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 November 19 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: TPP was by no means dead without Trump. Oh sure, that deal was supremely unpopular, but the reality is that a legislative consensus opposed to the popular consensus really wanted that deal and with Hillary Clinton or one of the Republican regulars (Rubio/Cruz/Jeb!) in charge, it would have passed. Nixing that deal is one of his best - and few - genuine achievements. Yes, it does seem that he did it by accident, as he opposes other multinational agreements that are either ill-advised to oppose or genuinely good (NAFTA and Paris for example), but he did something that "not the agreement I wanted for America" flip-floppers would have squeezed through against popular consensus. Trump can genuinely write that down as something to be proud of.
The problem with calling it a sucsess is that ther was never and is still no proposed alternative to it. All its going to do as time goes on is allow china to pay hard cash for future economic gains. It was a deeply flawed treaty but to do nothing as an alternative isn't worthy of praise.
I don’t deny that canceling the TPP has a significant price to pay in influence in the region. Unfortunately that factoid was pushed in order to create a shitty deal that “we must pass anyways” in a manner not unlike “Hillary may be bad but we can’t worry about that when Trump is SO MUCH WORSE!!!” In both cases: yes, there is a price to pay, but that was used to gamble with trying to push things as bad as they could go. The entire idea of the arbitration courts and everything else that made TPP hated provided ample reason for people to hate it even if it is SO important.
The alternative to a deal is the status quo, a situation where the US tries to hold on to the loose network of local alliances it already has. I am not convinced that that’s worse than TPP. Yes, it’s true that China will have more freedom to push for economic expansion than they would without it. To some extent I am not convinced that that has to be opposed or that doing so is a good idea. The story I have heard is that the Chinese have some substantial issues of overcapacity of capital and resources that they want to use to develop a longer term economic base from, but that funny money, diplomatic barriers on all fronts, and corruption are all making much of that strategy unsustainable. It’s undeniable that China will grow as a world power compared to where it used to be but the prevailing “China will eat everything if we don’t take what we can get right now” narrative really does need to be kept in check. And maybe, just maybe, that means to cancel the TPP, maintain the status quo, and wait until a better solution can be implemented.
On November 19 2017 06:52 Doodsmack wrote: Let’s say thanks for Trumps generals.
isn't that normal though? If you're a general and you think an order is illegal you have to "push back"... right?
As much as I understand the point being that that even needs to be said in the first place but still.
Yes. In general, the military commander should say he would follow the president's order so that the world doesn't think the USA lacks the ability to actually strike, but it's also true that members of the military are not required to carry out illegal orders, and you will be punished if you do. It's not always easy in the moment to know what constitutes an illegal order so the bar is probably a little low, but things like manning the gas chambers during the holocaust or offensively launching a nuclear strike for no obviously justifiable reason are probably going to get you imprisoned or executed after the fact if you follow the orders. The marines in a few good men don't go to prison like the Colonel probably does, but they do get punished.
When there is an ethical dilemma, the responsibility of the soldier to the US Constitution trumps the responsibility to the commander or president.
On November 19 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: TPP was by no means dead without Trump. Oh sure, that deal was supremely unpopular, but the reality is that a legislative consensus opposed to the popular consensus really wanted that deal and with Hillary Clinton or one of the Republican regulars (Rubio/Cruz/Jeb!) in charge, it would have passed. Nixing that deal is one of his best - and few - genuine achievements. Yes, it does seem that he did it by accident, as he opposes other multinational agreements that are either ill-advised to oppose or genuinely good (NAFTA and Paris for example), but he did something that "not the agreement I wanted for America" flip-floppers would have squeezed through against popular consensus. Trump can genuinely write that down as something to be proud of.
The problem with calling it a sucsess is that ther was never and is still no proposed alternative to it. All its going to do as time goes on is allow china to pay hard cash for future economic gains. It was a deeply flawed treaty but to do nothing as an alternative isn't worthy of praise.
I don’t deny that canceling the TPP has a significant price to pay in influence in the region. Unfortunately that factoid was pushed in order to create a shitty deal that “we must pass anyways” in a manner not unlike “Hillary may be bad but we can’t worry about that when Trump is SO MUCH WORSE!!!” In both cases: yes, there is a price to pay, but that was used to gamble with trying to push things as bad as they could go. The entire idea of the arbitration courts and everything else that made TPP hated provided ample reason for people to hate it even if it is SO important.
