US Politics: He's Trump, he's Trump, he's Trump, he's in my head

[James Arryn]

32 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That would be an argument I'm very sympathetic to.  Problem is, we are and that's not gonna change.

Don't be an ass.  I love how this board treats me as far right sometimes...if only you could tell my students!  

Should maybe start a new thread for this, but the easiest thing for me to do is c + p quotes on dropping the bomb from key decision-makers (taking this from a post I made at another board years and years ago, then letting the quote function eliminate all formatting:

 

Well, first off I didn't think you were far right, I thought you were an American 'interventionist', though I agree there's a lot of overlap. As to your quotes, read them and more many times. If you want a soul crushing experience, read the communiques between the people involved. Chalk full of outright bigotry, which is bad enough fungus as is, but bigotry as argument for nuclear bombs is a mushroom of a different colour.

But I'm not quite getting why you thought I'd find it surprising. The world is full of people who can admit that past generations acted wrongly w/r to compromised US motivations for military actions, but don't feel that those ought to cast suspicion on modern US motivations for military actions, and don't get or care why past patterns make for dubious global cops. '. I mean there's a whole branch of neoconservative thinking that's all about that. 

But, to clarify even more why this would not surprise me...though I sincerely have no idea if it applies in your case...but another common practice w/r to past US war crimes/aggression/imperialism/exploitation or w/e is rather than imitate an ostrich, many Americans deflect American ownership via partisan rhetoric...ie, 'it wasn't America, it was the Republicrats!' or w/e. A more modern version is saying Iraq was on Dubya because he lied. Which is both true and not. He did most certainly lie, but the truth was not just out there but on government record.

The NIE report was public record. UNSCR 67 and other relevant CRs were public record. And, like, basically the entire rest of the planet was saying that sufficient evidence of WMDs had not been presented. So, yeah...it was Bush's baby, but the US people definitely helped with the delivery by willful jingoistic ignorance. 

So you are not the first to own up for the past...and I do think it speaks well of you that you can do so, btw...but fail or refuse to see that past as part of an ongoing pattern, or why that pattern makes for an unreliable constabulary.

 

[James Arryn]

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

YOU TAKE THAT BACK OR I WILL SMACK YOU WITH MY NIMBUS 2000!

He will, too. And he's got a daughter handy with bats and knees.

[all swedes are racist]

27 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I was just giving attribution to a quote I was going to say anyway because I love the character, chill out.

no. you're saying dropping bombs in syria is cool. your opinion is bad and you should feel bad because of it

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So you are not the first to own up for the past...and I do think it speaks well of you that you can do so, btw...but fail or refuse to see that past as part of an ongoing pattern, or why that pattern makes for an unreliable constabulary.

I wish a black and white view on "interventionism" was something that history advocated, or that I operated under the false premise that America's inaction doesn't have just as much of an effect on the world as America's options for use of military action.  Unfortunately such stances are for libertarians, and even neo-cons on the other side.  Our position in the world is what it is, and adopting a completely isolationist philosophy on military action would have far more adverse consequences to both the country and the world than asserting our power in a targeted manner when appropriate.  Thinking such an action (again, on its own - I don't speak for Trump) is some type of perpetuation of the MIC or pattern of imperialist aims is entirely reductive.

16 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

no. you're saying dropping bombs in syria is cool. your opinion is bad and you should feel bad because of it

You should feel bad because Red Lobster sucks.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

ok, but the west wing is still incredibly dumb and it's just as bad an analog to real life as harry potter 

Possibly you have forgotten that the current president appears to view his office as a reality show?  (And how do his cabinet/advisor choices stack up against the show?)

Imagine trump watching a few episodes of that show, then going 'I can spice this up.'

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Possibly you have forgotten that the current president appears to view his office as a reality show?  (And how do his cabinet/advisor choices stack up against the show?)

Imagine trump watching a few episodes of that show, then going 'I can spice this up.'

First, the quote you attributed to me were not my words.  Second, there's a scene in West Wing where Bartlet resolves to send troops into a fictional African country while watching toy soldiers in an old Laurel and Hardy clip.  Could totally see Trump doing that.

[all swedes are racist]

yeah, except the "US must decide between military action or no" is pretty much THE black and white view. I mean, it's not the US hold any other kind of sway across the globe... 

but sure, the endless cycle of military intervention* > unintended consequences, civil/sectarian strife> "shit, this isn't workining well for us"> "man, those people are fucked, but not our problem"> "whoa whoa whoa hey now, you can't do that"> military intervention* is totally cool and sustainable, especially for the people that live there

*surgical, limited, proportional, targeted

 

[Inigima]

I am not entirely sure this is a bad idea. (Yes, I understand that upon reading that many of you will helpfully chime in to inform me that it is.) I get the argument that Trump didn't care when Assad killed people with bullets and conventional explosives, but chemical weapons one of the lines. They are categorically different. Comparisons to conventional weapons don't hold water. If a foreign state, today, killed people with nuclear weapons, you would feel very differently than you would if they just shot people. We really do not want chemical weapons to be normalized.

