EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6359
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21601 Posts
On December 03 2016 19:49 Clonester wrote: From the outside, the plan of Trump looks pretty smart: Trigger mainland China to follow there "one china policy" by keep doing no apropiate stuff with Taiwan till China outlaws all contact to the US and Apple has to produce their smartphones somewhere else. Then raise tarifs and taxis on imported goods from "low income countries" so they cant produce them in vietnam or another low income place. So aside from all the usual problems that tariffs bring for creating competitive products you also lock the US out of the biggest market in the world? Sounds like a brilliant idea. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On December 03 2016 20:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yeah brilliant plan except for Globalization and all that. Well, Trump was voted with a mandate to protect his voters from this form of Globalization, no matter if you think it would hurt the US. economy. It is obvious that China profites much more then the US from the US-China trade when you count out companies like Apple or Microsoft who hide 200 Billion $ (Microsoft 100 Billionen $) in some tax heaven island. Trump was voted to do something against this and forcing the chinese to act by embrathing the democratic taiwan is a pretty smart way in doing this brute force anti globalisation campaign. On December 03 2016 20:11 Gorsameth wrote: So aside from all the usual problems that tariffs bring for creating competitive products you also lock the US out of the biggest market in the world? Sounds like a brilliant idea. The biggest market in the world you cant export into, because he taxes and tarifs everything from yourside following all your industry to produce in their country with the 51-49 joint venture rule? Great. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 03 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote: Or a way to say that [...] "I'm the first woman running for president and that's why you should vote for me" and "anyone who opposes our team is a racist sexist xenophobe" really isn't ok. Two completely dishonest strawmen that were never uttered by Clinton or her campaign. On December 03 2016 06:02 LegalLord wrote: There was definitely a disgusting amount of identity politics at play there under the banner of false inclusiveness. First, I'd love to hear how you came to the conclusion that the policies and discourses put forward by the Democrats to defend minorities, help them against some of the specific obstacles they still face in our societies, and fight divisiveness, qualify as "false inclusiveness", as opposed to actual inclusiveness. Second, I'll repeat what I said before: to a significant extent, the term "identity politics" has been used here and in the public debate by people complaining about positions, arguments and policies designed to help groups that are not specifically white men -- because apparently if those policies and arguments address issues faced by minority groups, they are to be dismissed as "identity politics" distracting from the "real" issues. Obviously, this is not to say that white men should be ignored by policymakers, or that only policies and ideas helping minorities specifically should be developed and implemented. It doesn't mean either that we can't have legitimate debates on how to address the issues faced by minorities, intersectionality, the interplay between economic, racial, gender issues, etc. But it is clear from how the term "identity politics" has been used that it is frequently employed to dismiss and de-legitimize the addressing of issues and concerns faced specifically by minorities. A few good reads for those interested: A great article by Moirai Weigel on how "political correctness" has been largely (re-)invented and strategically used by the right as a boogeyman to push its reactionary agenda. Hadley Freeman's column calling out the use of the term "identity politics" only when it comes to minorities. Owen Jones' column (that I linked to previously) on why defending the working class also requires the left to not back down from defending certain groups in particular. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 02 2016 06:05 xDaunt wrote: There are just a lot of butthurt liberals who are upset that they didn't think of what Trump did first. Yes, tax incentives are something nobody thought of before Trump, especially not as part of much better thought out, economically sound, and comprehensive plans. Oh wait. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7881 Posts
On December 03 2016 20:11 Gorsameth wrote: So aside from all the usual problems that tariffs bring for creating competitive products you also lock the US out of the biggest market in the world? Sounds like a brilliant idea. I just love it when conservative try to find a super cunning rational behind Trump's completely erratic and amateurish handling of the protocol. He has basically already blundered everything there were to fuck up: a small list of his "unusual" moves after three weeks of not being yet in office. What's interesting is that dude has been elected on the prospect of being a "strong leader" because he had a fucking gigantic mouth, but is already looking like an extremely weak one: insiders say he tends to agree with the last person he talked to, he has clearly no other ideology than himself and his erratic behaviour is mostly based on an incredibly thin skin. The fact he has absolutely no idea about protocols and how to behave and apparently doesn't listen to anyone who does is also no good sign for America's place in the world. Popcorns, anyone? The US are gonna look really great the next four years. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21601 Posts
On December 03 2016 22:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: I just love it when conservative try to find a super cunning rational behind Trump's completely erratic and amateurish handling of the protocol. He has basically already blundered everything there were to fuck up: a small list of his "unusual" moves after three weeks of not being yet in office. What's interesting is that dude has been elected on the prospect of being a "strong leader" because he had a fucking gigantic mouth, but is already looking like an extremely weak one: insiders say he tends to agree with the last person he talked to, he has clearly no other ideology than himself and his erratic behaviour is mostly based on an incredibly thin skin. The fact he has absolutely no idea about protocols and how to behave and apparently doesn't listen to anyone who does is also no good sign for America's place in the world. Popcorns, anyone? The US are gonna look really great the next four years. Doing unusual things is not a bad thing to those who voted for him, he was elected on the basis of not being the establishment so they want him to do things differently and 'unusual' | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
