Jump to content

U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The rest of the western - and developed - world will certainly work trade deals around the US as long as Trump is in office, and that will likewise certainly have lasting damage in terms of our geopolitical position and leverage, but pretty much everybody will readily welcome the US back into the fold the moment he's gone.  It's the indomitable force of free trade. 

You know, I'm not so certain the damage/decline can be so easily dismissed. After GWB, I got the feeling that the rest of the world was way more cautious about helping the US in their military endeavours, and even with the peace nobel and his Cairo speech, I did not get any idea that the rift between Obama's US and the Asian and Arab world shrunk... and even in Europe, Russia began to rise in popularity comparatively. NAFTA/TAFTA/Monsanto/Google/Facebook/whatever induced some big rejection in Europe, based on a strong anti-imperialism sentiment. "Welcome back", sure, but what will it really mean?

 

So, yes, once the bloody buffoon is out of power, maybe it will seem that our governments will welcome the US back, but damage will have been done and the terms will not be the same. That's decline, it's like aging: you're still alive and in the game, but you are weaker.

Even if free trade was indomitable, which it's not, the trade power ladder is not immutable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, beyond advancing his personal interests, describe Trump's political agenda.

One may think -- as impossible as it is to be in the chaos that his head -- his agenda is his desire to join the ranks of the strong men like Putin, where every financial transaction that goes on in the state puts a big taste of it in his own mouth.

Since across the board it's known and reported that he WILL NOT / CANNOT? do the WORK required of a chief of state, why can't his employers, the people of the USA, fire him?  No need for that political guff of impeachment and other blahblahblah.  He just isn't doing his job, so fire him.  After all, one wants the government of the USA to be run like a business, so fire him now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

NAFTA/TAFTA/Monsanto/Google/Facebook/whatever induced some big rejection in Europe, based on a strong anti-imperialism sentiment. "Welcome back", sure, but what will it really mean? 

That's an overinterpretation imho. NAFTA was fairly unpopular with the population for a number of reasons, mainly worries that standards would fall and get closer to (perceived) US standards. Add to that those trade court system, outside the regular usual legal framework. Monsanto is one of those pure evil companies, there's just no other way to describe it, and a big part of its bad rep was those GMO, particularly crops (which also goes back to standards and what food do we want to eat). So little surprise Bayer was quite to scratch the name monsato after the succesful takeover. Facebook on the other hand had a better rep then it actually deserved (at least imo). Its reputations has only taken serious hit after the CA scandal. My personal opinion on the matter is still gonna be unpopular, as IMO it was (and still is) a Facebook scandal. CA used the data facebook provided, just that CA got rid of ethical deadweight in order to use it that way. FB is still not viewed critical enough for most parts. To read a strong anti-imperialistic sentiment into it, that's a bit too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

After GWB, I got the feeling that the rest of the world was way more cautious about helping the US in their military endeavours, and even with the peace nobel and his Cairo speech, I did not get any idea that the rift between Obama's US and the Asian and Arab world shrunk... and even in Europe, Russia began to rise in popularity comparatively. NAFTA/TAFTA/Monsanto/Google/Facebook/whatever induced some big rejection in Europe, based on a strong anti-imperialism sentiment. "Welcome back", sure, but what will it really mean?

Oh I strongly disagree with that depiction.  The European powers were perfectly fine letting the US take the lead in the west's reaction to the Arab Spring, up to and including our bombing of Libya.  And before Trump quashed it, Obama carefully negotiated TPP wherein a handful of pacific countries were giving us favorable status despite the fact China is their more natural partnership.  As for NAFTA and TAFTA, as you imply the animus seems directed at MNCs, not the US govt specifically, which is where it should be directed towards.  But maybe you're right.  I'd say "we'll see," but we won't, because however much Trump degrades the US' prestige during his tenure, it was bound to be degraded naturally during this time anyway, so it's really hard to measure such a counterfactual.

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

One may think -- as impossible as it is to be in the chaos that his head -- his agenda is his desire to join the ranks of the strong men like Putin, where every financial transaction that goes on in the state puts a big taste of it in his own mouth.

