|
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. |
On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me.
Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences.
Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy.
How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids.
|
On December 06 2016 09:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited. There's a case to be made for removing it from the appointment process, but I think it's quite important for legislation.
What case is that? Our system of government was designed with specific checks and balances in mind, and a 60 vote super majority to pass legislation wasn't one of them.
I prefer a more nimble federal government which can deal with crises as they arise rather than one which endlessly wrangles for votes in a system where the minority party has little incentive to cooperate with the majority. I think the federal government's failure to promptly address issues like Zika and the Flint water crises has contributed a great deal to the contempt most Americans feel for our government. This is harmful for our democracy, and I'd be willing trade a few years of policy I disagree with for the general improvement in governance that is likely to result from getting rid of the filibuster.
|
On December 06 2016 10:14 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 09:57 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited. There's a case to be made for removing it from the appointment process, but I think it's quite important for legislation. What case is that? Our system of government was designed with specific checks and balances in mind, and a 60 vote super majority to pass legislation wasn't one of them. I prefer a more nimble federal government which can deal with crises as they arise rather than one which endlessly wrangles for votes in a system where the minority party has little incentive to cooperate with the majority. I think the federal government's failure to promptly address issues like Zika and the Flint water crises has contributed a great deal to the contempt most Americans feel for our government. This is harmful for our democracy, and I'd be willing trade a few years of policy I disagree with for the general improvement in governance that is likely to result from getting rid of the filibuster.
I don't see the failure to act on Zika as being related to the filibuster; just related to failure of governance at hte federal level generally.
I also maintain that bringing back the old filibuster rule would be sufficient; that one didn't see the kind of abuse this one does.
|
On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling...
Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution.
|
On December 06 2016 10:14 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 09:57 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2016 09:31 Mercy13 wrote:On December 06 2016 08:31 Introvert wrote:Senate Democrats are eager to make Donald Trump pay a political price for nominating staunch conservatives to fill out his Cabinet, hoping to exact revenge for the GOP's stubborn opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees.
But there is little they can do about it -- and some top Democrats are now coming to regret it.
That's because Senate Democrats muscled through an unprecedented rules change in 2013 to weaken the power of the minority party to filibuster Cabinet-level appointees and most judicial nominees, now setting the threshold at 51 votes -- rather than 60 -- to overcome tactics aimed at derailing nominations.
With the Senate GOP poised to hold 52 seats next Congress, some Democrats now say they should have thought twice before making the rules change -- known on Capitol Hill as the "nuclear option."
"I do regret that," said Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted for the rules change three years ago. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency break, to have in our system to slow down nominees."
With their power weakened, Democrats are weighing how to make life difficult for the Senate GOP.
They are planning on making the fight over Rep. Tom Price's nomination to lead the Health and Human Services Department a proxy war over the GOP's plans to to dramatically overhaul Medicare. They want to turn Steven Mnuchin's nomination to lead the Treasury into a battle over regulating Wall Street. And they want to make Sen. Jeff Sessions answer for his hard-line stands on civil rights issues and against comprehensive immigration reform.
Senate Democrats plan to make speeches and mount objections to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to quickly schedule votes to confirm much of Trump's Cabinet by the time he is inaugurated in January. Under the rules, they could delay votes from taking place for a few days at a time, temporarily slowing down the Trump agenda.
But they ultimately won't be able to stop those nominees -- unless Republicans defect and join the Democratic opposition. And that fact has begun to grate at Democrats, who have complained bitterly at Republicans' stands against Obama's nominees -- most notably their unprecedented refusal to even give the President's Supreme Court choice, Merrick Garland, a hearing. www.cnn.com I hope they just go ahead and get rid of the filibuster entirely. A super majority requirement for routine business is a step too far in our highly partisan environment. We might get some shitty legislation as a result, but I think the damage one party can do during 4-8 years is limited. There's a case to be made for removing it from the appointment process, but I think it's quite important for legislation. What case is that? Our system of government was designed with specific checks and balances in mind, and a 60 vote super majority to pass legislation wasn't one of them. I prefer a more nimble federal government which can deal with crises as they arise rather than one which endlessly wrangles for votes in a system where the minority party has little incentive to cooperate with the majority. I think the federal government's failure to promptly address issues like Zika and the Flint water crises has contributed a great deal to the contempt most Americans feel for our government. This is harmful for our democracy, and I'd be willing trade a few years of policy I disagree with for the general improvement in governance that is likely to result from getting rid of the filibuster.
