|
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 August 04 2017 13:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2017 08:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
The full transcripts of the calls with Mexico and Australia are amazing. As leaks go, I think this really goes too far and we shouldn't be able to get these. But it's very juicy to read. I'm glad to find you have a limit to what leaks go too far. It's kind of sad to see the 'anything goes' attitudes around here. On August 04 2017 12:07 LegalLord wrote:
So once again I wonder which FP official is currently the dominant one for leading policy. Tillerson is starting to come into his own, Mattis is being himself. Kushner has a track record of decision making no better than Clinton. McMaster looks like he has his hands full with internal stupid.
Guess it depends how tolerant Trump is of failure. Kushner & Co have got to go. Sadly, they're about the least likely of that bunch because Trump prized loyalty above all else and they're family. Anything goes because this is the least qualified administration in recent decades. The more information we get about just how inept this group is, the better voters will be wary with how to spend that vote in the future. Remember we didn't have nearly as much to talk about with Obama except actual policy. Boring.
We might have much more to talk about if we had this level of access to his full conversations with foreign leaders. Recall it was Obama that was caught on open mic with Medvedev candidly talking about his flexibility based on elections. But I'm more of the mind that the duly elected President should conduct his foreign policy with assumed secrecy until it hits the Senate, legislation, and executive department activities. Basically, it doesn't matter what party you're with or what you think of his presidency, you basically let him have phone calls with May or Duterte or whatever without undermining everything from the start.
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump.
|
we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump
They've been there the whole time.
|
Personally I find leaks like the transcripts sort of puzzling. They're embarrassing for Trump but they aren't actually harmful for him in a political fashion. Maybe if you wanted to test out leaking something?
Just doesn't seem worth the effort, outside of being salacious. The content of them is definitely bad for america on a foreign policy level, but I'm unsure as to how private the contents really were, and the harm basically comes from China or whoever getting confirmation of every rumor about the two convos.
|
On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump.
I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents.
|
Those transcripts just don't give much to work with, they're pretty much the equivalent of Maddow's tax return leaks. If they get a Putin transcript that would be a different story.
|
On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:They've been there the whole time.
I mean now, apparently. But the volume of posters not seeing how short sighted this strategy is (like do you not expect to take back the White House or something?) is breathtaking. It's as bad as a dictator justifying the extension of emergency powers because of how much unrest and violence there on the streets. Too far? Nah, ZerOCool says anything goes because this is the worst unrest in recent decades and we need to know what these treasonous peoples are up to.
On August 04 2017 13:33 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump. I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents.
I was never talking about broadly construed undermining, in talking leaks. No Iran deal if your pallets of cash and released Iranian agents hits the front page after the first wave of negotiations. If you have trouble separating acting within your constitutional prerogatives to fight policy wars and dismantling a branch from the inside, you might need another eight years of perspective.
|
On August 04 2017 13:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. I mean now, apparently. But the volume of posters not seeing how short sighted this strategy is (like do you not expect to take back the White House or something?) is breathtaking. It's as bad as a dictator justifying the extension of emergency powers because of how much unrest and violence there on the streets. Too far? Nah, ZerOCool says anything goes because this is the worst unrest in recent decades and we need to know what these treasonous peoples are up to. Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:33 Aquanim wrote:On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump. I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents. I was never talking about broadly construed undermining, in talking leaks. No Iran deal if your pallets of cash and released Iranian agents hits the front page after the first wave of negotiations. If you have trouble separating acting within your constitutional prerogatives to fight policy wars and dismantling a branch from the inside, you might need another eight years of perspective.
Um, I didn't say anything of the sort. I said we need to show voters how inept this administration is. If a phone call leak is what gets your panties rustled, then I don't know if there is help for you. Obama didn't have to have his phone calls leaked because the people who had them read them, thought they were boring as fuck, and didn't release them. This is something completely different and whoever is leaking should be handed a medal.
You're defense of trump and this administration is running on it's last legs. I'll let you have your day(s)/
|
On August 04 2017 13:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. I mean now, apparently. But the volume of posters not seeing how short sighted this strategy is (like do you not expect to take back the White House or something?) is breathtaking. It's as bad as a dictator justifying the extension of emergency powers because of how much unrest and violence there on the streets. Too far? Nah, ZerOCool says anything goes because this is the worst unrest in recent decades and we need to know what these treasonous peoples are up to.