Right, that'd be the advancing his own interests part I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Notone said:

To read a strong anti-imperialistic sentiment into it, that's a bit too much.

I think you underestimate the feeling among some European countries population. Sure, the UK likes you, but the rest, while thankful for WW2 involvement, and NATO, always had hostility towards your towering power, as far as the 60's. There are actual songs in my country saying basically "don't hate the yanks", and of course I have to point that Mao's red book was a big best seller at one point, heh.

30 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Oh I strongly disagree with that depiction.  The European powers were perfectly fine letting the US take the lead in the west's reaction to the Arab Spring, up to and including our bombing of Libya.  And before Trump quashed it, Obama carefully negotiated TPP wherein a handful of pacific countries were giving us favorable status despite the fact China is their more natural partnership.  As for NAFTA and TAFTA, as you imply the animus seems directed at MNCs, not the US govt specifically, which is where it should be directed towards.

People see arrogant hegemonical power brokering secret deals that are widely described as being made to increase the wealth of a few by destroying social norm, environmental regulation and nstional economical protection, and you think they don't resent the big player's government? huh.

 

On the military side I have to point that in the Arab Spring case (and Lybia foremost) It was Europe pushing for intervention, they were not led like lapdogs, thry just needed military power (you know we own like one and a half aircraft carrier between us all...) you don't need to like a country, when you can trick it into furthering your agenda. It's most like Yugoslavia. For Afghanistan, even for al-qaida, Europe was a bit more circumspect. I think.

 

During Obama's tenure, relationship with the Gulf petro monarchies did not seem to be extatic either, though they thawed a bit with Iran, I guess.

 

In Asia the TPP was actually made to counter the rise of China, but this does not infirm the fact that China was taking first seat both economically, and in a way militarily, at least in the indian sea, and is continuing to rise.

 

South America is of course the worse case, they positively hate you. Though Mexico will probably flip flop like you say, if a new president comes to you that is not a wannabe dictator out to pardon himself and get a court of lickspittles because he's god's chosen or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

It's not one poll, it's a series of polls.  At this moment, 538 has the generic ballot up to Dem +8, whereas it was at 5.5 on June 3rd, or five days ago.  I assume RCP is showing similar type of movement, albeit they don't weight polls like Silver does.  However, just as I would say I don't think this is a big deal if (and when) it was trending the other direction, I don't think it is now.  The generic ballot becomes decreasingly interesting as the election approaches anyway.  The Dems had about a 60% chance of taking the House a couple months ago, and they still have a 60% chance today.  As for the Senate, meh, that's more complicated - and much less tied to the generic ballot.

Unclear if it was a trend before or now. All the polls that came out the past couple days showing solid Dem leads again hadn't polled in over a month, and the tightening that was occurring before that was almost entirely due to Reuters/Ipos weirdness and the fact that it was one of only 3 or 4 polls that were coming out. I think there was clearly a trend away from Democrats earlier this year (though whether that was because of any changes in opinion or just because the numbers were impossibly good back in December when the health care debacle was still fresh), but I dunno if there was a second tightening in April/May. The special election results were pretty much as encouraging as ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

People see arrogant hegemonical power brokering secret deals that are widely described as being made to increase the wealth of a few by destroying social norm, environmental regulation and nstional economical protection, and you think they don't resent the big player's government? huh.

Um, what?  Is this how you're describing NAFTA and/or TAFTA?  Because, at the least, the obviously weren't secret.  I'll just stop there cuz wow.

5 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

On the military side I have to point that in the Arab Spring case (and Lybia foremost) It was Europe pushing for intervention, they were not led like lapdogs, thry just needed military power (you know we own like one and a half aircraft carrier between us all...) you don't need to like a country, when you can trick it into furthering your agenda.

Sure, I totally agree with this.  Except the US wasn't "tricked," they did what they have routinely done and carried the military weight for the European powers because the status quo has been mutually beneficial since the onset of NATO, Bretton Woods, and the Marshall Plan.