The alternative to a deal is the status quo, a situation where the US tries to hold on to the loose network of local alliances it already has. I am not convinced that that’s worse than TPP. Yes, it’s true that China will have more freedom to push for economic expansion than they would without it. To some extent I am not convinced that that has to be opposed or that doing so is a good idea. The story I have heard is that the Chinese have some substantial issues of overcapacity of capital and resources that they want to use to develop a longer term economic base from, but that funny money, diplomatic barriers on all fronts, and corruption are all making much of that strategy unsustainable. It’s undeniable that China will grow as a world power compared to where it used to be but the prevailing “China will eat everything if we don’t take what we can get right now” narrative really does need to be kept in check. And maybe, just maybe, that means to cancel the TPP, maintain the status quo, and wait until a better solution can be implemented.
I don't buy this. The core of good FP is to make america better off in one way or another. Giving room for china to grow at our expense is not this. The south China sea is the axies that this entire century is going to pivot off of. The fact that people don't like china for obvious reasons is going to evaporate if we don't engage in the region and set up better trade deals. We need to make these nations economically dependent on us rather then china. Everyone can agree that the next generation is going to see the largest swath of growth coming out of the Asian continent and we need to be in front of China. China is weak on the inside and making these deals will strengthen them when their internal corruption and debt crisis comes home to roost. On that day the US gets everything it wants and dictates the terms of victory in WW3.
TPP would have been really really good for the US as a whole. Our mega corporations would have had a field day fucking over the third world in Asia and would have made real bank in it. The reason why the arbitration courts were bad because thats a fast track to colonization with fewer steps.
On November 19 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: TPP was by no means dead without Trump. Oh sure, that deal was supremely unpopular, but the reality is that a legislative consensus opposed to the popular consensus really wanted that deal and with Hillary Clinton or one of the Republican regulars (Rubio/Cruz/Jeb!) in charge, it would have passed. Nixing that deal is one of his best - and few - genuine achievements. Yes, it does seem that he did it by accident, as he opposes other multinational agreements that are either ill-advised to oppose or genuinely good (NAFTA and Paris for example), but he did something that "not the agreement I wanted for America" flip-floppers would have squeezed through against popular consensus. Trump can genuinely write that down as something to be proud of.
Cruz would be a second besides Trump that I’d expect to kill the deal. I expect the others you mentioned to hem and haw but eventually sign it if it hit their desk.
Looks like Hillary's grip on the party is finally slipping ever so slightly.
She (Clinton) continued, "There's a double standard: the Republicans deny, deny, deny and divert, divert, divert and they get away with it because the press is more concerned about someone who accepted responsibility than people who refuse to take responsibility."
Clinton also pushed back against Democratic Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, who made headlines earlier this week when she said President Bill Clinton should have stepped down following his sex scandal involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
"That was a painful time not only in our marriage but in our country," Clinton said, referring to the impeachment of her husband in 1999. "But it was investigated fully, it was addressed at the time, he was held accountable. That is very different than what people seem to be remembering from that period."
On November 19 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: TPP was by no means dead without Trump. Oh sure, that deal was supremely unpopular, but the reality is that a legislative consensus opposed to the popular consensus really wanted that deal and with Hillary Clinton or one of the Republican regulars (Rubio/Cruz/Jeb!) in charge, it would have passed. Nixing that deal is one of his best - and few - genuine achievements. Yes, it does seem that he did it by accident, as he opposes other multinational agreements that are either ill-advised to oppose or genuinely good (NAFTA and Paris for example), but he did something that "not the agreement I wanted for America" flip-floppers would have squeezed through against popular consensus. Trump can genuinely write that down as something to be proud of.
The problem with calling it a sucsess is that ther was never and is still no proposed alternative to it. All its going to do as time goes on is allow china to pay hard cash for future economic gains. It was a deeply flawed treaty but to do nothing as an alternative isn't worthy of praise.
I don’t deny that canceling the TPP has a significant price to pay in influence in the region. Unfortunately that factoid was pushed in order to create a shitty deal that “we must pass anyways” in a manner not unlike “Hillary may be bad but we can’t worry about that when Trump is SO MUCH WORSE!!!” In both cases: yes, there is a price to pay, but that was used to gamble with trying to push things as bad as they could go. The entire idea of the arbitration courts and everything else that made TPP hated provided ample reason for people to hate it even if it is SO important.
