|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
So where are the birthers?
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will announce Monday he is running for the Republican nomination for president, a close aide of the lawmaker confirmed to NPR following a report first published by The Houston Chronicle.
Ultra-conservative Cruz, who has quickly risen to prominence in recent years with firebrand tactics that have fired up the GOP's tea-party base, will make his run official during a speech at Liberty University, the evangelical Christian college in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. He would be the first Republican to officially declare.
Unlike some of his potential Republican challengers, Cruz will bypass an exploratory committee and launch directly into the campaign, the Chronicle says.
The newspaper reports: "Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog Senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party's libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment."
Source
|
I wouldn't worry, most of us Americans know that it was Hasselhoff who ended the war! 
|
On March 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either. To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east. It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war".
I do no want another cold war. I just recognize that it is already here.
|
Have to agree on this one. The whole pivot to Asia thing couldn't come at a worse time right now while Russia is going cracy again
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
europeans can handle russia. wouldnt want american domination to get in the way of european affairs
|
Nothing is stopping Europe from building up it's military, and intelligent services. Least of all Germany with recent articles stating it's military is in a dire condition so it needs to do such things.
Anyways...
California Gov. Jerry Brown said Sunday that it is a "disgrace" that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to thwart the Obama administration's plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, urged all 50 state governors in a letter Thursday to reject the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to reduce emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent by 2030.
The EPA’s plan, according to McConnell, would heavily penalize the coal industry. Its economic impact in his home state would be “devastating,” he said, and thousands of jobs could be on the line.
“To have the leader of the Senate ... putting at risk the health and well-being of America is a disgrace,” Brown, a Democrat, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
California is in the midst of a historic drought. Brown said greenhouse gas emissions will cause future droughts and “much, much worse.”
To fight efforts to curb emissions, Brown said, “borders on the immoral.”
Source
|
On March 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either. To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east. It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war".
China's rise threatens its neighbors: Japan, Vietnam, Philippines are all engaged in some kind of dispute, with China aggressively taking new territories/claims -- ie claiming all of South China Sea because its named "South China Sea". And all of these smaller countries like to America as a counter weight. Ditto Russia threatening NATO members in the Baltics and invading Ukraine while pouring virulent anti-Western propaganda on its state networks. Your racist statement, 'Anglo-Saxon West' by the way is insulting to (a) majority of Americans who arent Anglo-Saxon (b) everyone who neighbors Russia/China who doesnt want to become one of their puppets.
|
On March 23 2015 04:05 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either. To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east. It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war". China's rise threatens its neighbors: Japan, Vietnam, Philippines are all engaged in some kind of dispute, with China aggressively taking new territories/claims -- ie claiming all of South China Sea because its named "South China Sea". And all of these smaller countries like to America as a counter weight. Ditto Russia threatening NATO members in the Baltics and invading Ukraine while pouring virulent anti-Western propaganda on its state networks. Your racist statement, 'Anglo-Saxon West' by the way is insulting to (a) majority of Americans who arent Anglo-Saxon (b) everyone who neighbors Russia/China who doesnt want to become one of their puppets.
You somehow totally misread that.
I am staunchly opposed to Russian aggression in Europe. I consider the annexation of Crimea and the suppling of the civil war in the Ukraine as severe breaches of international law that should not go unpunished. But "acting tough" is not the same as solving international conflicts.
Your reaction to Anglo Saxon is way over the top, i was referring to a widespread and accepted tearm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere i did not know the "Saxon" was dropped/missing from it, so sorry that i missspoke.
