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 15 2017 07:53 Uldridge wrote: So, personally, what would you do to try to improve a broken system. Or are you happen with a status quo?
Reforming elections would go a long way to keeping very rich donors from spoon feeding their views to candidates. But the system isn’t as broken as people say.
We are just in a cycle where the post WW2, post Vietnam/civil right politicians are cycling out. The new politicians have no great conflict or struggle to use as a touchstone for real crisis. The Iraq war was a side show that left America bitter and war weary. The closest we came was 2007 and we managed to pull out of that. And without crisis, there is a total lack of leadership. The parties are devoid of leaders and they have stuffed shirts instead. Or people who got support by voting no nothing for 6 years. They will fail and be replaced. Hopefully this election cycle, but maybe not.
But to be honest. There is not really way to “fix the system”. This government is a reflection of the US people. A bunch of people who grew up in an era where the biggest crisis was 9/11. And if you look at how our political parties and voters failed to respond to that, its sort of makes sense that shit is fucked. We sent to war with a random nations because we were high on patriotism and let ourselves be lied to.
I don't think I buy this line of reasoning. US politicians are shit because they haven't been in a big crisis? So why is the rest of the world more or less functional when they haven't been in any bigger crisis? Why is it that only the US politicians needs a major struggle to keep him focused on actually doing his job?
As for the discussion on how to fix the political system. I'm inclined to say you can't. Because people are the problem, be it as voters or as politicians. Who knows, maybe I will live to see the day we turn to advanced AI to handle governing.
I cannot look at the dumpster fire that is the conservative run GOP and not think "man, this is a group of people who have no idea how we ended up in the Great Depression. They think its a thing stupid people did a long time ago and we will never fall for that again." And I cant look at the Democrats and think this is the party of labor that created all the support systems that we benefit from now. This group that is more interested in optics and purity tests than results. They aren't scared of fucking up or causing massive harm or a war. At some level, they have bought into the left vs right pro-wrestling coolaid. And the US voters did too.
I like how you completely avoided the question.
And no, on your point here. I think the GOP is perfectly aware of what caused the great depression. The truth is that they don't give a shit if it happens again. They hope to delay the train just long enough that it doesn't happen on their watch. And if it does, who cares, they won't be the ones who feel the full force of it.
As for your final point, is it the politicians who bought into the 'pro-wrestling coolaid'? or is it the voters who don't pay any attention unless a show is put on, forcing the politicians into drinking the coolaid just to get the attention to earn a vote?
On August 15 2017 15:10 LegalLord wrote: Trump is surrounded by two kinds of people: the kind of people he fucking hates working with, and the kind of people who give him really bad advice.
Where are all those experts and amazing team members he was going to pull together? Remember? It wasnt important that he had no government experience before because he was going to get the best people and just act as a CEO!
North Korea is backing off a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, according to a new report.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he had decided not to launch an attack, but warned he could change his mind.
“If the Yankees persist in their extremely dangerous reckless actions on the Korean Peninsula and in its vicinity, testing the restraint of the DPRK [North Korea], the [North] will make an important decision as it already declared,” Kim said according to the country’s state media, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. The statement could help reduce tensions in the region.
President Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric after North Korea carried out ballistic missile tests, warning the country that it would face “fire and fury” if it continued to threaten the U.S. and its allies.
North Korea responded by threatening an attack on Guam, saying an attack plan could be in place by mid-August.
Defense Secretary James Mattis on Monday warned Pyongyang that if a missile were to hit the U.S. territory that would be treated as an act of war.
North Korea is backing off a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, according to a new report.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he had decided not to launch an attack, but warned he could change his mind.
“If the Yankees persist in their extremely dangerous reckless actions on the Korean Peninsula and in its vicinity, testing the restraint of the DPRK [North Korea], the [North] will make an important decision as it already declared,” Kim said according to the country’s state media, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. The statement could help reduce tensions in the region.
President Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric after North Korea carried out ballistic missile tests, warning the country that it would face “fire and fury” if it continued to threaten the U.S. and its allies.
North Korea responded by threatening an attack on Guam, saying an attack plan could be in place by mid-August.
