US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Well, if wire intercepts actually contradict his answers to the FBI, I don't know what choice there would be BUT to go after him. It's a felony. 

Admissibility in court might be problematic for the wiretaps though. If the FBI didn't have a warrant to listen to Flynn's conversations then the only use those communications may have is in intel gathering and how far to keep Flynn away from any govt activities, not in criminal proceedings.

[Mexal]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Admissibility in court might be problematic for the wiretaps though. If the FBI didn't have a warrant to listen to Flynn's conversations then the only use those communications may have is in intel gathering and how far to keep Flynn away from any govt activities, not in criminal proceedings.

From my understanding, it is legal. Here is a good article on why.

Wow, Fox News is getting involved. 

 

[JGP]

@The Anti-TargGood point. However, the current narrative is they were intercepting the Russian part in this particular dynamic.

Should prove interesting, either way.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where did economic ties come into this discussion? We're talking political and military alliances. Europe and China are about as far apart politically as two parties can be. Europe's influence in the world is decreasing decade by decade, as the population ages and population growth slows. It NEEDS its alliance with the US to remain a major political force in the world. In fact, ironically enough, Europe is closer politically to Russia than it is to China.

If we're talking political and military ties, Europe has a lot more in common with China than Russia as well. Russia is close to a failed state with the economic clout of Italy and an authoritarian regime bent on destabiliizing systems. China is an economic powerhouse that heavily cares about stability, diversification and letting other countries be at ease. 

Europe might be in decline (citation needed) but by that same token the US is WAY in decline, and China is ascending quite quickly. Russia is in more decline than both. 

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Honestly, I dont share your view that Europe has this intrinsic aversion to Russia. The current European leadership dislikes Putin, sure, but support for Russia is growing in many Western European countries. Heck, the next party that rules France may be very close to Russia indeed. And we already know how the primary supporters of the Brexit movement in Britain feel about Russia. And they won the last referendum.

Actually I have no idea how the Brexiters feel about Russia; my bet is that they fucking hate Russia. You're right that some of Europe might be getting closer to Russia moving forward - largely because of massive manipulation and propaganda by Russia - but that doesn't mean the people are getting closer. Europeans  think Putin is 'literally Hitler' and the only reason they're not worried about him more is because Trump appears to be more chaotic and worse.

Eastern Europeans in particular have longstanding animosity towards Russia. Good luck with an alliance favoring Russia when Poland is in the mix.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Europe and Russia need not remain opposed to one another forever. And a US pivot to Russia might be a major contributor to hastening that change.

That's certainly possible, though again I ask - why? What value is there for most European nations to work with Russia and the US if it means sacrificing their political viewpoints? Especially when they can simply work with China and get all that they want and then some?

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If we're talking political and military ties, Europe has a lot more in common with China than Russia as well. Russia is close to a failed state with the economic clout of Italy and an authoritarian regime bent on destabiliizing systems. China is an economic powerhouse that heavily cares about stability, diversification and letting other countries be at ease. 

Europe might be in decline (citation needed) but by that same token the US is WAY in decline, and China is ascending quite quickly. Russia is in more decline than both. 

Actually I have no idea how the Brexiters feel about Russia; my bet is that they fucking hate Russia. You're right that some of Europe might be getting closer to Russia moving forward - largely because of massive manipulation and propaganda by Russia - but that doesn't mean the people are getting closer. Europeans  think Putin is 'literally Hitler' and the only reason they're not worried about him more is because Trump appears to be more chaotic and worse.

Eastern Europeans in particular have longstanding animosity towards Russia. Good luck with an alliance favoring Russia when Poland is in the mix.

That's certainly possible, though again I ask - why? What value is there for most European nations to work with Russia and the US if it means sacrificing their political viewpoints? Especially when they can simply work with China and get all that they want and then some?

What value is there to them? A future world not dominated by China?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What value is there to them? A future world not dominated by China?

Why do they care who dominates things? The notion that they have to rule over all is the underlying assumption that you believe which isn't necessarily borne out by actual geopolitical reality. 

The current stated goal of the European Union is stability and liberty, with economic access and success being a big deal. Again, because they have this as their goal their decisions make a lot more sense; their goal is not 'be friendly with the US' or 'be hostile with Russia'. The value to them is having a world that is stable, sane, with reasonable economic openness and a large amount of human rights. 

Previously that goal was best satisfied with being strong allies with the US, which shared many of those goals as well as common moral viewpoints about how the world and society best work. That doesn't have to be the case. If the US changes its mind on what goals it has - say, they're more insular, more autocratic, more totalitarian, are strongly against human rights and strongly in favor of chaotic developments in the world - then they will be discarded. It'll take a while, because the US and Europe are strong allies, but it'll happen. 

