US Politics: Paradise Lost

[maarsen]

55 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

The evidence for sanctions actually being effective at making foreign governments change their behavior is rather scant, though. 

That did not stop Saudi Arabia trying to slap sanctions on Canada for a single tweet, by our Foreign Minister, about Saudi Arabia putting female protesters in prison. The Saudis obviously think they work.

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The partisan lean for the House looks like its going to be ~D+8.5.

The House popular vote is at 7.7% right now.  If it gets to 8.5, which it should, it will be the largest House popular vote victory in a midterm since 1986 (which was back when Dems won the House popular vote by 10 on the regular).  Just wanted to mention that.

54 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If anything, it just makes it more amazing that they were able to win the MO, ND, MT, WV and IN seats in a relatively competitive year like 2012.

Perhaps, even, this shows Obama did actually have some coattails, contrary to popular wisdom.  They just only reached the Senate.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

The House popular vote is at 7.7% right now.  If it gets to 8.5, which it should, it will be the largest House popular vote victory in a midterm since 1986 (which was back when Dems won the House popular vote by 10 on the regular).  Just wanted to mention that.

Perhaps, even, this shows Obama did actually have some coattails, contrary to popular wisdom.  They just only reached the Senate.

It's just weird to think that, since Obama lost all of those states in 2012, and in the case of WV and ND, quite badly. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

It's just weird to think that, since Obama lost all of those states in 2012, and in the case of WV and ND, quite badly. 

Well WV is clearly all Manchin.  But if you look at the margins of the other 4 states, Obama clearly outperformed the considerable drop off seen in each come 2016.  Basically, he delayed their polarization, and in the case of Indiana he actually won in 2008.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

The evidence for sanctions actually being effective at making foreign governments change their behavior is rather scant, though. 

I second what @larrytheimp said: at least your government is not complicit. Which slightly increases its credibility if it ever wants to actually act in favor of human rights at some point in the future (which, granted, doesn't happen that often).
I think this is also a case of the symbol being more important than the actual impact. Your country is showing what values and principes matter to it, which, btw, will almost always reflect the concern it has for said values and principles domestically.

And then, I think there's more to be said about all this...

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

That did not stop Saudi Arabia trying to slap sanctions on Canada for a single tweet, by our Foreign Minister, about Saudi Arabia putting female protesters in prison. The Saudis obviously think they work.

I don't know about that. Maybe. I think the sanction here was symbolic though. This was Saudi Arabia showing that only does not it give a fuck about "Western" / liberal values, but it will shit on them when it sees fit, and pretty much no one will blink about it.
In an ideal world, Canada's Western allies would have retaliated against Saudi Arabia with further sanctions, as a show of support for Canada and what it was standing for. Or at least grumbled loudly, or made threats. The fact that none of this happened means Saudi Arabia (well, MBS) feels it can act with absolute impunity. And it feels that way because the US, "leader of the free world" is giving it a free pass for, erm, everything.

As I wrote earlier in that exchange with Altherion I don't believe this state of affairs can last for too long (some decades) before it has dramatic consequences (major wars, genocides... ) that themselves will bring back human rights to the forefront. But in the meantime I have to agree with him that the international order is going to the dogs.

[Maithanet]

To expand on how well Senate Democrats actually did, here's a thought experiment.  What if they did equally well in 2020?  So the criteria are: 

1. win 100% of seats in Clinton states

2. win 2/3rds of races in states Trump won by 10 points or less

3.  win 20% of races in states Trump won by double digits. 

If they repeated that feat in 2020 (they won't, but if they did), that would mean they pick up 2 seats from category 1 (CO, ME), 3 seats from category 2 (3 of the five of NC, AZ, GA, IA and TX) and 3 of the 16 seats in category 3 (presumably Doug Jones wins reelection plus two more).  That would be D+8 in the Senate for the night. 

Obviously, that's not going to happen - this isn't a prediction.  But I just wanted to illustrate that the Democrats Senate performance was a lot better than the conventional wisdom of "Republicans gained seats". 

 

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Im sorry this journalist was murdered, im sorry for his family. But I have to agree with the France position that an arms embargo has nothing to do with Kashoggi's murder. I believe the U.S. will only be harming themselves were they to broaden sanctions on the Saudi govt from the current sanctions of the individual Saudi's announced.

Im sorry the man was murderered, condolences to his loved ones. But how does layoffs in our already long suffering industrial sectors and over $4 a gallon gas provide any justice to this tragedy? Sanctions against the Saudi's will bring pain to middle class Americans before it affects the 100 times over billionaire Royal Saudi's.