[Mindwalker]

There is at this moment a press conference of the German government. Germany is a-okay with the bombings. Journalists keep asking whether it is really clear that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack; the speakers keep answering that Assad did it in the past, so...

[Fez]

I don't want to drag the thread back to all the pre-Syria debates from yesterday I was in, so I'll just say this:

I think the mistake a lot of people are making is assuming that Republicans are perfect actors who will do what is best for their party. They aren't remotely, and the House Freedom Caucus should be evidence enough of that. Republicans (and Democrats, and pretty much all officials) can be counted on to do what is best for themselves. Because we're in a party system, that often means doing what's best for the party as well; but not always. Especially when there aren't elections to worry about. So, for instance, judges aren't going to retire to advance the conservative movement; because what's best for them is to get to keep being judges. And Kennedy doesn't care about doing a favor for Republicans, or Democrats, he just wants to keep being the gatekeeper of American civic and private life.

All these people are still just that; people. They aren't automations acting in whatever way will make the country the maximum amount of conservative.

[Horza]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

I am not entirely sure this is a bad idea. (Yes, I understand that upon reading that many of you will helpfully chime in to inform me that it is.) I get the argument that Trump didn't care when Assad killed people with bullets and conventional explosives, but chemical weapons one of the lines. They are categorically different. Comparisons to conventional weapons don't hold water. If a foreign state, today, killed people with nuclear weapons, you would feel very differently than you would if they just shot people. We really do not want chemical weapons to be normalized.

I don't think this reinforces this red line anywhere near as much as people are suggesting.

For starters, this strike was basically theatre. Notice was given to avoid the possibility really triggering an escalation. This sort of action is meant to function as "next time there will be no warning" signalling, but it not only depends on the audience deeming the threat to be credible, it also requires them to place avoiding further strikes above other interests.

For the Syrian government, making life hell for anyone inside opposition areas is essential to their strategy, something they've proven willing to pursue despite the risk of incurring US intervention. This latest gas attack is far from the first (though maybe each time it was the rebels assembling large quantities of potent nerve agent for use on themselves, who knows?) and I think there's reason to suspect it won't be the last, because a serious sustained attack is simply too big a leap into the unknown when there is demonstrably so little real US interest in the conflict, much less serious US interests at stake.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

ETA: HOLY SHIT THOSE COMMENTS

Basically as far as I can tell you're right - because they believe that the Rothschilds are in control of everything, that the World Bank is in control, and Syria is at least outside of that influence and HOLY FUCK MY EYES

I go there once a month to read the comment section. It's absolutely insane. They're living in an alternative universe.

10 hours ago, aceluby said:

Wow.  Mouth.... insert foot here.

You got to admit, it was pretty funny how you said that literally two or three minutes before the bombings were reported. 

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

I am not entirely sure this is a bad idea. (Yes, I understand that upon reading that many of you will helpfully chime in to inform me that it is.) I get the argument that Trump didn't care when Assad killed people with bullets and conventional explosives, but chemical weapons one of the lines. They are categorically different. Comparisons to conventional weapons don't hold water. If a foreign state, today, killed people with nuclear weapons, you would feel very differently than you would if they just shot people. We really do not want chemical weapons to be normalized.

Something needed to be done, that's not in doubt. But this seems rushed and it probably won't amount to anything more than a bit of theater. 

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But he is going to egg the house, ring the doorbell and run away. The military equivalent of which is sending in a bunch of cruise missiles.

 

I chuckled at reading this. Mainly cause it's true. Next up: We'll light a bag of dog shit and put it on Assad's porch.

[Fragile Bird]

So, it turns out that the plans for the missile strike were prepared under the Obama administration, and just had to be rolled out. Presumably just in case the Syrians didn't turn over all their chemical weapons. I was surprised how fast it all happened, but the generals just had to go to Trump and say, Welllllllllllll....guess what we have!

And I'm already seeing interviews with Republicans saying that maybe they were being short-sighted in 2013.  Like I said a few pages back, Obama's problem was not going to Congress, it was not being a Republican.

[Commodore]

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But he is going to egg the house, ring the doorbell and run away. The military equivalent of which is sending in a bunch of cruise missiles.

 

This myth is perpetuated to excuse inaction, as if it's a binary choice between that and all out war.

This was a spanking, and spankings can have a deterrent effect.

[Fragile Bird]

So Senator Shelby of Alabama (R) couldn't support Obama in 2013 because he knew Obama was weak.

Oh. Well, what is Trump's Mid-East policy?

'Now we need to see a strong policy from the president.'

