US Politics 2016: Delay the Electoral College Vote?

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Suttree said:

Speak for yourself. There was a damn good risotto recipe in there.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

Ahum, let me put that question to you. Given how International law is handled by the powerful (let's sitck with Russia and the US) do you think he is entirely wrong? And to answer your second question, I am very much in favour of binding international laws. But is there anybody to enforce it? 

Here is my problem with Bolton: He pretty much believes the United States should be able to do what it wants. Now maybe he believes that is in the best interest of humanity   because he believes in American Exceptionalism or something.

The problem here is that even if people like Bolton believe in American Exceptionalism, other countries won't for obvious reason. If American goes around invading other countries, as Bolton would have it do, then it becomes a bit difficult to balk when other countries do it.

It seems to me that Bolton's approach would further legitimize wars of aggression.

And the fact that we don't have a perfect mechanism to deter wars of aggression shouldn't be a defense to people like Bolton. I mean norms and standards do matter here, even if there are not perfect enforcement mechanisms. I, mean surely, it seems to me that wars of aggression have seemed to become a less legitimate option for states to use than it was in the past.

Now answer my question.

Just now, Notone said:

Obama has been an improvement, nobody doubts that, but was he 100% commited to international law? Drone strikes are at the very least questionable, and Gizmo is still open. And he was also not onboard with subjecting US soldiers to international courts (one of the true red lines in US foreign policy). Granted Obama did not start an illegal war like Bush did, but that's a very low bar you are setting there. 

And let me ask you similar question then. Do you think Trump - Bolton, will be that much worse with regards to international law than Bush - Cheney?

I'll put it this way: I'd rather have somebody in office or in power that is about 70% or 65% or whatever committed to international law than somebody that is like 0% committed to it.

With regard to Trump - Bolton being worse than Bush - Cheney: Well, quite honestly, it would hard to be worse than George Bush and Cheney. But, does something  have to be worse than that before we say, "that's pretty fuckin bad". And you do remember that Bolton served in the Bush Administration and advocated for many of Bush's worse policies, right? But ,you know given some of the statements Trump has made, I guess it is possible he could be worse than Bush. Given that he has advocated the use of torture and the taking of other country's resources for our benefit, it doesn't seem like he has much regard for international law either, just like Bolton.

Also the fact that Trump would even consider Bolton for anything doesn't bode well. People like Bolton should have been discredited a while ago.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Given that he has advocated the use of torture and the taking of other country's resources for our benefit, it doesn't seem like he has much regard for international law either, just like Bolton.

Let's get back to Bush-Cheney playbook.

There's no such thing as torture. There's only enhanced interrogation techniques. Big difference. You mean like access to cheap oil in Iraq? But now we are drifting a bit away from my original point being, Trump and Bolton are hardly the first people in charge of an US administration with little to no regard for international law. Bush-Cheney are just eight years out of office. To put Dubya and Cheney at 70% commited to international law seems way too generous to me. 

[OldGimletEye]

My other problem with people like Bolton is also based on pure practical grounds:

They like to start wars, but they don't like to think about all the difficulties of fighting them and concluding them. Anybody can start some shit. Ending it in a successful manner is quite another thing.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Notone said:

 

Let's get back to Bush-Cheney playbook.

There's no such thing as torture. There's only enhanced interrogation techniques. Big difference. You mean like access to cheap oil in Iraq? But now we are drifting a bit away from my original point being, Trump and Bolton are hardly the first people in charge of an US administration with little to no regard for international law. Bush-Cheney are just eight years out of office. To put Dubya and Cheney at 70% commited to international law seems way too generous to me. 

With regard to the 65% or 70% thing. I meant Obama as opposed to Bush, Cheney or Bolton.

Also, "enhanced interrogation techniques". Is that what Rush Limbaugh called them? Well, I guess that must be true then.

And again, you seem to missing the fact that Bolton worked in the Bush Administration and he advocated for the type of policies in the Bush Administration that we both seem to agree that were very bad. That Trump would appoint that clown to anything is troubling to say the least.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes, that Trump's administration would be a horror show, that was obvious from the get-go. But honestly speaking any GOP adminstration would have been horrible in various degrees. Wasn't enhanced interrogation the official euphemism of the Bush administration? No idea what Limbaugh would have called it. Anyhow, I put that term there to make the point, that Dubya's Administration was also cool with torture, they were just not so cool with getting torture called torture. And in that respect I somewhat prefer Trump, at least he calls torture torture, and does not come up with some flimsy bs term to hide behind. What was that other Dubya-Cheney BS term, illegal combatant?