Ones that you are presumably familiar with already, so I won't dwell on it too much.
First, it's a check on a one-party government. Unless there is a complete blowout, you must get some of the opposition on your side to pass something.
Second, it gives the senate a purpose. In my own opinion, the senate lost its real purpose after senator selection became a popular vote issue. Now the filibuster is an expression of the idea that the Senate was the "high" chamber, the one more removed from the popular will of the nation in the House, which is reelected every two years.
Third, the Congress still can act on things quickly. The issue with Zika funding wasn't whether or not to act, it was how (more precisely, how to pay for it). Besides, if memory serves, it wasn't just the senate that had issues with both Flint and Zika. The house couldn't come to agreement, either.
It's hard to say what would happen if the filibuster was eliminated entirely, so we have to talk in a more abstract manner. We can, however, point to many bad things that were stopped by the filibuster, but that might depend more on your political persuasion. I would be wary of running roughshod over the minority in all of government just because it's 52-48.
|
On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution.
The way you describe it would be petty;
and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion.
Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances.
|
On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances.
So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today.
|
On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today.
please discontinue your poor behavior.
I asked in a fair and reasonable fashion, you were the one who was supporting a teabagging-esque approach.
I need not know the specific grievances to say certain methods of retribution are improper. as you full well konw.
I also referred specifically not to trump's grivances, btu that the way YOU described it was petty.
|
On December 06 2016 10:11 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 08:55 TanGeng wrote:
Do banks still want 20%??? But even 20% seems doable. I don't know maybe 14k just doesn't seem like all that much to me. Where I am you need all cash to be competitive because of investors unless you want to offer like 10-30k over asking, but that varies by even small geographical differences. Likewise a mortgage would be about the same price or less than rent, I don't know if that's true everywhere, but it makes it quite attractive to buy. How does a renter based economy play into things like wealth concentration? Like it seems pretty bad if you have a middle class all renting and an upper class that gets to own + own rental property + pass all that on to kids.
In principle it shouldn't play into wealth concentration because there are other ways to hold wealth. In practice, though, if there are government programs and subsidies to encourage home ownership (which would explain buying being better than renting), then that does affect wealth concentration because it's essentially a subsidy to low and medium income families to save.
To be fair, I don't think I've ever read a rigorous study on the effect of home ownership programs on the saving rate, but it sounds plausible at first glance.
|
On December 06 2016 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2016 14:04 Slaughter wrote:
The Chinese probably aren't really that offended, they know Trump is a know nothing. Just gives them an excuse to lodge a complaint.
I'm also kinda confused as to where this confidence in Trump's savy in FP comes from to consciously pull off such a thing that XDaunt attributes to him. Sure enough.... Show nested quote +Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.
The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers about a new strategy for engagement with Taiwan that began even before he became the Republican presidential nominee, according to people involved in or briefed on the talks.
The call also reflects the views of hard-line advisers urging Trump to take a tough opening line with China, said others familiar with the months of discussion about Taiwan and China.
....
Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Indeed, advisers explicitly warned last month that relations with China were in for a shake-up.
In an article for Foreign Policy magazine titled “Donald Trump’s Peace Through Strength Vision for the Asia-Pacific,” Peter Navarro and Alexander Gray described Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy in Asia” and complained that its treatment by the Obama administration was “egregious.”
The article, flagged to China experts as a significant policy blueprint, described Taiwan as “the most militarily vulnerable U.S. partner anywhere in the world” and called for a comprehensive arms deal to help it defend itself against China.
Friday’s phone call does not necessarily mean that will happen, but it does look like the first sign of a recalibration by a future Trump administration, experts say.
It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.
Immediately after Trump won the Nov. 8 election, his staffers compiled a list of foreign leaders with whom to arrange calls. “Very early on, Taiwan was on that list,” said Stephen Yates, a national security official during the presidency of George W. Bush and an expert on China and Taiwan. “Once the call was scheduled, I was told that there was a briefing for President-elect Trump. They knew that there would be reaction and potential blowback.”
