agreed to drop that sanctions regime in exchange for inspections. The ability to return to that sanctions regime was a real, enforceable threat on Iran. That's what matters, that is a real thing.
The stuff about what is defined as enforceable this or that under this part of that of the constitution is pointless side blather, and it is only attempted by people trying to avoid addressing the actual matters of substance that should be debated.
It's not pointless... its ENTIRELY THE FETHING POINT!
Frankly, if Trump really wanted to shiv the Iran deal supporters and elected Democrats, he should've formally submitted the agreement as a Treaty for the Senate. That way Trump would show the world that the Senate indeed wouldn’t pass it...and in particular, that many of the Dem senators now criticizing Trump for unilaterally pulling out of the deal wouldn’t vote for its ratification if put the the test, and tying the damn thing around the necks of every Democratic senator who does vote to ratify it. This deal is deeply unpopular here.
So please... stop acting like a handshake from the previous administration is sacrosanct. It doesn't work like that.... and the whole international community knowsthat.
EDIT: btw, SCOTUS recently ruled in Medell v Texas that unless an international agreement is ratified or passed via congressional statute the potus lacks authority to enter a binding international agreement.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 04:20:35
I'm trying to imagine the gakstorm that would erupt at a verifiable Russian-Cohen-Trump connection. That would certainly be an...interesting time. I'll just be glad if the storm stays in DC.
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.
whembly wrote: Didn't we tango on this subject similarly with the Paris Accord? Did any fallout out from that manifest?
Stop thinking of what we do here as debate. Debate requires certain basic standards be met, such as some form of penalty for false or dishonest statements, so that the contest is productive in its sum total. This is not debate.
And yeah, leaving the Paris Accord meant the US left its position of leadership in addressing climate change. This wasn't fallout though, it was Trump's express purpose in leaving the deal.
Let me put it another way. Anytime POTUS make any international agreements backed only by his personal say-so, the agreements has no force on future administrations.
As I explained to fraz, constitutionally there is no constraint on the US invading any country for 30 days as a 'police action'. In that time the destructive might of the US could level whole cities. But the world doesn't act as if that might really happen, because the limitations of the US constitutional are not the only constraint. Far more important is the political judgement of the president. The world responds to the expectation of what a president's political judgement will be.
And because of historical precedent, the world has believed the US presented a fairly consistent foreign policy, despite changing presidents.
I suspect everyone who he was making those promises to were well aware of that. This isn't hard seb... Like that thing with Australia, where Obama agreed that we would take those 1200 refugees (or however many it was). Trump didn’t like the deal, and he could have walked away from it. But, that has costs too. He kept the deal, likely because he thought the benefits of future cooperation with Australia outweighed the fact that he thought we really were getting screwed on the deal.
And here you're starting to get it. US presidents have historically weighted the importance of consistent US operations in the world, and its led them to maintain deals from past presidents, even when they personally didn't like those decisions. Now we're seeing a president who doesn't respect that.
It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Then repeat back to me what my words were, and then explain why your reply made no sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. The US Constitution isn't irrelevant to the world.
Two situations.
1) The world as it currently is, where there is no limit on a president declaring a police action and inflicting a 30 shock and awe campaign of enormous devastation against countries picked pretty much at random, but a long history of US presidents not doing that, and never expressing any desire to ever do that.
2) A world where the US president has undertaken 'police actions' against a dozen countries across the planet, using airpower and missiles to kill hundreds of thousands. A constitutional amendment was passed that no military force could be authorised for any kind of offense without congressional approval, but there's also a new presidential candidate running on a platform of 'that stuff was awesome let's do more of that'.
According to your grand theory, the former is the world in which every country would be making allowance for the US president who might attack at random, because there's no constitutional hard limit on doing do. While in the latter countries would be far less worried, because even though it had actually happened and there's a candidate who says he wants to do it again, at least now there's a constitutional hard limit which could do something.
Obviously your grand theory is ridiculous. Countries don't deal with each other purely on the basis of how formal treaties get protected in law in those countries. I bet you couldn't even describe the treaty process in a single other country on Earth. Countries deal with each other based on precedent, and the level of commitment countries show to maintaining a consistent set of negotiated points with other countries.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 04:35:41
“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.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
To be fair people on both sides (though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
Where I semi-disagree with you is the timeline of the slide. I feel like GOP politics was not this bad under Obama's second term, which in turn was not as bad as under his first, and so on. Or in other words they weren't THIS crazy/dumb until Trump showed up.