Europe allying with Russia doesn't give them a lot. Russia doesn't have a particularly great military nor can they project force all that well - their aging aircraft carrier that couldn't launch any planes is a good example of that. They have poor relationships around the world and do not have a strong, diverse economy. They are also not morally aligned, and are significantly belligerent to European allies. China would also be considered not particularly great, but they're far better than Russia. So the choice becomes - ally with a US that is increasingly at political and moral odds with their stated goals, or ally with another group that may give them more. 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Where did economic ties come into this discussion? We're talking political and military alliances. Europe and China are about as far apart politically as two parties can be. Europe's influence in the world is decreasing decade by decade, as the population ages and population growth slows. It NEEDS its alliance with the US to remain a major political force in the world. In fact, ironically enough, Europe is closer politically to Russia than it is to China.

Complete rubbish. Countries derive influence from their economic power primarily, and the EU is easily one of the five greatest economic powers on the planet. Its political and military influence have been limited so far because it has always tended to align with the US's foreign policies, and relied on the US for its defense to some extent.
Should that change, one might start seeing the EU's economic power translate into actual political or military influence.

I find it hard to believe it will come to that though. It wouldn't be just foolish of Trump, it would be utter madness to throw the EU into any kind of alliance with China.

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Honestly, I dont share your view that Europe has this intrinsic aversion to Russia. The current European leadership dislikes Putin, sure, but support for Russia is growing in many Western European countries. Heck, the next party that rules France may be very close to Russia indeed. And we already know how the primary supporters of the Brexit movement in Britain feel about Russia. And they won the last referendum.

There's no intrinsic aversion to Russia in Europe, but the Baltic states and Poland are part of the EU, so Russia could easily be seen as a threat. Brexit wasn't an election (the Conservatives are still in power), and the National Front hasn't won in France yet (very far from it).

It's all very complex. But at the end of the day, I don't think we'll see any radical changes in the near future. However close Trump is to Russia he can't throw the US-EU partnership out of the window. At worst the partnership will be a bit tense, like it was in the past, and the EU will develop tactics to deal with Russia on its own (which it can do, quite easily, if need be). And once he leaves office, if the EU still exists, his successor will find it much less amenable than in the past, and possibly closer to China as well.
In the long run, I think Trump can only hurt the US's interests.

[Mexal]

Never mind. I'm stupid.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why do they care who dominates things? The notion that they have to rule over all is the underlying assumption that you believe which isn't necessarily borne out by actual geopolitical reality. 

The current stated goal of the European Union is stability and liberty, with economic access and success being a big deal. Again, because they have this as their goal their decisions make a lot more sense; their goal is not 'be friendly with the US' or 'be hostile with Russia'. The value to them is having a world that is stable, sane, with reasonable economic openness and a large amount of human rights. 

Previously that goal was best satisfied with being strong allies with the US, which shared many of those goals as well as common moral viewpoints about how the world and society best work. That doesn't have to be the case. If the US changes its mind on what goals it has - say, they're more insular, more autocratic, more totalitarian, are strongly against human rights and strongly in favor of chaotic developments in the world - then they will be discarded. It'll take a while, because the US and Europe are strong allies, but it'll happen. 

Europe allying with Russia doesn't give them a lot. Russia doesn't have a particularly great military nor can they project force all that well - their aging aircraft carrier that couldn't launch any planes is a good example of that. They have poor relationships around the world and do not have a strong, diverse economy. They are also not morally aligned, and are significantly belligerent to European allies. China would also be considered not particularly great, but they're far better than Russia. So the choice becomes - ally with a US that is increasingly at political and moral odds with their stated goals, or ally with another group that may give them more. 

The problem is that Europe's liberal goals are shared by basically no one in the world. Not China. Not India. Not most of Africa.

If they lose the US, and they remain alienated from Russia, not many major players remain who are passionate supporters of this liberal agenda.

The likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, sure, but they are rather small nations in the bigger scheme of things. With a combined population smaller than that of France.

[Kalbear]

That didn't happen today.

[Mexal]

Just now, Kalbear said:

That didn't happen today.

You're right. The background is different. I was looking. Should have done that before posting. Will edit.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

The problem is that Europe's liberal goals are shared by basically no one in the world. Not China. Not India. Not most of Africa.

If they lose the US, and they remain alienated from Russia, not many major players remain who are passionate supporters of this liberal agenda.

The likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, sure, but they are rather small nations in the bigger scheme of things. With a combined population smaller than that of France.

So what? The EU doesn't need other players to allow their goals. They don't need US or China, and certainly they don't need Russia. They simply need allies that won't actively oppose them - such as China. 