Alex Huang, a spokesman for Tsai, told the Reuters news agency, “Of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact.”
....
At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan made by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 — a priority for the Taiwan government. Also written into the 2016 platform was tougher language about China than had been in the party’s platform in its previous iteration four years ago.
“We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law,” the platform said, adding that the current documents governing U.S.-Taiwan relations should stand but adding, “China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China.”
Yates, who helped write that portion of the platform, said Trump made clear at the time that he wanted to recalibrate relationships around the world and that the U.S. posture toward China was “a personal priority.” Source. None of this is a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to what Trump has been saying since he began his campaign. All it takes is listening to what he says with an ounce of fairness. His campaign was staunchly tough on China, and he's actually doing what he campaigned on. Shocking, I know. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change," and certainly failed to deliver the "Change." We're about to see what a real "Change" president looks like -- for better or for worse.
Since I was one of the people ITT arguing that the Taiwan call showed Trump's incompetence, I should probably clarify what you think you've proven by linking the Post piece. I can't speak for others, but I, at least, was of the opinion that 1) Trump probably didn't fully understand the degree to which officially recognizing the government of Taiwan was a diplomatic faux pas, 2) that some of his more hawkish advisers probably did understand, and saw Trump as a chance to achieve their policy goals there, and 3) any strategic advantage to the call was largely undercut by the follow up response to criticism on Twitter. The Post piece appears to confirm 2), but doesn't much address 1) or 3).
If the goal was to fire a shot across China's bow, why immediately downplay the significance of the call on Twitter? If I stomp a guy's sneaker to challenge him to a fight, I don't follow it with "oops, didn't see you there." If I knock his drink off the table, I don't say "sorry, I'm a bit of a klutz." If you're talking smack, and they say "oh yeah?" you say "yeah!" Not "well hold on I didn't mean it like that."
So if calling Taiwan was meant to be standing up to China and saying "no, Taiwan is a legitimate government and I'm sick of the US pretending otherwise," why not say that? Instead he's trying to downplay it as merely a polite congratulatory call, emphasize that they CALLED HIM (which the Post piece confirms is a lie, the call was agreed to in advance by both parties), and trying to sell the narrative "it's just a polite phone call, nbd."
|
On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today.
Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary. You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This honestly sounds like a matter for the feedback thread since it's very consistently been about posting styles and is a recurring issue we talk about a lot here.
In any case, at this point I'm pretty sure that the inner circle is moving strongly enough against Romney that he will have a hard time being nominated. Sucks to be of the losing faction of the winning side.
|
Canada11363 Posts
I would quite frankly think considerably less of Romney if he joined Team Trump, just as I think quite poorly of all the other "Trump is the absolute worst candidate, but as soon as there are political goodies for me, I'm switching sides" people. Either waffle at the beginning- the wait and see approach and then join, or Never Trump and actually Never Trump.
In other words, choose either Paul approach: the Paul Ryan waffle or the Rand Paul hardline, but don't pull a Cruz.
|
On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today. Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary.
I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving.
Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond.
You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy.
I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now.
|
On December 06 2016 11:03 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 02:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 04 2016 14:04 Slaughter wrote:
The Chinese probably aren't really that offended, they know Trump is a know nothing. Just gives them an excuse to lodge a complaint.
I'm also kinda confused as to where this confidence in Trump's savy in FP comes from to consciously pull off such a thing that XDaunt attributes to him. Sure enough.... Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.
The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers about a new strategy for engagement with Taiwan that began even before he became the Republican presidential nominee, according to people involved in or briefed on the talks.
The call also reflects the views of hard-line advisers urging Trump to take a tough opening line with China, said others familiar with the months of discussion about Taiwan and China.
....
Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Indeed, advisers explicitly warned last month that relations with China were in for a shake-up.
In an article for Foreign Policy magazine titled “Donald Trump’s Peace Through Strength Vision for the Asia-Pacific,” Peter Navarro and Alexander Gray described Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy in Asia” and complained that its treatment by the Obama administration was “egregious.”
