Altherion Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 29 minutes ago, WinterFox said: You guys are plugged in much better than I, and I wonder if anyone could direct me to some realistic literature about how we enlightened folk might combat this overwhelming tide of hate and stupidity. Not to be defeatist, but they have all three branches, 8 senate seats to defend in midterms, and a chocked old on the HOR/ state bodies. I have read the think pieces and seen the comments here about how the country is rejecting Trump, but I find it hard to put stock in such things considering recent history. The Commodores, Ser Scott's and Altherions are the minority, but they are strategically located and liberals at this point are reduced to an impotent nominally superior investing force with no real power. Is there any evidence to the contrary? First, you are definitely mistaken about my location and, if I remember correctly, also about Ser Scott's. I am located in a solidly blue city that is part of a solidly blue state and Ser Scot is in a solidly red state. Neither of our votes matters all that much and there's nothing strategic about our location. Second, your concern is misplaced: Ser Scot and I both have post-graduate degrees and I at least am not likely to be a part of any real action should it get going. As to your question, if what you're really asking is when the Democrats will seize control of either the Presidency or at least one of the Houses of Congress and how you can speed up the process, then the answer is that unless you have a substantial amount of resources or are extraordinary in some way, there's not much you can do to speed it up... but, luckily for you, all you need to do is wait 2-8 years. The parties alternate and the Democrats will be back. On the other hand, if the question is really what you can do about the hate (and yes, there's very real hate, though not from people on these boards), then the first step is to understand how the politicians you "enlightened folk" are voting (or at least trying to vote) into office are causing very real suffering to the "strategically located" people. Also, please keep in mind that you don't have a monopoly on self-righteousness. Finally, no, the country is not rejecting Trump. If that is the impression you're getting, then I would suggest that you diversify your choices of propaganda. Polls claim that he is a historically unpopular president-elect just as they claimed that he was a historically unpopular nominee, but this has very little impact on his ability to govern -- especially since polls also claimed that he was going to lose the election and they were obviously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 8 hours ago, Einheri said: Europe in its entirety can take care of each other if we truly commit to it. It’s a matter of will as you say, but I believe we’re getting there. (Also, I don't want to seem like an asshole, but this is the second (and third) time you’ve used the term “militia” to describe a military (or defence organization as I’m proposing). A “militia” is typically used to describe a fighting force of ordinary citizens with low standards as far equipment and training is concerned. Think WW2 Volksturm or those nutjobs in the states who believe that the gubbermint is out to get them.) I doubt that Trump actually wants to abolish NATO anyway, regardless of what he says. If you have read about how he conducts business, then making threats like these comes off as a version of his usual negotiation tactics. I think it is more likely that he just wants European states to raise their military expenditures towards the NATO target rate (2% of GDP) instead of free riding on the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 9 hours ago, WinterFox said: You guys are plugged in much better than I, and I wonder if anyone could direct me to some realistic literature about how we enlightened folk might combat this overwhelming tide of hate and stupidity. Not to be defeatist, but they have all three branches, 8 senate seats to defend in midterms, and a chocked old on the HOR/ state bodies. I have read the think pieces and seen the comments here about how the country is rejecting Trump, but I find it hard to put stock in such things considering recent history. The Commodores, Ser Scott's and Altherions are the minority, but they are strategically located and liberals at this point are reduced to an impotent nominally superior investing force with no real power. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Why have you ever included me in this particular group? Are you under the mistaken idea that I support Trump or anything he stands for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said: I doubt that Trump actually wants to abolish NATO anyway, regardless of what he says. If you have read about how he conducts business, then making threats like these comes off as a version of his usual negotiation tactics. I think it is more likely that he just wants European states to raise their military expenditures towards the NATO target rate (2% of GDP) instead of free riding on the USA. Isn't that completely reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, Savannah said: Isn't that completely reasonable? Hardball tactics that work in business situations because the stakes are "Bob loses money if this deal falls through" are much lower than this situation where Putin sees NATO as weak and unwilling to defend its members and therefore risks an invasion of the Baltic States or God forbid, Poland, because Trump wants to play hardball with our allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Hardball tactics that work in business situations because the stakes are "Bob loses money if this deal falls through" are much lower than this situation where Putin sees NATO as weak and unwilling to defend its members and therefore risks an invasion of the Baltic States or God forbid, Poland, because Trump wants to play hardball with our allies. Putin isn't going to challenge the NATO. Also, I meant the NATO states spending not Trump tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einheri Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said: I doubt that Trump actually wants to abolish