|
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 February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other.
The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell.
China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West.
if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown.
unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests.
however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost.
just strictly on the transparency issue, the eu can be a replacement in some aspects. but when (not if) trump rekts the FCPA and banking secrecy laws (laws that his businesses were fined under repeatedly btw), there won't be any eu replacement for those.
|
On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost.
I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect.
Western leaders are distancing themselves from Trump. China may try to use it as an opportunity to present itself as a more favourable partner then an erratic US under Trump.
|
I think you're vastly underestimating the concern the west should have over Chinese dominion over the SCS. its the beginning and the end of any influence china has over global trade and should be held firm on for the future.
If people are willing to go buddy up with a maoist communist dictatorship thats at odds with a bunch of other more economically promising countries in asia that their terrible FP decision to make.
|
As a Monday deadline approached for the filing of briefs for and against Donald Trump’s executive order blocking refugee admissions and travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, 100 leading companies and figures from the Obama administration, including John Kerry, led efforts to bring the ban down.
The ninth circuit court of appeals in San Francisco set the 6pm ET (3pm PT) deadline for the new briefs, having on Saturday rejected a government application for an emergency stay of the ruling by Seattle judge James Robart that suspended the order on Friday.
As both travel from the countries involved and refugee admissions continued unhindered, feelings on each side of the issue were running high, after Trump spent the weekend attacking Robart.
On Sunday afternoon, the president used Twitter to say “blame” would lie with Robart and the courts “if something happens”, apparently implying a terrorist attack.
In briefs filed early on Monday, lawyers for Washington state and Minnesota told the appeals court it would “unleash chaos again” if it lifted the Trump order. The briefs said Trump’s travel ban harmed residents, businesses and universities and was unconstitutional.
In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s signing of the order, 10 days ago, airports saw large protests as travellers with valid visas were stopped from entering the country.
White House sources including the president have insisted only 109 people were affected and said most were merely delayed. Government figures for the number of visas revoked worldwide before the ban was suspended ranged from 60,000 to 100,000.
Tech giants Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, eBay, Netflix and Uber were among the signatories to the companies’ brief, filed on Sunday, as were Levi Strauss and Chobani. Amazon, which supported efforts which led to the Seattle ruling, did not sign. Nor did Tesla and SpaceX.
“The order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than 50 years,” the brief stated.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 07 2017 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost. I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect. Western leaders are distancing themselves from Trump. China may try to use it as an opportunity to present itself as a more favourable partner then an erratic US under Trump.
What I was getting at, though, is that Western people are distancing themselves from Trump. Dunno about the populists (they have their own concerns) but pretty much everyone else says "don't play ball with that asshat."
And as painful as it is, the leaders do that.
|
On February 07 2017 02:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:56 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for. Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else. I'd say there was a clear implicit point that trump's general lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues prevents him from being useful; also, the point in some of those cases was that the burden of proof was on danglars rather than myself. They're mostly a point by point response to things danglars said, which were probably not any more useful than my own statements (I didn't direct quote because it's very hard to cut out one section of a post, and he'd replied to 3 people, and I didn't want to be replying to the whole mess or it makes the post hard to read). if there's nothing ot respond to people can just not respond, or they can ask for clarification/extension. but mostly the arguments between us are so well-tread that there'es little new to be said. But none of that works when it's just a series of statements. You need to provide context and reference if it's a point by point reponse. You can't expect a clear implicit point when it's your opinion or position. You can't shift the burden of proof when your not making arguments or making points beacuse there isn't anything to prove or refute. I did ask for clarification. If there isn't anything new to say the burden is on the person making the post to make something new to say.
the burden of proof rests on someone who first made an affirmative claim, at least with respect to that claim. pointing out it was unmet is valid.
the reply was to danglars, and he had the context. the implicit point is generically clear as it pervades the entire thread.
and i'm done with this conversation with you as it seems to be a useless aside and interjection.