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/07/the-trade-deficit-with-china-is-a-problem-but-not-for-the-reason-trump-thinks/

It would have been nice if WaPo would have brought this up before Trump got elected.

Quote

But that strategy is unlikely to lessen the U.S. trade deficit with China, and it could actually backfire, economist Michael Pettis says. Pettis, a professor at Peking University and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Institution who is one of the leading voices about global imbalances in the flows of trade and capital, says that the U.S. trade deficit is a problem -- but not for the reasons that Trump, Bernie Sanders and other critics seem to think. The key, Pettis says, is that the trade deficit is due to a deeper problem, which is imbalances in the flow of international investment. In his view, this is an issue that China could fix, but which the United States is ultimately powerless to do much about.

You know, it’s not exactly been a secret that much of trade imbalance has been due high savings rates in China and EM countries and because of the desire to hold safe assets, of which there has been a shortage. The only place where it seems to have been a secret is in the media.

Quote

China could increase its household consumption. China has been trying to change this since 2007, but it’s politically difficult. The problem is that Chinese people earn too little as a share of gross domestic product [GDP], and that local governments and businesses earn too much. If you want Chinese household consumption to go up, the only way to do it is to transfer wealth from local governments and state-owned companies back to Chinese households. But politically that’s tough to do. The government said they would do that in March 2007, and it was later that year we first saw the phrase “vested interest” appear in Chinese in the newspapers. It’s become a common phrase now, and that’s not a coincidence. When the government tried to increase the household share of GDP, it discovered that powerful interests opposed that.

Yes, we need China’s so called communist party to act a tad bit more communist.

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/value-added/evidence-of-ongoing-gender-discrimination-in-the-u-s-labor-market/

Now I want everyone to sit down. Cause, I’m going to reveal a real shocker here:

And that is market fundamentalism and libertarianism often goes off the rails.

Quote

In his 1957 book, The Economics of Discrimination, the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker argued that well-functioning markets work inexorably to eliminate racial, and other forms of, discrimination.

Also,

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/value-added/do-u-s-women-choose-low-paid-occupations-or-do-low-paid-occupations-choose-them/

Quote

But then there is the growing body of research that shows the low pay of many female-dominant occupations has nothing to do with skills, but rather is simply because they are done by women. Occupations with more men tend to be paid better regardless of skill or education level. A study by Asaf Levanon of University of Haifa, Paula England of New York University, and Paul Allison of University of Pennsylvania shows that as more women enter a field, the overall pay tends to decline. The devaluation of women’s work is seen most clearly in the lowest paying—and fastest growing—occupations, which are mostly done by women. Almost two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers are women.

 

[Horza]

First bit of retaliation:
 

Quote

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- A communication link between U.S. and Russian military officials has protected pilots flying missions over the crowded skies of war-ravaged Syria, but now Moscow says it is suspending its cooperation over an American missile strike.

What pisses Russia off about the strike isn't so much the damage to their guy's warplanes but the fact that this was a decision taken basically on a whim, in which they didn't ultimately matter. It's the project of the Putin cohort to return Russia to equal standing on the world stage, and this airstrike was a very clear indication that as far as Trump is concerned, they aren't equals.

Ending the deconfliction line is a step toward trying to get the US to acknowledge that its Syrian campaigns exist on Russian sufferance, and there's going more risky steps ahead if President Fox and Friends doesn't get the picture.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So Senator Shelby of Alabama (R) couldn't support Obama in 2013 because he knew Obama was weak.

Oh. Well, what is Trump's Mid-East policy?

'Now we need to see a strong policy from the president.'

Many Republicans privately supported an intervention in 2013. They just didn't want to have any public stakes in the outcome, hence why they wanted Obama and Democrats to go at it alone.

[Fragile Bird]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/value-added/evidence-of-ongoing-gender-discrimination-in-the-u-s-labor-market/

Now I want everyone to sit down. Cause, I’m going to reveal a real shocker here:

And that is market fundamentalism and libertarianism often goes off the rails.

Also,

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/value-added/do-u-s-women-choose-low-paid-occupations-or-do-low-paid-occupations-choose-them/

 

Wait a second - we went through all this in the 80s and 90s. Equal pay for equal work, examining the value of female dominated jobs and male dominated jobs, etc etc.

Back in 1990 I got hired by a US multi-national, and within a few weeks was deeply involved in a major transaction. A few months later, I got a huge raise, over 10%, and was told my performance was outstanding. A year later the HR guys roared with laughter when I told them that. They kindly explained it was because I had been offered way less than a man would have been offered. The salary review had been part of a review demanded by provincial legislation, not American, but the Ontario legislation was based on US legislation.

I guess every generation of women has to fight the same frigging battles all over with another set of men, whether it's about sexism, racism or equal pay. Frankly, that's why it's so damn depressing hearing younger women say "I'm not a feminist:, or "my generation is different". Like hell they are.