NATO anyway, regardless of what he says. If you have read about how he conducts business, then making threats like these comes off as a version of his usual negotiation tactics. I think it is more likely that he just wants European states to raise their military expenditures towards the NATO target rate (2% of GDP) instead of free riding on the USA. I agree that this is most likely the case, and it's not unreasonable of him to demand this (Obama asked the same of them, but was largely ignored), but even so Trump's statements seems to have opened a lot of people's eyes to the fact that the US might not always be willing or capable to come to Europe's aid in the future, and if that becomes the case what then? Maybe it was not such a good idea afterall to base our defence so heavily on US military power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Savannah said: Putin isn't going to challenge the NATO. Also, I meant the NATO states spending not Trump tactic. If Putin believes NATO could collapse if challenged, he might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: If Putin believes NATO could collapse if challenged, he might. Do you think that increased spending would weaken the NATO then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Hardball tactics that work in business situations because the stakes are "Bob loses money if this deal falls through" are much lower than this situation where Putin sees NATO as weak and unwilling to defend its members and therefore risks an invasion of the Baltic States or God forbid, Poland, because Trump wants to play hardball with our allies. You know, in reality, I'm more worried about Putin meddling in the countries of Eastern Europe than I'm about his alleged antics in the US. For me, the suggestion that the future of the Baltic states is negotiable is out of the question. Trump wanting Nato to pay more money is one thing. Trump suggesting that the US won't stand good on it's commitments to Europe, and particular to those Baltic States is quite another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Savannah said: Do you think that increased spending would weaken the NATO then? No, I think Trump claiming NATO is obselete and not worth US time and effort is dangerous because, if believed, Putin might make a play for a NATO member believing the US will not stop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: You know, in reality, I'm more worried about Putin meddling in the countries of Eastern Europe than I'm about his alleged antics in the US. For me, the suggestion that the future of the Baltic states is negotiable is out of the question. Trump wanting Nato to pay more money is one thing. Trump suggesting that the US won't stand good on it's commitments to Europe, and particular to those Baltic States is quite another. Precisely. Trump's Twitter blovating about NATO can make an already tense situation much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: No, I think Trump claiming NATO is obselete and not worth US time and effort is dangerous because, if believed, Putin might make a play for a NATO member believing the US will not stop him. Trump said NATO is important, did he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Savannah said: Trump said NATO is important, did he not? He said it was "obsolete". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: He said it was "obsolete". According to Reuters he said this "U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks, but that the military alliance was still very important to him, The Times of London reported." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Which only goes to show that Trump doesn't understand what NATO defends against. Not every threat stems from terror attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 What's important is that The Orange Shit Thing understands NATO and his saying it's obsolete because of terror shows that he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Trump has a strong case for the obsolescence of NATO from the US point of view. NATO was designed to prevent the domination of Europe by the USSR and thus to halt the spread of communism. In addition, in the immediate post-1945 climate it removed the need for European countries to have a security competition with each other. These two conditions are no longer met though. Why should the USA now risk nuclear war over Latvia/Estonia? edit: I believe Trump has also floated the idea, in the past, that Japan should get its own nukes. I think this is something definitely worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Just now, Chaircat Meow said: Trump has a strong case for the obsolescence from the US point of view. NATO was designed to prevent the domination of Europe by the USSR and thus to halt the spread of communism. In addition, in the immediate post-1945 climate it removed the need for European countries to have a security competition with each other. These two conditions are no longer met though. Why should the USA now risk nuclear war over Latvia/Estonia? Because some of us think the preservation of an liberal international order is important. I would not like to see a world where authoritarian governments become the norm and where there is little international cooperation. The United States, Nato, and I'd say India now form the backbone of that international liberal order. I think it's extremely important that the liberal democracies of the world stick together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said: Trump has a strong case for the obsolescence of NATO from the US point of view. NATO was designed to prevent the domination of Europe by the USSR and thus to halt the spread of communism. In addition, in the immediate post-1945 climate it removed the need for European countries to have a security competition with each other. These two conditions are no longer met though. Why should the USA now risk nuclear war over Latvia/Estonia? edit: I believe Trump has also floated the idea, in the past, that Japan should get its own nukes. I think this is something definitely worth considering. Not sure destroying something because it has worked for 70 years is the right move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.