The alternative to a deal is the status quo, a situation where the US tries to hold on to the loose network of local alliances it already has. I am not convinced that that’s worse than TPP. Yes, it’s true that China will have more freedom to push for economic expansion than they would without it. To some extent I am not convinced that that has to be opposed or that doing so is a good idea. The story I have heard is that the Chinese have some substantial issues of overcapacity of capital and resources that they want to use to develop a longer term economic base from, but that funny money, diplomatic barriers on all fronts, and corruption are all making much of that strategy unsustainable. It’s undeniable that China will grow as a world power compared to where it used to be but the prevailing “China will eat everything if we don’t take what we can get right now” narrative really does need to be kept in check. And maybe, just maybe, that means to cancel the TPP, maintain the status quo, and wait until a better solution can be implemented.
I don't buy this. The core of good FP is to make america better off in one way or another. Giving room for china to grow at our expense is not this. The south China sea is the axies that this entire century is going to pivot off of. The fact that people don't like china for obvious reasons is going to evaporate if we don't engage in the region and set up better trade deals. We need to make these nations economically dependent on us rather then china. Everyone can agree that the next generation is going to see the largest swath of growth coming out of the Asian continent and we need to be in front of China. China is weak on the inside and making these deals will strengthen them when their internal corruption and debt crisis comes home to roost. On that day the US gets everything it wants and dictates the terms of victory in WW3.
TPP would have been really really good for the US as a whole. Our mega corporations would have had a field day fucking over the third world in Asia and would have made real bank in it. The reason why the arbitration courts were bad because thats a fast track to colonization with fewer steps.
You make at least a few strong, questionable assumptions here. 1. That what is good for the mega corporations is what is good for the US as a whole. 2. That the South China Sea is as undeniable in its guarantee for relevance as some believe it is (as reckless an assumption as that China will grow without bound for many years to come). 3. That the TPP will prevent this and create a US-based dominance over that region. 4. That, to the contrary, a lack of the TPP will instantly push everyone into a Chinaward direction (seems to be contrary to fact from what I've seen). 5. That TPP will lead to China being less or incapable of properly dealing with the issues it faces and that that gives the US that total victory you're claiming. 6. That these benefits are going to come from TPP-as-implemented rather than from some ideal free trade deal. 7. That no further side effects of arbitration courts would exist, such as those of popular backlash and creating similar situations in other deals (e.g. TTIP).
TPP promotes a virulent form of the worst that free trade has to offer under the guise of national/economic security necessity, an argument of the inevitability of that Asia-based future, and the idea that such a deal will somehow reverse the tides if that reality is inevitable. It also fails to consider deindustrialization and trade dependency as developments that inevitably occur as a result of pushing major production overseas.
Nah, let it die. In fact I sort of wonder if the anti-trade sentiment really was what pushed Trump over the electoral line. The rural/urban divide is also one that well-describes the divide of winners and losers of the expansion of trade policy (TPP being only one, particularly foolish, example).
On November 19 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote: I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
the system is made for gridlock. people screaming the world was going to end due to Trump winning now look almost as ridiculous as the people who said Trump had no chance of winning.
This quote only makes sense from the perspective of climate change denial
And this quote only makes sense from a perspective of extreme tribalism. Trump almost literally hasn't done anything that can't be undone within a month of him leaving office (an exception for TPP, but that was dead with or without him). It's reminiscent of tribalist Republicans saying Obama's foreign policy (which, like most of Trump's presidency, I also wasn't a big a fan of) would take "decades to fix."
this quote only makes sense if your standard of presidency is not fucking shit up, rather than, you know, doing some good.
Meh, I'd argue Obama (who I'd give a favorable 6 or 7 out of 10 rating as president, and I'm guessing you would rate higher) did much better in "not fucking shit up" than doing any good.
The ACA, while an improvement, certainly hasn't been a smashing success. It's difficult to argue the Iran or Paris deals are going to do a ton of good in the longer-term either (Paris has no mechanism for enforcement and each country sets its own goals, the Iran deal has a sunset clause on nukes and doesn't deal with ballistic missiles).
Like it or not, the bar for a mediocre president is "don't fuck stuff up too bad." Trump may be trying his darnedest, but as long as he keeps failing then it's difficult to argue (as the original quoted post implied) that Trump is causing the world to end.
that's still waay better than trump's 1-2 out of 10. mostly though that quote chain dispute is probably a result of people not understanding the point people were making at various stages and then responding to a different argument than what was made.
On November 19 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote: I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
the system is made for gridlock. people screaming the world was going to end due to Trump winning now look almost as ridiculous as the people who said Trump had no chance of winning.
