US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7666
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
brian
United States9620 Posts
| ||
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Coincidentally this happened after talking with Trump at a NATO meeting and G7 summit. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-germany-us-no-longer-rely-european-union-climate-change-g7-a7760486.html Merkel on Saturday labelled the result of the "six against one" discussion "very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory". "The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I've experienced that in the last few days," Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany. "We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands," she added http://www.politico.eu/article/macron-says-long-trump-handshake-not-innocent/ “Donald Trump, the Turkish president or the Russian president believe in the logic of the trial of strength, which doesn’t bother me. I don’t believe in the diplomacy of public invective, but in my bilateral dialogues, I don’t let anything pass, that is how we are respected,” he said. No big deal. President of France comparing POTUS to Putin. Publicly. I would love a lecture from xDaunt or someone about how Obama weakened America's respect, and how all of this is his fault. | ||
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
And some of them used to travel to the us on a regular basis. Some fir decades. That is over. Hell a friend that planned ti mive his startup to the us scrapped his plans entirely because of the election and what followed. He says he cant move to a country so politcally unstable where apparently 50% dont share the basic values of the western world. Hes currently trying to setup office in canada instead. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 29 2017 01:25 Nyxisto wrote: Obama pretty much single-handedly restored America's reputation in the world, where the idea comes from that Obama did anything else I will never know. I also don't think Trump supporters ever cared about any of that. If anything showing genuine cooperation and being respected raises their suspicion. it comes from partisanship; the republicans opposed the Democrat and everything he does, cuz sometimes tha'ts how politics works, attack the other side for whatever they do. and then a partisan lens makes a lot of stuff he did look bad. | ||
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On May 29 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote: America is a great place to make money. Any Europeans who thought Obama was the herald of a more "worldly" America simply doesn't understand what kind of country we are. I kind of pretend you speak for Russia, not America. Well, "pretend". After your lengthy Putin-apology tour, I just don't like that "we" in your post. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On May 28 2017 17:36 Schmobutzen wrote: Deconstruction can be a useful tool, but it has its limitations, besides the fact that its theoretical foundation is wonky, to say the least. The biggest problem with it is that the whole world becomes the hammer that only looks for it to come down, because of its tight interweaving into power - and power only. If you make such a tool to a worldview, of course, the world will look spiked with nails, and nothing more than nails. The outcome is a shattering that sounds like cultural appropriation, identity politics, gender over the top and the group over the individual. GH, you say something like the workers of the 17th century, as if there ever was a group like that, while there never was such a thing. Of course, there never was and never will be a "the whites" group, and if you look even further, how anyone can come out of postmodern thinking, that there is something derivable, especially if it ends in a construct like power-play, is beyond me. I'm talking about working class people from all backgrounds found common cause in resisting the oppression of the elites. Elites found common cause dividing the working class. They tried religion, and a variety of other things but what stuck was the construction of race. It allowed them to perpetuate the oppression of the working class by creating artificial divisions that we still deal with today. It's not to say that the working class of America and the working class of Europe were "one group" any more than elites are "one group". But there was an intentional effort to invent race, then use it to divide by placing poor "whites" at the top of the working poor so that while they were certainly oppressed, they got to be less oppressed than any other group they perpetuated the oppression of. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 29 2017 01:56 Leporello wrote: I kind of pretend you speak for Russia, not America. Well, "pretend". After your lengthy Putin-apology tour, I just don't like that "we" in your post. My bad, sorry for offending all the good Americans who do only good American things. | ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On May 29 2017 01:56 Leporello wrote: I kind of pretend you speak for Russia, not America. Well, "pretend". After your lengthy Putin-apology tour, I just don't like that "we" in your post. Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of a nation as different among itself as the US (tacitly or otherwise) signposts their insular perspective pretty clearly. Hell, "America is a great place to make money" even sounds like an intro line to a Trump speech lol. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 29 2017 01:55 zlefin wrote: it comes from partisanship; the republicans opposed the Democrat and everything he does, cuz sometimes tha'ts how politics works, attack the other side for whatever they do. and then a partisan lens makes a lot of stuff he did look bad. I'd actually say it goes farther than just political partisanship, that exists in many places. This sentiment that you basically need to get respect through fear or strongmen gestures and that every act of cooperation is immediately suspicious shows that something is seriously off. Just taking Obama again, the insults against him as a 'traitor' or 'Kenyan' aren't just racist attacks, they I think also exist because he genuinely treated other countries as peers. He did not do the usual "I'm not going to apologise for America" shtick. And if treating others as equals provokes fifth column conspiracy theories you've got a big problem. | ||
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