Which strategy, and whose strategy, are you referring to here? As far as I know nothing about this is being orchestrated by the Democrats or some other body from that side of politics - it's just happening. They're not denouncing it but I imagine they expect it will be less of a problem for future administrations.
Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:33 Aquanim wrote:On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump. I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents. I was never talking about broadly construed undermining, in talking leaks. No Iran deal if your pallets of cash and released Iranian agents hits the front page after the first wave of negotiations. If you have trouble separating acting within your constitutional prerogatives to fight policy wars and dismantling a branch from the inside, you might need another eight years of perspective.
Your argument rests on a few assumptions that I think are fallacious. First: that the release of these particular transcripts is particulaly damaging to Trump's foreign policy agenda. Second: that "leaks" are inherently more important than any other form of undermining. I have particularly in mind the message sent directly by the Republicans to Iran a while back (I don't recall all of the details). I have no idea whether that was constitutional but that doesn't necessarily make it conducive to the reasonable governance of a country.
Also, spare me the "you deserve Trump for eight years" rhetoric; I don't live in your country, I didn't vote for any of your politicians, and whatever stupidity he inflicts on you all are not my problem. Unless he does something really stupid.
|
On August 04 2017 13:52 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:39 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. I mean now, apparently. But the volume of posters not seeing how short sighted this strategy is (like do you not expect to take back the White House or something?) is breathtaking. It's as bad as a dictator justifying the extension of emergency powers because of how much unrest and violence there on the streets. Too far? Nah, ZerOCool says anything goes because this is the worst unrest in recent decades and we need to know what these treasonous peoples are up to. Which strategy, and whose strategy, are you referring to here? As far as I know nothing about this is being orchestrated by the Democrats or some other body from that side of politics - it's just happening. They're not denouncing it but I imagine they expect it will be less of a problem for future administrations. Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:33 Aquanim wrote:On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump. I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents. I was never talking about broadly construed undermining, in talking leaks. No Iran deal if your pallets of cash and released Iranian agents hits the front page after the first wave of negotiations. If you have trouble separating acting within your constitutional prerogatives to fight policy wars and dismantling a branch from the inside, you might need another eight years of perspective. Your argument rests on a few assumptions that I think are fallacious. First: that the release of these particular transcripts is particulaly damaging to Trump's foreign policy agenda. Second: that "leaks" are inherently more important than any other form of undermining. I have particularly in mind the message sent directly by the Republicans to Iran a while back (I don't recall all of the details). I have no idea whether that was constitutional but that doesn't necessarily make it conducive to the reasonable governance of a country. Also, spare me the "you deserve Trump for eight years" rhetoric; I don't live in your country, I didn't vote for any of your politicians, and whatever stupidity he inflicts on you all are not my problem. Unless he does something really stupid.
You're talking about the letter they sent to Iran telling them that Obama had no power to negotiate with them, without the consent of congress and that any "deals" made were not valid unless passed by congress, is that right?
|
Honestly, the rest of the world deserves Trump far more than the US does. It's some delicious irony to suck on for all those who thought Bush was just an aberration and that you could expect Obama-esque leadership from this point on. Well, hope you can enjoy some Bush plus.
|
On August 04 2017 14:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:52 Aquanim wrote:On August 04 2017 13:39 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. I mean now, apparently. But the volume of posters not seeing how short sighted this strategy is (like do you not expect to take back the White House or something?) is breathtaking. It's as bad as a dictator justifying the extension of emergency powers because of how much unrest and violence there on the streets. Too far? Nah, ZerOCool says anything goes because this is the worst unrest in recent decades and we need to know what these treasonous peoples are up to. Which strategy, and whose strategy, are you referring to here? As far as I know nothing about this is being orchestrated by the Democrats or some other body from that side of politics - it's just happening. They're not denouncing it but I imagine they expect it will be less of a problem for future administrations. On August 04 2017 13:33 Aquanim wrote:On August 04 2017 13:22 Danglars wrote:...
