US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1739

On March 18 2015 10:57 xDaunt wrote:

I could start with a discussion about excuses and assholes, but let us just cut to the chase. The problem is not that the AIIB has been launched. China was always going to launch AIIB, regardless of any marginal changes at the IMF (or even any large change that preserved American dominance). China -- along with the other BRICS -- is actively looking to establish a new world order better conducive to its interests. The problem is that traditional US allies (notably the British) are failing to stand firm and in alignment with US interests, and are joining the AIIB. That is on Obama for failing to develop and maintain strong enough ties with these countries to keep them firmly in our sphere of influence. And blaming Bush is little more than a tacit admission that Obama is such a clueless diplomat that he has been unable to meaningfully improve relations with our allies over the past 6 years. But hey, people love to make excuses for the failures that have occurred on Obama's watch, so I do not expect you all to stop now.

On March 18 2015 11:47 xDaunt wrote:
Let's also keep in mind that no other European country was going to join the AIIB until Britain did so. Even if we discount the significance of Obama's-less-than-friendly rhetoric and gestures towards the British (as summarized by Kwark), it is indisputable that Obama has made no effort to build or maintain any meaningful ties with the British. His attitude towards the British has been, at best, one of disinterest. In fact, that has been his general attitude towards most of our traditional allies. Obama's primary interest has been in reaching out to nations that the US has been at odds with in an attempt to have his own "Nixon goes to China" moment. So far, he has failed spectacularly in these efforts. And I would argue that his misplaced efforts have come at the expense of America's relationships with its allies.

Final charges against Joseph Weekley, a police officer who shot dead a 7-year-old girl, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, in Detroit in May 2010, were dismissed on Friday, leaving a family bereft and raising serious concern among national groups over an increasingly militarized police force.

“Weekley doesn’t have to pay but the family that lost a child has to pay,” said Ron Scott, a spokesman for the family, shortly after attending the dismissal hearing. “I think it’s abominable. I think it’s evil. I think it’s one of the lowest things I have ever seen.”

Scott said a civil suit had been filed and an appeal made to US attorney general Eric Holder to pursue a case for the violation of Aiyana’s civil rights.

On 16 May 2010, Aiyana was shot dead by Weekley in the middle of the night, as she slept on a sofa inside her home on the east side of Detroit. Her grandmother, Mertilla Jones, was close by.

Seconds after entering the house, where the grenade had caused Aiyana’s blanket to catch fire, Weekley fired one fatal shot. It went straight through the child’s head. Weekley said it was an accident and accused Jones of wrestling with his gun immediately as he entered the abode, causing the fatal shot.

Jones was arrested, and though she was quickly released it was not before she and two other family members – Aiyana’s parents – had been forced to sit in their child’s blood for hours, Scott said.

On March 18 2015 13:32 Mohdoo wrote:

I don't necessarily doubt what you are saying, but I don't really understand what has gone wrong with the British. What exactly is it that needs maintaining? What did we lose or fail to capitalize on?

On March 18 2015 14:48 xDaunt wrote:

It's not entirely clear what went wrong. All that's clear is that, according to the British calculus, joining the AIIB and appeasing the Chinese was more important than whatever the US told and/or offered Britain. Even assuming that China had its current level of influence, I have a hard time believing that Britain would have made this choice 10 or even 20 years ago. Regardless of who is to blame, this is a very bad development.

American interests aside, there are significant questions regarding the AIIB's lending standards and whether the AIIB will impede humanitarian interests in the same way that China has with its own foreign investments (see Africa).

On March 18 2015 15:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I can only speak from a Canadian perspective here, but the biggest reasons other nations are turning to China for investment and trade partnerships are:

A) China is growing and looking to spend capital.

B) Your recession caused gigantic ripple effects globally, and no one wants to trust the US' financial stability.

On March 18 2015 14:48 xDaunt wrote:

It's not entirely clear what went wrong. All that's clear is that, according to the British calculus, joining the AIIB and appeasing the Chinese was more important than whatever the US told and/or offered Britain. Even assuming that China had its current level of influence, I have a hard time believing that Britain would have made this choice 10 or even 20 years ago. Regardless of who is to blame, this is a very bad development.