Furthermore i myself did not say that i view some Anglo Saxon west as the actor, but that i get the impression that xdaunt and other republicans have it, when they talk about "America and their allies". Germany and France opposed the Iraq war and the UK went along with it. I was thinking specifically about this distinction. You saw how he reacted that 'even the Brits' were joining the Asian investment bank, as backstabbing their best buddy and a failure of Obama to not buy them off the deal.
|
I don't understand this fear of China, really. Compared to it's economic growth it has been pretty unambitious imperially, apart from these Island controversies with Japan. If Russia would have developed as China they'd probably be in Italy by now.
|
On March 23 2015 04:26 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 04:05 Sub40APM wrote:On March 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either. To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east. It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war". China's rise threatens its neighbors: Japan, Vietnam, Philippines are all engaged in some kind of dispute, with China aggressively taking new territories/claims -- ie claiming all of South China Sea because its named "South China Sea". And all of these smaller countries like to America as a counter weight. Ditto Russia threatening NATO members in the Baltics and invading Ukraine while pouring virulent anti-Western propaganda on its state networks. Your racist statement, 'Anglo-Saxon West' by the way is insulting to (a) majority of Americans who arent Anglo-Saxon (b) everyone who neighbors Russia/China who doesnt want to become one of their puppets. . But "acting tough" is not the same as solving international conflicts.
Its not about 'acting tough', its about re-assuring smaller governments that they will not become part of some 'sphere of influence' or some other 19th century stuff. And it isnt just important in some kind of abstract, 'this is the right thing to do' but in real concrete terms. If you are Japan or Vietnam you could probably cobble together nuclear weapons pretty clearly, and since you are the weaker party in any conflict vs China you would. America's response to an expansive China is as much about nuclear nonprolifiration as about anything else.
Your reaction to Anglo Saxon is way over the top, i was referring to a widespread and accepted tearm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere i did not know the "Saxon" was dropped/missing from it, so sorry that i missspoke.
Yes, that concept has been promoted by a number of intellectuals but its particularly popular among right wingers who fundamentally disregard non-Anglo Saxon citizens of their respective countries as 'different' or 'guests' or whatever else that isnt a full, and equal citizen. Thats my point.
Furthermore i myself did not say that i view some Anglo Saxon west as the actor, but that i get the impression that xdaunt and other republicans have it, when they talk about "America and their allies". Germany and France opposed the Iraq war and the UK went along with it. I was thinking specifically about this distinction.
Yes thats true, Republicans do have a fundamentally childish view on foreign politics that rotates between outright war with anyone, as long as someone else physically fights the war, preferably someone poor and thus someone who morally deserves to face physical danger because they failed to succeed, or 'realism' which just means making a deal with the nastiest oligarchs possible to break the back of American workers bargaining power.
But this isnt about invading some dictatorship, this is about who gets to decide on investment norms in the 21st century. And however corrupt and fucked up Americans have been at it, the Chinese by parallel make America look like a cross between Martin Luther King and Ghandhi. Freedom isnt free, now that rich autocrats realize they can buy off running dog politicians in the West: Front National, Orban in Hungary, Tzipzas in Greece, and so on, the very concept of democratic freedom -- as you define it by the way, not in the Republican American sense, is fundamentally under threat. Noam Chomsky and all his cult followers might gnash their teeth at American evilness but its the evilness that lets them actually gnash their teeth in relative public, if the tyrants of the East manage to continue their current infiltration of Western ideals future Chomsy's are going to be giving lectures in thought camps.
You saw how he reacted that 'even the Brits' were joining the Asian investment bank, as backstabbing their best buddy and a failure of Obama to not buy them off the deal.
The Brits did betray America, considering that tiny islands irrelevance in the world economy outside of its role as a chief financial-money laundering center, and considering that it exists as such thanks to America's special relationship to the English it was a naked case of pure backstabbary unseen in the US-UK relationship. But the betrayal was also completely predictable, after all England is the world's number one money laundering center, its chief business is to hide dirty foreign money. Of course now that China is on a path of economic ascendance the English money launderers would scamper off and bow as low as possible to their new Chinese overlords. Half of London is still owned by the locals and that has to be changed! And again, that is why there is no such thing as Anglosphere. The English are servile bankers to whoever has the largest pot of cash, the dirtier the better. Their values are completely different from the free people of North America.