Or I thought quiet diplomacy advocates would actually advocate before I learned by example this was a one-way street. Toss out the rule book gents, we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump. I'm not sure where you're getting "one-way street" from. It's not as though Obama's foreign policy was never undermined by his political opponents. I was never talking about broadly construed undermining, in talking leaks. No Iran deal if your pallets of cash and released Iranian agents hits the front page after the first wave of negotiations. If you have trouble separating acting within your constitutional prerogatives to fight policy wars and dismantling a branch from the inside, you might need another eight years of perspective. Your argument rests on a few assumptions that I think are fallacious. First: that the release of these particular transcripts is particulaly damaging to Trump's foreign policy agenda. Second: that "leaks" are inherently more important than any other form of undermining. I have particularly in mind the message sent directly by the Republicans to Iran a while back (I don't recall all of the details). I have no idea whether that was constitutional but that doesn't necessarily make it conducive to the reasonable governance of a country. Also, spare me the "you deserve Trump for eight years" rhetoric; I don't live in your country, I didn't vote for any of your politicians, and whatever stupidity he inflicts on you all are not my problem. Unless he does something really stupid. You're talking about the letter they sent to Iran telling them that Obama had no power to negotiate with them, without the consent of congress and that any "deals" made were not valid unless passed by congress, is that right?
Having gone and looked it up, yes I believe so. It does have the distinctions that (a) it doesn't involve the release of private material and (b) it was done by the Republicans themselves as opposed to random leakers and the media. The point stands that interfering with the President's pursuit of foreign policy is not a particularly new concept.
EDIT: and in particular, that being okay with interfering with the President's pursuit of foreign policy is not a particularly new concept.
On August 04 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly, the rest of the world deserves Trump far more than the US does. It's some delicious irony to suck on for all those who thought Bush was just an aberration and that you could expect Obama-esque leadership from this point on. Well, hope you can enjoy some Bush plus.
The causal link between thinking or hoping Bush was an aberration, and deserving Trump, seems pretty nebulous.
|
On August 04 2017 14:09 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly, the rest of the world deserves Trump far more than the US does. It's some delicious irony to suck on for all those who thought Bush was just an aberration and that you could expect Obama-esque leadership from this point on. Well, hope you can enjoy some Bush plus.
I thought we would get some more Obama-esque leadership but once I saw the players from both sides, that hope went to despair.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:They've been there the whole time.
Does that mean Democrats should try and conspire with Iranian hackers in 2020? I could see some interesting opportunities. Let's say, they hack fox news, for example, or WH communications, because at this point, why not?
|
On August 04 2017 13:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 08:24 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
The full transcripts of the calls with Mexico and Australia are amazing. As leaks go, I think this really goes too far and we shouldn't be able to get these. But it's very juicy to read. I'm glad to find you have a limit to what leaks go too far. It's kind of sad to see the 'anything goes' attitudes around here. Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 12:07 LegalLord wrote:
So once again I wonder which FP official is currently the dominant one for leading policy. Tillerson is starting to come into his own, Mattis is being himself. Kushner has a track record of decision making no better than Clinton. McMaster looks like he has his hands full with internal stupid.
Guess it depends how tolerant Trump is of failure. Kushner & Co have got to go. Sadly, they're about the least likely of that bunch because Trump prized loyalty above all else and they're family.
This is the sort of thing that very clearly should not be leaked because it greatly hinders a presidents credibility (though lets be honest that ship sailed came back sold the spices and its crew is enjoying retirement), the bigger problem is that the other world leaders are not going to be able to speak candidly with him if they have to fear those conversations being leaked.
Honestly though I mostly blame Trump for these leaks. His entire management style is to pit everyone against each other and trust that the best will devour the worst and rise to the top. Its not a great management style in anything because it lends itself to people breaking the law but especially in politics where leaking to the media is a great way to undermine the people you are trying to get ahead of.
|
On August 04 2017 14:17 Adreme wrote:...
This is the sort of thing that very clearly should not be leaked because it greatly hinders a presidents credibility (though lets be honest that ship sailed came back sold the spices and its crew is enjoying retirement), the bigger problem is that the other world leaders are not going to be able to speak candidly with him if they have to fear those conversations being leaked.
To make my position clear, I do mostly agree with this. Sharing the secrets of other nations is pretty dubious. However, I don't think that these leaks pose a particularly significant existential threat to the institutions of the United States compared to other things in the past and present, or that the "left" is somehow unprecedentedly to blame for these leaks.
|
On August 04 2017 14:16 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. Does that mean Democrats should try and conspire with Iranian hackers in 2020? I could see some interesting opportunities. Let's say, they hack fox news, for example, or WH communications, because at this point, why not?
