US Elections: Apocalypse Now

[Dr. Pepper]

6 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Trump has Jewish grandkids.  All of this Nazi talk is just nonsense from all in Pravda type media sources.  If we set the over under at crematoriums built in the US over the next four years at .5 who is seriously willing to bet the over?  

 

Trump having Jewish grandkids doesn't somehow mean that he hasn't risen on a huge wave of antisemitism, which he helped feed, btw.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

I wasn't talking about you or anyone on these boards. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was addressing the establishment narrative being peddled for quote some time that blames Russian politics for the overwhelming majority of outstanding issues without taking responsibility for own actions that could have contributed to the current state of affairs.

I do understand that your statement was to some degree hyperbole.  Nevertheless, it needs to be established that we aren't arguing against "Russians" but Russian government policys.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Trump having Jewish grandkids doesn't somehow mean that he hasn't risen on a huge wave of antisemitism, which he helped feed, btw.  

Where's the anti-Semitism angle coming from? Trump has stated that he sees Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is pretty much the strongest endorsement that the Jewish state has received from a US president in a generation.

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

The danger comes from Ryan.

The danger comes from the triptych of Trump, Pence and Ryan. Each in their own different way a scary person.

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Can I ask, what is it that people find fundamentally wrong with the Mexican Wall concept?

While we're at it, what was fundamentally wrong with the Berlin Wall concept?

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do understand that your statement was to some degree hyperbole.  Nevertheless, it needs to be established that we aren't arguing against "Russians" but Russian government policys.

Let me add: If the people of Western Europe do not wish to be part of NATO, then they should certainly be allowed to leave.

If the people of Western Europe do not want a US military presence, then the US should withdraw its forces immediately. God knows, we could spend the money on other stuff.

I believe the US should only staunchly defend liberal democratic societies and not force liberal democratic societies on others through military force.

I'm not aware though of any great desire to disband Nato. Maybe I'm wrong.

[butterbumps!]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

butterbumps,

What is the way forward for the left?  Double down on existing attitudes and methodologies for attempting to elucidate their point of view?  Isn't confrontation just going to breed more confrontation?  

I'm not sure of any comprehensive strategy.  But one thing I'm certain of, we cannot let the obvious bigotry go unchecked, or get lulled into accepting these bullshit narratives like what's given by the Quora piece that bigotry has nothing to do with it.  

Seriously, where is the outrage from these people (who claim we should all be nice to each other) for the stream of abuse that PoC, women, LGBTQ+, disabled people have faced, and continue to face, often on the very same avenues of discourse they're complaining about being victimized on?   Where is the outrage-- or even acknowledgement-- over how their candidate rode a wave of bigotry such that it's totally fucking reasonable for onlookers to see a vote for him as support for, or at the very least, enabling of bigotry, and that there is, actually, something legitimate to answer for in that?    Where is the acknowledgement or awareness that they-- mainly white people and mostly men-- have been suppressing the voices-- and even humanity-- of the very same groups they are claiming to be recent victims of, simply because these people have finally gotten voices and ways to be heard?     

[Mr Fixit]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Am I succumbing to alarmism though? I do not think Mr. Putin would try overt military action. But, surely he will try to test NATO resolve to undermine its credibility. And if he can damage NATO credibility, that's a big victory for him. It potentially leaves Europe exposed.

But what does that mean? I'm not mocking you, I'd really want to know. I am always hearing about "testing resolve" or "undermining credibility" from pundits everywhere and I am unclear on what these terms actually mean. They sound like mafia-speak to me. Gotta break a few elbows before anyone else gets any ideas. I mean sure, Russia -- and every other independent regional or global player -- will try to expand its influence in a way that by definition includs "undermining" the influence of rivals to varying degrees. For example, Turkey is currently expanding its influence in the Balkans, especially among the Muslim population of Bosnia, Kosovo, and some other countries. That automatically entails "undermining" EU designs for the region to some extent. But that's the interplay of influence and power inherent in any foreign policy "clashes", however minor they might be.

So sure, Europe has a right to be worried about Russian plans. But there are ways of working within the parameters of normal foreign policy without a knee-jerk response of OMG Putin will invade Baltics, and we won't do anything, and we'll lose credibility. Behind the curtain, as I said before, it's not about the Baltics, because Russia won't invade those countries. It's about fear of losing hegemonic control over Eurasia. 

