US Politics: Papers, Please

[Mexal]

Just to update my previous post about the Treasury note, it looks like it's not that big of a deal. I need to stay off social media for awhile so I can get updated analysis first.

 

[Fragile Bird]

There's a book you all should add to your reading lists, that I think explains what Trump and Bannon are doing. It's The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, published in 2007. While it's largely about economic policy, the tactic has broader uses.

At least read the Wikipedia page about the book. I would link it but I have no bloody idea how to on this stupid Samsung table :p:

[Oreo Crumbs]

3 hours ago, Toth said:

I doubt Tehran does. They look careful at what he's doing and so far responded with a tactic that looks like 'eye for an eye' but I suppose they just desperately want to show Trump that his policies have repercussion. I don't think they have any interest in a direct confrontation, no sane leader does. Especially when there is a certain chance that the guy with the button isn't bluffing at all...

Pyongyang however... I have to put my hands into the air, that one is utterly unpredictable, especially since they burned bridges with their only remaining ally, China, for god knows what perceived reason. That could get awry really fast.

Tehran, like most governments, is a rational actor.  I don't think they care about "eye for an eye" so much as testing the bite of the Trump administration.  They want to see what they can get away with.  Hence the missile test, which doesn't violate any treaty or deal.  Given that the test failed they may not have even been technically ready for it, but the powers that be may have wanted to proceed for political purposes.

Trump might accuse them of "eye for an eye", but that's only because he would be projecting his own attitude on them.

Anyway, Trump can't really do jack about it because as mentioned above, Tehran didn't violate anything binding.  I guarantee they knew this before they launched the missile, and so today they're calling his bluff.

However, while there are powerful conservative voices in the Iranian government that are hostile to the US, I doubt most of them would want open war.  And there are equally powerful liberal voices that are pushing for a more open-minded foreign policy.  Former President Khatami broke a lot of that ice for the liberals and current President Rouhani falls along those lines too.  Foreign Minister Zarif has also been a leader in repairing relations with the West.

North Korea is different and unique.  By all accounts Kim Jong Un is a total nut job and can't be relied on to act rationally.  Combine that with the opacity of the regime (and the society overall), and no one truly knows WTF is going on there.  I can only assume that Kim is surrounded by people who would prefer run a sane government, but they're scared sh*tless of being executed.

But there are macro behaviors that North Korea demonstrates in its foreign policy: defiance and belligerence.  They're a lot like Trump...they don't care much for truth and if you back them into a corner they'll lash out (at least verbally).  But I can't imagine they would want to reignite a war on the Korean peninsula.  Their military is large but outdated, the terrain is difficult, and it would be them vs. the world.  I even doubt whether China would jump into a fray like they did in the Korean War.  China is so much more powerful and wealthy these days, they would have a lot to lose for an unreliable ally.

Having said all that, the idea of a childish war of words between Kim and Trump is scary, and probably inevitable.

[JGP]

20 minutes ago, Notone said:

Deliberate. Trump's foreign policy and trade deals is based on divide and rule. If the US were to negotiate with countries seperately, they would have more leverage (bigger market) and more manpower to handle negotiations. If you follow that logic, it's really not that surprising that he is happy about Brexit. And that's also why he sends negotiators to deal with the TPP countries seperately. I am somewhat curious if the Canadians will play ball with regards to NAFTA and Mexico.

Canadians are as well.

From everything I've been reading Trudeau seems to be circling a wait and see position. The same stance has been adopted in regard to military projection/aid. There was debate (though nothing formal) about returning to the peace keeping role in war torn regions (which I think is publicly in favor) but now that seems on hold too.

It's probably prudent to be cautious right now, but the optics aren't exactly positive from my perspective. 

 

*edited cause phone, and shit

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Canadians are as well.

