|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy
I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread.
Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much.
I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours.
If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today.
|
On February 28 2019 04:40 brian wrote:
finally someone denounced gaetz and made clear that he absolutely committed a crime on twitter yesterday(of course, until judged i should qualify this. but i won’t.) i couldn’t tell if she said he IS being referred for criminal investigation or just *should.* god bless if we finally manage to get this shit show under control.
I believe she said she is going to report to the ethics committee and advised other congressmen/women to do it as well, and it would warrant/she would like a criminal investigation. I have no idea if she can do a referral directly, or if she has the power to do it.
I don't believe the DOJ is going to do it directly.
On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today.
Well, you have a president with dozens of skeletons, that doesn't achieve much. Best of both worlds ! Because on foreign policy, apart from alienating friends, getting out of climate or anti-nukes treaties, allowing Russia to build intermediate nukes officially (granted, there was a problem with China) and looking up to dictators, nothing (good) happened yet !
India/Pakistan : they have too much riding on that, I don't believe it is going to escalate much further.
|
On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today.
I am just curious as to how you think Americas interest are being served by trump? What policy is he achieving on the world scene that is helping the US?
NK isn't getting rid of nukes (At least not yet)
Russia is more aggressive
China is still doing china things
I don't see what he is getting on the world scale besides allies who are pissed at us
|
On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today. Sometimes being a dick is good. When it alienates all your allies you built up for decades, leaving only a bunch of Dictators, maybe your going to far.
And US and Russia cooperating in and of itself is not a problem (well it's a different discussion).
Its the how that is the problem.
A President wanting closer relations with Russia is not a problem of itself.
A President that can be blackmailed by Russia is a problem.
A candidate that accepts help from Russia to defeat his opponent to gain the Presidency is a problem.
A President that would put Russia over the US would be a problem.
ect.
|
On February 28 2019 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today. Sometimes being a dick is good. When it alienates all your allies you built up for decades, leaving only a bunch of Dictators, maybe your going to far. And US and Russia cooperating in and of itself is not a problem (well it's a different discussion). Its the how that is the problem. A President wanting closer relations with Russia is not a problem of itself. A President that can be blackmailed by Russia is a problem. A candidate that accepts help from Russia to defeat his opponent to gain the Presidency is a problem. A President that would put Russia over the US would be a problem. ect.
And the first one :
A President that is being played by Russia (well, and NK) at every corner is a problem.
What was once a rogue regime that we tried to bring an end to (with sanctions, granted, that DID NOT work), is now a accepted and recognized regime, talking on the same level as the USA. This is exactly what Kim wanted. To be considered the rightful ruler of NK, legitimacy. It has been granted. Having his regime not under any danger of being ended is what his goal has been. If it comes to that, then making peace with SK is a desirable (second priority) outcome, since war and tension was a way to keep the country under control. If it's recognised internationally, well, perfect, move to the next stage, and be your country's hero because you got it a place on the world stage, and improved the economy and the life of your citizens !
Giving up nukes ? Not really in the plans, but why not, the goal has been reached, the nukes were only here to deter others from uprooting the Kims. Now they are leveraging the nukes to the maximum, and if they succeed in getting the american troops out of SK, he will have won everything he could even dream of. And what would the US have won ? Nothing. Saved a bit of money maybe, and left another ally in the middle of enemies (SK).
Well to be fair, the survival of SK is somewhat of an achievement, but the US would have completely lost the proxy war against China, and the long-term survival of SK should not be taken for granted.
|
United States41991 Posts
On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today.
Please. If Trump took the place of Chamberlain then sure, maybe Britain goes to war in 1936, but it’d probably be with Canada or similar.
|
Trump is a dick to our allies and friendly with our adversaries, so the master plan of getting his agenda through being agreessive does not seem to be well targeted.
|
You already have China which is a legitimized totalitarian regime with unhindered access to the global economy and huge leverage by having access to rare resources. Why make such a fuss over NK which is largely insignificant if you don't consider the threat for SK.