This quote only makes sense from the perspective of climate change denial
And this quote only makes sense from a perspective of extreme tribalism. Trump almost literally hasn't done anything that can't be undone within a month of him leaving office (an exception for TPP, but that was dead with or without him). It's reminiscent of tribalist Republicans saying Obama's foreign policy (which, like most of Trump's presidency, I also wasn't a big a fan of) would take "decades to fix."
this quote only makes sense if your standard of presidency is not fucking shit up, rather than, you know, doing some good.
Meh, I'd argue Obama (who I'd give a favorable 6 or 7 out of 10 rating as president, and I'm guessing you would rate higher) did much better in "not fucking shit up" than doing any good.
The ACA, while an improvement, certainly hasn't been a smashing success. It's difficult to argue the Iran or Paris deals are going to do a ton of good in the longer-term either (Paris has no mechanism for enforcement and each country sets its own goals, the Iran deal has a sunset clause on nukes and doesn't deal with ballistic missiles).
Like it or not, the bar for a mediocre president is "don't fuck stuff up too bad." Trump may be trying his darnedest, but as long as he keeps failing then it's difficult to argue (as the original quoted post implied) that Trump is causing the world to end.
I think it's important to recognize that Congress filibustering or gutting certain programs Obama wanted passed "because he's a Democrat" (e.g., the ACA) hurt his effectiveness as a president, whereas Congress filibustering or gutting certain programs Trump wants is actually making his presidency better.
On November 19 2017 03:45 LegalLord wrote: I've felt for many years that the worst part of a Republican presidency would be that it would give Congressional Republicans free reign over making stupid shit happen as in the Bush era. I suppose it's a humorous sort of irony that the Congressional Republicans are now paralyzed by their own badness. Of course I know they have and will pass the occasional stupidity, and that Congressional Democrats are no angels themselves. But perhaps under the current conditions deadlock is a blessing where it happens. The tax plan or healthcare plan or any of the other major initiatives pushed as major Trump legislation would just make things significantly worse.
the system is made for gridlock. people screaming the world was going to end due to Trump winning now look almost as ridiculous as the people who said Trump had no chance of winning.
This quote only makes sense from the perspective of climate change denial
And this quote only makes sense from a perspective of extreme tribalism. Trump almost literally hasn't done anything that can't be undone within a month of him leaving office (an exception for TPP, but that was dead with or without him). It's reminiscent of tribalist Republicans saying Obama's foreign policy (which, like most of Trump's presidency, I also wasn't a big a fan of) would take "decades to fix."
this quote only makes sense if your standard of presidency is not fucking shit up, rather than, you know, doing some good.
Meh, I'd argue Obama (who I'd give a favorable 6 or 7 out of 10 rating as president, and I'm guessing you would rate higher) did much better in "not fucking shit up" than doing any good.
The ACA, while an improvement, certainly hasn't been a smashing success. It's difficult to argue the Iran or Paris deals are going to do a ton of good in the longer-term either (Paris has no mechanism for enforcement and each country sets its own goals, the Iran deal has a sunset clause on nukes and doesn't deal with ballistic missiles).
Like it or not, the bar for a mediocre president is "don't fuck stuff up too bad." Trump may be trying his darnedest, but as long as he keeps failing then it's difficult to argue (as the original quoted post implied) that Trump is causing the world to end.
That's actually probably my rating of Obama as well, and my opinion as well. He didn't really have a chance to do more to fuck shit up because of congress, but the things he did get through were kind of spotty (common core had a really shitty implementation, everyone agrees, regardless of opinions on it. His foreign policy could at best be described as indecisive).
Gets a brilliant rating from everyone for not starting a war over false pretenses and not running the economy into a depression. And I guess he will get a bonus for not being trump in the future.
On November 19 2017 06:21 LegalLord wrote: TPP was by no means dead without Trump. Oh sure, that deal was supremely unpopular, but the reality is that a legislative consensus opposed to the popular consensus really wanted that deal and with Hillary Clinton or one of the Republican regulars (Rubio/Cruz/Jeb!) in charge, it would have passed. Nixing that deal is one of his best - and few - genuine achievements. Yes, it does seem that he did it by accident, as he opposes other multinational agreements that are either ill-advised to oppose or genuinely good (NAFTA and Paris for example), but he did something that "not the agreement I wanted for America" flip-floppers would have squeezed through against popular consensus. Trump can genuinely write that down as something to be proud of.
The problem with calling it a sucsess is that ther was never and is still no proposed alternative to it. All its going to do as time goes on is allow china to pay hard cash for future economic gains. It was a deeply flawed treaty but to do nothing as an alternative isn't worthy of praise.
