US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3415

On March 22 2016 04:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I wonder who AIPAC prefers out of Trump, Cruz, and Clinton. The only candidate in the running they wouldn't want is Sanders probably-heck, he and Rand Paul are pretty much the only ones I can think of AIPAC wouldn't love having elected this cycle.

On March 22 2016 04:17 puerk wrote:
how is the aipac still a thing that gets taken seriously?

[Trump] questioned the United States’ continued involvement in NATO and, on the subject of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, charged that America’s allies are "not doing anything."

"Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting," Trump said. "They’re not doing anything. And I say: 'Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.' "

Trump declared U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."

Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there.

“South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do," Trump said. "We’re constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing."

Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, "Personally, I don’t think so." He added, "I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation."

Source

On March 22 2016 04:22 frazzle wrote:

Why not like Sanders? He may not be full-bore pro-Israel, but he does (I think according to the way some see it) have dual-citizenship and is jewish, and he isn't Chomsky level anti-israel, so I can't imagine they would be totally against Sanders.

As for Trump, well:
Anti-Defamation League redirects Trump donations to anti-bias efforts

Rabbis, Jewish leaders plan boycott of Donald Trump at AIPAC


I think many in the Jewish community are turned off by his Muslim ban, his failure to distance himself enough from the White power supporters, and maybe by his supposed stance against the Iraq war.

On March 22 2016 04:25 farvacola wrote:
Sanders represents a demographic that AIPAC likes to pretend doesn't exist.

On March 22 2016 04:41 KwarK wrote:
Historically speaking there is a reason why the rest of the Western world doesn't like it when Germany starts throwing its weight around in Europe. Sure, ever since unification Germany has been a superpower surpassing the old world powers and now only outmatched by the likes of the United States and China. But I think there is a consensus that while Germany could very easily be a superpower we're all much happier if they pretend to just be a normal country and act like they couldn't swallow Europe again if they wanted.

On March 22 2016 04:24 oneofthem wrote:

being jewish doesn't mean aipac likes you lol. their worst enemy is the leftist jews

"His views on Israel were pretty consistent with center-left people," the aide said. "There was never any question like whether the country should exist or anything. He was a pro-peace process member.”

But the former aide added that Sanders tended to put more emphasis on the rights and suffering of Palestinians than did many other members of Congress. "If you talked about Israel, he would always talk about the suffering of Palestinians as well," he said. "In D.C., that can be seen by some people as being anti-Israel.”

On March 22 2016 04:41 KwarK wrote:
Historically speaking there is a reason why the rest of the Western world doesn't like it when Germany starts throwing its weight around in Europe. Sure, ever since unification Germany has been a superpower surpassing the old world powers and now only outmatched by the likes of the United States and China. But I think there is a consensus that while Germany could very easily be a superpower we're all much happier if they pretend to just be a normal country and act like they couldn't swallow Europe again if they wanted.

On March 22 2016 04:53 frazzle wrote:

The extent to which politicians have to go to NOT be considered anti-Israel is pretty ridiculous

From Politico:


He's an American Jew that supports a two-state solution, but disapproves of Israel's settlement policy and their asymmetrical/disproportionate response to Palestinian rocket attacks. That makes him anti-Israel. Right. I guess by that same logic being against the Iraq war truly did mean you hated America.

On March 22 2016 04:50 Ghanburighan wrote:


Obviously countries like Poland are uncomfortable with Germany taking on a lead role in the EU, but I'd say that's complicated (history and current Polish politics intermingled)... And I don't think a very good case can be made that Germany is finding it easy to lead even within the EU. It has only tried seriously for maybe a decade, and the EU is showing major fractures as Germany is failing to push its vision on countries such as the UK, Greece, Hungary, only to name a few.

But to say that Germany is even a regional superpower is overstating it, and it's pretty ridiculous to say it has any kind of superpower role militarily. For example, it has nearly no say in NATO compared to countries like France or the UK. Sure, it can veto NATO action, but so can Bulgaria.

On March 22 2016 04:49 cLutZ wrote:


He also embraces the rhetoric (albeit in a different context) of the "Oppressors vs. Oppressed" that is routinely levied against Israel, and is basically the consensus way of thought on the Israel-Palestine situation throughout the Muslim world.

I mean, they are a country that has to be on constant vigilance regarding worldwide rhetoric surrounding their situation, as its fairly unprecedented. How often are lands won during a defensive war that are contiguous with your previous borders, and traditionally part of the state to which you are a successor, still considered disputed internationally? Its like if the UN said Alsace and Prussia are still possibly German territory.

On March 22 2016 04:57 frazzle wrote:

If they embraced the Palestinians they conquered and integrated them into the state of Israel that would be one thing. Expelling Palestinians from their land and explicitly having a policy of maintaining a Jewish majority state is another.