Defense Secretary James Mattis on Monday warned Pyongyang that if a missile were to hit the U.S. territory that would be treated as an act of war.
The Trump administration on Wednesday will start to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. And despite very tough talk about NAFTA during the campaign, it appears the administration has backed away from a major assault on the decades-old trade deal.
And that is a relief to businesses in all three countries.
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump clearly tapped into frustration about workers who had lost jobs in manufacturing. And he painted NAFTA as one of the central villains responsible for stealing Americans jobs.
"NAFTA was the worst deal ever made in the history of the world," he said. "It was a one-way highway out of the United States."
Upon taking office, President Trump followed through on his pledge to scuttle another trade deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But by April, it was becoming clear that NAFTA would be different.
"I was going to terminate NAFTA as of 2 or 3 days from now," Trump said, but, he said, the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada "called me and they said, 'Rather than terminating NAFTA, could you please renegotiate?' "
A lot of U.S. manufactures, agricultural companies and other businesses don't want the president to throw out the agreement. Analysts say most U.S. industries support NAFTA because the deal has increased U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico.
And it appears the administration is hearing that message.
"I decided rather than terminating NAFTA — which would be a pretty big shock to the system — we will renegotiate," Trump said.
So what kinds of changes are on the table?
"We see the changes as departing from much of the rhetoric of the campaign," says Jaime Reusche, a vice president at Moody's who follows Mexico. "We see them as relatively modest."
He says the U.S. is looking to get tougher enforcement of environmental and labor regulations in Mexico.
There will also be an effort to update NAFTA with regard to all the information-age technologies and products and issues that didn't exist when NAFTA was created.
Also on the to-do list: changes to the dispute-resolution process involving the three countries.
But as far as making really big changes to NAFTA, Reusche says that to understand how hard that would be to do, just look at that little switch on your car door that makes the window open.
Those switches "start off as small components in Asia which are then imported and brought over to Colorado. In Colorado, they are made into a capacitor. The capacitor then goes over to Mexico," he says.
And he says the components cross back into the U.S. or Canada and back to the U.S. or Mexico again before finally being part of a finished car. So multiply that by thousands of products across a slew of industries — the root system that has been laid down is an immensely complex web of interconnected business relationships across both borders.
"Perhaps it's a parallel to the health care issue where they realized to actually be able to make significant changes that don't hurt anybody, it becomes very challenging to actually change," Reusche says.
Of course, regardless of what the administration's trade officials have said they want to do, it's not too much of a stretch to think that the president might make news with a tweet or statement that catches the negotiators on all sides off guard.
"Well, I guess the thing about a wild card is it can go in either direction," says Caroline Freund, with the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "So on the one hand if Trump insisted that Mexico pay for the wall as part of the NAFTA negotiations, that would derail the negotiations completely."
But she says on the other hand, the president might be able to nudge negotiators in a useful direction, too.
President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela had become a pariah among fellow Latin American leaders as his beleaguered country staggered toward dictatorship. But a threat by President Trump to use the American military against Mr. Maduro’s government has united those leaders in a different direction: demanding that the United States keep out of the region’s affairs.
“The possibility of a military intervention shouldn’t even be considered,” Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president, said on Sunday during a visit by Vice President Mike Pence to the region. “America is a continent of peace. It is the land of peace.”
Mr. Santos’s response to Mr. Trump’s remarks — echoed by many other Latin American leaders in recent days — could endanger a fragile alliance against what many fear is the first dictatorship to emerge in the region in decades, analysts say.
“Threatening military action undermines the strongest Latin American consensus in support of democracy that I have seen since the end of the Pinochet regime,” said Mark L. Schneider, an adviser at the Americas program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to the Chilean military dictatorship led by Augusto Pinochet.
Maintaining that alliance will be a difficult balancing act for Mr. Pence as he tours Latin America this week, with stops in Chile, Panama and Argentina.
Even on the first stage of his trip in Colombia, Mr. Pence shifted tones, urging a “peaceable” solution during a meeting with Mr. Santos on Sunday, then suggesting something tougher when he said the United States would not “stand by while Venezuela collapses into dictatorship” as he met with Venezuelan refugees the next day.