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where's the anti-Semitism angle coming from? Trump has stated that he sees Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is pretty much the strongest endorsement that the Jewish state has received from a US president in a generation.

I don't know, perhaps stuff like tweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David and the slogan "most corrupt canidate ever!" in front of a background of dollar bills seems kinda antisemitic to me. As does his 

Endorsement of the state of Israel also isn't the same as lack of antisemitism. Many evangelicals support it, but for inherently antisemitic reasons.

[David Selig]

30 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

The thing is that the Baltics were never the true issue. They are only a convenient poster child for the necessity of NATO's continued existence and a means for the US to keep its influence in Europe. It is well-known that US has stronger influence in the so-called New Europe, as Bush I think called it: former countries of the Eastern block, with some exceptions, are staunch US military allies. Significantly more dependable than some of the more willful members of the Old Europe like France and Germany.

That's because they lived under Russian control for 45 years (or more) and really don't want to repeat that experience (except the minority of idiots who thought totalitarian communism was great). Especially the Baltics and the Poles.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where's the anti-Semitism angle coming from? Trump has stated that he sees Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That is pretty much the strongest endorsement that the Jewish state has received from a US president in a generation.

This last year, there was this little thing called a presidential campaign.  A man named Donald Trump ran.  He courted white supremacists, nazi's, and other anti-semitic groups.  He frequently refused to disavow antisemitic attacks that happened in his name.  In fact, he'd often do things like retweet things from anti-semitic accounts.  You probably missed all that because you were squealing over the fact that Donald 

Endorsing the Jewish state doesn't really mean anything, especially when it's often so similar to the ones evangelicals give which is rooted in Christian Zionism, which is also pretty fairly anti semitic.  

[Mr Fixit]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'd love to see European members of NATO living up to their commitments for supporting NATO and reducing what the US needs to provide to make up for their lack.  That said, until they act I think the US needs to maintain its ability to assist Europe pursuant to its commitment under NATO.

The thing is that the whole Trump speech about "Europe needing to take better care of itself" is only partly in line with US official doctrine. Just like in Japan, US actually doesn't want Europe with a military so strong that they wouldn't need US protection anymore. It's stated very openly in US foreign policy papers that are publicly available. One of the chief aims in Eurasia is to prevent any rival power from emerging that would be able to contest US military or economic primacy. Trust me, that refers to the EU as well.

[Mr Fixit]

3 minutes ago, David Selig said:

That's because they lived Russian control for 45 years (or more) and really don't want to repeat that experience (except the minority of idiots who thought totalitarian communism was great). Especially the Baltics and the Poles.

Of course. I don't begrudge them. But that's not the main reason behind this alarmism. As I hope it's clear, Russia has no military designs there. Western policy makers know that very well. Hence it follows that the narrative of Russia invading the Baltics has another aim. The one I stated above that has to do primarily with US role in the wider Eurasian region.

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

But what does that mean?

I'd say Putin's attempts to interfere in those people's business and attempting to destabilize those states would meet the definition.

I'm willing to give Putin a free hand in the Ukraine and in the Crimea. But, when it comes to the Baltic states, not so much. 

The diplomatic solution here is for Putin to absolutely acknowledge the sovereignty of those nations and then follow words with deeds. Or the Baltic Regions to request that NATO and the US leave.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm not sure of any comprehensive strategy.  But one thing I'm certain of, we cannot let the obvious bigotry go unchecked, or get lulled into accepting these bullshit narratives like what's given by the Quora piece that bigotry has nothing to do with it.  

Seriously, where is the outrage from these people (who claim we should all be nice to each other) for the stream of abuse that PoC, women, LGBTQ+, disabled people have faced, and continue to face, often on the very same avenues of discourse they're complaining about being victimized on?   Where is the outrage-- or even acknowledgement-- over how their candidate rode a wave of bigotry such that it's totally fucking reasonable for onlookers to see a vote for him as support for, or at the very least, enabling of bigotry, and that there is, actually, something legitimate to answer for in that?    Where is the acknowledgement or awareness that they-- mainly white people and mostly men-- have been suppressing the voices-- and even humanity-- of the very same groups they are claiming to be recent victims of, simply because these people have finally gotten voices and ways to be heard?     

butterbumps,

Again I understand that.  My question is simply this, if what the left has been doing either isn't effective or is actually counterproductive perhaps the current methodology isn't the way to go.  Why continue doing the same thing if what you are doing isn't working or making things worse?