Mitch McConnell was asked "Are the ads Don Blankenship is running at the conclusion of the West Virginia race racist? Are his ads racist?" McConnell replied "Well we're gonna find out what happens in West Virgnia tonight, and I may have more to say about that tomorrow."
So McConnell is willing to speak out against racism, once McConnell is confident the the racist won't be representing the Republicans in a senate campaign. He has a clear opposition to racism as long as it won't involve any personal risk or impact his control of the senate.
In the race in West Virginia, Blankenship ended up with 21% of the vote, which was in line with the limited public polling we saw. The story about Blankenship's late surge, which driven entirely by stories about internal polls from other candidates, looks like it was basically junk. There's a lesson here - stories about internal polls are selective at best, and more likely manipulated or maybe even totally made up by the campaign for its own benefit. In this case the story looked to be mostly from the other Republican candidates, trying to create a fear of Blankenship winning to drive voters to them.
(though obviously weighted towards one) often use the sentiments of 'anomaly' and 'unprecedented' interchangeably. The reality is that Trump is unprecedented but not an anomaly; he is unusual in how bad he is but it isn't some random occurrence but rather the inevitable destination that a decent chunk of people have seen coming for some time. Almost anyone who is educated, follows politics, and isn't Republican has known this was coming. Whether they acknowledged that or tried to convince themselves otherwise is a different matter; I know a number of individuals who more or less knew this was coming deep down but really didn't want to believe that it would happen (can't really blame them).
Where I semi-disagree with you is the timeline of the slide. I feel like GOP politics was not this bad under Obama's second term, which in turn was not as bad as under his first, and so on. Or in other words they weren't THIS crazy/dumb until Trump showed up.
Oh I agree they weren't this bad before they started trying to defend Trump. But that wasn't a change in direction, it was an acceleration of a process that had been decades in the making, as you note. We've been watching Republicans always find a new way to reach bottom, only to show time and again they can keep going so much lower.
Man, I remember when Dan Quayle was mocked and declared unpresidential because he used a regional variation to spell potatoes. In the modern GOP he'd probably be the egghead.
As to the actual timeline of the slide, there's a whole bunch of points you could point to for when it began. The line can be drawn at the beginning of FOX News, as that was when Republicans stopped engaging with greater society, now they had such a reliable recipient for their message. Personally I've used Newt Gingrich's appointment as speaker, as that was the point the GOP committed to using the tools of government not to govern but to continue the political war. But really both those points were the product of earlier choices. To me it really began with Reagan's election with his policy of supply side economics. This isn't to villify Reagan, who reversed much of the policy when it became clear it didn't work. But Reagan reversed it because the GOP he led was still full of actual experts who could speak freely about the problems they saw. But supply side wasn't fully rejected despite clearly not working as claimed and being pretty obviously stupid. With Reagan's two big wins the party had a policy that lobbyists and the donor class loved, moving away from that as a party is near impossible. But because the idea was so stupid, something no serious academic or thinker could pretend to believe, the result was serious academics and thinkers slowly stopped entering Republican circles. Over time the existing serious thinkers were slowly replaced grifters who didn't care if it was crap, or hacks who couldn't get work anywhere that required actual expertise. So what you see over the next couple of decades is all of Republican aligned academia just disappear.
Have you noticed that the last serious Republican proposal on any policy issue was on healthcare, and that ended in the early 90s? Since then they've produced nothing beyond 'how about some more tax cuts' and 'the Democrat thing is bad'. Once essential think tanks like Heritage became producers of pure nonsense, employing not a single researcher respected outside of the Republican bubble.
The one hope I've got right now is the unpopularity of the GOP tax cut. It's less popular than GW Bush and Clinton's tax hikes If the GOP realise that cutting taxes is not the electoral free ticket it once was, and won't keep winning them elections, they might start trying to build an actual base of policies, first by attracting some actual thinkers back to the party.
I really like your description of Trump as unprecedented but not an anomaly, gonna steal that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 05:57:15
“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.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Diplomacy and 100% no WMD's even when no WMD situation is known is not enough to protect from invasion. That's been shown before.
As it is only way you are safe is by either being able to hurt back enough no invasion feels worth or you simply have nothing worth sending military in for.
North Korea is pouring over every single bit of information they can get about not just Trump and Pompeo, but every advisor and analyst in the US team. Meanwhile, Pompeo puts out his press statement saying he is working to put in place the agenda between the President and "Chairman Un". The second most important guy on the US side can't even get the NK leader's name right. And he's still a lot better prepared than the most important guy, because the most important guy is Trump and he thinks if he can just get in a room with Kim he can wing it.
tneva82 wrote: Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Iran is now in a very weird place. I honestly don't know how they're going to play it. They're absolutely right to be afraid of US invasion, and nukes is the only real protection against that as long as people like Trump can be elected, and as long as people like Bolton are a factor in one side of US politics.
