US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9152

On November 05 2017 03:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:


Nationalistic doesn't necessarily mean 'thinks his or her own country is the greatest', it's more about always promoting national interests over global ones. There's no conflict between being nationalist and targeting institutions or journalists, especially not when phrased as 'they are hurting our ability to be self-deterministic' or 'working against our agenda in favor of the agenda of globalists'. If there is one area where Trump has actually been consistent, it is attacking 'bad deals' that favor other countries rather than the US, and saying how he is going to make better deals that are more beneficial to the US.

I can't think of a single piece of policy, or even tweet he has made, where he favors a 'globalist' rather than a 'nationalist' agenda. For me, that's part of why I oppose him so strongly.

On November 05 2017 03:20 oBlade wrote:

You didn't read what was said, there's an ideological rift in the party that splits about 3 ways but mainly the interesting one is, speaking broadly here, between those who looked at past failures and thought the answer was to become a discount version of the Democrats, and those who have an ideological alternative. Only one of those has a future. Trying to be Democrats will mean you lose every time to actual Democrats. Trump has proven the viability of the latter.

On November 05 2017 03:20 oBlade wrote:

You didn't read what was said, there's an ideological rift in the party that splits about 3 ways but mainly the interesting one is, speaking broadly here, between those who looked at past failures and thought the answer was to become a discount version of the Democrats, and those who have an ideological alternative. Only one of those has a future. Trying to be Democrats will mean you lose every time to actual Democrats. Trump has proven the viability of the latter.

On November 05 2017 03:29 ticklishmusic wrote:


Isn't the idea that under Obama and previous admins the US made a bunch of deals that favored other people either essentially a strawman or rather a difference in opinion? Like Obama didn't do the JCPOA or enter various trade deals to weaken America.

It generally seems though that Trump's insistence on "better deals" is due to Dunning Kruger or placing priority on visible wins to claim like 200 jobs in Detroit vs. an international agreement about consumer safety.

On November 05 2017 03:29 ticklishmusic wrote:


Isn't the idea that under Obama and previous admins the US made a bunch of deals that favored other people either essentially a strawman or rather a difference in opinion? Like Obama didn't do the JCPOA or enter various trade deals to weaken America.

It generally seems though that Trump's insistence on "better deals" is due to Dunning Kruger or placing priority on visible wins to claim like 200 jobs in Detroit vs. an international agreement about consumer safety.

The US special forces detachment ambushed in the Niger last month fought alone for hours after the local Nigerien forces they were accompanying fled in the first minutes of the engagement, retired and serving special forces officers with knowledge of events have said.

The trapped soldiers also made repeated efforts to convince French warplanes sent from neighbouring Mali to engage the enemy, attempting to “talk in” the pilots who refused to attack due to poor weather, rough terrain and an inability to differentiate friend from foe, the officers said.

Four US Green Berets and five Nigerien troops died in the incident, which has been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over the executive branch’s extensive powers to use military force abroad without congressional approval and with little oversight.

The Niger incident has been described as an “intelligence failure” by the Republican senator John McCain, who blamed it on budget cuts.

The US troops were part of a “train and equip” programme, but the incident has prompted questions in Congress on where such missions blur into counter-terrorist combat.

Controversy flared after Trump was accused of mishandling a phone call to the widow of La David Johnson, one of the dead soldiers.

The Pentagon has launched a special investigation to be carried out by officers from US Africa Command, which is due to report within two months. A defence department spokesman said that there would be no further comment on the incident until then. But defence department leaks have fuelled anger within the US special forces community at what one retired senior officer called “a massive blame game”.

“To them, it is obviously the [soldiers’ own] fault and error on a ‘routine’ training and advisory mission in Niger,” he wrote in an email to other members of the community, seen by the Guardian.

The email contains new details of the engagement, which took place on the immediate outskirts of the remote village of Tongo Tongo in south-western Niger, in the centre of the volatile Sahel region.

The Pentagon has said the unit that was attacked comprised 12 soldiers from the 3rd Special Forces Group which had recently arrived in Niger for a six-month tour, and about 30 Nigerien troops.

