|
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 April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents.
You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems.
But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation.
|
On April 19 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by saying that we have a severe case of stockholm syndrome. You've used that phrase on many occasions but I either feel like you don't know what the phrase means or that you don't understand US-euro relations. You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome in how hilariously willing European governments are to lap up with little complaint any of the stupid shit that our less likeable presidents - Bush II and Trump in this case - will throw out, and then continue to crawl back to the US as soon as they offer the mildest tidbit of kindness. Yes, it is of course partially a result of dependence; the US is far more powerful than any individual European nation and there is not all that much they can do about it. But it is still fun to watch the way European mainstream leaders contort themselves into trying to distance themselves from Trump but not the US, after being Obama's greatest cheerleaders - in a funny see-saw of how American leadership is viewed.
you didn't outright say this so sorry i don't intend to put words in your mouth, but you're saying this as if americans and euros alike aren't trying to distance themselves from Trump and not the US..
|
Clarifying "former Obama administration official" is unnecessary because the implied contrast is with "current Obama administration official," which doesn't make any sense. Why correct someone to add a redundant qualifier?
|
On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation.
Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful.
If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years.
|
On April 19 2017 04:11 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by saying that we have a severe case of stockholm syndrome. You've used that phrase on many occasions but I either feel like you don't know what the phrase means or that you don't understand US-euro relations. You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome in how hilariously willing European governments are to lap up with little complaint any of the stupid shit that our less likeable presidents - Bush II and Trump in this case - will throw out, and then continue to crawl back to the US as soon as they offer the mildest tidbit of kindness. Yes, it is of course partially a result of dependence; the US is far more powerful than any individual European nation and there is not all that much they can do about it. But it is still fun to watch the way European mainstream leaders contort themselves into trying to distance themselves from Trump but not the US, after being Obama's greatest cheerleaders - in a funny see-saw of how American leadership is viewed. you didn't outright say this so sorry i don't intend to put words in your mouth, but you're saying this as if americans and euros alike aren't trying to distance themselves from Trump and not the US..
Well in this case I'm talking more about national governments. The Trump administration obviously doesn't intend to distance itself from itself - or does it?
|
aren't they..
sorry low content post. perhaps not so much the trump administration itself (this is still arguable- but by better people than myself.)
but other government players? GOP congressmen? etc.
|
On April 19 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by saying that we have a severe case of stockholm syndrome. You've used that phrase on many occasions but I either feel like you don't know what the phrase means or that you don't understand US-euro relations. You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome in how hilariously willing European governments are to lap up with little complaint any of the stupid shit that our less likeable presidents - Bush II and Trump in this case - will throw out, and then continue to crawl back to the US as soon as they offer the mildest tidbit of kindness. Yes, it is of course partially a result of dependence; the US is far more powerful than any individual European nation and there is not all that much they can do about it. But it is still fun to watch the way European mainstream leaders contort themselves into trying to distance themselves from Trump but not the US, after being Obama's greatest cheerleaders - in a funny see-saw of how American leadership is viewed.
This is the same leadership that grit its teeth through Nixon and the brinksmanship of Reagan. The alliances we built after WWII lasted generations and few are willing to throw them away over two bad elections. 70 years is a long time.
|
The GOP is constrained by the fact that they want Trump to do stuff for them so they can't really oppose him without consequences. A hilarious sight to be sure.
But in the sphere of foreign policy, there is less disunity than in most.
|
On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years.
Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job.
|
Norway28923 Posts
On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job.
What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump?
|
On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump?
"Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line.
From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here.
Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole.
|
President Donald Trump’s top aides were set to meet Tuesday to debate whether or not Trump should make good on his campaign promise to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord—a global pact aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However, according to the New York Times, the meeting was canceled after some of the planned attendees flew to be with Trump at a scheduled event in Wisconsin.
A White House spokesperson told the Times that the meeting would be rescheduled.
The opposing sides — EPA chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s senior strategist, Stephen K. Bannon who want out of the deal, versus Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, who reportedly are urging the president to remain committed to the agreement.
Pruitt told Fox News last week that in his opinion, the U.S. should exit the deal as soon as possible.