China's wanting to conquer Taiwan seems undiplomatic to me. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7881 Posts
On December 03 2016 22:38 Gorsameth wrote: Doing unusual things is not a bad thing to those who voted for him, he was elected on the basis of not being the establishment so they want him to do things differently and 'unusual' Yes, the problem lies in the subtle difference between "different" and "totally random due to absolute incompetence". Let see how long it takes his elecorate to figure that out. Personally i find amusing to imagine the horror of that guy realizing the gigantic consequences of every misstep he will make while his whole life has been about making a brand of getting away with outrageous stuff because he's very rich. His blunders are already making the headlines in the whole world. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On December 03 2016 23:34 Incognoto wrote: Should Taiwan not be recognized as an independent country? China's wanting to conquer Taiwan seems undiplomatic to me. Well, what happened was that CCP(Mainland) defeated the KMT(Taiwan) during the civil war. The KMT took most of the gold, the technology blueprints, the China's military with them to the Island of Taiwan. At that time the Mainland is left desolated in poverty and Taiwan was VERY strong in terms of economy/technology. Later in 1992, the TAIWANESE officials proposed on the "One China, Two System" policy because Taiwan wanted to utilize Mainland's cheap labor and over 1 billion population market to further increase their economy and the fact that they still wanted the Mainland. But then through globalization Mainlanders' local companies of learning of other countries' tech, they themselves have learned the ropes of utilizing capitalism to their advantage. So as Mainland's company started rising, Taiwan companies' competitive edge have dramatically been neutered. Now basically, pretty much all of Taiwanese' top companies are dependent on the Mainland's labor and their market. So even if they want to become "independent", they simply can't, not just because of military reason but primarily economically. And we all know that a country's political decisions are heavily tied to its economy. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9111 Posts
On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote: Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good." Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'd replace every instance of 'status-quo' with 'professionalism' in that post for it to reflect what is actually the matter with his diplomatic blunders. And yes, we have to preserve it because it is so good compared to the alternative. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7881 Posts
On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote: Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good." Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. The problem is not that people absolutely want the statu quo. The problem is that the statu quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the statu quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse. Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. "Anti establishment" kids will have to grow up one day and realize that things could be (and can get) really much much much MUCH worse. I expect them to cheer at each of Trump's blunder for months, rationalizing it with cunning poker interpretations of what is basically amateurism, or simply with a-la-white-dog reasonings that things are so bad and the establishment so corrupt that any change at all is great. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On December 03 2016 20:16 Clonester wrote: Well, Trump was voted with a mandate to protect his voters from this form of Globalization, no matter if you think it would hurt the US. economy. No he wasn't. He lost the popular vote by a couple million, that is just about as small a mandate a president entering office can have. Add to that his rock bottom approval ratings, and he doesn't have a mandate for shit. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On December 03 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote: Is it just me or has the mainstream left-leaning media taken a remarkably pro-status-quo direction in recent times? The implication from a lot of articles from WaPo, NYTimes, etc., especially as regarding Trump's phone calls, seems to boil down to, "we have to preserve the status quo because it's so good." Maybe it's always been that way and I didn't really notice (the conservatives here might know), or maybe Hillary Clinton poisoned the discussion by being the frontrunner and got the mainstream media to echo her talking points as if they were genuine sentiments of the actual populace. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). On December 04 2016 00:34 Biff The Understudy wrote: The problem is not that people absolutely want the status quo. The problem is that the status quo is better than chaos and that if you want to change the status quo you have to do it with care, professionalism and in a thoughtful way so you just don't end up with something simply worse. Things are the way they are for a reason and no, not all changes are good. Change is great when it's in the right direction. When it's just generated by ignorance and incompetence, it usually isn't. Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). I suppose that I was very vague and I should provide some context. This article was what sparked my commentary. MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines said on Saturday that President-elect Donald J. Trump had endorsed his brutal antidrug campaign, telling Mr. Duterte that the Philippines was conducting it “the right way.” Mr. Duterte, who spoke with Mr. Trump by telephone on Friday, said Mr. Trump was “quite sensitive” to “our worry about drugs.” “He wishes me well, too, in my campaign, and he said that, well, we are doing it as a sovereign nation, the right way,” Mr. Duterte said. There was no immediate response from Mr. Trump to Mr. Duterte’s description of the phone call, and his transition team could not be reached for comment. Since his election last month, Mr. Trump has held a series of unscripted calls with foreign leaders, several of which have broken radically from past American policies and diplomatic practice. A call on Friday with the president of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, appeared to be out of sync with four decades of