danglars -> I made my point and it was fine. since your response didn't respond to my actual point, and you've continually evaded the ice question, there's no more to say to you. I put as much effort in as you did, and I have the advantage of being right. /snide
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2017 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost. I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect. Western leaders are distancing themselves from Trump. China may try to use it as an opportunity to present itself as a more favourable partner then an erratic US under Trump.
sure, but just in terms of comparing trump with the obama administration on china, there are some areas that china is already taking the lead in, and some areas in which china has no interest.
the former areas are bilateral style trade and investment deals that china is already advancing. the AIIB for example had the support of european allies even though obama was like, hey guys don't play with china. europeans are perfectly fine with taking deals with china that benefit them even before trump.
the areas that china doesn't really care to expend effort on, for example transparency,, labor and environment etc, are also those abandoned by ditching the multilateral framework approach to trade and international governance in general.
whether trump will stand up to china on SCS and other territorial disputes, nobody knows. up to what putin wants on the trump end and how much influence his staff has on the team end.
|
On February 07 2017 03:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:11 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:56 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for. Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else. I'd say there was a clear implicit point that trump's general lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues prevents him from being useful; also, the point in some of those cases was that the burden of proof was on danglars rather than myself. They're mostly a point by point response to things danglars said, which were probably not any more useful than my own statements (I didn't direct quote because it's very hard to cut out one section of a post, and he'd replied to 3 people, and I didn't want to be replying to the whole mess or it makes the post hard to read). if there's nothing ot respond to people can just not respond, or they can ask for clarification/extension. but mostly the arguments between us are so well-tread that there'es little new to be said. But none of that works when it's just a series of statements. You need to provide context and reference if it's a point by point reponse. You can't expect a clear implicit point when it's your opinion or position. You can't shift the burden of proof when your not making arguments or making points beacuse there isn't anything to prove or refute. I did ask for clarification. If there isn't anything new to say the burden is on the person making the post to make something new to say. the burden of proof rests on someone who first made an affirmative claim, at least with respect to that claim. pointing out it was unmet is valid. the reply was to danglars, and he had the context. the implicit point is generically clear as it pervades the entire thread. and i'm done with this conversation with you as it seems to be a useless aside and interjection. danglars -> I made my point and it was fine. since your response didn't respond to my actual point, and you've continually evaded the ice question, there's no more to say to you. I put as much effort in as you did, and I have the advantage of being right. /snide
Pointing out that a burden of proof was unmet is valid but that wasn't the end of your post. You made statements after it predicating that what danglers said was wrong and not just not meeting a burden of proof to be right. This means that your statement was that he was wrong or that you're a hypocrite that holds others to a higher standard then you do. Danglars had the context for his post but that context isn't transitive without reference to his statements that you are referring to in your post. There are multiple conversations going on and the only implicit point in thread is that its about US politics
This should be a useless aside and interjection but you seem to insist that you don't need to clarify or change anything about your posts and are highly defensive about anything brought up about them.
|
......
Amid signs that Donald Trump began his presidency with the same chaotic operation that marked his campaign, a report has claimed he was not even aware he was elevating Steve Bannon to a senior security post when he signed one of several executive orders.
Since Mr Trump’s inauguration on January 20, reports have emerged of a White House West Wing marked by confusion and unpreparedness - alongside intense turf battles being fought by his top officials.
One of the results of this has been a number of leaks from the White House, about the various maneuverings of such top officials, and their varying ascendance and descent.
A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued. This was done following the backlash over the haphazard and chaotic rollout of the order halting the refugee programme and suspending travel for people from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries.
It said Mr Trump would be looped in on the drafting of orders much earlier in the process. Remarkably, the report says, Mr Trump was not fully briefed on details of the order he signed giving his chief strategist, Mr Bannon, a seat on the National Security Council.
Source
|
On February 07 2017 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost. I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect.