[Mr Fixit]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'd say Putin's attempts to interfere in those people's business and attempting to destabilize those states would meet the definition.

I'm willing to give Putin a free hand in the Ukraine and in the Crimea. But, when it comes to the Baltic states, not so much. 

The diplomatic solution here is for Putin to absolutely acknowledge the sovereignty of those nations and then follow words with deeds. Or the Baltic Regions to request that NATO and the US leave.

Sure. And he isn't destabilizing or invading the Baltics. He acknowledges the sovereignty of those nations. This whole line of posts illustrates my point perfectly. We are discussing ad nauseam the turn of events that no one in foreign policy circles actually believes will happen. Just like WMDs or any number of other arguments that have been conjured up for self-serving reasons. It's deflecting the discussion from more important issues and I am frankly surprised to see so many smart people fall for it time and again.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Tempra said:

 

 the Biden Rule.  

 

Why do you feel the need to keep perpetuating this lie? There is no Biden rule. There has been and there never will be. It's just a shameful ploy by McConnell to justify his partisan hackery. 

11 hours ago, Fez said:

Well, Schumer just got 70% of the vote in New York, winning 55 of the 62 counties, while Clinton got 59% in the state and lost almost all the upstate counties outside the 4 cities (Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Albany). I'd say he knows something about winning elections and keeping rural voters in the Democratic fold (he got 66.4% in 2010 and 71.2% in 2004). Its not his fault if his party's candidate turned out that unpopular or that he was given incorrect information about how the presidential race looked.

It's not that he knows something that Clinton's team didn't. They just didn't care. 

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This last year, there was this little thing called a presidential campaign.  A man named Donald Trump ran.  He courted white supremacists, nazi's, and other anti-semitic groups.  He frequently refused to disavow antisemitic attacks that happened in his name.  In fact, he'd often do things like retweet things from anti-semitic accounts.  You probably missed all that because you were squealing over the fact that Donald 

Endorsing the Jewish state doesn't really mean anything, especially when it's often so similar to the ones evangelicals give which is rooted in Christian Zionism, which is also pretty fairly anti semitic.  

Trump does have the support of the anti-semitic groups in the US, and I think there's a real danger in them taking Trump's election as validation and there being a rise in anti-semitic incidents nationwide.

I don't think there will be any official or unofficial government activity that could be considered anti-semitic though. Beyond the fact that Trump has Jewish family members and plenty of Jewish friends; an awful lot of the names being floated around as staffers or cabinet heads are Jewish or are very close with Jewish organizations.

Its Muslims and Hispanics, and maybe African Americans, that are going to have to face harmful targeted polices.

[ummester]

I don't think people use left and right correctly anymore.

The terms were originally used in the French Revolution to denote the anti monarchy/establishment with left and the pro monarchy/establishment with right. They were then adapted by US politics for economics with the left leaning socialist and against the capitalist establishment.

Left and right have never really had anything to do with social values until they started being misused in very recent times. And, even if the left does refer to social values, it would be those that oppose the establishment and, given most Western establishments now preach progressiveism, it's not really left.

Technically, Trump was more left than Clinton, as he was more anti establishment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Hello darkness my old friend...

 

Lol. I'm still of the belief that he never wanted to actually be president. He just wanted to prove that he could win. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Sure. And he isn't destabilizing or invading the Baltics. He acknowledges the sovereignty of those nations. This whole line of posts illustrates my point perfectly. We are discussing ad nauseam the turn of events that no one in foreign policy circles actually believes will happen. Just like WMDs or any number of other arguments that have been conjured up for self-serving reasons. It's deflecting the discussion from more important issues and I am frankly surprised to see so many smart people fall for it time and again.

And what self serving reasons would that be? You know this would be a lot easier actually if the people of the Baltics simply decided they do not want NATO or the US in their counties.

In that case, the US and NATO could simply withdraw from those regions and not have to worry about it. 

And please tell me how Putin would never interfere in the Baltics States business or try to undermine those regimes. Why or why am I not buying this?