|
On November 15 2018 10:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals.
One of Trump's foreign policy goals was to make America respected again because he believed OBama was weak. I don't think getting literally laughed at by world leaders counts as realising that goal.
|
On November 15 2018 17:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals. One of Trump's foreign policy goals was to make America respected again because he believed OBama was weak. I don't think getting literally laughed at by world leaders counts as realising that goal.
Weak as in afraid of conflict and backing down. If anything a low opinion from other world leaders signals his adversarial qualities and willingness to “fight for America”. Since Obama didn’t have any notable FP successes, Trump doesn’t even need to be successful to be seen as “stronger” than Obama.
|
On November 15 2018 22:26 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 17:27 iamthedave wrote:On November 15 2018 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals. One of Trump's foreign policy goals was to make America respected again because he believed OBama was weak. I don't think getting literally laughed at by world leaders counts as realising that goal. Weak as in afraid of conflict and backing down. If anything a low opinion from other world leaders signals his adversarial qualities and willingness to “fight for America”. Since Obama didn’t have any notable FP successes, Trump doesn’t even need to be successful to be seen as “stronger” than Obama.
That deal with Iran might have been OK if congress backed it up, rather than using it as a political football. But they decided to back Trumps plan to put all our eggs in the Saudi Arabia basket, which has not panned out and only emboldened the crowned prince’s worst tendencies.
But beyond that Obama mostly had to clean up the mess created by the Bush Administration and the totally absentee congress of that time. And even he couldn’t end Vietnam 2.0, Afghanistan. But there isn’t much hope of FP accomplishments when congress doesn’t have your back.
|
On November 15 2018 22:26 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 17:27 iamthedave wrote:On November 15 2018 10:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2018 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
GH, you can't possibly be a fan of Obama's feckless foreign policy, can you? I'm not a fan of Obama's FP but for different reasons than yourself in most cases, though there's probably overlap somewhere. I suggest to you that Obama’s foreign policy was fairly representative of mainstream democrat foreign policy, at least in terms of its goals. Regardless of whether you agree with the goals, Obama certainly failed to achieve them. In stark contrast, and again, regardless of whether you agree with his goals, Trump is succeeding in realizing his foreign policy goals. One of Trump's foreign policy goals was to make America respected again because he believed OBama was weak. I don't think getting literally laughed at by world leaders counts as realising that goal. Weak as in afraid of conflict and backing down. If anything a low opinion from other world leaders signals his adversarial qualities and willingness to “fight for America”. Since Obama didn’t have any notable FP successes, Trump doesn’t even need to be successful to be seen as “stronger” than Obama.
That's mostly because he'll lie and everyone will assume he's telling the truth. He hasn't really had any major FP successes of his own so far. His attempts with Russia have been mostly non-starters because of Congress, the Saudi situation is getting a bit out of hand, Syria is an ongoing disaster that hasn't escalated further (yet), and his trade deals are still up in the air.
But sure, if you think that the US President reducing the rest of the world leaders to fits of laughter by saying how 'great' he thinks the US is doing is a sign of the US's strength, good for you. I can assure you, though, that's not how we see it.
|
*shrug* Didn’t say anything about my personal views on the matter, and my point still stands. Going simply off what FP situations have gotten the most airwaves in the American public sphere, Obama’s FP is associated with climate deals, nice international tours, and backing down from self-imposed red lines, whereas Trump is one of the most hated men in the world while picking fights everywhere for America’s supposed benefit. It seems unarguable that Trump is more of a fighter in this regard than Obama (and hence seen as “stronger”), but whether or not that is a good thing remains to be seen (IMO, probably not).
As a further explanation of why Trump may be seen as successful, a popular common sense phrase (at least from my experience in the US) is “you know it’s a good compromise when everyone walks away unhappy”. Assuming a zero-sum game, a lot of uninformed people may view global opinion as inversely related to the quality of a deal for the US and judge Obama’s and Trump’s FP accordingly.
|
If your idea of a successful FP is the adoration of “the rest of the world leaders” then Trump is a pretty unqualified failure. Don’t think there’s much middle ground there; Europe, Canada, Australia and the like don’t like him whereas they were bending over backwards to show how much they love Obama, Clinton etc.
If your idea is “didn’t get entangled in any major foreign wars” then Trump definitely gets good marks. None of the conflicts he’s been in charge of look like an escalation into military action. Although the effects and effectiveness of his attempts to wage economic war with this or that entity warrants discussion, that’s a far cry from real war. Also no poorly conceived interventions leading to a needed future troop deployment; Obama had at least Libya not much further into the presidency than this.