But returning to building the bomb is really just gifting the US their casus belli. And even the hardliners in Iranian society would have to admit given the data breaches so far there's no way they could confidently develop the bomb without news of it coming out.
“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.
sebster wrote: It's worth noting that TPP, the Paris Accord and now the Iran deal have all continued after the US has withdrawn. I think in each case there's been a judgement that Trump will go, and things will return to a kind of normal. I actually don't share that judgement, because I think Trump is far less of anomaly in Republican politics than people have yet realised. The fact you're here trying to defend his string of mistakes shows there is a decent base of Republican support that is perfectly okay with Trump's 'I do what I want for reasons I don't understand' brand of foreign policy.
Well the Iran deal is unlikely to continue. Iran needs those nukes as invasion is pretty much only matter of time since one of the most hostile and aggressive countries in the world with record of invasion and toppling of goverments withdrew from treaty.
Since Iran can't count on military aid when they get invaded they need to become force that others don't want to invade. And since conventional weapons are not going to be enough nukes are pretty much only thing they might get that's good enough.
Diplomacy and 100% no WMD's even when no WMD situation is known is not enough to protect from invasion. That's been shown before.
As it is only way you are safe is by either being able to hurt back enough no invasion feels worth or you simply have nothing worth sending military in for.
Spot on. When there was all that whining and carrying on about the deal (and Iran's nuclear program) at the beginning my first thought was "this a country that stalemated with Iraq and thus is of roughly equal strength. The US proved it could overwhelm conventional forces of that strength, so the rational move is to get non-conventional weapons".
I really don't understand how this surprised anyone, except maybe the part of the GOP base that thinks the whole of Iran is two guys with a goat in a desert.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. Iran being so heavily comitted to proxy wars and terrorism because it shifts any potential attention elsewhere. If Iran wasn't doing such things they argue, they might give enemies time to invade in the mind of Iran. It certainly seems to be in Iranian interest to quickly develop something, but the issue is that if Trump wants to invade, the Iranians will never make it timewise.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.
Trump is like adding together all the past Republican presidents, but making each part just that little bit more stupid. Russia collusion is like stupid Watergate. The tax cut is like Reagan's tax cut, but stupider. And now we have Bush's adventurism in the middle east, but somehow even stupider.
Trump and co are basically Republican Jackass, they see stupid things and try to make it look even worse to bask in all the attention.
Foreign policy wise? Let's see...
-withdrew from Paris Accord...
-withdrew from TPP...
-decimated ISIS...
-Syrian response...
-detente with North Korea (so far)
-and now withdrawing from Iran Nuke Accord
The Paris Accord withdrawel has let China of all countries step into the normative leader role and reap the economic benefits of the future, fossile fuels are not sustainable in the long run, because technology is moving past it. It is the US saving some money now to miss out on a lot in the future.
As for the TPP. That was an incredible move to establish because it basically meant that China would be pressured into playing by the rules of the US. You know your foreign policy decisions are sound when Xi Jinping is jumping up and down for joy about you leaving the TPP... Again, the US giving up an extremely beneficial political and economic role on the international level and for what? Saving jobs that turns out are going to be lost anyway?
ISIS was already decimated. Its defeat assured under Obama. The fate of Mosul was decided upon in the closing months of the Obama admin. All Trump did was make the US military bomb more to speed up the process. We have independent organizations noting that civilian casualties skyrocketed. And it was all for nothing, ISIS was a spent force. The only thing keeping ISIS in Iraq and Syria was Iraqi and Syrian incompetence when it came to quick offensive actions. That is how Trump speeded it up, by bombing everything the Iraqi army was too scared to push on without it being levelled first. The second the US went back to Iraq it was over, it wasn't a matter of if, just when.
The Syrian response is symbolism. It was punishing someone for having blood on his hands when he was already up to his waist in a sea of blood. Assad is going to win this civil war, nothing has improved.
Again, North Korea comes in for a detente on about a 10 year rotation. With no indication that this time its different. All Kim has done is some non-comittal showmanship. And even if it proceeds, NK can afford the detente seeing as it has nukes now. If actual detente comes about that is by virtue of NK becoming a nuclear power, not Trump yelling at Kim on twitter. Iran just killed any possible deal, no peace in the Korean peninsula this decade. If Kim plays his cards right he might develop larger international economic relations while holding on to his nukes, because Trump comes across as the untrustworthy one right now.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 06:50:39
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Just another note on how completely stupid Republican policy positions have become, does everyone remember back during the depths of the GFC when it was very popular on the right to claim that unemployment wasn't due to demand shortage because of the housing and financial sector crash, actually it was due to the 'skills gap', the difference between the skills the labour force had and the skills that employers actually needed? They argued that all this stuff about short term deficits to offset the fall in private spending was doomed, what was needed was vast reforms to education and industry.