And may I add, Europeans are also curious about how the EU is going to react. Tusk calling Trump a threat isn't exactly insignificant. Yes, Europe has taken the -bad- habit of taking its lead from Washington, but if Trump pushes too far there may be some (Merkel?) with the means and will to change that, if only gradually and surreptitiously.
Generally speaking, the game Trump is playing seems -in my very humble opinion- a very dangerous one. Small countries in Africa or South America may turn to China (even more than they already have in the past decade), which is already making some moves to be an "alternative" world leader (more benevolent, less intrusive than the US). Larger countries may learn to adapt... And even cooperate. It won't happen overnight, but if Trump goes too far, he might give rise to a toally new world order in which the US finds little goodwill from other nations. At a glance, the US doesn't need it. In the long run, not even the US can bully the whole world. Not anymore. The countries who need the US (say, South Korea) will pay the price that is asked of them today and look for alternatives for their future.
Of course, ironically, by the time we see such an evolution, Trump will probably no longer be in office, and US troubles will be blamed on somebody else -presumably, a Democrat.

[Oreo Crumbs]

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And may I add, Europeans are also curious about how the EU is going to react. Tusk calling Trump a threat isn't exactly insignificant. Yes, Europe has taken the -bad- habit of taking its lead from Washington, but if Trump pushes too far there may be some (Merkel?) with the means and will to change that, if only gradually and surreptitiously.
Generally speaking, the game Trump is playing seems -in my very humble opinion- a very dangerous one. Small countries in Africa or South America may turn to China (even more than they already have in the past decade), which is already making some moves to be an "alternative" world leader (more benevolent, less intrusive than the US). Larger countries may learn to adapt... And even cooperate. It won't happen overnight, but if Trump goes too far, he might give rise to a toally new world order in which the US finds little goodwill from other nations. At a glance, the US doesn't need it. In the long run, not even the US can bully the whole world. Not anymore. The countries who need the US (say, South Korea) will pay the price that is asked of them today and look for alternatives for their future.
Of course, ironically, by the time we see such an evolution, Trump will probably no longer be in office, and US troubles will be blamed on somebody else -presumably, a Democrat.

All true.  The store of trust, good will and influence the US has around the world takes a long time to build, and I can see Trump draining it significantly.  The next president after him will probably have to spend an entire 4 years on diplomatic damage control.

If we're lucky, the world will be so whiplashed by Trump's amateur approach, they'll be happy to return to the table.  But it's more likely they'll be cautious and will want us to prove our return to normalcy.

[DireWolfSpirit]

50 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There's a book you all should add to your reading lists, that I think explains what Trump and Bannon are doing. It's The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, published in 2007. While it's largely about economic policy, the tactic has broader uses.

At least read the Wikipedia page about the book. I would link it but I have no bloody idea how to on this stupid Samsung table :p:

Naomi Klein is just wonderful.

? I think this is an unimbedded video so hopefully its okay to post in the forum ?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

 

2. In the month of January, 57 bomb threats have been called in at Jewish Centers across the United States. This isn't being talked about at all. Just yesterday, we got word that the CVE program to targeted violent extremists was going to remove everyone who wasn't Muslim from the list. We are 2 weeks into the presidency. Does anyone truly believe this is going to stop over the next 4 years? 57 bomb threats in a single month. It's only going to get worse.

Two Mosques in Texas were burned down in January. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/30/two-texas-mosques-burned-ground-january/

 

[Maester Drew]

4 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

yea this is pretty disingenuous bullshit coming out of an administration with Pence- pence, ffs-- at the helm.   Christian conservatives have been the gravest threat to those of the wrong race, gender and sexuality in this country, so it's quite rich they're going after another religions supposed intolerance.

Islam's supposed intolerance? So I guess Muslims throwing gay people off tall buildings is just "supposed intolerance".

[Mexal]

7 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Islam's supposed intolerance? So I guess Muslims throwing gay people off tall buildings is just "supposed intolerance".

They've been doing that in the United States? Can you show me some sources?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Islam's supposed intolerance? So I guess Muslims throwing gay people off tall buildings is just "supposed intolerance".

Read carefully, what she actually said.

 

8 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

yea this is pretty disingenuous bullshit coming out of an administration with Pence- pence, ffs-- at the helm.   Christian conservatives have been the gravest threat to those of the wrong race, gender and sexuality in this country, so it's quite rich they're going after another religions supposed intolerance.

I took the liberty of highlighting the key phrase. In this country. I suppose you can back up your claim that American Muslims are throwing gay people from Sears Tower? On the other hand I suppose gay conversion therapy and pray the gay away stuff is just Jesus message of brotherly love? And that's all there was in that post, pointing out that small bit of hypocrisy on the conservative right.

[butterbumps!]