If your idea is “signed lots of trade deals” then he just didn’t do that. Probably for the best, because those were just poorly conceived ideas deserving death. Agreements to curb climate change, I’d consider that far more a question of domestic policy than foreign, but he certainly isn’t a champion of emissions reductions, for sure.
If your idea is “a clear, well-defined agenda” then it doesn’t look like it. More like a bunch of lieutenants playing games of power-grab, in both the FP apparatus and Congress. Half these fools have little more vision than “investigate! investigate! investigate!” though. It’s sometimes hard to see any unified goal in it all.
I’d say he gets a passing grade. Europe is definitely not enamored with him but that’s their prerogative.
|
I agree that your argument has validity but I don't see the positive effects Trumps foreign policy has had. He hasn't gotten into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but he's failed to act in any direction to change the series of events and now we're just sitting in the field with various American soldiers and equipment without any discernable goal or exit strategy.
My point is that the world moves forward faster year after year and simply not making bad moves doesn't merit a positive grade in my opinion. In effect hes simply holding the ship steady until someone else can make their decisions on a world 4-8 years later from the last guy who made decisions.
|
He also backed Saudi Arabia at the expense of the few other Middle East allies we have and we now have egg on our face because of it. And Nortb Korea is still building missles, but no one is paying attention because Trump claims he fixed it.
|
Syria's the big problem. That situation feels under control now, but I don't know if it'll stay that way. It's still an ongoing humanitarian crisis and there's a ton of political entanglements. Didn't the US very nearly send troops there already but stop at the last minute?
|
On November 16 2018 17:24 iamthedave wrote:
Didn't the US very nearly send troops there already but stop at the last minute?
Many times, yeah. Problem seems to be that among the general populace it's an extremely unpopular proposition, even when you ask loaded questions like "should the US intervene in Syria to stop the use of chemical weapons?" Looks like the proposition has largely died down in favor of throwing new sanctions on Iranian oil.
|
www.nytimes.com
David Brooks laments a fractured conservatism.
Some conservatives stayed on the political trajectory they were on in 1999. Others embraced populist nativism. They wandered into territory that is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian.
[...]
And now, as Trump reshuffles his administration yet again, we see the remnants of the B and C teams replaced by members of the D team. Over the past few days, there’s been a lot of gossip over whether Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will keep his job. But it almost doesn’t matter, because from here on out, it’s Whitakers all the way down.
|
On November 17 2018 05:27 IgnE wrote:www.nytimes.comDavid Brooks laments a fractured conservatism. Show nested quote +Some conservatives stayed on the political trajectory they were on in 1999. Others embraced populist nativism. They wandered into territory that is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian.
[...]
And now, as Trump reshuffles his administration yet again, we see the remnants of the B and C teams replaced by members of the D team. Over the past few days, there’s been a lot of gossip over whether Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will keep his job. But it almost doesn’t matter, because from here on out, it’s Whitakers all the way down.
Well forgive me, but I have to correct your copy again, ‘conservative columnist." He’s a great columnist but he’s not a conservative — I think he’s a moderate. He’s a moderate – he’s open to all views.
Krauthammer on David Brooks
Moderate of his stripe cannot or choose not to understand the fury of betrayal on immigration policy. So it's no great surprise that he thinks the current territory is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian: he's on the center criticizing a wing he knows very little about. He's mostly wrong on all counts.
I'm not a major fan of the current political appointees of the Trump administration. He gets a mixed yes on that count. I'm perfectly willing to give Whitaker the benefit of the doubt. His predecessor recused himself and stayed quiet on the front of Obama-era intelligence and judicial malfeasance in office. I don't really know if Sessions did anything behind the scenes, aside from business as usual national priorities. His first chance to shine is the declassification and release of memos and FISA applications.
|
On November 17 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 05:27 IgnE wrote:www.nytimes.comDavid Brooks laments a fractured conservatism. Some conservatives stayed on the political trajectory they were on in 1999. Others embraced populist nativism. They wandered into territory that is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian.
[...]
And now, as Trump reshuffles his administration yet again, we see the remnants of the B and C teams replaced by members of the D team. Over the past few days, there’s been a lot of gossip over whether Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will keep his job. But it almost doesn’t matter, because from here on out, it’s Whitakers all the way down. Show nested quote +Well forgive me, but I have to correct your copy again, ‘conservative columnist." He’s a great columnist but he’s not a conservative — I think he’s a moderate. He’s a moderate – he’s open to all views. Krauthammer on David Brooks Moderate of his stripe cannot or choose not to understand the fury of betrayal on immigration policy. So it's no great surprise that he thinks the current territory is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian: he's on the center criticizing a wing he knows very little about. He's mostly wrong on all counts. I'm not a major fan of the current political appointees of the Trump administration. He gets a mixed yes on that count. I'm perfectly willing to give Whitaker the benefit of the doubt. His predecessor recused himself and stayed quiet on the front of Obama-era intelligence and judicial malfeasance in office. I don't really know if Sessions did anything behind the scenes, aside from business as usual national priorities. His first chance to shine is the declassification and release of memos and FISA applications.