I don’t deny that canceling the TPP has a significant price to pay in influence in the region. Unfortunately that factoid was pushed in order to create a shitty deal that “we must pass anyways” in a manner not unlike “Hillary may be bad but we can’t worry about that when Trump is SO MUCH WORSE!!!” In both cases: yes, there is a price to pay, but that was used to gamble with trying to push things as bad as they could go. The entire idea of the arbitration courts and everything else that made TPP hated provided ample reason for people to hate it even if it is SO important.
The alternative to a deal is the status quo, a situation where the US tries to hold on to the loose network of local alliances it already has. I am not convinced that that’s worse than TPP. Yes, it’s true that China will have more freedom to push for economic expansion than they would without it. To some extent I am not convinced that that has to be opposed or that doing so is a good idea. The story I have heard is that the Chinese have some substantial issues of overcapacity of capital and resources that they want to use to develop a longer term economic base from, but that funny money, diplomatic barriers on all fronts, and corruption are all making much of that strategy unsustainable. It’s undeniable that China will grow as a world power compared to where it used to be but the prevailing “China will eat everything if we don’t take what we can get right now” narrative really does need to be kept in check. And maybe, just maybe, that means to cancel the TPP, maintain the status quo, and wait until a better solution can be implemented.
I don't buy this. The core of good FP is to make america better off in one way or another. Giving room for china to grow at our expense is not this. The south China sea is the axies that this entire century is going to pivot off of. The fact that people don't like china for obvious reasons is going to evaporate if we don't engage in the region and set up better trade deals. We need to make these nations economically dependent on us rather then china. Everyone can agree that the next generation is going to see the largest swath of growth coming out of the Asian continent and we need to be in front of China. China is weak on the inside and making these deals will strengthen them when their internal corruption and debt crisis comes home to roost. On that day the US gets everything it wants and dictates the terms of victory in WW3.
TPP would have been really really good for the US as a whole. Our mega corporations would have had a field day fucking over the third world in Asia and would have made real bank in it. The reason why the arbitration courts were bad because thats a fast track to colonization with fewer steps.
You make at least a few strong, questionable assumptions here. 1. That what is good for the mega corporations is what is good for the US as a whole. 2. That the South China Sea is as undeniable in its guarantee for relevance as some believe it is (as reckless an assumption as that China will grow without bound for many years to come). 3. That the TPP will prevent this and create a US-based dominance over that region. 4. That, to the contrary, a lack of the TPP will instantly push everyone into a Chinaward direction (seems to be contrary to fact from what I've seen). 5. That TPP will lead to China being less or incapable of properly dealing with the issues it faces and that that gives the US that total victory you're claiming. 6. That these benefits are going to come from TPP-as-implemented rather than from some ideal free trade deal. 7. That no further side effects of arbitration courts would exist, such as those of popular backlash and creating similar situations in other deals (e.g. TTIP).
TPP promotes a virulent form of the worst that free trade has to offer under the guise of national/economic security necessity, an argument of the inevitability of that Asia-based future, and the idea that such a deal will somehow reverse the tides if that reality is inevitable. It also fails to consider deindustrialization and trade dependency as developments that inevitably occur as a result of pushing major production overseas.
Nah, let it die. In fact I sort of wonder if the anti-trade sentiment really was what pushed Trump over the electoral line. The rural/urban divide is also one that well-describes the divide of winners and losers of the expansion of trade policy (TPP being only one, particularly foolish, example).
The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is. Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight.
Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP.
Free trade is the only sensible trade policy. Putting your head in the sand and ignoring the future isn't an argument its preaching ignorance. The Rual communities benefit the same as urban communities with cheaper goods. The Rual communities benifit more from the delocalized highly automated manufacturing thats comeing back to the states and would be helped by the trade deals such as TPP.
We control the seas of the world no one comes even close and will become close to disputing that over the next 20-50 years. Promoting international dependence on trade is beneficial because we're the gatekeeper between that trade happening and not happening when the shit goes down. Isolation only hurts us and benifits everyone else and that is what leaving TPP and not proposing anything new does.
Obama won the presidency on a wave of euphoria in the wake of a pretty bad president. Pair his personal charm with the time’s unpopular Republican Party and the worst candidate ever for a war-weary populace, and he was an easy choice for 2008. For 2012 his case was a little more shaky, but he was still doing a pretty good job and won handily.