I'm reminded of all the people during the election that said Trump was a "gamble" like it could actually be a good thing.
Well, this is what happens when you put a gambler in the office and let him shoot craps with every executive order. Even if he lucks out with a good decision, you're still not gaining.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 07 2017 03:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost. I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect. Western leaders are distancing themselves from Trump. China may try to use it as an opportunity to present itself as a more favourable partner then an erratic US under Trump. whether trump will stand up to china on SCS and other territorial disputes, nobody knows. up to what putin wants on the trump end and how much influence his staff has on the team end.
I'll just tell you now, there's absolutely zero chance that Russia is going to go against China on the SCS issue. Russian leadership has basically said as much: China relations are non-negotiable, and sanctions removal would be welcome but Russia won't sacrifice its own national interests for them.
|
On February 07 2017 04:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:...... Show nested quote +Amid signs that Donald Trump began his presidency with the same chaotic operation that marked his campaign, a report has claimed he was not even aware he was elevating Steve Bannon to a senior security post when he signed one of several executive orders.
Since Mr Trump’s inauguration on January 20, reports have emerged of a White House West Wing marked by confusion and unpreparedness - alongside intense turf battles being fought by his top officials.
One of the results of this has been a number of leaks from the White House, about the various maneuverings of such top officials, and their varying ascendance and descent.
A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued. This was done following the backlash over the haphazard and chaotic rollout of the order halting the refugee programme and suspending travel for people from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries.
It said Mr Trump would be looped in on the drafting of orders much earlier in the process. Remarkably, the report says, Mr Trump was not fully briefed on details of the order he signed giving his chief strategist, Mr Bannon, a seat on the National Security Council. Source
Woah now. Andrew Buncombe will have to do much better to say the leaks are due to turf battles, confusion, and unpreparedness (irrespective of whether they coexist). It is large stretch of the imagination to allege it's almost totally due to an administrative bureaucracy opposed to Trump's agenda and his boorish manner of going about it.
|
On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful.
I understand the confusion, but I'm not trying to craft immigration policy, I'm just asking which family you think is more detrimental. It was suggested that you answered the model family that is illegally in the country is more detrimental than the jobless, drug addicted, welfare dependent, right of blood citizens, white family, is that what you meant to say or was that a misinterpretation?
|
President Donald Trump promised new equipment for the military, praised himself and touted his political endorsements, and criticized the media during a rambling speech Monday before American troops at the U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
Trump opened his remarks by thanking those present for their "tremendous spirit."
"We had a wonderful election, didn't we?" he said. "I saw those numbers, and you like me, and I like you. That's the way it works."
He thanked members of the military serving at MacDill and promised to "load it up" with new equipment.
The President then touted his endorsement by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R).
"Let me recognize our great governor and a very good friend of mine, and somebody who endorsed me, that makes him a better friend of mine," Trump said. "You know, if they don't endorse, believe me, if you're ever in this position, it's never quite the same, OK? You can talk, but it never means the same."
He recognized members of the military and their families, and promised to "never, ever" let them down. (During his campaign for the presidency, Trump sparked bipartisan backlash for his attacks on the bereaved parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain, and later said he did not regret "anything" about doing so.)
Before Trump's remarks, the president had lunch with servicemembers at the base. According to a White House pool report, Trump kept the room waiting: Troops stood behind their chairs in the dining room for 45 minutes while they awaited the President.
During his speech, Trump claimed that the media is not reporting on terrorist attacks, though he did not explain why.
"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it," he said. "They have their reasons and you understand that."
Trump went on to brag about his "great, great" Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
"I said it the other night. Great, great Supreme Court nominee. You all saw that," he said. "But I said to myself, perhaps the only thing more important to me definitely is the defense of our nation. Supreme Court's so important, but we have to defend our nation."
He reiterated his campaign trail promise to build up the "depleted" military.