The fact is that now prices globally for petroleum are set by three -- only three! -- individuals, as OPEC has lost control: Saudi; Putin; the orange nazi.  This bodes very ill for the entire world.  France cannot evade it by sucking up to Saudi (though due to very long history, particularly with the Ottomans starting in the days of King Francis -- who also didn't, because of his alliances, send any help to besieged Vienna -- France is the most islamicized European nation).

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-18/bin-salman-trump-and-putin-control-the-oil-price-now

Quote

.... OPEC has lost what control of the oil market it ever had. The actions (or tweets) of three men — Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman — will determine the course of oil prices in 2019 and beyond. But of course they each want different things....

 

[Isalie]

7 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty sure we're not that dependant on them anymore.  I for one would be happy to pay $4 a gallon to know I'm not contributing to starvation and random bombing of civilians in Yemen.  Or helping out the Saudis in any way.

Yeah, its like, everyone would walk away from omelas, but noone would pay more for their oil..

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Yeah, its like, everyone would walk away from omelas, but noone would pay more for their oil..

Not sure whether you're suggesting that's it's unrealistic for anyone to have a priority other than cheap oil or if you're agreeing.  

Either way, this is my response:

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

It’s been an open question when—or even if—the movement would reach a breaking point with him. That day may now come sooner rather than later.

“Some of us have been raising these concerns for a while,” Jonathan Adler, a Case Western University law professor who signed the mission statement, told me. “I’ve been open about criticizing the administration where I thought that was necessary from the beginning, and being positive where there are things to be positive about. But I think some people have needed a few straws on the camel’s back before they’re willing to be more open about it.”

Get the latest from TNR. Sign up for the newsletter.
Conway, as the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, may be the most recognizable name to the general public. But the rest of its members are all prominent figures in conservative legal circles and veterans of past Republican administrations. Tom Ridge served as the first secretary of Homeland Security. Peter Keisler was tapped to replace Chief Justice John Roberts on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005, only to be rejected by Democratic senators for his conservative background. Orin Kerr, a University of Southern California law professor, is the Supreme Court’s go-to scholar on Fourth Amendment matters.

The question is whether other Federalist Society members, who have been hesitant to speak out, will answer the group’s call. There’s reason to believe so—precisely because they have been gotten what they wanted under Trump. As his first term—and perhaps his presidency—winds down, Trump may become a victim of his own success, as diminishing returns in judicial policy make it harder for the conservative legal community to stomach him.

The Checks and Balances group sprang from informal conversations between him and the other members over the past year, according to Adler, who helped craft the legal argument behind the Affordable Care Act challenge in King v. Burwell. Over the “last several weeks,” he said, those discussions turned toward forming an organization and making some kind of public declaration. The goal was to provide a space for other like-minded conservative and libertarian legal figures to express concerns about the Trump administration and its threats to the nation’s constitutional order.

 

Does the Federalist Society Still Need Trump?
The conservative legal organization got what it wanted from the president. Will more of its members start speaking out against him?

https://newrepublic.com/article/152251/federalist-society-still-need-trump

[Which Tyler]

Classy as ever:

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1064216956679716864

[DireWolfSpirit]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, I'm sure there'll be tons of people to send thoughts and prayers to them.

Anyway, things to think about...

The thing about the US is that it is -still- the one and only country that can not only put sanctions on a country (or implement a weapons embargo) but also force other countries to respect said sanctions or weapons embargo. Of course, it's never full-proof, especially with China and Russia these days, but the US can seriously hurt another country if it chooses to (see: Iran).
And sure, as I'm always the first to point out, it's been a rare occurrence when the US has actually acted against one of its longtime allies for purely moral reasons. Most of the time, targets of US sanctions will be relatively weak countries, and generally ones that do not agree with the US-led new-world-order/pax americana to begin with. But even grumblings and threats go a long way, and in the past these have served to maintain some kind of illusion of morality on the world stage (though not constantly or consistently).
Cometh Trump, and all illusion of morality is vanished. So what? will many people ask, it's not like illusions matter in realpolitik. But as it turns out, illusions do matter a great deal for the Khashoggis of the world. As long as everyone is pretending to be virtuous, some lines are not crossed. When pretense erodes, so the lines move. And this is a big part of what we call US "soft power" with its ebbs and flows.

Saudi Arabia has never been an exemplary country, morally speaking. And its power over the US was blatant under W.
But you're sorely mistaken if you think the US can't stop what's happening in Yemen and/or stop weapons from arriving in Saudi Arabia. It would be tough and costly, for sure, but it could be done. That the US doesn't even try, or pretend to try, is devastating. And since you're another one of them nationalists, I'm saying it doesn't just kill Yemenis, it also cripples US soft power. What will happen the next time the US wants its "allies" to implement sanctions against another country? Other world leaders will ask why, and how much. The EU, despite its pathetic meakness, has already timidly moved against the US on Iran. It could be nothing, or it could be a sign that Trump is in fact doing a great deal of damage to the US.