In office, he did a pretty alright job. He neither royally fucked things up nor did such a remarkable job that he would be forever remembered as one of the very best. I liked a lot of things he accomplished, and I didn’t like many others. He attracted a farcical Europhoria such as the one that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, which even his biggest fans will admit was given rather than earned. But he did do a lot of good work in representing the US abroad, so I can sympathize with their sycophantic gestures.
In hindsight I would say that the biggest black mark on Obama’s presidency is that he banked the future of his political achievements on his successor being Hillary Clinton. Where Obama represents an idealistic version of the status quo, Hillary is a career politician and entrenched interest in the worst sense of the terms. She has no place being president and that Obama cleared the way and allowed a Democratic Party to rot into a party of Hillary shills is not to his credit, nor is his inability to perceive why the continuation of a Hillary-esque policy near the end of his presidency did him no favors.
We are left with a sort of paradox: he was generally popular, if not dramatically so, and yet he was replaced by a president who is not popular and swears to destroy all the things he worked towards. A turn of events he deserves some blame for, despite not being all that bad a president up to about November 2016.
On November 19 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote: Obama won the presidency on a wave of euphoria in the wake of a pretty bad president. Pair his personal charm with the time’s unpopular Republican Party and the worst candidate ever for a war-weary populace, and he was an easy choice for 2008. For 2012 his case was a little more shaky, but he was still doing a pretty good job and won handily.
In office, he did a pretty alright job. He neither royally fucked things up nor did such a remarkable job that he would be forever remembered as one of the very best. I liked a lot of things he accomplished, and I didn’t like many others. He attracted a farcical Europhoria such as the one that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, which even his biggest fans will admit was given rather than earned. But he did do a lot of good work in representing the US abroad, so I can sympathize with their sycophantic gestures.
In hindsight I would say that the biggest black mark on Obama’s presidency is that he banked the future of his political achievements on his successor being Hillary Clinton. Where Obama represents an idealistic version of the status quo, Hillary is a career politician and entrenched interest in the worst sense of the terms. She has no place being president and that Obama cleared the way and allowed a Democratic Party to rot into a party of Hillary shills is not to his credit, nor is his inability to perceive why the continuation of a Hillary-esque policy near the end of his presidency did him no favors.
We are left with a sort of paradox: he was generally popular, if not dramatically so, and yet he was replaced by a president who is not popular and swears to destroy all the things he worked towards. A turn of events he deserves some blame for, despite not being all that bad a president up to about November 2016.
It reflects the US much more than the presidency of Obama. You are poorly educated to see through bullshit, and have a split country with an undelying big racism problem. Maybe I will some time learn how Hillary was such a terrible candidate, for me it seems mostly rooted in smearing campaigns and strong opinions with little real foundation. How she could possibly lose to Trump in any "democratic" system is beyond me. You got what you deserve.
On November 19 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote: Obama won the presidency on a wave of euphoria in the wake of a pretty bad president. Pair his personal charm with the time’s unpopular Republican Party and the worst candidate ever for a war-weary populace, and he was an easy choice for 2008. For 2012 his case was a little more shaky, but he was still doing a pretty good job and won handily.
In office, he did a pretty alright job. He neither royally fucked things up nor did such a remarkable job that he would be forever remembered as one of the very best. I liked a lot of things he accomplished, and I didn’t like many others. He attracted a farcical Europhoria such as the one that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, which even his biggest fans will admit was given rather than earned. But he did do a lot of good work in representing the US abroad, so I can sympathize with their sycophantic gestures.
In hindsight I would say that the biggest black mark on Obama’s presidency is that he banked the future of his political achievements on his successor being Hillary Clinton. Where Obama represents an idealistic version of the status quo, Hillary is a career politician and entrenched interest in the worst sense of the terms. She has no place being president and that Obama cleared the way and allowed a Democratic Party to rot into a party of Hillary shills is not to his credit, nor is his inability to perceive why the continuation of a Hillary-esque policy near the end of his presidency did him no favors.
We are left with a sort of paradox: he was generally popular, if not dramatically so, and yet he was replaced by a president who is not popular and swears to destroy all the things he worked towards. A turn of events he deserves some blame for, despite not being all that bad a president up to about November 2016.
It reflects the US much more than the presidency of Obama. You are poorly educated to see through bullshit, and have a split country with an undelying big racism problem. Maybe I will some time learn how Hillary was such a terrible candidate, for me it seems mostly rooted in smearing campaigns and strong opinions with little real foundation. How she could possibly lose to Trump in any "democratic" system is beyond me. You got what you deserve.
That you're incapable of seeing why it happened (whether or not you believe that Trump > Clinton was a good thing, which I for example do not) says a lot more about your own ignorance than it does about that of the US populace. Those who live in a glass house really shouldn't throw stones.