The article, flagged to China experts as a significant policy blueprint, described Taiwan as “the most militarily vulnerable U.S. partner anywhere in the world” and called for a comprehensive arms deal to help it defend itself against China.
Friday’s phone call does not necessarily mean that will happen, but it does look like the first sign of a recalibration by a future Trump administration, experts say.
It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.
Immediately after Trump won the Nov. 8 election, his staffers compiled a list of foreign leaders with whom to arrange calls. “Very early on, Taiwan was on that list,” said Stephen Yates, a national security official during the presidency of George W. Bush and an expert on China and Taiwan. “Once the call was scheduled, I was told that there was a briefing for President-elect Trump. They knew that there would be reaction and potential blowback.”
Alex Huang, a spokesman for Tsai, told the Reuters news agency, “Of course both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact.”
....
At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan made by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 — a priority for the Taiwan government. Also written into the 2016 platform was tougher language about China than had been in the party’s platform in its previous iteration four years ago.
“We salute the people of Taiwan, with whom we share the values of democracy, human rights, a free market economy, and the rule of law,” the platform said, adding that the current documents governing U.S.-Taiwan relations should stand but adding, “China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China.”
Yates, who helped write that portion of the platform, said Trump made clear at the time that he wanted to recalibrate relationships around the world and that the U.S. posture toward China was “a personal priority.” Source. None of this is a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to what Trump has been saying since he began his campaign. All it takes is listening to what he says with an ounce of fairness. His campaign was staunchly tough on China, and he's actually doing what he campaigned on. Shocking, I know. Obama campaigned on "Hope and Change," and certainly failed to deliver the "Change." We're about to see what a real "Change" president looks like -- for better or for worse. Since I was one of the people ITT arguing that the Taiwan call showed Trump's incompetence, I should probably clarify what you think you've proven by linking the Post piece. I can't speak for others, but I, at least, was of the opinion that 1) Trump probably didn't fully understand the degree to which officially recognizing the government of Taiwan was a diplomatic faux pas, 2) that some of his more hawkish advisers probably did understand, and saw Trump as a chance to achieve their policy goals there, and 3) any strategic advantage to the call was largely undercut by the follow up response to criticism on Twitter. The Post piece appears to confirm 2), but doesn't much address 1) or 3).
No, the article is largely silent on 1) and 3). With regards to Number 1, why would you doubt that testing China is something that Trump would do given that he campaigned heavily on an anti-Chinese platform?
If the goal was to fire a shot across China's bow, why immediately downplay the significance of the call on Twitter? If I stomp a guy's sneaker to challenge him to a fight, I don't follow it with "oops, didn't see you there." If I knock his drink off the table, I don't say "sorry, I'm a bit of a klutz." If you're talking smack, and they say "oh yeah?" you say "yeah!" Not "well hold on I didn't mean it like that."
So if calling Taiwan was meant to be standing up to China and saying "no, Taiwan is a legitimate government and I'm sick of the US pretending otherwise," why not say that? Instead he's trying to downplay it as merely a polite congratulatory call, emphasize that they CALLED HIM (which the Post piece confirms is a lie, the call was agreed to in advance by both parties), and trying to sell the narrative "it's just a polite phone call, nbd."
The twitter thing is easy to explain. Politicians often use public statements to massage and soften the blows of actions that they have taken. Trump's backtracking on twitter is all part of the game. He was merely setting the tone that he wanted. Keep in mind that Trump does business with the Chinese so he knows how to speak to and deal with them. His likely appointment of Governor Branstad to be Ambassador to China (who is friendly with the Chinese president) plays into this as well given that Branstad would be ideal to make the tough asks (or "tells") that Trump is going to want to make in the coming years. There's clearly a larger plan at work.
|
On December 06 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today. Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary. I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving. Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond. Show nested quote +You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy. I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now.
