EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6599
| 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
| ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:40 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: why are there prayers at the inauguration of the president? because god bless the united states of america | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:35 Doodsmack wrote: There's an interesting quote from president trump. I mean, he's said stuff that would indicate he wants others to have more nukes, but I've also seen him directly twit out that he doesn't want that. I expect the consensus among his advisory to be much less... conflicted on that matter. On January 21 2017 01:40 Makro wrote: because god bless the united states of america God spends a lot of his free time blessing America. That's why it's so successful. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: What do all the different types of hanging flags represent? One even has a EU like circle of stars Actually the government even has a whole website to answer your question: https://share.america.gov/symbolism-of-flags-at-trumps-inauguration/ | ||
|
nafta
Bulgaria18893 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:45 Ayaz2810 wrote: could really do without all the religious bullshit. really unnecessary, and it makes me cringe to hear adult people pledging their unwavering loyalty to an invisible father, son, and holy spirit or whatever. yuck. Not gonna lie the edgy 14 year old atheists are way worse. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 20 2017 20:28 OtherWorld wrote: Yeah, and it's particularly surprising in a country that's usually so shy of showing open nationalism. I'm actually surprised huge military parades are not a common thing in the USA already. They technically are. Not huge ones, mind you, but local Military parades happen all the time. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:18 LegalLord wrote: The real issue, though, is that in a lot of ways Russia has shifted its focus towards Asia more so than towards Europe. If Obama's administration had an "Asia pivot" in the works then Russia had the same idea. Europe is the place of "old money" and the one with the closest proximity to the currently developed European Russia. But look at which nations Russia has been fostering deeper ties with lately - Syria, Iran, China, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Japan, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. There's a lot more development to be done in East/Central Siberia than in European Russia, which is already quite developed. Crimea was a strategic interest; wars have been fought over that peninsula so this is nothing new. From a naval perspective it's an extremely important island, worth the costs of developing it. Most other possible territories, not so much. Most of East Europe is a neighbor more so than an opportunity. Economically, the "potential gain" is kind of moot - Ukraine, for example, is a basket case the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy, and even the EU is loathe to truly take that upon itself in the way that full membership would entail. Yes, there are, "rebuild the USSR" imperialists remaining, but they're mostly a minority, because the consensus is mostly that as long as there aren't hostile troops on Russia's border, those nations really don't belong within some form of Russian empire. It's fostering deeper ties where it can. Most countries have a net negative opinion of Russia, and a suddenly protectionist US could change that opinion. Russia's attention is also in Asia thanks to massive sanctions. Europe is one of the few regions calling them out on their actions, so weakening them would be a benefit in and of itself. Eastern Ukraine is not currently occupied out of strategic concerns but much rather to weaken the position of Ukraine. Source The very idea of an empire is not that of gaining economically, but expanding power, while reducing the power of others. Think of the Red Line scenario in Syria (The NATO treaty), except now in regards to Europe, and Trump backing out. Massive gain, right there. Reversing that would take decades, during which Russia could blackmail Central Asia at will. As for the consensus, that's a rather dubious claim, especially unsourced, considering the massive military exercise right next to my border in 2017, military parades with pictures of Stalin, the change of the national anthem to include the soviet melody in it, Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century... Oh, and of course this, from your own RT: https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/ On January 21 2017 01:13 mustaju wrote: And the exception that in that analogy, Mexico, after being liberated, would ask foreign countries to help defending itself. Suddenly quite a different picture. Not really, because the question is about how the US/Russia would react rather than how Mexico/EE would react. Though if we want, we could talk about that too, because "East Europe" isn't just one nation. The reaction and how one would see it depends on previous history. Russia has no right to tell countries what defensive alliances it's formerly occupied people can and cannot form. On January 21 2017 01:13 mustaju wrote: But understandable, given the presumption that you have no academic background in studying the region. This leap of logic is quite common, especially in, funnily enough, Russia, and far less anywhere else! NATO happens to be big deal. Not exactly just an "expensive addition." I can see this is kind of personal for you, in a way that clouds your judgment and makes this discussion quite difficult to have in any productive manner. For the record, I am not having this conversation to convince you, but much rather, to persuade others not to take your positions. It being personal for me does not exactly disprove my points. Your biases are as less plain than mine, but you are lenient towards Russia with reckless disregard of the concerns of the allies of the United States. These have been voiced at the highest levels of governments, and are partly representative of the concerns of people in your own legislature. I have read a fair bit of academic work, including from the Baltic folks, on the matter. To say that I disagree with their interpretation of events would be an understatement. Sources, please. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:48 nafta wrote: Not gonna lie the edgy 14 year old atheists are way worse. You can add hardcore atheists above the age of 14 to that list just as well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: It's fostering deeper ties where it can. Most countries have a net negative opinion of Russia, and a suddenly protectionist US could change that opinion. Russia's attention is also in Asia thanks to massive sanctions. Europe is one of the few regions calling them out on their actions, so weakening them would be a benefit in and of itself. Eastern Ukraine is not currently occupied out of strategic concerns but much rather to weaken the position of Ukraine. Source The very idea of an empire is not that of gaining economically, but expanding power, while reducing the power of others. Think of the Red Line scenario in Syria (The NATO treaty), except now in regards to Europe, and Trump backing out. Massive gain, right there. Reversing that would take decades, during which Russia could blackmail Central Asia at will. As for the consensus, that's a rather dubious claim, especially unsourced, considering the massive military exercise right next to my border in 2017, military parades with pictures of Stalin, the change of the national anthem to include the soviet melody in it, Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century... Oh, and of course this, from your own RT: https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/ I'll get back to this discussion later, I have work to do right now and it would take too much time to give you a response I would find reasonably comprehensive. | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On January 20 2017 20:06 Biff The Understudy wrote: We do this shit in France every year. Usually we invite some african dictators to watch with the president. It's a national disgrace. the african dictators maybe, but i don't get how you think the parade is a national disgrace whatever | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1913 Posts
I guess the nominee could not have a majority in the senate, othen than that, are there ever people rejected? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: They technically are. Not huge ones, mind you, but local Military parades happen all the time. Doing it on a national level is the problem. The opinion has probably dissipated somewhat, but state/local militias are one of the core founding principles of the US. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:57 Broetchenholer wrote: So, are all the hearings of designated secretaries of the Trump administration the same as the one of Betsy DeVos? The democrats ask questions on the background and the ideas of the person to be instated? The person evades answering them. And the Republicans talk to length about how great the new secretary would be and how she is the best, then throw a softball and everybody moves on? I guess the nominee could not have a majority in the senate, othen than that, are there ever people rejected? The Republicans are generally more softball, with few exceptions. To a large extent, for all the nominees, they do a lot of asking about, "do you got my back on these policies I want to pass?" Cabinet nominees are very rarely voted down, though. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:57 Broetchenholer wrote: So, are all the hearings of designated secretaries of the Trump administration the same as the one of Betsy DeVos? The democrats ask questions on the background and the ideas of the person to be instated? The person evades answering them. And the Republicans talk to length about how great the new secretary would be and how she is the best, then throw a softball and everybody moves on? I guess the nominee could not have a majority in the senate, othen than that, are there ever people rejected? that one is exceptionally bad. more oftne the nominee is at least competent for the position and can answer some of the question from the other side intelligently. It's still pretty common to be thrown softballs from your own party though. And a lot of times in any public hearing the questions from the senator are more an excuse for them to talk to the camera and make their own statements than to actually ask a question of the candidate. there's some articles on rejection patterns, my recollection is that they're almost never rejected, and if they are it's usually because a scandal was uncovered. a bit more often than that, but still rare, is that a nominee withdraws, generally because of a scandal uncovered, and the president doesn't want to spend the political capital on them. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 21 2017 01:57 Broetchenholer wrote: I guess the nominee could not have a majority in the senate, othen than that, are there ever people rejected? Sometimes, but then some jerk nominates them again a few decades later. | ||
| ||