"Our Navy is at a point almost as low as World War I. That's a long time ago. That's a long time ago," Trump said. "It's not going to happen anymore, folks."
Trump also doubled down on his promise to lean on NATO members to "pay their fair share."
He painted a picture of "an enemy that celebrates death and totally worships destruction," from the Islamic State to "radical Islamic terrorists" who Trump claimed are "determined" to launch an attack on the United States.
Source
|
trump is actually still making that dumb point about naval weakness? i'd have hoped some of the military staff would've corrected him about that by now, but I guess he doesn't run his speeches through many people for corrections, so not surprising.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2017 04:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 03:50 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2017 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:On February 07 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it. Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other. The world got over Bush pretty well once he was gone. The day Trump is gone the world will try very hard to forget him aswell. China might spring in the gap the US is making atm tho and could try to steal some of the support. And they may well succeed. A big economy (if fragile) and less prone to 180 mood swings every 4/8 years. China's territorial disputes are far enough away to not be a concern for the West. if your concern is that the u.s. would lose interest in the sense of obtaining results that we want, then i think that concern is overblown. unless we get nuked a few hundred times and lose 95% of the military, the u.s. would not lack the means to advance its directives or lack the gravity to be a huge influence on trade and whatnot rules that benefit u.s. industry interests. however, if your concern is that the direction of development for international institutions and norms would be down the drain, that u.s. power is no longer leveraged in the service of advancing goals such as transparency, labor and environmental accountability, governance and democratic norms, then yes, the game is lost. I was responding to the statement that under Trump the US makes a bad ally for 'the West'. To unreliable. to prone to being your friend one day and an enemy the next if it suits his whim. Not willing to follow normal diplomatic protocol ect. Western leaders are distancing themselves from Trump. China may try to use it as an opportunity to present itself as a more favourable partner then an erratic US under Trump. whether trump will stand up to china on SCS and other territorial disputes, nobody knows. up to what putin wants on the trump end and how much influence his staff has on the team end. I'll just tell you now, there's absolutely zero chance that Russia is going to go against China on the SCS issue. Russian leadership has basically said as much: China relations are non-negotiable, and sanctions removal would be welcome but Russia won't sacrifice its own national interests for them.
sure, but a lot of unknowns about e.g. level of coordination between rus/china as a way of putting stress on the u.s. alliance system.
there's the general idea that, occupying the u.s. on one end would free up space for the other, and u.s. strategy already assumes this coordination, the so called two theatre conflict, as a matter of guesstimating how much force size we'd need.
but beyond that, at the level of specific moves, i don't know what trump portends. there's also what china wants and how much influence certain elements of trump's team may wield in terms of independently dictating policy in the region without trump's input.
china's not ready for a big military conflict, but the threat of one only helps the regime's position. so barring some sort of serious trade conflict, there isn't much escalation in the near term. what china wants is basically expand its presence in the RCEP covered region, which notably also includes india and thailand, countries that showed interest in the tpp but did not sign on. they think in terms of strategic investments and getting influence from local governments so as to obtain favorable deals for affiliated capital. for example, build some trains in venezuela to obtain favorable petrol contracts, or build some roads in thailand so that chinese firms receive favorable treatment under thailand's restrictive foreign investment regime. china's dealings are very practical, very quid pro quo, and they welcome the opportunity of paying for private benefits so as to obtain public gains. but this sort of thing is incompatible with the values and rules oriented direction of a u.s. led deal like the TPP.
on the u.s. side, there are indeed a bunch of china hawks on trump's team, but it is unclear how much influence they have. certainly, there is no appreciation of the importance of allies in the region, particularly when the u.s. is at the center of the hub and spoke alliance model in asia. trump seems to actively destroy the u.s. alliance vs china when it comes to central partners in japan and australia. ditching the tpp obviously pissed off allies in the region as well. the basic context there is that, u.s. wants to use allies' geopolitical/territorial anxiety wrt china to obtain some kind of economic exclusivity that limits the influence of china at the economic level. allies are certainly very willing to take china's capital investments, but the thinking is that, the geopolitical fear may push back against china's expanding mercantilism, which holds significant problems down the line, in the form of chinese SOEs and other state backed firms taking up a lot of investment opportunities in developing economies in that region.
|
On February 07 2017 04:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:...... Show nested quote +Amid signs that Donald Trump began his presidency with the same chaotic operation that marked his campaign, a report has claimed he was not even aware he was elevating Steve Bannon to a senior security post when he signed one of several executive orders.