“It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach. China and India has no obligations under the agreement until 2030. We front-loaded all our costs,” Pruitt said.
On the other hand, Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO, supported the deal during his confirmation testimony in January, saying, “We’re better served by being at that table than by leaving that table.” Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell and BP also have endorsed the pact.
Source
Well this is a pretty odd goings-on within Trumptopia. Not so much surprising as "I hope he won't fuck this up and cause us some seriously unpleasant damage for the next decade." Keeping coal on life support is a losing strategy.
|
Norway28923 Posts
On April 19 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump? "Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line. From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here. Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole.
Isn't it kinda half and half? Like yeah, the immigration ban has popular support, I guess stuff like tough on crime does as well, although say, pot legalization seems to have bigger support in the american populace than the european populace. And you do favor privatization more than europeans do, and military actions have way more popular support as well. But then americans overwhelmingly favor paid leave for various reasons, have become supportive of single payer systems for health care, have an entirely wrong perception of what income inequality levels look like and actually favor a more scandinavian distribution.
So yeah I agree that people like Obama more than Trump because he's way more likable than Trump, not because of his preferred policies. But I dunno if Trump's policies are more popular than Obama's policies, the numbers I've seen really vary from issue to issue.
|
On April 19 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump? "Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line. From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here. Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole.
You talk about our nations like you have some deep understanding of them, but your observations could not be more surface level. I don’t know how long you have been in the US, but the “EU should stand up for itself and we spend to much abroad” has been around since I was born and before that. These ideas wax and wane. The reason everyone is against wars abroad has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with Bush. You live in a nation that was lied to and its government is unable to come to terms with our elected officials nearly destroyed our nations economy and took us to war based on lies. And the other party was to interested in moving on that they never did anything to address those problems. We don’t distrust the EU, we distrust our government. But we are to caught up in pro-wrestling style politics to take them to task on the subject.
|
On April 19 2017 04:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump? "Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line. From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here. Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole. Isn't it kinda half and half? Like yeah, the immigration ban has popular support, I guess stuff like tough on crime does as well, although say, pot legalization seems to have bigger support in the american populace than the european populace. And you do favor privatization more than europeans do, and military actions have way more popular support as well. But then americans overwhelmingly favor paid leave for various reasons, have become supportive of single payer systems for health care, have an entirely wrong perception of what income inequality levels look like and actually favor a more scandinavian distribution. So yeah I agree that people like Obama more than Trump because he's way more likable than Trump, not because of his preferred policies. But I dunno if Trump's policies are more popular than Obama's policies, the numbers I've seen really vary from issue to issue.
Trump took a few things that people cared about - immigration, isolationism (during the campaign at least), counter-terrorism, trade deals - to the extreme. Maybe he's not better on policy than Obama but Obama was not particularly popular on policy. But Trump does cut deep at widely underappreciated issues and that's why many people could vote for him despite the fact that he really is as bad as his critics claim he is.
|
I don’t know how long you have lived in a democracy, but populism has been popular since we started this show back in the last 1700s. It was pretty popular before that too. It was a major concern for the founding fathers one of the core arguments against democracy. It is the reason we got Andrew Jackson and our economy tanked after he took his distrust of banks and paper money nationwide. It is the reason we got Nixon and his “secret plan to end Vietnam.” America first was the motto of our very own Nazi party too and they did well right up until people sort of figured them out. None of this is new to the US, only new to you. Trump is nothing new. He is just my generation’s lesson that elections matter and don’t believe someone who says “Only I can save you.”
|
Norway28923 Posts
On April 19 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 03:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by saying that we have a severe case of stockholm syndrome. You've used that phrase on many occasions but I either feel like you don't know what the phrase means or that you don't understand US-euro relations. You have a severe case of Stockholm syndrome in how hilariously willing European governments are to lap up with little complaint any of the stupid shit that our less likeable presidents - Bush II and Trump in this case - will throw out, and then continue to crawl back to the US as soon as they offer the mildest tidbit of kindness. Yes, it is of course partially a result of dependence; the US is far more powerful than any individual European nation and there is not all that much they can do about it. But it is still fun to watch the way European mainstream leaders contort themselves into trying to distance themselves from Trump but not the US, after being Obama's greatest cheerleaders - in a funny see-saw of how American leadership is viewed.