Being skeptical of whether sanctions would be effective now makes me "another one of those nationalists" ? 

You must have me mistaken for a Trump voter.   I have never voted or donated to a Republican in my life and have been in several anti-war protests. My views on nationalism are that it should be tempered and fervent patriotism can lead to disasterous ends if followed blindly. When I hear nationalism im thinking of Arundahti Roy speaking about it- 

One of, if not my very favorite, speeches ive heard.

So no, not a Trumpist, just very skeptical jumping on a course of action for a terrible situation, a war that is already ran its ugly course. The time for those sanctions to have had any affect was probably a few yrs ago. Also I didnt hear the chorus for sanctions against the countries supplying proxy fighters in Syria or the countries overthrowing other M.E. governments like Libya or Iraq. When the World applies sanctions on the U.S. for being a bad actor I might pay the strategy more hedence. From what I can glean of sanctions is its always the working classes that recieve the pain, not crown Princes or Billionaire Presidents. So im not convinced they are a good idea.

[DMC]

So 16 members publicly declared their opposition to Pelosi in a letter today.  That's right on the precipice - but interestingly, one of the signees is Ben McAdams, who's enduring a recount with Mia Love.  Further:

Quote

The letter does not include at least three additional Democratic lawmakers or members-elect who have confirmed to POLITICO that they intend to oppose Pelosi on the floor: Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Jason Crow of Colorado.

Things are starting to get interesting...

Full list of signees:

Quote

Reps. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Filemon Vela Jr. (D-Texas), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), as well as candidates-elect Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.), Max Rose (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) and candidate McAdams.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

15 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Im sorry the man was murderered, condolences to his loved ones. But how does layoffs in our already long suffering industrial sectors and over $4 a gallon gas provide any justice to this tragedy? Sanctions against the Saudi's will bring pain to middle class Americans before it affects the 100 times over billionaire Royal Saudi's.

As pointed out, it might be a mere symbolic gesture, but it would lend the US some more credibility, when they are (or fake to be) outraged over the misdeed of some other country.

As for the 4$ a gallon, I doubt that would happen to the US. I think the US itself has sufficient oil reserves to play hardball for a few years without feeling any backlash.  As a sidenote, I think 4$ a gallon would also do more to combat climate change than any measure the EPA could ever come up with. But that's just an unrelated side effect; and since it's also just a Chinese hoax, there's no point on dwelling on that point.

Either way, I really can't help to think, what would the US administration do, if it had been an Iranian assasination squad...

11 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

The Saudis are going to replenish their military with contracts through one countries defense industry or anothers. They have struck an arms deal with the U.S. I am against leaving that money on the table. And I dont think turning our backs on Saudi investment either helps the U.S. or affects the Yemen war ending any earlier.

I think you are selling the know-how and quality of made in America War Toys short. Not to mention that Britain and other Western allies would very likely follow suit. And I seriously doubt the Saudi Airforce would switch to MiGs that easily. All the trainign and flight hours their pilots spent in those McDonnel Douglas/Lockheed Martins.

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The Saudis are going to replenish their military with contracts through one countries defense industry or anothers. They have struck an arms deal with the U.S. I am against leaving that money on the table. And I dont think turning our backs on Saudi investment either helps the U.S. or affects the Yemen war ending any earlier.

Note: this is a really bad take. Governments can't just switch out defense contractors the way you'd source some random bits of wood (and even that isn't as easy as you'd think). Defense contracts involve not just the materials, but training, maintenance contracts, logistics, support, systems, integration, and a LOT of joint exercises. Unless you're selling something like a bunch of pistols you're not going to switch. When you're talking about the kinds of things Saudis are buying - modern aircraft, modern tanks, modern AA equipment - you are talking about them being entirely beholden to that system for 10-15 years, at least. 

So no, the Saudis aren't just all of a sudden going to talk to Russia to get a bunch of T74s to replace their Abrams. 

11 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Additionally we are dependant on staying allied wth the Saudi's because they can hurt our economy due to our energy dependance, we are in no position to bully them through sanctions.

Also not true. The US is currently a net exporter of energy resources, including oil. While it would hurt due to the way we have global relations and supply chains, it would not be particularly disruptive. The days of the US depending on Saudi oil are over, and have been over for over a decade. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

So 16 members publicly declared their opposition to Pelosi in a letter today.  That's right on the precipice - but interestingly, one of the signees is Ben McAdams, who's enduring a recount with Mia Love.  Further:

I think the hate on Pelosi is a little displaced and out of proportions. She has been quite effective in her role as speaker/majority leader. Afterall she got the votes for the ACA back then. And I don't think Faux News will be treating her successor any better or portray him/her in a better light. The only legit reason I see for axing her would be to get the base more fired up.