Anyhow, that a big chunk of the US electorate apparently does not have a problem with torture, even if you explicitly advertise it as such, that's the more troubling part (at least for me it is). And it's really not like Trump did not say that much on the campaign trail. And it's also not like the UN will place any kind of sanction on the US over it. 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

Yes, that Trump's administration would be a horror show, that was obvious from the get-go. But honestly speaking any GOP adminstration would have been horrible in various degrees. Wasn't enhanced interrogation the official euphemism of the Bush administration? No idea what Limbaugh would have called it. Anyhow, I put that term there to make the point, that Dubya's Administration was also cool with torture, they were just not so cool with getting torture called torture. And in that respect I somewhat prefer Trump, at least he calls torture torture, and does not come up with some flimsy bs term to hide behind. What was that other Dubya-Cheney BS term, illegal combatant?

Illegal, or unlawful combatants actually come from a 1942 Supreme Court decision (at least in the US.)  The concept of an illegal combatant, while not specifically named, is also covered in the Geneva Conventions.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yep. It's not clear that something else has been done either - it's possible. But Obama not looking into it or calling for investigations or doing much of anything seems extraordinarily short-sighted. My only guess is that he didn't want to put Clinton on the wrong foot with her presidency by making Russia pissed - but Russia has a vendetta against Clinton anyway, there's little chance that she's going to make them more angry.

What's being reported is that he tried to work with the Senate to get a bipartisan investigation, but McConnell either refused or ignored him. Either way, history will not remember his lack of action kindly.

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, now Trump is tweeting attacks against Vanity Fair, just another failing magazine and the editor will be fired any day now.

Imagine the nerve, they published a bad review of Trump Grill, calling it perhaps the worst restaurant in America.

Soooooo presidential.

Every CEO must go to bed praying that they don't wake up to hear that Trump attacked their company on Twitter. 

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yep. It's not clear that something else has been done either - it's possible. But Obama not looking into it or calling for investigations or doing much of anything seems extraordinarily short-sighted. My only guess is that he didn't want to put Clinton on the wrong foot with her presidency by making Russia pissed - but Russia has a vendetta against Clinton anyway, there's little chance that she's going to make them more angry.

It's not that it isn't being investigated or looked into.  It is, by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the whole intelligence community.  The question is how much should have been made public during the election, and what diplomatic repercussions Russia should have or will face.  Ever since the ceasefire in Ukraine, Obama and Kerry have been leery of provoking Russia and restarting the conflict.  Now that they want to negotiate in Syria (and the general lame duck nature of the administration), they're even less likely to do anything.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

A little comic relief to cleanse the palate: Review of Trump Grill (or Grille?)

 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Trumps' Secretary of Education Hit With 5.3 Million Dollar Fine for SuperPac Violations

 http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/14/trump-corruption-grows-senators-nail-education-pick-5-3-million-unpaid-fines.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Notone said:

Obama tried to regain some moral highground (whether the US ever had that highground to begin with is another discussion (cue the US/CIA meddling with other states like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile to name a few). And that's not even talking about military budets.

 

Why the hell is Australia never mentioned in these lists of countries the USA has egregiously politically interfered with? Australia is a white (mostly), Christian, wealthy, stable, democratic, longstanding ally of the USA, which should have made it virtually immune from significant US political interference. Is it because Australia didn't become a banana republic as a result? 

 

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Ahum, let me put that question to you. Given how International law is handled by the powerful (let's sitck with Russia and the US) do you think he is entirely wrong? And to answer your second question, I am very much in favour of binding international laws. But is there anybody to enforce it? 

Obama has been an improvement, nobody doubts that, but was he 100% commited to international law? Drone strikes are at the very least questionable, and Gizmo is still open. And he was also not onboard with subjecting US soldiers to international courts (one of the true red lines in US foreign policy). Granted Obama did not start an illegal war like Bush did, but that's a very low bar you are setting there. 

And let me ask you similar question then. Do you think Trump - Bolton, will be that much worse with regards to international law than Bush - Cheney?

If you really want that, then you need to accept that countries will have to cede a measure of sovereignty to an international judicial and policing body. I think 99% of people who largely support the concept of honouring international law are not willing to go that far. And that's the problem.