Still really don't think the phrase makes sense. It's no hostage situation. I can agree that we were strongarmed into joining the 'coalition of the willing' wrt to the invasion of Iraq, but the UK and Poland were the only European countries to actually supply troops to the invasion force.
The alliance between western Europe and the US has existed because it has been considered mutually beneficial. This holds true for a vast majority of the european population. Stockholm syndrome isn't a phrase used to describe say, a child's love for an absent or alcoholic parent (where you could argue that the normal loving parent is the sane american president while Bush and Trump is what happens during a seriously bad bender), it describes the seemingly irrational positive feelings held towards someone holding you hostage. This isn't even close to an accurate description of US-Euro relations. And I realize that analogies don't have to be perfect for them to make sense, but this one is not nearly good enough to warrant being employed at the frequency you use it. ;p
|
who put Groucho Marx in charge of the country?
The "armada" that President Trump said he was sending to deter North Korea still hasn't arrived — and it has thousands more miles to cover if it actually does sail to the Korean Peninsula.
The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its strike group actually sailed south after U.S. Pacific Command announced April 8 that it was cancelling the ships' planned visit to Australia and instead ordering them to "sail north and report on station to the Western Pacific Ocean."
The Navy posted an official photograph dated April 15 that showed the Carl Vinson in an Indonesian strait thousands of miles south of North Korea. The carrier and its companions could still make their way back to the Korean Peninsula, which they last visited in March, but U.S. defense officials generally decline to describe the deployments of American military units before the fact.
News organizations around the world, including NPR, covered the statements by Trump and other officials in Washington about the Carl Vinson's deployment as though the ships were bearing down on North Korea. The narrative last week was that the U.S. and its allies in the Western Pacific were gearing up for a showdown with strongman Kim Jong Un ahead of the anniversary of the birth of his grandfather, the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/18/524560773/that-armada-heading-to-north-korea-actually-it-sailed-south
|
On April 19 2017 04:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump? "Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line. From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here. Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole. You talk about our nations like you have some deep understanding of them, but your observations could not be more surface level. I don’t know how long you have been in the US, but the “EU should stand up for itself and we spend to much abroad” has been around since I was born and before that. These ideas wax and wane. The reason everyone is against wars abroad has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with Bush. You live in a nation that was lied to and its government is unable to come to terms with our elected officials nearly destroyed our nations economy and took us to war based on lies. And the other party was to interested in moving on that they never did anything to address those problems. We don’t distrust the EU, we distrust our government. But we are to caught up in pro-wrestling style politics to take them to task on the subject.
I must say, your inability to come to terms with the circumstances under which you supported Iraq - and the contortions that you use to justify it in hindsight - are quite impressive. A show of full support for any mistakes that would be as obvious as the Iraq one (with a willingness to lap up any comparable "lies"), and yet a nominal disagreement with Iraq itself.
It is perhaps notable that many of our more warmongering elements complain most about that Iraq wasn't the first (ill-advised, but they don't put it that way) war that ever happened but it's one that turned people more definitively against foreign intervention in a far more sustained fashion than in the past. Not any one reason for that. But nevertheless, it is true that people sympathize with that element of Trump's campaign.
I do find it interesting on your general insistence on "I been there, I know how things work, no one else does cuz no one else was there the way I was there." Especially when it's generally full of incomplete and particularly obtuse feels-based interpretations of all events (e.g. not bothering to find out how long I was in the US before running your mouth), with little regard as to actually discovering the truth of any situation. It's the kind of attitude that will make you a front-line cheerleader for the next Iraq - though after a few years when what was obviously terrible and short-sighted turns out to be so, you will take a feels-based approach to claim you was lied to and that that's why everything is bad.
|
On April 19 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2017 04:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 19 2017 04:26 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 04:12 LegalLord wrote:On April 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2017 03:43 LegalLord wrote:In times of crisis, credibility is an American president’s most valuable currency. It’s one thing for a foreign partner to doubt a president’s judgment; it’s entirely more debilitating when that partner doubts the president’s word.