On November 19 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote: Obama won the presidency on a wave of euphoria in the wake of a pretty bad president. Pair his personal charm with the time’s unpopular Republican Party and the worst candidate ever for a war-weary populace, and he was an easy choice for 2008. For 2012 his case was a little more shaky, but he was still doing a pretty good job and won handily.
In office, he did a pretty alright job. He neither royally fucked things up nor did such a remarkable job that he would be forever remembered as one of the very best. I liked a lot of things he accomplished, and I didn’t like many others. He attracted a farcical Europhoria such as the one that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, which even his biggest fans will admit was given rather than earned. But he did do a lot of good work in representing the US abroad, so I can sympathize with their sycophantic gestures.
In hindsight I would say that the biggest black mark on Obama’s presidency is that he banked the future of his political achievements on his successor being Hillary Clinton. Where Obama represents an idealistic version of the status quo, Hillary is a career politician and entrenched interest in the worst sense of the terms. She has no place being president and that Obama cleared the way and allowed a Democratic Party to rot into a party of Hillary shills is not to his credit, nor is his inability to perceive why the continuation of a Hillary-esque policy near the end of his presidency did him no favors.
We are left with a sort of paradox: he was generally popular, if not dramatically so, and yet he was replaced by a president who is not popular and swears to destroy all the things he worked towards. A turn of events he deserves some blame for, despite not being all that bad a president up to about November 2016.
It reflects the US much more than the presidency of Obama. You are poorly educated to see through bullshit, and have a split country with an undelying big racism problem. Maybe I will some time learn how Hillary was such a terrible candidate, for me it seems mostly rooted in smearing campaigns and strong opinions with little real foundation. How she could possibly lose to Trump in any "democratic" system is beyond me. You got what you deserve.
The US is racist, Hillary was pretty good (or at least her defects were mostly unfounded smears), and Hillary should've won. Sounds like you want Trump 2020.
Obama was able to roll back the Hispanic votes that Bush was able to leverage and was able to modivate, coordinate and inspire a GOTV campaign that rivals anything democracy has seen. Hillary was inable to modivate anyone, didn't have a positive message to vote for her, and her GOTV was hamstrung by a primary process that was at the very least publicly perceived to be rigged to her favor (and then hired the person who was in charge of overseeing said primary for some ungodly reason I still don't understand).
Superpreditor is a one word answer to why Hillary lost.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is.
No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight.
Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP.
Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does.
... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that.
On November 19 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote: Obama won the presidency on a wave of euphoria in the wake of a pretty bad president. Pair his personal charm with the time’s unpopular Republican Party and the worst candidate ever for a war-weary populace, and he was an easy choice for 2008. For 2012 his case was a little more shaky, but he was still doing a pretty good job and won handily.
In office, he did a pretty alright job. He neither royally fucked things up nor did such a remarkable job that he would be forever remembered as one of the very best. I liked a lot of things he accomplished, and I didn’t like many others. He attracted a farcical Europhoria such as the one that gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, which even his biggest fans will admit was given rather than earned. But he did do a lot of good work in representing the US abroad, so I can sympathize with their sycophantic gestures.
In hindsight I would say that the biggest black mark on Obama’s presidency is that he banked the future of his political achievements on his successor being Hillary Clinton. Where Obama represents an idealistic version of the status quo, Hillary is a career politician and entrenched interest in the worst sense of the terms. She has no place being president and that Obama cleared the way and allowed a Democratic Party to rot into a party of Hillary shills is not to his credit, nor is his inability to perceive why the continuation of a Hillary-esque policy near the end of his presidency did him no favors.
We are left with a sort of paradox: he was generally popular, if not dramatically so, and yet he was replaced by a president who is not popular and swears to destroy all the things he worked towards. A turn of events he deserves some blame for, despite not being all that bad a president up to about November 2016.
It reflects the US much more than the presidency of Obama. You are poorly educated to see through bullshit, and have a split country with an undelying big racism problem. Maybe I will some time learn how Hillary was such a terrible candidate, for me it seems mostly rooted in smearing campaigns and strong opinions with little real foundation. How she could possibly lose to Trump in any "democratic" system is beyond me. You got what you deserve.
I'm always amused by smug Europeans (certainly not all or even most, but definitely overrepresented here) mostly from urban, relatively culturally homogeneous, small, wealthy countries who are appalled by the US, its politics, and its foreign policy, and why it can't just be more like Western Europe or Scandinavia.