American interests aside, there are significant questions regarding the AIIB's lending standards and whether the AIIB will impede humanitarian interests in the same way that China has with its own foreign investments (see Africa).

On March 18 2015 15:59 Sermokala wrote:
Your number 2 quite frankly is horse number 2. Us financial stability is utterly guaranteed and everyone knows it if nothing else because of oil being traded in dollars.

Obama is to blame for British involvement in the aiib as the buck stops with him. It's the nature of the job that you get credit and take the blame for the things that happen.

On March 18 2015 15:59 Sermokala wrote:
Your number 2 quite frankly is horse number 2. Us financial stability is utterly guaranteed and everyone knows it if nothing else because of oil being traded in dollars.

Obama is to blame for British involvement in the aiib as the buck stops with him. It's the nature of the job that you get credit and take the blame for the things that happen.

On March 18 2015 21:12 Gorsameth wrote:

Yeah that US financial stability didn't cause a global depressing in the last decade did it?
Nah that would be just silly...

On March 19 2015 00:12 Yoav wrote:


I think Europe has been managing to have financial problems just fine on its own. The fact that everybody looks to us is why you got hit by our recession and we're not by yours, but recessions happen. This one was particularly long, probably because of post-recession policy failures, but this is the natural cycle of things, and so is bouncing back.

On March 19 2015 00:12 Yoav wrote:


I think Europe has been managing to have financial problems just fine on its own. The fact that everybody looks to us is why you got hit by our recession and we're not by yours, but recessions happen. This one was particularly long, probably because of post-recession policy failures, but this is the natural cycle of things, and so is bouncing back.

On March 19 2015 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
well i'm sure the world trusts the bitcoin economy more

On March 19 2015 01:23 Acrofales wrote:


Hmmm... installment number 2 of the TL US Politics Megathread daytime soap opera? :D

xDaunt: Obama is a douche! He is the cause that America is losing its grip upon the world and people aren't investing solely in its glorious economy!
TL: don't blame that on Obama, he can't help it that the US economy went to shit in 2007/8 and dragged the rest of the world economy along with it. No wonder people don't really trust the US economy anymore.
Yoav: but the only reason the US economy tanking dragged everybody else along with it is because people were investing solely in its glorious economy! It's the world's own fault.

xDaunt: \facepalm. DON'T TELL THE WORLD THAT. It's Obama's fault that the world is now trying to rectify that error. They should continue blindly investing in our glorious economy!

Budget season is just kicking off, and already House Republicans' plan is hitting a wall. This time, over defense spending.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told lawmakers Wednesday morning that the blueprint House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price unveiled Tuesday won't give his department "the kind of certainty we need" if it was passed. "It doesn't work because to have the defense we need and the strategy that we have laid out, we need the budget that we have laid out," he said.

And defense hawks on the Hill who want to provide the military with more money aren't satisfied either. They believe they could have enough support to kill it.

Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, has vowed to vote against the budget resolution, saying it doesn't put enough money in the Pentagon's coffers.

"The number is insuficient for what's necessary for national security," Turner says. "We just had a hearing today with the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee. They made it very clear that it's not just an issue of the Department of Defense desiring a higher number. In order for them to protect this country, they have to have a higher number."

The budget proposal that Price unveiled Tuesday would keep defense spending at the level required under the Budget Control Act of 2011, $523 billion. That is $38 billion less than what was requested by the Obama Administration.

To close some of the gap, Price wants to add billions of dollars to something called the Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO budget. That's the pot of money that has been funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On it's face, that would seem to satisfy the defense hawks on Capitol Hill, but that's not the case.

Last month, Turner organized 70 Republicans in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner calling on Republican leadership to at least match the president's defense budget request in their roll-out. That didn't happen. Turner said this week he believes that Price's approach won't satisfy the other 69 lawmakers who signed on.

"Obviously every member would have to make a decision for themselves, but I can tell you that when we were putting the letter together, people knew of the option of increased OCO and they were opposed to trying to make it up in other places," he said. "They want the base number raised."