There's essentially two paths forward.
Path one is to continue on the current "anything goes" approach to partisan politics, putting party before country and essentially showing that you believe anything is fair because the other party is pure evil. If we take this path - sure, conspire with Iran, China, North Korea, anyone you like. As long as it wins.
Path two is to realize that we have all taken partisanship too far and that sometimes there are lines we simply shouldn't cross, even if we can, because that will actively make things worse for everyone. Maybe the other party is a bunch of sleazy scumbags and deserves everything they got coming to them; even so, there are boundaries we shouldn't cross because it makes things worse for everyone.
Rhetoric aside, the second attitude is far too sparse in Washington. Which leads to a situation where everyone hates everyone and we cross those boundaries all the damn time.
|
On August 04 2017 14:16 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. Does that mean Democrats should try and conspire with Iranian hackers in 2020? I could see some interesting opportunities. Let's say, they hack fox news, for example, or WH communications, because at this point, why not?
I wouldn't be surprised to see it defended by friends of the establishment should it happen.
If it was a Democrat who did what you describe vs. Trump, I have no doubt that the folks saying "you have to vote for the candidate promising to maim you over the one promising to gut you" would be right back here telling us why, despite colluding with Iran, we have to vote for the Democrat.
Do you really think otherwise?
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On August 04 2017 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 14:16 mustaju wrote:On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. Does that mean Democrats should try and conspire with Iranian hackers in 2020? I could see some interesting opportunities. Let's say, they hack fox news, for example, or WH communications, because at this point, why not? I wouldn't be surprised to see it defended by friends of the establishment should it happen. If it was a Democrat who did what you describe vs. Trump, I have no doubt that the folks saying "you have to vote for the candidate promising to maim you over the one promising to gut you" would be right back here telling us why, despite colluding with Iran, we have to vote for the Democrat. Do you really think otherwise?
I guess my question would be what sort of behaviour you are encouraging in practice by saying the sides are essentially the same. I just don't see it that way, and I think the differences are important to underline. Lesser of two evils choices are common in politics, and I dare say that this sort of cynicism is enabling terrible people rather than electing better people to office.
Honest question - do you see yourself as improving anything in this specific community? If so, how?
I ask as someone who has been overly snarky and cynical myself.
@LL - the partisanship observation is constructive, yet for the foreseeable future, I fear further polarization is all but inevitable. Plenty of people have pointed out that there are no billions of dollars in revenue to be gained in promoting civility and compromise.
|
I have no doubt that politicized leaks will continue to play a prominent role in the political process for years to come. Hacking is but a means, and not a new one, to that end; the leaking is what is really of interest here. This election has showed the political potency of leaking truthful information in the midst of a troubled environment to influence results, and there is no indication that we are going to see that happen less often in the future. Using a foreign non-ally for such ill-gotten gains starts to look like it isn't even much of a deviation from the norm in the context of what is already happening.
|
On August 04 2017 15:32 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2017 14:16 mustaju wrote:On August 04 2017 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote:we have to be as bad as Trump to best Trump They've been there the whole time. Does that mean Democrats should try and conspire with Iranian hackers in 2020? I could see some interesting opportunities. Let's say, they hack fox news, for example, or WH communications, because at this point, why not? I wouldn't be surprised to see it defended by friends of the establishment should it happen. If it was a Democrat who did what you describe vs. Trump, I have no doubt that the folks saying "you have to vote for the candidate promising to maim you over the one promising to gut you" would be right back here telling us why, despite colluding with Iran, we have to vote for the Democrat. Do you really think otherwise? I guess my question would be what sort of behaviour you are encouraging in practice by saying the sides are essentially the same. I just don't see it that way, and I think the differences are important to underline. Lesser of two evils choices are common in politics, and I dare say that this sort of cynicism is enabling terrible people rather than electing better people to office. Honest question - do you see yourself as improving anything in this specific community? If so, how? I ask as someone who has been overly snarky and cynical myself. @LL - the partisanship observation is constructive, yet for the foreseeable future, I fear further polarization is all but inevitable. Plenty of people have pointed out that there are no billions of dollars in revenue to be gained in promoting civility and compromise.
I find it reprehensible for both sides so I don't really see myself as encouraging it. I really only find the differences important to underline once you recognize they are "both" unacceptable.
As to your honest question, yes, I'm not always snarky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