Do you really think that if Massachusetts, California, or New York were independent countries, their political system would look like that of the aggregate US? No, I'm betting it would look a lot like Western Europe or Scandinavia. Political division and inefficiency/corruption arising from scale is a price paid for the size of the US that allows it to subsidize Pax Americana. That doesn't mean you should accept its dysfunction or that you shouldn't push it to be better, but comments like "you get what you deserve" are silly naive.
Heck, just look at your own closest comparable political union in terms of cultural, geographic, and economic diversity. The EU, taken as a whole, has basically the same problems as the US. Poland held a fascist rally this past week, the UK is leaving over immigration, Greece has endless financial problems (your Illinois?), etc. If you guys held regular elections for EU-wide presidents, I'm pretty certain they'd turn to be just as much of a shitshow as the US's are. The US certainly has had a lot of historical advantages over Russia, China, Brazil, India, but it's not like other governments that have to deal with comparable size/diversity issues as the US are faring any better either.
Because I mentioned Pax Americana, I'll go on a quick side tangent before someone makes their knee-jerk reaction comment. I don't believe there's anything fundamental that makes America entitled to global leadership, but I do believe that the world should be led by a democratic superpower. Seeing as there's only one around for the foreseeable future, I'm quite keen on America keeping its status for a while--though not out of some nationalistic sentiment. I'd be more than happy if the EU could centralize decision-making enough to play a true global leadership role, or if perhaps India could grow into it in the future.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is.
No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight.
Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere.
On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote: Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP.
Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does.
... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that.
How does it remain to be seen? The amount of food production and trade that flows through the area isn't replica table anywhere else in the world. Its the crossroads of India China Indonesia Indochina Japan and Korea. Nothing else in the world comes close. The blatics? the Suez or the Hormuz? Nowhere else comes close to the value the SCC has today and will have by any metric in the coming decades.
The US has the Military force to force an overwhelming victory in any of these passages. We plant 3 or 4 carrier battle groups and the US decides what exists there and what doesn't. The Hormuz and the Suez isn't going anywhere and can't decline in value if we take them. The suez is Europe's lifeline to Asia and the Hormuz has tons of oil going through it regardless. You think that the oil will be shipped through to the med through Israel or Syria? Or making Kurdistan the most powerful tribal region in the world? God forbid proposing that the oil goes through Iran or Russia. Its easier to harass ships when you arn't at war and won't just blow up anything remotely threatening. Iran could cause problems in Hormuz and there is a large port sitting there but they won't cling to power for long if no food travels in their country anymore.
It doesn't matter if its subservient to corporate interests. If the decision is between state owned or controlled foreign corporations and evil don't want to pay taxes US corporations I'm going to pick the US corporations. It doesn't matter any further then that.
You're whole shtick is wordy nonsense that says nothing and insists its superior. You didn't address anything I said other then to simply disagree. A dog could have given the exact same argument and the world would have understood them the same. You'd think you'd give some respect to one of the few people who defend you here but I guess we can all see exactly what your game really is.
(CNN)The Trump administration put the Palestine Liberation Organization on notice Friday that it will close the group's office in Washington if the Palestinians don't get serious about peace talks with Israel, State Department officials said.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has determined the Palestinians have violated a rarely invoked provision in US law that calls for the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization's mission if they act against Israel in the International Criminal Court, the officials said.
The department asserts that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ran afoul of the law in September when he called on the ICC to investigate and prosecute Israel for war crimes against the Palestinians.
"The secretary concluded that the factual record, certain statements made by Palestinian leaders about the ICC, did not permit (Tillerson) to make the factual certification required by the statute" to keep the PLO mission open, a State Department official said.
In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Abbas said the Palestinians have asked the the ICC "to open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people."
Saeb Erekat, a top PLO official and lead Palestinian negotiator, said the Palestinians have responded to Tillerson's determination by warning they will end all contact with the Trump administration if it closes the US office.
"This is the pressure being exerted on this administration from the Netanyahu government; at a time when we are trying to cooperate to achieve the ultimate deal, they take such steps which will undermine the whole peace process," Erekat said in a statement to CNN.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a short statement calling the US decision "a matter of US law."
"We respect the decision and look forward to continuing to work with the US to advance peace and security in the region," it said.
The Associated Press first reported the news of Tillerson's decision and the notification to the Palestinians.
In all likelihood, a toothless gesture. But fun nonetheless. Later in the page it is noted that this is a Kushner project which explains the stench of utter failure in the works.
EPT