On March 23 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand this fear of China, really. Compared to it's economic growth it has been pretty unambitious imperially, apart from these Island controversies with Japan. If Russia would have developed as China they'd probably be in Italy by now.
Well yes, Russian insecurity and xenophobia is grounded by the realization that no matter how many Putin torso shots you have the economy is still the size of Italy and the demographic situation is at best 'stable' -- although a closer examination of the census is quite scary for a 'Russian Orthodox' citizen since almost all population growth that created the new stability comes from the Muslim republics they hate almost as much as they hate the 'Gay Fascism of the West'. Russia is about as 'big' and 'powerful' as it can be right now, and the path forward is of at best stagnation and probably of relative decline. Even if Putin had cobbled together his neo-Soviet Union under the banner of 'Euroasianism' it would be smaller, weaker and poorer than every other major combination he wants to compare himself. So just like Mussolini in the 1920s his chief resource is unpredictability, propaganda and willingness to gamble because just like Mussolini in the 1920s the raw numbers are so against him.
China can afford to wait, to swallow islands a decade at a time because their future is bright. Russia is in a hurry because like the 60 year olds who run it, its running out of time as a relevant world power and sliding towards a North Korea type situation, only scary because of their nukes, not because of any economic-cultural influence.
|
India has a different opinion on that I'm sure. Along with Vietnam, Japan, Philippines, Malaysia etc.
|
Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal
Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.
Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.
“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.
Source
Speaking death in the midst of negotiations is just one small reason I don't think Iran is ready to abandon its nuclear hopes in deals, and does not help to persuade me their program is purely focused on clean energy. The liberals I've talked to give explanations along the lines of, "Oh, You!"
|
On March 23 2015 07:14 Danglars wrote:Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke dealShow nested quote +Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.
Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.
“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region. SourceSpeaking death in the midst of negotiations is just one small reason I don't think Iran is ready to abandon its nuclear hopes in deals, and does not help to persuade me their program is purely focused on clean energy. The liberals I've talked to give explanations along the lines of, "Oh, You!"
Is a very embarrassing moment for Obama? yes it is.
Is is that different from the Republican letter and Netanyahu drumming up support for an invasion? No not really.
|
On March 23 2015 04:05 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 00:19 puerk wrote:On March 22 2015 23:23 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno if you'd call any Republican viable, but he's a classic Texan aspiring to higher office. Which means he wants a strong America that isn't beholden to multilateral organizations, is probably favorable to US oil interests, and is socially conservative. Whether he can soften his stances is a big question because full throated support for oil companies and deep social conservatism are requirements to survive Texas politics. Given all the questions in the EU over the last few years, I think European countries might see the value of a little more independence.
I also dunno about this narrative about the GOP as the confrontational party. All the narratives about the AIIB say it was a huge Obama administration blunder to cast this as a US vs China issue, which officials continue to do even as they try to blame Republican slowness in instituting IMF reforms, although I think the administration and Democrats were also not inclined to give China a stronger voting bloc either. To me it looked like China and the US as market competitors, but when i read the language of other aspirants for the office it looks more like "geopolitical foe". Maybe this is unfair, but when i read xdaunts commentary on foreign policy i get the feeling he wants a new cold war between the anglo saxon west and the ex communist east. It irks me that some people think Reagans "tear down this wall" actually accomplished anything other than grandstanding or such gestures somehow "won" the "war". China's rise threatens its neighbors: Japan, Vietnam, Philippines are all engaged in some kind of dispute, with China aggressively taking new territories/claims -- ie claiming all of South China Sea because its named "South China Sea". And all of these smaller countries like to America as a counter weight. Ditto Russia threatening NATO members in the Baltics and invading Ukraine while pouring virulent anti-Western propaganda on its state networks. Your racist statement, 'Anglo-Saxon West' by the way is insulting to (a) majority of Americans who arent Anglo-Saxon (b) everyone who neighbors Russia/China who doesnt want to become one of their puppets.