United States policy toward China and prompted a Chinese call to the White House. Mr. Duterte has led a campaign against drug abuse in which he has encouraged the police and others to kill people they suspect of using or selling drugs. Since he took office in June, more than 2,000 people have been killed by the police in what officers describe as drug raids, and the police say several hundred more have been killed by vigilantes. The program has been condemned by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and others for what rights organizations have characterized as extrajudicial killings. In rejecting such criticism from the United States this fall, Mr. Duterte called Mr. Obama a “son of a whore.” In a summary of the phone call with Mr. Trump released by Mr. Duterte’s office on Saturday morning, Mr. Duterte said the two had spoken for just a few minutes but covered many topics, including the antidrug campaign. “I could sense a good rapport, an animated President-elect Trump,” Mr. Duterte said. “And he was wishing me success in my campaign against the drug problem.” Mr. Duterte added: “He understood the way we are handling it, and I said that there’s nothing wrong in protecting a country. It was a bit very encouraging in the sense that I supposed that what he really wanted to say was that we would be the last to interfere in the affairs of your own country.” Mr. Duterte, who has said he was seeking “a separation” from the United States, a longtime ally, and has threatened to bar American troops from his country, also said, “We assured him of our ties with America.” He did not elaborate on that comment. Mr. Duterte also said that Mr. Trump had invited him to visit New York and Washington, and that Mr. Trump said he wanted to attend the summit meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations next year in the Philippines. Mr. Duterte has often been compared to Mr. Trump for his blunt speech and populist positions. “I appreciate the response that I got from President-elect Trump, and I would like to wish him success,” Mr. Duterte said. “He will be a good president for the United States of America.” I mean, on the face of it, sure, it could be seen that Trump is being criticized for doing some questionable things (talking to Duterte and Tsai Ing-wen). And yet I do get the feeling that there is a definitive "status quo" undertone in all of it, in how it cites "four decades of policy towards China" (as if "we will only pseudo-acknowledge Taiwan's independence while officially saying we don't" is a policy without controversy) and "condemnation by the UN, EU, and US" (a very direct statement of "the establishment government has a consensus on this issue") in order to inject value judgments into these actions. In short, it really looks like they're trying to use status quo sentiment to say that Trump is bad, and by doing so they tie themselves to that status quo in a way that really is inconsistent with the decidedly populist/progressive trajectory that the party is likely to take in the future. It really sounds like something straight out of the Clinton camp and I do not feel that that is the right direction for the party to go if it wants to remain viable in the future. Though perhaps an even better example is these four articles on the TPP (again, popular with the Clinton camp but generally unpopular with much of the Democratic base and most of its more future-minded members), and of course the WaPo Russia "fake news" article that is by now well-known around these parts. In their opposition to Trump (and possibly their support of Clinton from start to finish), they're tying themselves to the status quo in a way that does not do them much good. Certainly it's not immediately apparent, but I see it now more than ever after Trump won and I'm wondering if anyone else does. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I don't really see it as tying into clinton directly; just they both share the sense of giving credence to experts who actually understand the topics. I don't get a vibe of status quo, so much as a sense of "this is what people who actually know what they're talking about think". and the challenges aren't from well-thought out, sound critiques, but from politician's misrepresentations. Whether it does the newspapers much good; hard to say, I do'nt know what newspaper sales are like. but outrage articles tend to sell well, and these are outrage articles that may please parts of their liberal base? or arguably they're trying to be actually responsible. This election is in small part an anti-intellectual reaction against experts. While sometimes experts are wrong, they're often right, and ignoring them often comes with a cost. Such anti-intellectuallism is a common strain in america though, so not that surprising. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The same argument has been made here, often enough, about the use of the term "racism" in a similar manner. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7881 Posts
On December 04 2016 01:31 CosmicSpiral wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you implying that the left-leaning media is not being progressive enough in its criticisms, their opposition to Trump necessities them defending the status quo, or that they are protesting what they perceive to be incompetence? Obviously they will defend the current state of things if they perceive that Trump will make them worse (according to their own standards). Such a rationale is a pretty useless justification for...anything. Or rather, it's a very selective justification that favors whoever gets to set the standards of the discussion; after all, stubborn adherence to past standards is something that conservatives are routinely criticized for. I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 04 2016 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'm all for change as long it's done on purpose and to a positive end. If your change comes from incompetence and blundering, I chise the statu quo any day and twice on sunday. The Afa for example is change. The Iran deal is change. The cuba reopening is change. But it's deliberate and trying to improve a situation. Ruining relationship with your partners because you are completely unaware of diplomatic protocol is also change but you would have to be really delusionnal to think it's a good thing or some deep poker move. It's neither, just incompetence and accumulating blunders won't improve the situation, hiwever bad you think it is (and it's not nearly as bad as it could be.) Well, regardless of whether you think it's ultimately good policy or bad policy, do you think the "US commitment to a One China policy" is something so uncontroversial that any deviation from it would be an unspeakable faux pas? | ||
| ||