The dispute began last Friday when Mr. Trump, speaking with reporters about an escalating standoff over North Korea’s nuclear weapons, suddenly added Venezuela to countries where he said he was considering military intervention.
“We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option if necessary,” the president said.
The remark was immediately seen as bolstering Mr. Maduro domestically, where he, like his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, has long warned of United States coup plots and invasions. But it has also left Latin Americans in a difficult position, forced to choose between one country accused of dictatorship and another being called an empire — or to simply condemn both.
Peru, which has taken some of the toughest stands in the region against Venezuela, issued a statement on Saturday condemning possible use of force, and Mexico said the crisis could not be resolved with soldiers. Brazil said renouncing violence was the “basis of democratic cohabitation.” And human rights groups in Venezuela rejected Mr. Trump’s threat.
Much of the reaction may have to do with history. Many of the countries now rejecting Mr. Trump’s use of military force were themselves invaded by the United States, which once famously regarded the region as “America’s backyard.” Panama, one of the countries on Mr. Pence’s visit, was invaded in 1989 when President George Bush toppled its dictator, Manuel Noriega.
“An often ugly history of U.S. interventions is vividly remembered in Latin America — even as we in the U.S. have forgotten,” said Shannon O’Neil, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations specializing in Latin America.
Under President Barack Obama, however, Washington aimed to get past the conflicts by building wider consensus over regional disputes. In 2009, after the Honduran military removed the leftist president Manuel Zelaya from power in a midnight coup, the United States joined other countries in trying to broker — albeit unsuccessfully — a deal for his return.
In 2014, there was more success when Mr. Obama said he would restore relations with Cuba after a half century of Cold War conflict that was a point of contention among many Latin American nations. The diplomatic thaw left much of the region warming to Washington for the first time in years.
Then came the crisis in Venezuela. For more than two years, stagnant oil prices and years of economic mismanagement had left the country short of food and basic medicines. In April, people took to the streets demanding Mr. Maduro’s removal, leading to clashes that have left more than 120 dead.
During Mr. Obama’s last days in office, his administration saw a chance to build consensus through diplomacy, joining an effort by the Organization of American States, a regional diplomacy group, to pressure Venezuela through opening an investigation that could lead to suspension. In March, the United States and more than a dozen other nations publicly urged the country to release political prisoners and hold new elections.
But Mr. Trump’s White House was pursuing a more aggressive path on its own.
In February, the Treasury Department issued sanctions against the Venezuelan vice president, Tareck El Aissami, accusing him of being a drug kingpin. As Mr. Maduro orchestrated a vote to establish a new ruling body on July 30, the White House blacklisted judges and sanctioned more officials; after the vote was held, Mr. Maduro was sanctioned personally, leaving him one of four heads of state to be blacklisted that way.
On Friday came Mr. Trump’s military threat.
While few expected Mr. Trump to actually order an attack, much of the damage was already done for American diplomacy, analysts said.
“Trump’s comments appeared to be, as usual, a sudden outburst that was not thought through,” said Riordan Roett, who heads the Latin American studies program at Johns Hopkins University.
He added that those supporting the leftist movement founded by Mr. Chávez were ultimately the winners.
“It puts the U.S. in the position of the ‘bully’ not unlike the warmongering over North Korea,” he said. “This is a God given gift to the Chavistas.”
Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing?
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%.
For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working?
It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
DJT doesn't know whether he's right or not. he thinks he's right, but that's far different from actually being right. and from acutally knowing you're right. and they're certainly not accomplsihing much of anything so far. if their goal was to do good things they're failing horribly. it's also pretty clear that trump cares abotu popularity contests more than the actual work of sound governing.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%.
For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working?
It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
A guy I know went to law school with 'Augustus'. Back then they weren't quite sure if it was a bit of an act or if he was legit crazy, though apparently in one class he did propose his classmates call the police and tell them he was transporting heroin to make some sort of point about criminal process.
On August 15 2017 07:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 15 2017 03:07 Danglars wrote:
On August 14 2017 23:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 14 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:
On August 14 2017 22:18 Nevuk wrote:
Less than 24 hours after Charlotte trump released this ad that contains a list of people he identifies as the enemy.