8 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

During Obama's tenure, relationship with the Gulf petro monarchies did not seem to be extatic either, though they thawed a bit with Iran, I guess.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion comparatively.

9 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

In Asia the TPP was actually made to counter the rise of China, but this does not infirm the fact that China was taking first seat both economically, and in a way militarily, at least in the indian sea, and is continuing to rise.

Yes, that was the point.  Obama did all he could to counter China's rise, and was able to convince a handful of pacific countries to agree.

10 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

South America is of course the worse case, they positively hate you. Though Mexico will probably flip flop like you say, if a new president comes to you that is not a wannabe dictator out to pardon himself and get a court of lickspittles because he's god's chosen or something.

Well, obviously, the relationship between the US and Latin America is going to be particularly degraded under Trump.  Can't argue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Unclear if it was a trend before or now. All the polls that came out the past couple days showing solid Dem leads again hadn't polled in over a month, and the tightening that was occurring before that was almost entirely due to Reuters/Ipos weirdness and the fact that it was one of only 3 or 4 polls that were coming out.

Yup.  I'm content to focus on the specific races and see where the generic ballot is at once the ad buys really start in earnest, so late September/early October.

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

The special election results were pretty much as encouraging as ever.

Right, the actual election results have been the most encouraging metric - including the California primaries.  I'll take that all day every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Um, what?  Is this how you're describing NAFTA and/or TAFTA?  Because, at the least, the obviously weren't secret.  I'll just stop there cuz wow

 

Either of them. I'm talking of people's feeling about that. There was some hubbub a while back by elected representatives about how they could nit easily read the draft of the agreement and were forbidden from copying and making anything public. This played right into the schizophrenic resentment of Brussels for trying to sink the various national social systems with secret pacts with nefarious lobbies, and for not protecting people enough (yes, somehow, a lot of people want Europe gone but want Europe to protect them... cake, eating, having, etc. case in point, Brexit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

Either of them. I'm talking of people's feeling about that. There was some hubbub a while back by elected representatives about how they could nit easily read the draft of the agreement and were forbidden from copying and making anything public. This played right into the schizophrenic resentment of Brussels for trying to sink the various national social systems with secret pacts with nefarious lobbies, and for not protecting people enough (yes, somehow, a lot of people want Europe gone but want Europe to protect them... cake, eating, having, etc. case in point, Brexit)

Alrighty then.  [Backs away slowly.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconding EB here. There was widespread feeling in Europe that these deals were not so much trade agreements as the erosion of national sovereignty by ISDS tribunals dominated by global corporations.

See for example Wikipedia on TTIP:

Quote

The agreement has been criticized and opposed by some unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. The Independent describes common criticisms of TTIP as "reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations", or more critically as an "assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations". The Guardian noted the criticism of TTIP's "undemocratic nature of the closed-door talks", "influence of powerful lobbyists", TTIP's potential ability to "undermine the democratic authority of local government", and described it as "the most controversial trade deal the EU has ever negotiated".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Errant Bard said:

South America is of course the worse case, they positively hate you. Though Mexico will probably flip flop like you say, if a new president comes to you that is not a wannabe dictator out to pardon himself and get a court of lickspittles because he's god's chosen or something.

You sure about this one? I did a semester abroad in Argentina and traveled to a few other countries and never noticed it. They do mock our love of our flag though, and my impression is that’s probably true in Europe too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Alrighty then.  [Backs away slowly.]

To be fair, he’s not entirely wrong. I suspect the details might not be right, but the general sentiment is. Across the West, people in the middle and lower classes have been feeling the squeeze economically and they’re looking for something to blame. Trade deals make for pretty easy targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case folks missed it, the Justice Department has decided that upholding laws isn't their bag and is instead deciding to just do whatever, man. 

And ensure my kid shouldn't live in the US, because cancer is a hell of a preexisting condition. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/08/republicans-embrace-a-hideously-unpopular-position-just-before-the-elections/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4fe82ad54479

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/8/17442238/trump-aca-obamacare-texas-department-of-justice-rule-of-law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To be fair, he’s not entirely wrong. I suspect the details might not be right, but the general sentiment is. Across the West, people in the middle and lower classes have been feeling the squeeze economically and they’re looking for something to blame. Trade deals make for pretty easy targets.