You keep treating Europe like they're some remora that must have a supporting power. They really don't. They have nuclear weapons, one of the strongest economies on the planet, some of the highest tech and research on the planet, massive manufacturing capabilities and strong ties throughout the world. Their military is on par with almost everyone save the US and China. They also are good allies with Japan and South Korea, who are pretty big forces as well as being strongly aligned politically and economically. 

The better question that I have is whether or not the US can deal with being third-best behind China and the EU. 

Also note that Russia really needs to have someone out there in order to be anything other than a quick flash in the pan. They don't have the population, manufacturing, economy or military to compete, at least not for long. They can be disruptive, but they can't be leaders. 

[Kalbear]

Also, Harward turned down Trump. Ouch. Shame, too - he was a Mattis disciple and would have been fairly sane in the role.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

30 minutes ago, Mexal said:

From my understanding, it is legal. Here is a good article on why.

Wow, Fox News is getting involved. 

 

Yes it may be legal in the context of gathering intel and using it for foreign relations / counter-espionage etc purposes. But it doesn't necessarily make the wiretap admissible in criminal proceedings against Flynn. I think it is essential to clear up the legality of the wiretap so as to see whether the US govt agencies were acting outside the law in identifying Flynn in the official record of the communication. And the article does suggest it was legal if the wiretap of the Russian embassy was legal, which it probably was. It could be a very good test case to see whether this information would be admissible in criminal proceedings vs Flynn. And if it is admissible in such a context is that what the American people really want? 

I guess in some ways it's not all that different to a cop pulling over a car for a broken tail light and then seeing a dead body in the back seat of the car and the driver being prosecuted for murder.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, Harward turned down Trump. Ouch. Shame, too - he was a Mattis disciple and would have been fairly sane in the role.

 

Surely turning down the role is a clear demonstration of that.

[Mexal]

Lots of conflicting information out there now. CNN is reporting FBI isn't going to pursue any charges with Flynn assuming nothing changes.

[mormont]

57 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is important. It's a small distinction but it's the crux of the issue. It's why every single answer or statement he makes involves himself whereas other politicians, CEOs, while being narcissistic to some degree, are not like that at all.

Opinion varies on this, and on reflection I think Prof Frances here has some good points.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/psychiatrist-allen-frances-donald-trump-mentally-ill-world-class-narcissist-a7582131.html

Quote

“He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder,” he said.

I think it's the degree of Trump's narcissism and, crucially, his abnormally poor empathy and people skills that set him apart from the likes of Bill Clinton: not a pathological difference.

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Actually I have no idea how the Brexiters feel about Russia; my bet is that they fucking hate Russia.

I don't think 'the Brexiters' have one single view on the topic.

[The Anti-Targ]

15 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The problem is that Europe's liberal goals are shared by basically no one in the world. Not China. Not India. Not most of Africa.

If they lose the US, and they remain alienated from Russia, not many major players remain who are passionate supporters of this liberal agenda.

The likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, sure, but they are rather small nations in the bigger scheme of things. With a combined population smaller than that of France.

Kalbear's stated goals of the EU

Quote

The value to them is having a world that is stable, sane, with reasonable economic openness and a large amount of human rights. 

China and India share 4 out of 5 of those goals. China is not so big on human rights. India is cool on the economic openness, but still warming up to it as its economic fortunes grow. We're getting into the meat of negotiating a FTA with India. We've been wanting a FTA with the USA for ages, but the USA have been dicks about it for basically ever.

Economic openness is quite a loaded issue, because as far as I'm concerned the only economically open country is New Zealand. The rest of y'all are on a sliding scale of protectionism. And surprise of surprises, New Zealand has pretty much come out of the GFC economically better than almost every other developed economy.

[The Anti-Targ]

20 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Lots of conflicting information out there now. CNN is reporting FBI isn't going to pursue any charges with Flynn assuming nothing changes.

Possibility that they don't want to test the admissibility of some of the evidence. I think if they were confident of the admissibility there would seem to be no reason, other than partisan political reasons, not to pursue charges.

[JGP]

31 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess in some ways it's not all that different to a cop pulling over a car for a broken tail light and then seeing a dead body in the back seat of the car and the driver being prosecuted for murder.

Aptly, if morbidly put. 

 

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Economic openness is quite a loaded issue, because as far as I'm concerned the only economically open country is New Zealand. The rest of y'all are on a sliding scale of protectionism. And surprise of surprises, New Zealand has pretty much come out of the GFC economically better than almost every other developed economy.

Canada would've been fine, were it not for the huge hit bbl took. Still, long term, I personally take the knockback as a positive.