Simberto
Germany11522 Posts
On May 29 2017 02:19 Nyxisto wrote: I'd actually say it goes farther than just political partisanship, that exists in many places. This sentiment that you basically need to get respect through fear or strongmen gestures and that every act of cooperation is immediately suspicious shows that something is seriously off. Just taking Obama again, the insults against him as a 'traitor' or 'Kenyan' aren't just racist attacks, they I think also exist because he genuinely treated other countries as peers. He did not do the usual "I'm not going to apologise for America" shtick. And if treating others as equals provokes fifth column conspiracy theories you've got a big problem. Yes, but i think that america has a lot more extreme partisanship covering larger amounts of people than most other places. (Honestly, i mostly mean Germany when i say that, because i don't have a lot of experience or knowledge of the political climate in most countries) In my opinion, that can be traced back to the very strict 2 party system. If you only have to be better than one other party, you don't need to actually be good, you just need to make the other guy look worse than you do. If you have 4-5 parties, you have to either make all other parties look bad, or actually convince people that you are good. | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and the CIA, told CNN on Saturday that the reported content of Jared Kushner's conversations with Russia's ambassador in December may have motivated former national security adviser Susan Rice to request his name to be unmasked in intelligence reports. ... Hayden told CNN that it makes sense that Rice would have tried to determine who Kislyak and his superiors in Moscow were talking about when they said someone on the Trump transition team wanted to set up a secret backchannel line of communication. "This is off the map," Hayden said. "I know of no other experience like this in our history, and certainly not within my life experience." Hayden told Business Insider in March that the NSA "is notoriously conservative in revealing US identities in its reporting." www.yahoo.com | ||
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Die Zeit is quite a respectable newspaper at that. | ||
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
Here's my thoughts: whatever he comes out with needs to push back the miasma of assumed guilt that he'll suffer from as long as these investigations continue to make headlines. So he can't just try to change the subject by making headlines about something else – he needs to actually combat the Russia narrative. And at this point he's got enough of a credibility gap against his accusers that he can't just say "fake news, none of it is real." Even if we assume that the sharing intel with Russia report was false, and that Jared Kushner never tried to set up a back channel with Russia, and that the conversation described in the Comey memo wasn't obstruction, there's still no denying that Robert Mueller was brought in as special counsel partly to investigate Trump's campaign. That looks bad, and complaining about anonymous sources or overly critical media doesn't change that. Remembering Trump's reputation as a counter-puncher, as well as his prior tendency to deflect criticisms onto Hillary Clinton, my best guess would be that he goes hard on the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. It pushes back on the Russia narrative by implying that Russia didn't even interfere in the election – it was all a dark, evil coverup by Clinton. The same way Trump can't prove definitively that he didn't collude with Russia, Democrats can never prove definitively that Clinton didn't kill Seth Rich, so it takes the vague miasma of assumed guilt he's suffering from and throws that back on the Democrats. The only other stuff I can think of is some major military action outside the US, which is a pretty scary prospect. The big candidates in my mind would be Syria or North Korea, the latter of which could have disastrous consequences. | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 29 2017 03:43 ChristianS wrote: So there's been a lot of reports that Trump is assembling Kushner, Lewandowski, etc. for a "War Room" meeting about how to push back on the Russia scandal. Right now the narrative is pretty bad for him; what do TL's astute political analysts think will be his counter-narrative? How will he try to turn this around? Here's my thoughts: whatever he comes out with needs to push back the miasma of assumed guilt that he'll suffer from as long as these investigations continue to make headlines. So he can't just try to change the subject by making headlines about something else – he needs to actually combat the Russia narrative. And at this point he's got enough of a credibility gap against his accusers that he can't just say "fake news, none of it is real." Even if we assume that the sharing intel with Russia report was false, and that Jared Kushner never tried to set up a back channel with Russia, and that the conversation described in the Comey memo wasn't obstruction, there's still no denying that Robert Mueller was brought in as special counsel partly to investigate Trump's campaign. That looks bad, and complaining about anonymous sources or overly critical media doesn't change that. Remembering Trump's reputation as a counter-puncher, as well as his prior tendency to deflect criticisms onto Hillary Clinton, my best guess would be that he goes hard on the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. It pushes back on the Russia narrative by implying that Russia didn't even interfere in the election – it was all a dark, evil coverup by Clinton. The same way Trump can't prove definitively that he didn't collude with Russia, Democrats can never prove definitively that Clinton didn't kill Seth Rich, so it takes the vague miasma of assumed guilt he's suffering from and throws that back on the Democrats. The only other stuff I can think of is some major military action outside the US, which is a pretty scary prospect. The big candidates in my mind would be Syria or North Korea, the latter of which could have disastrous consequences. I expect him to go big on a four-pronged attack (which will be ill-coordinated) against: -Fake news -Leakers as evil monsters -Susan Rice being an evil monster -Clinton needing to be in jail because of Seth Rich (plus other assorted crap) | ||
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
| ||