Woah there no need to go full Nixon. He's trying to change the narrative and identify people obstructing his agenda (which is massive massive bigly success already apparently). List of people he identifies as enemies my ass, Nevuk.
Out of curiosity, and since all you Trumpers suddenly disappeared fron that debate, what's your take on Charlotte's events and the aftermath?
Debate? You must mean echo chamber. You'll have to drill down to some concrete questions that I didn't already post on, and the search function is open to you for the ones on the historical statue issue, political tweets from senators/NYT, left wing and right wing violence, etc.
Oh, and if you have curiosity, I'm not a Trumper. He was bottom of the barrel of acceptable candidates for the primary, and it was only the dawning reality of a Clinton presidency that got my to the polling station. Unless you're the kind of tribal member that wants to be called a Hillary shill. I'm a conservative Republican.
My respect and consideration for you will get such a boost the day you will be able to, you know, openly condemn a terrorist attack commited by the right wing, openly admit that Trump is a disaster and that maybe you made a mistake voting for such a clown and such a horrifying person, or openly admit that there is something deeply disturbing happening that got revealed in Charlottesville.
But you won't. Us getting horrified at nazis marching with swastikas and performing isis style terror attack is "echo chamber".
You simply can't get past your partisan hackery. And that's this mindless partisanship that is slowly killing your country.
When a Bernie supporter tried to kill a republican congressman, we were all horrified and tried to understand how that could happen. Sanders reacted immediatemy, denouncing that horrible act, instead of, like your guy, being a fucking jerk and putting victims and terrorists in the same bag. I haven't read a line of you, xDaunt, biology major or any of you hardcore conservatives expressing the slightest concern at nazis marching with torch Nurenberg style or going full Al Qaeda. It's shameful.
Which is sort of the reason I asked you to develop your question and put it forth. The real statement of your curiosity is along the lines of, "I know you to be a partisan Trump-loving hack at relative ease with white supremacist rallies, and I want anything I can twist to support my preconceived ideas." I'm not into your fanciful notions of conservatives needing to pipe up or they're assumed white supremacists ... but again, you're a confirmed Stalin lover for refusing to distance yourself from the Soviet flag held by one of the counter protestors. So, many apologies, but if you just want passive punching bags that issue disavowals at every turn, go play with impressionable and fearful children. If you have any doubt of my thoughts on white-supremacists and neonazis in marches, you can ask away.
I swear to you that if there were a march organized by my party fringe with torches, stalinist chants, ussr flag and a fucking terrorist attack, and that the guy i voted for didn't immediately distance himself from it in the most clear and uncompromising terms, I would be absolutely horrified and would express my disgust and regrets to be associated to those people and to have voted for such a morally bankrupt scumbag in the harshest terms.
And you realize as well as I do that the problem is not that "one of the guys had a nazi flag". It's that the guy you voted for is supported by an active and dynamic white supremacist neo nazi movement that recognize themselves in his ideas and what he says, who have no problem anymore marching with swastikas, kkk costumes and hitlerian salutes, and that, most importantly, he is extremely reluctant to condemn.
If something of that sort happened on the left, i would be fucking screaming and the first here to express my outrage, instead of talking of echo chamber and simply ignoring it.
But eh, never recognize you are wrong, never apologize, never show any doubt and never reflect critically on yourself.
And if I were as flippant as you are daily, I'd say this is the second time you've refused to distance yourself from the Soviet presence at the rally. So when your curiosity feeds into a helpful, debating direction, look me up. I see nothing served from the "I'm curious" ... "just as I expected, you get no respect and consideration!" ... essentially feeding the troll behavior.
The big clue-in was "Trumpers suddenly disappeared from that debate," when there were no Trumpers, they didn't disappear, and it was an echo chamber and not a debate. The search function is open to you. For the rest, you'll have to be clear what you're asking and not content yourself with insinuating all kinds of evil (Which, to be honest, you do just fine by yourself unassisted).
Less than 24 hours after Charlotte trump released this ad that contains a list of people he identifies as the enemy.