4 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Islam's supposed intolerance? So I guess Muslims throwing gay people off tall buildings is just "supposed intolerance".

are muslims- particularly muslims living in the states- habitually committing hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ Community specifically because of their religion?    I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.   I know isis commits crimes against humanity, but the gay community has definitely suffered from hate crimes and discrimination, and muslims living in the states aren't the ones inflicting it (excluding the Orlando incident, which I'm not totally sure was specifically driven by Islam-rooted homophobia.).  That honor goes to good conservative christians.   

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

They've been doing that in the United States? Can you show me some sources?

I think Orlando probably qualifies.

[Oreo Crumbs]

11 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Islam's supposed intolerance? So I guess Muslims throwing gay people off tall buildings is just "supposed intolerance".

Come on, let's get real.  Intolerance is a human trait and not unique to any religion or people.  There are intolerant people and ideas in all corners of the world.  If anyone is being intolerant in the name of a religion, that's only a convenient justification for them.  Sh*tty people would find still find ways to be sh*tty without such a justification.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Two things I saw today.

 

2. In the month of January, 57 bomb threats have been called in at Jewish Centers across the United States. This isn't being talked about at all. Just yesterday, we got word that the CVE program to targeted violent extremists was going to remove everyone who wasn't Muslim from the list. We are 2 weeks into the presidency. Does anyone truly believe this is going to stop over the next 4 years? 57 bomb threats in a single month. It's only going to get worse.

 

 

I can't see the article.  is this an increase over pre-trump levels?

 

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Two Mosques in Texas were burned down in January. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/30/two-texas-mosques-burned-ground-january/

 

'Were burned down' is not supported by the content of the link.

Quote

Both the Victoria and Lake Travis fires are currently under investigation and neither cause has been made public. On Monday, the Austin American-Statesman reported that federal officials have determined the cause of the fire that destroyed the Lake Travis facility, but authorities were delaying the release of information because of the investigation into the fire in Victoria. 

This was news to Shakeel Rashed, executive board member of the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, who said Monday afternoon that they had expected to hear from the fire marshal within the next week or two.

 

Quote

“The initial reaction from the community was ‘Hey, this is definitely a hate crime.’ Some kids actually put that on Facebook and Twitter,” Rashed said. “But I told them we can’t say that yet, until we determine the cause.”

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

are muslims- particularly muslims living in the states- habitually committing hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ Community specifically because of their religion?    I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.   I know isis commits crimes against humanity, but the gay community has definitely suffered from hate crimes and discrimination, and muslims living in the states aren't the ones inflicting it (excluding the Orlando incident, which I'm not totally sure was specifically driven by Islam-rooted homophobia.).  That honor goes to good conservative christians.   

You know, I had trouble categorizing that act at first, but I think if you're honest about it you have to come to the conclusion that the shooters sexuality and religion played a huge part in his psychopathy.

[Mexal]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I can't see the article.  is this an increase over pre-trump levels?

It wasn't happening pre-Trump that I've seen reported. It's happening now because these people feel emboldened. 

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think Orlando probably qualifies.

Maybe but that horrible shooting wasn't because they were gay. It was because he was gay and unable to handle it. Even if we do include that, Master Drew made it sound like it happens all the time.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It wasn't happening pre-Trump that I've seen reported. It's happening now because these people feel emboldened. 

 

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

So? That doesn't change the fact that in January alone, there were 57 bomb threats at Jewish Centers. That is not ok. Downplaying it by suggesting this isn't abnormal, especially in today's climate, is just flat out wrong. People who live in these communities are scared for the safety of their families, They shouldn't have to in the US.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

So? That doesn't change the fact that in January alone, there were 57 bomb threats at Jewish Centers. That is not ok. Downplaying it, especially in today's climate, is just flat out wrong. People who live in these communities are scared for the safety of their families, They shouldn't have to in the US.

I'm not downplaying anything.  This is a failure in your critical thinking skills.

Of course it isn't ok, I never suggested it was.

But if you want to pin this on Trump, simply saying 'it happened 57 times in January' is not sufficient.  This isn't rocket science.  For all I know, it could have happened 700 times last January.  Which I would hope you would agree changes the point you are attempting to make quite dramatically.

 A single data point here is not sufficient to make the logical leap you are making.