As President Trump confronts the twin challenges of North Korea and Syria, he must overcome a credibility gap of his own making. His insistence on remaining the most prominent consumer and purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories is not only corrosive of our democracy — it’s dangerous to our national security. Every fact-averse tweet devalues his credibility at home and around the world. This matters more than ever when misinformation is a weapon of choice for our most dangerous adversaries.
Part of the problem is that Mr. Trump’s itchy Twitter finger can’t resist bluster. A series of sophomoric presidential missives — “North Korea is behaving very badly”; “North Korea is looking for trouble”; if China won’t help, “we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.”; North Korea’s quest for a nuclear-tipped ICBM “won’t happen!” — has given Pyongyang a rare chance to take the high road. “Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” its vice foreign minister declared.
Presidential bravado also risks North Korea taking him at his word, and miscalculating accordingly. Loose threats of pre-emptive military attacks could cause its leader, Kim Jong-un, to shoot first and worry about the consequences later — perhaps striking South Korea with conventional weapons to remind the world what he is capable of, if the United States seeks to eliminate his nuclear program. That’s a quick path to conflict with a volatile and nuclear-armed adversary.
Equally problematic is Mr. Trump’s challenged relationship with veracity, documented almost daily by independent fact-checking organizations. The greatest hits include his repeatedly debunked claim that former President Obama tapped his phones, that a nonexistent terrorist attack occurred in Sweden, that Germany owes NATO vast sums of money, that Mr. Obama released more than 100 detainees from Guantánamo who returned to the battlefield and that Democrats made up allegations about Russian efforts to influence our election. Mr. Trump’s canards risk undermining his ability to counter propaganda from our adversaries. SourceInteresting opinion piece by an Obama State Dept official. I don't really agree with its conclusions about specific events but it does provide an interesting view into how FP worker folk view his "provocations." Thankfully the US's allies have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and will wait out any form of unpleasantness from our less-liked presidents. You mean former Obama State Dept official, now CNN analyst. With his own brand of propaganda these days it seems. But the underlying point on wild speech and guidance by whim is a correct observation. Honestly at this point I've listened to enough of these "FP people" to be able to guess exactly what they will say on any given topic. They're hardly creative or known for avoiding groupthink. But if not for the fact that Europeans will gladly just wait this presidency out then this would be a lot more harmful. If I didn't have to live with the consequences of that result, I'd almost want Trump 2020 just to see how Europe would see that. It could be a good laugh for a month or two before being deeply upsetting when we see what we have to live through for the next years. Sending him to office wasn't apparently enough to give the message, maybe sending him back would do a better job. What message that were we supposed to understand (and accept) was sent through electing Trump? "Bitch we're America first, we aren't going to be your nanny forever!" or something along the equivalent Republican-populist line. From a more sane stance: realize that while Trump himself has very small approval ratings, the ideas he represents that Europeans are afraid of are actually very popular here. We're not going to be the kind of nation Europe hopes the US would be because that just isn't the mainstream here. Trump's unpopularity and Obama's popularity largely stem from their personal appeal more than their policy. In a vacuum, Obama's policies were not very popular as a whole. Isn't it kinda half and half? Like yeah, the immigration ban has popular support, I guess stuff like tough on crime does as well, although say, pot legalization seems to have bigger support in the american populace than the european populace. And you do favor privatization more than europeans do, and military actions have way more popular support as well. But then americans overwhelmingly favor paid leave for various reasons, have become supportive of single payer systems for health care, have an entirely wrong perception of what income inequality levels look like and actually favor a more scandinavian distribution. So yeah I agree that people like Obama more than Trump because he's way more likable than Trump, not because of his preferred policies. But I dunno if Trump's policies are more popular than Obama's policies, the numbers I've seen really vary from issue to issue. Trump took a few things that people cared about - immigration, isolationism (during the campaign at least), counter-terrorism, trade deals - to the extreme. Maybe he's not better on policy than Obama but Obama was not particularly popular on policy. But Trump does cut deep at widely underappreciated issues and that's why many people could vote for him despite the fact that he really is as bad as his critics claim he is.
Well said. And let me say, they're still underappreciated issues and the opposition is still uncompromising in platform and form. If Trump's doing it badly, you're still leagues away from convincing people they really want an entirely different set of things done well. The approach appears to still be demographic destiny and negative attacks on Trump's performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