Since Mr Trump’s inauguration on January 20, reports have emerged of a White House West Wing marked by confusion and unpreparedness - alongside intense turf battles being fought by his top officials.
One of the results of this has been a number of leaks from the White House, about the various maneuverings of such top officials, and their varying ascendance and descent.
A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued. This was done following the backlash over the haphazard and chaotic rollout of the order halting the refugee programme and suspending travel for people from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries.
It said Mr Trump would be looped in on the drafting of orders much earlier in the process. Remarkably, the report says, Mr Trump was not fully briefed on details of the order he signed giving his chief strategist, Mr Bannon, a seat on the National Security Council. Source
All very predictable. I wonder how many of his supporters are even aware though.
|
On February 07 2017 05:41 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 04:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:...... Amid signs that Donald Trump began his presidency with the same chaotic operation that marked his campaign, a report has claimed he was not even aware he was elevating Steve Bannon to a senior security post when he signed one of several executive orders.
Since Mr Trump’s inauguration on January 20, reports have emerged of a White House West Wing marked by confusion and unpreparedness - alongside intense turf battles being fought by his top officials.
One of the results of this has been a number of leaks from the White House, about the various maneuverings of such top officials, and their varying ascendance and descent.
A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued. This was done following the backlash over the haphazard and chaotic rollout of the order halting the refugee programme and suspending travel for people from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries.
It said Mr Trump would be looped in on the drafting of orders much earlier in the process. Remarkably, the report says, Mr Trump was not fully briefed on details of the order he signed giving his chief strategist, Mr Bannon, a seat on the National Security Council. Source All very predictable. I wonder how many of his supporters are even aware though.
We're not that bothered by political theater anonymous reports about how they can't get the lights on and that Bannon is the white nationalist (thanks Independent) antichrist puppetmaster.
|
On February 07 2017 06:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 05:41 Doodsmack wrote:On February 07 2017 04:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:...... Amid signs that Donald Trump began his presidency with the same chaotic operation that marked his campaign, a report has claimed he was not even aware he was elevating Steve Bannon to a senior security post when he signed one of several executive orders.
Since Mr Trump’s inauguration on January 20, reports have emerged of a White House West Wing marked by confusion and unpreparedness - alongside intense turf battles being fought by his top officials.
One of the results of this has been a number of leaks from the White House, about the various maneuverings of such top officials, and their varying ascendance and descent.
A report in in the New York Times, which paints a picture of chief-of-staff Reince Priebus trying to assert greater control, says he has set in place a set of checks and processes before new policies and Executive Orders are issued. This was done following the backlash over the haphazard and chaotic rollout of the order halting the refugee programme and suspending travel for people from seven Middle Eastern and North African countries.
It said Mr Trump would be looped in on the drafting of orders much earlier in the process. Remarkably, the report says, Mr Trump was not fully briefed on details of the order he signed giving his chief strategist, Mr Bannon, a seat on the National Security Council. Source All very predictable. I wonder how many of his supporters are even aware though. We're not that bothered by political theater anonymous reports about how they can't get the lights on and that Bannon is the white nationalist (thanks Independent) antichrist puppetmaster.
Yeah, I suspect that there's a lot of bullshit in those stories. I think that they're hammering on the wrong story, though. What they should be talking about is the dysfunction between Trump and the GOP on Capitol Hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