The ambush took place at 11:40pm on 4 October after the unit had spent two hours in Tongo Tongo, talking to local elders. The previous night, the Americans had destroyed a camp used by Djoundjoun Cheiffou, a lieutenant of Abu Waleed al-Sahraoui, an Islamic extremist based in neighbouring Mali who last year pledged allegiance to Islamic State.

Local media in Niger revealed this week that Cheffou was in detention there until 2016 when he was freed in return for the release of an Australian hostage, Jocelyn Elliott.

About 50 men attacked the US and Nigerien unit with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

The retired special forces officer said he had been told by servicemen with detailed knowledge of the incident that “approximately half of the US/Nigerien force was allowed to pass through the ambush killzone before the ambush was sprung, trapping the rear half.”

On hearing firing, the lead group of soldiers turned around to engage the militants.

“Except for those already dead or wounded, all of the Nigerien soldiers bugged out and left the Americans to fight … all by themselves. Two groups, roughly six Americans per group, fighting for their lives alone against a superior ALQ force,” the retired officer said.

A US drone was on the site of the engagement within minutes, but was unarmed. An hour passed before the trapped unit on the ground called for airstrikes against the militants who surrounded them. The delay has surprised and concerned experts and veterans.

“Airstrikes were requested as the Americans fought on. Several French Mirage fighters responded, but refused to engage citing poor weather, rough terrain and an inability to differentiate friend from foe. American SF [Special Forces] requested ‘danger close’ support and attempted to talk the CAS [close air support] in, but the French Mirages alleged continued to refuse to engage,” the officer wrote in the mail, based on his own discussions with serving and retired special forces soldiers with knowledge of the incident.

A spokesman for the French defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations.

On November 05 2017 03:31 zlefin wrote:

yes; it's a pure BS job. there's no actual substance to it (generally speaking, there might be a few exceptions). it's mostly just a false assertion to play into various common misattributions people have.
and trump is clearly not going to be able to make better deals; mostly he'll get worse deals or no deal at all.

In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the removal of Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.

Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.”

Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.

After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought.

On November 05 2017 03:46 kollin wrote:
Do the supporters of Trump in this thread think that a nationalist agenda can ever realistically be a good one?

On November 05 2017 04:12 Danglars wrote:

Depends on the aspect, but seeking America's benefit in foreign policy and not surrendering national sovereignty for ephemeral shit is definitely a good one. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

I have to qualify nationalism because trade protectionism slips under that hood these days. I like free trade. I think the net benefits to America are in our national interest. I don't mean cutting these five thousand page deals with some free trade, some protectionism, sections on labor and environment and all this other shit, which would be the TPP.

On November 05 2017 04:12 Danglars wrote:

Depends on the aspect, but seeking America's benefit in foreign policy and not surrendering national sovereignty for ephemeral shit is definitely a good one. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

On November 05 2017 04:40 IgnE wrote:


"Our interests are eternal and perpetual."

That's quite a clause right there, with implications that do not seem fully fleshed out.

On November 05 2017 04:51 doomdonker wrote:


What example would this be?

There's only really one foreign policy issue that Trump talked about in any degree of depth and that was China. And China at this point is accelerating their projection of soft and hard power in South East Asia because they know Trump is a corrupt pussy who talks big but in actuality loves everything about their government and wishes the US government could be run like that.

Granted, the US was starting to lose the region after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis but Trump's pretty much stuck a fork in the region's future. People in Thailand and Philippines pretty much see the end of long term US influence as the governments there have readily adopted Chinese style capitalism and are readily accepting so much Chinese investment because they no longer see the US as reliable. If you're an American, it can be hard to notice but the US has been pushing the world towards China hard right now if only because China actually seem pretty benevolent compared to the US right now, human rights issues aside (well, the whole Trump white nationalism thing can possibly be seen as more egregious)

If the USA wants to cede power in South East Asia, there's not much justification for the United States Navy. Which might be a good thing if the country decides to shove most of its military budget back into the people. But let's be honest, that'd never happen.