Woah there no need to go full Nixon. He's trying to change the narrative and identify people obstructing his agenda (which is massive massive bigly success already apparently). List of people he identifies as enemies my ass, Nevuk.
Out of curiosity, and since all you Trumpers suddenly disappeared fron that debate, what's your take on Charlotte's events and the aftermath?
Debate? You must mean echo chamber. You'll have to drill down to some concrete questions that I didn't already post on, and the search function is open to you for the ones on the historical statue issue, political tweets from senators/NYT, left wing and right wing violence, etc.
Oh, and if you have curiosity, I'm not a Trumper. He was bottom of the barrel of acceptable candidates for the primary, and it was only the dawning reality of a Clinton presidency that got my to the polling station. Unless you're the kind of tribal member that wants to be called a Hillary shill. I'm a conservative Republican.
My respect and consideration for you will get such a boost the day you will be able to, you know, openly condemn a terrorist attack commited by the right wing, openly admit that Trump is a disaster and that maybe you made a mistake voting for such a clown and such a horrifying person, or openly admit that there is something deeply disturbing happening that got revealed in Charlottesville.
But you won't. Us getting horrified at nazis marching with swastikas and performing isis style terror attack is "echo chamber".
You simply can't get past your partisan hackery. And that's this mindless partisanship that is slowly killing your country.
When a Bernie supporter tried to kill a republican congressman, we were all horrified and tried to understand how that could happen. Sanders reacted immediatemy, denouncing that horrible act, instead of, like your guy, being a fucking jerk and putting victims and terrorists in the same bag. I haven't read a line of you, xDaunt, biology major or any of you hardcore conservatives expressing the slightest concern at nazis marching with torch Nurenberg style or going full Al Qaeda. It's shameful.
Which is sort of the reason I asked you to develop your question and put it forth. The real statement of your curiosity is along the lines of, "I know you to be a partisan Trump-loving hack at relative ease with white supremacist rallies, and I want anything I can twist to support my preconceived ideas." I'm not into your fanciful notions of conservatives needing to pipe up or they're assumed white supremacists ... but again, you're a confirmed Stalin lover for refusing to distance yourself from the Soviet flag held by one of the counter protestors. So, many apologies, but if you just want passive punching bags that issue disavowals at every turn, go play with impressionable and fearful children. If you have any doubt of my thoughts on white-supremacists and neonazis in marches, you can ask away.
I swear to you that if there were a march organized by my party fringe with torches, stalinist chants, ussr flag and a fucking terrorist attack, and that the guy i voted for didn't immediately distance himself from it in the most clear and uncompromising terms, I would be absolutely horrified and would express my disgust and regrets to be associated to those people and to have voted for such a morally bankrupt scumbag in the harshest terms.
And you realize as well as I do that the problem is not that "one of the guys had a nazi flag". It's that the guy you voted for is supported by an active and dynamic white supremacist neo nazi movement that recognize themselves in his ideas and what he says, who have no problem anymore marching with swastikas, kkk costumes and hitlerian salutes, and that, most importantly, he is extremely reluctant to condemn.
If something of that sort happened on the left, i would be fucking screaming and the first here to express my outrage, instead of talking of echo chamber and simply ignoring it.
But eh, never recognize you are wrong, never apologize, never show any doubt and never reflect critically on yourself.
Meanwhile the NYT continues to write glowing posthumous editorials and articles on the USSR and socialism. When will the NYT becomes as derided as the folks over at the Daily Stormer?
Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing?
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%.
For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working?
It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
Like not condemn violence by Nazis?
No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth.
On August 15 2017 13:55 LegalLord wrote: Bannon spices this administration up something fierce. I fear that if he goes away Trump won't be nearly as much fun as he is now.
Yep. Now, if his office is doing faction wars with leaks, he's gotta go.
A guy I know went to law school with 'Augustus'. Back then they weren't quite sure if it was a bit of an act or if he was legit crazy, though apparently in one class he did propose his classmates call the police and tell them he was transporting heroin to make some sort of point about criminal process.
EPT![[image loading]](https://am11.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-15-at-7.43.42-AM.jpg)