If you don't disagree with being described as "vindictive with a heaping helping of schadenfreude" why do you care if zlefin criticizes you for that? He seems to think (as do I) that it's inappropriate to wish harm on another human being because you disagree with them politically, and that taking joy in another's pain is a troubling attitude that should be discouraged in all but the most extreme circumstances. It appears you disagree with that opinion, but why the bad blood? He's criticizing you for something you freely admit to but don't think is bad. Again, feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized you somewhere because it seems to me you've been pretty clear.
|
On December 06 2016 11:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today. Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary. I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving. Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond. You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy. I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now. If you don't disagree with being described as "vindictive with a heaping helping of schadenfreude" why do you care if zlefin criticizes you for that? He seems to think (as do I) that it's inappropriate to wish harm on another human being because you disagree with them politically, and that taking joy in another's pain is a troubling attitude that should be discouraged in all but the most extreme circumstances. It appears you disagree with that opinion, but why the bad blood? He's criticizing you for something you freely admit to but don't think is bad. Again, feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized you somewhere because it seems to me you've been pretty clear.
There's a very big difference between pettiness and true retribution.
|
|
|
This phone call nonsense amuses me, seriously what is China's response to an actual recognition of Taiwan? What are they going to do that they already haven't? We are mutually dependent on each other, and they are already taking advantage of the rules. China can be butt hurt about it but that's all there is to it. And given this phone call was no where even close to that and contained little to no substance, im seeing quite the over reaction.
|
On December 06 2016 11:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 11:50 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 11:30 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 11:07 ChristianS wrote:On December 06 2016 10:49 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 06 2016 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 09:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 06 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
As much as we can compare people's experience and qualifications and what stances they've taken, it may be as simple as Trump not seeing the need to have another personality in the vein of Pence in one of the highest level posts that causes him to pass on Romney. He's already got that person at the top, so I expect a Corker/Petraeus/Huntsman. And he might not want to copy Obama with respect to making near-presidents head of the State Department. And then there's simply the backlash already. It could be Corker, maybe Petraeus, but I have a hard time believing that Trump would pick Huntsman. Regardless, I will be highly amused if Trump's "consideration" of Romney turns out to be nothing more than a multi-week public teabagging of someone who severely crossed him during the campaign. I'd find having someone so vindictive/petty in a position of power to be quite troubling... Petty? What Romney did is deserving of righteous retribution. The way you describe it would be petty; and at any case i'd call it improper to retribute in such a fashion. Which Romney act(s) are the ones you object to? I know some stuff happened, but don't have a strong knowledge of the particular grievances. So you admit that you don't even really know what Romney did, but you nevertheless feel quite comfortable in making judgments regarding my characterization of what Romney did and my feeling that Trump is justified in his retribution (presuming that he's even doing it). Damn, you're on a roll today. Zlefin doesn't need to have read Mitt Romney's biography to realize your perspective has been consistently vindictive, with a heaping helping of schadenfreude. If you disagree with that characterization I can go try to find quotes on which I'm basing that assessment, but I suspect that won't be necessary. I don't really disagree with any of this, and I've been quite open on these points previously. I'm a very firm believer in the value of retribution. And I firmly believe that what Romney did is worthy of the humiliation that he currently is receiving. Likewise, when someone unnecessarily -- and without provocation -- attacks me personally twice in a day with shitposts that are patently absurd, I'm going to respond. You've been pretty clear about how much you're enjoying everyone's panic and disillusionment in American democracy. I'd phrase this differently. I'm enjoying the baseless hysteria and temper tantrums that are running rampant through some elements of the left (and, in more limited cases, the right) right now. If you don't disagree with being described as "vindictive with a heaping helping of schadenfreude" why do you care if zlefin criticizes you for that? He seems to think (as do I) that it's inappropriate to wish harm on another human being because you disagree with them politically, and that taking joy in another's pain is a troubling attitude that should be discouraged in all but the most extreme circumstances. It appears you disagree with that opinion, but why the bad blood? He's criticizing you for something you freely admit to but don't think is bad. Again, feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized you somewhere because it seems to me you've been pretty clear. There's a very big difference between pettiness and true retribution.
Are you counting your vindictiveness as the latter? Because I'm pretty sure I remember you writing something along the lines of "I admit that my position is petty." This is too bad, because I thought you had accepted and owned up to your pleasure at the suffering of both liberals and establishment conservatives throughout the country being largely petty and vindictive, and I could kind of respect the self-awareness of that, at least. Am I to understand you think this is justified as some righteous retribution on those people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