The WTO is just about the only international body that the USA mostly pays attention to when there are disputes that fall within its mandate. And that's because WTO decisions can have pretty unpleasant effects when it finds against you. It doesn't mean countries don't continue with their bad faith trade practices, but it does mean they pay the cost for them.

[SerHaHa]

I apologize for all the fuss.  I hadn't realized that the media arm of the DNC had assured us all - back when victory seemed assured - that the 2016 election couldn't be hacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/

[Week]

8 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

I apologize for all the fuss.  I hadn't realized that the media arm of the DNC had assured us all - back when victory seemed assured - that the 2016 election couldn't be hacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/

Not as funny as Clinton News Network. Yawn.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

I apologize for all the fuss.  I hadn't realized that the media arm of the DNC had assured us all - back when victory seemed assured - that the 2016 election couldn't be hacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/

It wouldn't have happened if they'd have listened to Donny...(Start at about 45 seconds)

 

[OldGimletEye]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/why-conservatives-missed-why-republicans-like-trump.html

I've mainly posted this link because the picture in the article is gold. LOL.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

It's not that it isn't being investigated or looked into.  It is, by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the whole intelligence community.  The question is how much should have been made public during the election, and what diplomatic repercussions Russia should have or will face.  Ever since the ceasefire in Ukraine, Obama and Kerry have been leery of provoking Russia and restarting the conflict.  Now that they want to negotiate in Syria (and the general lame duck nature of the administration), they're even less likely to do anything.

It is now. It  was not back in July. 

[Altherion]

13 hours ago, mormont said:

'Had enough'? You make it sound like academia is somehow picking on people. Academia doesn't have any real power in the US other than the ability to speak truth to power. Donald Trump does not enjoy having truth spoken to him, of course.

One of the biggest dangers of Trump having no prior political career is that he has no concept of democratic accountability. His business career shows that he doesn't like being held to account - that's why he never takes businesses public. So it's going to be a rough time for anyone who care about speaking the truth, as academics generally do.

Sometimes it speaks truth (e.g. the existence of the Higgs boson), but much more often it attempts to advance an idea of what society should be. For example, consider the kerfuffle over Halloween costumes. It doesn't have anything to do with truth; it's a matter of to which extent we should protect people who feel offended over other people's freedom of expression. Or, for a more serious example, consider globalization. One could say "Globalization is good for the economy" and that is more or less true. One could also say "Globalization redistributes income from Western middle classes to Western elites and the third-world poor" and that is also more or less true. In fact, there were people who said both... but one of these statements got a lot more traction than the other.

Academia both educates the next generation and tries to shape society -- and it does so using state and federal funds. It has become clear that the vision which is currently dominant there is quite different from the one that most of the country has. Trump is not reluctant about picking fights with anyone who annoys him and that is a concern, but academia is uniquely vulnerable even if we disregard his temper.

13 hours ago, mormont said:

Wait, I thought you thought destabilisation was a good thing? Or is that only when Donald causes it?

I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just saying that their current actions are definitely destabilizing to some extent (which the post I quoted said the intelligence agencies would not do).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why the hell is Australia never mentioned in these lists of countries the USA has egregiously politically interfered with? Australia is a white (mostly), Christian, wealthy, stable, democratic, longstanding ally of the USA, which should have made it virtually immune from significant US political interference. Is it because Australia didn't become a banana republic as a result? 

 

If you really want that, then you need to accept that countries will have to cede a measure of sovereignty to an international judicial and policing body. I think 99% of people who largely support the concept of honouring international law are not willing to go that far. And that's the problem.

The WTO is just about the only international body that the USA mostly pays attention to when there are disputes that fall within its mandate. And that's because WTO decisions can have pretty unpleasant effects when it finds against you. It doesn't mean countries don't continue with their bad faith trade practices, but it does mean they pay the cost for them.

Well, because Australia. Australia has retaliated with Paul Hogan and the Crocodile Dundee movies, so I would say that score is settled.

On a more serious. I am aware that it would involve ceding sovereignty to an international body. And on a general level I am cool with that; and I am also aware that I am taking a minority position here. The WTO is another story of its own. And I would love to see it dismantled. But that's really a different topic. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, because Australia. Australia has retaliated with Paul Hogan and the Crocodile Dundee movies, so I would say that score is settled.

And don't think we've forgotten that Wiggles bullshit. Fuck, if you ask me we still owe those bastards a go for that crap.