Sure!  I'll respond if and when there's a coherent argument presented for why this is the case.  Anti-globalization tends to elicit irrational responses, as we've all learned to our dismay, but I don't have to entertain every rambling on the subject.  At least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In case folks missed it, the Justice Department has decided that upholding laws isn't their bag and is instead deciding to just do whatever, man. 

And ensure my kid shouldn't live in the US, because cancer is a hell of a preexisting condition. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/06/08/republicans-embrace-a-hideously-unpopular-position-just-before-the-elections/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4fe82ad54479

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/8/17442238/trump-aca-obamacare-texas-department-of-justice-rule-of-law

Problem is, on the legal/procedural side of things, I'm not sure how this is different from DOJ under Holder declining to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I didn't like DOJ not defending a law then (even though I thought that was a terrible law) and I don't like DOJ not defending a law now; but the precedent unfortunately now exists.

Though note that Sessions is of course being a complete hypocrite here because he attacked Holder for that decision and said in his confirmation hearings that DOJ under him would always defend the laws as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Senator Merkley finally got in to that ICE facility to see the Trump Admin's current favourite crime against humanity:

Quote

 

Can you describe to me what you saw there?

I’ll tell you what was very difficult to see. One room had smaller cyclone fences—they look like the way you construct a dog kennel. They’re larger, but that’s the thought that comes to mind when you see them. Then they have these space blankets [light foil blankets], which is a very strange sight, to see kids using a space blanket as a cushion—but they don’t provide any cushion—or as a cover for privacy. There’re no mattresses in that section.

After they go through interviews, they go into a big warehouse. I called them cages, and the White House said that’s unfair, they aren’t cages. Well, call it a cell, then. It’s a cyclone-fence-constructed area. There were all these boys in this big enclosure, maybe three to four dozen boys, and they lined up, from smallest to largest, to get ready to go eat. The tiniest kid at the front of the line, he was knee-high to a grasshopper; he was 4, maybe 5 years old. They go up to age 16 or 17.

 

Children separated from their parents and then caged like animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, beyond advancing his personal interests, describe Trump's political agenda.

When it comes to international economic policy, Trump doesn't really have a policy agenda so much as a driving series of personal failings and beliefs. In no particular order:

- Corruption and graft. Trump is all about making money by abusing his position.

- Protectionism and dominance. Trump doesn't understand mutually beneficial relationships or alliances. Or trade. He thinks only in terms of winners and losers and thinks of the US as being the god-king natio of the world that should get anything it wants cause if not we will destroy you. So if the US is in his mind not getting 100% of the benefits of a deal, they are getting screwed and he's mad about it.

- Authoritarianism. Trump believes in the idea of both himself and america as wielding absolute power and crushing those that stand in his way and he admires other world leaders that he perceives as doing that and is jealous of them.

- Flattery. Trump loves flattery. This is the other big reason he loves authoritarians. They know how to put on the pomp and circumstances and crush any hint of dissent.

- Russia.Trump is deep in bed with the Russians and easily influenced.

- Lack of self control. Trump just says shit because he's an idiot who can't control himself or stop himself from bullshitting and lying all the time.

What this all leads to is what we are seeing now with economic policy and the like: Trump attacking allies because he thinks that trade deals are bad for the US because the US might possibly be not benefiting on every level and because the other nations aren't servile enough. Trump starting trade wars over this because he thinks trade wars are easy to win. Trump talking up Russia. Etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

Problem is, on the legal/procedural side of things, I'm not sure how this is different from DOJ under Holder declining to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I didn't like DOJ not defending a law then (even though I thought that was a terrible law) and I don't like DOJ not defending a law now; but the precedent unfortunately now exists.

The article gets into that, but basically there's a fundamental difference between defending the law and stating that something is unconstitutional fundamentally, and there's a fundamental difference between looking at one aspect of the law vs the whole thing and saying that because one aspect has been changed the entire system is altered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...