Those vast reforms never happened. Despite that, somehow the number of jobs to unemployed people steadily fell, year on year. It was as if the sudden spike in unemployment then its slow steady recovery was nothing to do with the sudden emergence of a skills gap, but was actually about a sudden fall in private spending caused by a collapse in housing and the financial sector, followed by a slow but steady recovery.
Years later, has a single one of those right wing pundits ever addressed their mistakes, admitted they got it all wrong? Of course not, instead they just continued claiming everything was terrible in the economy while Obama was president, then switched to everything being great now Trump is president, with not one sensible reason as to why. Silence on the bull market under Obama switched to cheering that same bull market once Trump was in power, before it returned to silence once it turned to bear.
Also, these are the same guys who called for hyperinflation year after year. Has one of them ever admitted they were wrong? These are the same guys who claimed Bush's tax cuts and then Trump's, would produce increased tax revenues. Absolutely wrong, never a moment's reflection from any of them.
Thing is, every political party has hacks. It's just a necessary reality of politics. The issue with Republicans today is there's nothing but hacks. In order to be part of the Republican party you have to embrace ideas that only the most shameless hacks will even consider. And then these are the same guys you rely on to write new policy. It's a grim place for a major political party to wander in to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 06:56:58
“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.
How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
Probably like this. Trump's election is the fault of Obama so everything he does is really the fault of Obama if it goes wrong. The next Democratic President is a backlash against Trump, when the primary person responsible for Trump is obviously Obama, so its still his fault. When the new Republican President comes in after that, it is obviously another backlash against the Democrat who only got in thanks to, you guessed it, Obama.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 06:58:43
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Don 'I married an asian woman while Mitch McConnell married a China person' Blankenship lost and that's been the big story out of Tuesday's primaries, but also interesting to note was the Sanders wing continues to misfire completely. Kucinich couldn't crack 25% in his primary, and Swearingin just limped over 30% in WV. The dreams of a far left take over the Democratic party are yet to take a single scalp. Compare to the Tea Party primaries in 2010, which began with an incredible string of incumbents being defeated in primaries by far right candidates.
And on a slightly different note, here's a friendly reminder that coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign was incredibly stupid. Dowd isn't some random hack either, she's won a Pulitzer for her work on Clinton & Lewinksy. Among certain parts of the left wing she's an absolute darling. I never liked her work much, but that's because it tended towards gossip and personality over policy, not because it was crap. But there she was in 2016 producing the most extraordinary rubbish, and she was far from alone.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
The skills shortage was meant to be happening right now, it was the explanation for the high unemployment of 2009, 2010 etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/09 07:54:39
“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.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. ... ... ... .
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.
Which as much as I hate nuclear weapons is still the smart thing to do. US broke their part of bargain. Why reward that by still holding up on their part? Especially as they now have to face real possibility of US invasion in the future. Better to try to get nuclear arsenal as strong that is about only thing that can really protect them from invasion. Only way to be sure of that is have ability to hurt US directly enough they don't feel like invasion is worth it.
Some US academics of the Neorealist international relations approach actually advocate Iran getting nuclear weapons because it will tone down Iran and stabilize a region with only a single nuclear power as of now. ... ... ... .
The region contains four nuclear powers; Russia, Israel, Pakistan and India. I'm not sure if adding Iran would make this more stable or less.
That depends, when talking about the Middle Eastern region generally those three aren't considered to be part of it. I should have been more specific, but those three countries are barely involved in Middle Eastern regional dynamics besides Russia for the moment.
The argument of proponents is that Iran is facing a security crisis with a hostile US and its host of Sunni regional allies. Acquiring nuclear weapons would solve the Iranian security crisis because they are now safe from outside invasion in a hostile region. If that occurs so the argument goes, the need for Iran to engage in hostile and agressive politics abroad will diminish, because the distraction value is not as vital anymore.
Disciple of Fate wrote: How can they be wrong when it is going to happen in the future sometime? In 20 or 30 years from now if it ever occurs they can say "see we told you so, thanks Obama."
The skills shortage was meant to be happening right now, it was the explanation for the high unemployment of 2009, 2010 etc.
I know you meant that, I was just helping them inevitably move their goalposts
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/09 08:10:06
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