You think all of the people recognizing xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian, racist, etc... trends within supporters for Trump (and some Dems) are imagining it, exaggerating it, or what?
On November 17 2018 09:13 IgnE wrote:
i personally am wondering what “the benefit of the doubt” means. like: “yes he may be a crooked hack taken from the middle of the bell curve to be the nation’s top lawyer, but he may do something i like”
That's what I'm reading more or less. I'd probably call it "suspension of disbelief" but yeah.
|
i personally am wondering what “the benefit of the doubt” means. like: “yes he may be a crooked hack taken from the middle of the bell curve to be the nation’s top lawyer, but he may do something i like”
|
On November 17 2018 09:13 IgnE wrote:
i personally am wondering what “the benefit of the doubt” means. like: “yes he may be a crooked hack taken from the middle of the bell curve to be the nation’s top lawyer, but he may do something i like”
I don’t know much about him yet. I’d never heard his name until the announcement.
|
On November 17 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 05:55 Danglars wrote:On November 17 2018 05:27 IgnE wrote:www.nytimes.comDavid Brooks laments a fractured conservatism. Some conservatives stayed on the political trajectory they were on in 1999. Others embraced populist nativism. They wandered into territory that is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian.
[...]
And now, as Trump reshuffles his administration yet again, we see the remnants of the B and C teams replaced by members of the D team. Over the past few days, there’s been a lot of gossip over whether Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will keep his job. But it almost doesn’t matter, because from here on out, it’s Whitakers all the way down. Well forgive me, but I have to correct your copy again, ‘conservative columnist." He’s a great columnist but he’s not a conservative — I think he’s a moderate. He’s a moderate – he’s open to all views. Krauthammer on David Brooks Moderate of his stripe cannot or choose not to understand the fury of betrayal on immigration policy. So it's no great surprise that he thinks the current territory is xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian: he's on the center criticizing a wing he knows very little about. He's mostly wrong on all counts. I'm not a major fan of the current political appointees of the Trump administration. He gets a mixed yes on that count. I'm perfectly willing to give Whitaker the benefit of the doubt. His predecessor recused himself and stayed quiet on the front of Obama-era intelligence and judicial malfeasance in office. I don't really know if Sessions did anything behind the scenes, aside from business as usual national priorities. His first chance to shine is the declassification and release of memos and FISA applications. You think all of the people recognizing xenophobic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian, racist, etc... trends within supporters for Trump (and some Dems) are imagining it, exaggerating it, or what?
They don’t like the rhetorical component and very much highly value it. They’re generally happy with illegal aliens and a borderless world, provided nobody they know died. The starting quote is about Trump’s actions, not that you’ve identified trends in subpopulations of supporters.
This is not to say any tangent on the topic is equally invalid. You could talk a lot on the turn of the Republican Party towards trade protectionism, and tolerance of personally repulsive leaders, and tolerance towards foreign strong-men. Conservatives basically stayed the same through this, compromising on certain issues just like in the last twenty years.
|
I've bought beer at this specific store before:
Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all.
www.seattletimes.com
Anyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order.
|
On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order.
Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level.
|
On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level.
What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem?
|
On November 20 2018 05:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On November 20 2018 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:I've bought beer at this specific store before: https://twitter.com/sahluwal/status/1064201098687217664Besides the absurd inability to deescalate or behave remotely competently they constantly lie. While they are being held slightly accountable for the most egregious examples of criminal violence the police are not held accountable for their constant lying at all. www.seattletimes.comAnyone claiming to support "law and order" that doesn't think consistent lying from law enforcement is catastrophically detrimental to social order is being dishonest about supporting law and order. Of course it is catastrophically detrimental to society for law enforcement to cover up for their own. If the police fuck up, they need to be held to account. I'm litigating a case right now that has a video that is far worse than the one above (incidentally, the victim is a white guy). And as bad as it is, it's the cover-up that occurred afterwards is what really makes me ill. The cover-up included not only the officers and their immediate agencies, but it went up to the district attorney level. What are the politicians that allegedly think law and order are critical doing to address this egregious and longstanding problem?
There are various initiatives promoting transparency, such as mandatory body cams. But I would personally go further and legislatively loosen up some of the civil liability protections that are typically afforded law enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