Schumer is the one that needs to be replaced badly.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think the hate on Pelosi is a little displaced and out of proportions.

I think a lot of it isn't hate but rather the fact the Dem House has had the same top 3 leadership for 12 years.  And all three will be octogenarians by the next election.

[Rippounet]

44 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Being skeptical of whether sanctions would be effective now makes me "another one of those nationalists" ? 

You must have me mistaken for a Trump voter.

Not at all. Trump and his supporters are ethno-nationalists. There's actually a lot of good to be said of American nationalism itself, if Trump & co don't get to be the ones defining it. I didn't mean it as an insult. It's just that you linked the non-effectiveness of sanctions to national economic interest, which is not an argument I find compelling, to say the least.

Btw, since you mentioned France, fuck France for its links with Saudi Arabia. Bloody country became the third biggest arms seller... So fuck Macron and Le Drian for their role in that, and fuck Dassault, especially Serge and his cronies, may that guy's soul rot in hell... But I digress, an entire thread would be necessary to spit on Serge Dassault's grave.

44 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So no, not a Trumpist, just very skeptical jumping on a course of action for a terrible situation, a war that is already ran its ugly course. The time for those sanctions to have had any affect was probably a few yrs ago. Also I didnt hear the chorus for sanctions against the countries supplying proxy fighters in Syria or the countries overthrowing other M.E. governments like Libya or Iraq. When the World applies sanctions on the U.S. for being a bad actor I might pay the strategy more hedence. From what I can glean of sanctions is its always the working classes that recieve the pain, not crown Princes or Billionaire Presidents. So im not convinced they are a good idea.

None of this makes much sense to me. It's a lot of whataboutism mixed with a clumsy defense of the working class. Defending the defense industry in the name of the people working for it is seriously unconvincing. Surely you can see that this argument would lead one to condone atrocious policies.
At some point economics is just an excuse for an absence of morality and national economic self-interest the root cause of global devastation. The middle-class may suffer from some moral policies, but that's nothing compared to what it endures for other reasons.

In a nutshell: it's not the worst of arguments, but nor is it a good one either. I understand that one could be skeptical of morality in international relations, the historical record doesn't allow for a lot of optimism there. But it's precisely because nations and people are focused on their economic self-interest that nothing good ever gets done.

Great speech by Roy btw, thanks for the link. I especially liked that bit toward the end:

Quote

 

Meanwhile down at the mall there's a mid-season sale. Everything's discounted - oceans, rivers, oil, gene pools, fig wasps, flowers, childhoods, aluminum factories, phone companies, wisdom, wilderness, civil rights, eco-systems, air - all 4,600 million years of evolution. It's packed, sealed, tagged, valued and available off the rack. (No returns). As for justice I'm told it's on offer too. You can get the best that money can buy.

Donald Rumsfeld said that his mission in the War Against Terror was to persuade the world that Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life. When the maddened king stamps his foot, slaves tremble in their quarters. So, standing here today, it's hard for me to say this, but the American Way of Life is simply not sustainable. Because it doesn't acknowledge that there is a world beyond America.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As pointed out, it might be a mere symbolic gesture, but it would lend the US some more credibility, when they are (or fake to be) outraged over the misdeed of some other country.

As for the 4$ a gallon, I doubt that would happen to the US. I think the US itself has sufficient oil reserves to play hardball for a few years without feeling any backlash.  As a sidenote, I think 4$ a gallon would also do more to combat climate change than any measure the EPA could ever come up with. But that's just an unrelated side effect; and since it's also just a Chinese hoax, there's no point on dwelling on that point.

Either way, I really can't help to think, what would the US administration do, if it had been an Iranian assasination squad...

I think you are selling the know-how and quality of made in America War Toys short. Not to mention that Britain and other Western allies would very likely follow suit. And I seriously doubt the Saudi Airforce would switch to MiGs that easily. All the trainign and flight hours their pilots spent in those McDonnel Douglas/Lockheed Martins.

Think you quoted the wrong guy, I never said any of that

[S John]

Re: Pelosi

Perhaps there's also some skittishness among Dems about teeing up another (ancient) Dem that the R media machine has had years and years of target practice against.  At least with some new blood they'll have to work for it a little bit to get the rage and fear train up to full speed.  They'll still get there no matter who it is, of course, but at least they'll have to work for it.  

This makes a lot of sense to me after any time at all reflecting on the 2016 situation.  HRC was like a top 3 favorite punching bag of the right for DECADES.  They didn't have to put much effort into getting their base energized against her.  They'd already laid the groundwork.  Same with Pelosi.  I don't think its the worst idea to get some new blood in there.  Get some youth in there.  And make the R's have to come up with new lines of bullshit that they hadn't already anticipated and practiced against.  I'm talking' bout making some halftime adjustments here people.