Just a note, but in Mandarin South China Sea is actually 南海, which means Southern Sea.
In Vietnamese, its Bien Dong, which means East Sea.
|
United States43582 Posts
And in English in England we refer to the body of water between England and France as the channel but what we mean by that is "The English Channel".
|
On March 23 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand this fear of China, really. Compared to it's economic growth it has been pretty unambitious imperially, apart from these Island controversies with Japan. If Russia would have developed as China they'd probably be in Italy by now.
Really though? It's harder to think of nearby countries that China doesn't have border disputes with than ones that it does. This alone tells the story:
]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#/media/File:South_China_Sea_vector.svg
Never mind the border disputes with India, the Imperialism displayed in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang. Word search "China in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes. It's crazy how much China is constantly encroaching on its weaker neighbors.
|
They may be numerous but they're hardly more than very limited regional conflicts. It doesn't seem like we're going to get WW 3 over some islands in the pacific, and China's foreign policy seems to be something along the lines of "stay out of our business and we're good". Now the whole Ukraine thing is already more than regional. Within one year we're pretty much back to a cold-war like situation.
If anything it seems like it would make sense for the US to try to get China over on their side to avoid the BRICS countries getting to close to each other.
|
On March 23 2015 12:50 Nyxisto wrote:
They may be numerous but they're hardly more than very limited regional conflicts. It doesn't seem like we're going to get WW 3 over some islands in the pacific, and China's foreign policy seems to be something along the lines of "stay out of our business and we're good". Now the whole Ukraine thing is already more than regional. Within one year we're pretty much back to a cold-war like situation.
If anything it seems like it would make sense for the US to try to get China over on their side to avoid the BRICS countries getting to close to each other.
The BRICS economies are slowing down tremendously anyway.
Just look at Russia and Brazil, their GDP forecasts have gone downhill.
|
On March 23 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand this fear of China, really. Compared to it's economic growth it has been pretty unambitious imperially, apart from these Island controversies with Japan. If Russia would have developed as China they'd probably be in Italy by now.
But they're not unambitious because of the goodness and peace in their hearts, it's because their ambitions are challenging countries that are too difficult to defeat in wars. If they weren't so terrified of US intervention, they would have bombed Taiwan to hell and invaded it a long time ago. And helped North Korea take over South Korea. Their intentions are surely less violent and ambitious than many in the West make it out to be, but China is no great friend to peace as a general principle. They've always done what is best for China and in general made it a point to bully their less powerful neighbors. We've just been lucky for the last 200 years of direct Western contact that China has been very weak.
I would point out that Democratic opposition to China usually points to their human rights record and awful environmental destruction, as well as their willingness to fund and arm other groups that are hostile to human rights.
Edit: Also worth pointing out that in contrast to the West, China seems to have no problems with bellicose rhetoric and talking about war quite casually. It's still not clear if that's their unique way of coping or if they're serious. They seem pretty serious when they beat up protesters or execute prisoners.
|
On March 23 2015 15:40 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 04:34 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand this fear of China, really. Compared to it's economic growth it has been pretty unambitious imperially, apart from these Island controversies with Japan. If Russia would have developed as China they'd probably be in Italy by now. But they're not unambitious because of the goodness and peace in their hearts, it's because their ambitions are challenging countries that are too difficult to defeat in wars. If they weren't so terrified of US intervention, they would have bombed Taiwan to hell and invaded it a long time ago. And helped North Korea take over South Korea. Their intentions are surely less violent and ambitious than many in the West make it out to be, but China is no great friend to peace as a general principle. They've always done what is best for China and in general made it a point to bully their less powerful neighbors. We've just been lucky for the last 200 years of direct Western contact that China has been very weak. I would point out that Democratic opposition to China usually points to their human rights record and awful environmental destruction, as well as their willingness to fund and arm other groups that are hostile to human rights.
Not to mention that there are many disturbing ethical problems in China like organ harvesting that may spread/has spread to nearby nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