Russia is certainly closer to western ideals and I'd rather say that Russia is doing Russia things and China is more aggressive.
I also wouldn't say that Trump is alienating his allies cause he's causing a ruckus over car exports. The EU and US are in competition in that sector and I'd say that the EU is in much better shape when it comes to exports
+ Show Spoiler +Germany: US$157.4 billion (21.3% of total car exports)
Japan: $93.4 billion (12.6%)
United States: $53.6 billion (7.2%)
Canada: $46.4 billion (6.3%)
United Kingdom: $41.9 billion (5.7%)
Mexico: $41.7 billion (5.6%)
China doesn't even export any cars that I know of, but they certainly import them.
He's expecting that tariffs would increase the demand for GM and Ford cars within the US if he doesn't find some kind of deal. Now don't ask me what kind of deal that could be (I suspect he doesn't like the strict regulations on food imports we have in the EU), but I can see where he's coming from.
Conclusively, that's more I can mention from a US president than the things I would have been able to mention during the Obama presidency. That could be cause he was more focused on matters within the nation than outside. Otherwise, maybe the intervention in Lybia is worth mentioning. I think Gaddafi wanted to stop being paid in USD for oil or something, but I'm not sure if I got that from a bad source.
|
US has or has had military bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as an alliance with Taiwan, thereby effectively sealing off China and cutting them off from the Pacific. Chinese military generals, who are probably fans of go, don't like their country being surrounded by all sides with no options or routes to gain any foothold. US pulling out of the Philippines and/or Korea can only be good news for China, as they become more emboldened and start branching out, one island at a time (looks like Taiwan is next on the list).
Better start learning Chinese I guess? God knows I've tried, but learning characters is such a grind... And also I didn't know you could pronounce one letter, say a, in four different intonations, what's up with that?
Well, everything becomes moot when nukes start flying, if one side decides to get dumb about it.
|
On February 28 2019 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 04:42 Vivax wrote:On February 28 2019 03:59 Excludos wrote:On February 28 2019 03:55 iamthedave wrote:On February 28 2019 02:46 Plansix wrote:
I don't think it is illegal, specifically. Just not profitable because the victims will seek civil damages and eat up all the profits. Genuine question, do Cohen's crimes have victims? About 325.7 million victims I'd say, more if you count Trumps disastrous foreign policy I like his foreign policy, or at least I would if he were my president. Sometimes you got to be a bit of a dick to further your agenda in the publics interest. That's probably why he is able to talk to Kim as a like-minded individual. I could bring a few pre-ww2-examples of how being overly diplomatic can cause more trouble than it solves, but I prefer not to Godwin the thread. Either way, I'd rather have a competent politician with a few skeletons in his closet than some sort of saint who doesn't achieve much. I don't even know what's so scandalous about US and Russia being cooperative. Russia has resources much needed worldwide for the future. I wouldn't want to dance on their toes when it means that they'd rather cooperate with their southern neighbours. If only now he managed to de-escalate the India-Pakistan conflict which I saw in the news today. Please. If Trump took the place of Chamberlain then sure, maybe Britain goes to war in 1936, but it’d probably be with Canada or similar.
Trump is the kind of person that makes the diplomatic approach not always the best. This is basically looking at the root of the problem and going "Wow I like this solution"
|
On February 28 2019 05:54 Vivax wrote:You already have China which is a legitimized totalitarian regime with unhindered access to the global economy and huge leverage by having access to rare resources. Why make such a fuss over NK which is largely insignificant if you don't consider the threat for SK. Russia is certainly closer to western ideals and I'd rather say that Russia is doing Russia things and China is more aggressive. I also wouldn't say that Trump is alienating his allies cause he's causing a ruckus over car exports. The EU and US are in competition in that sector and I'd say that the EU is in much better shape when it comes to exports+ Show Spoiler +Germany: US$157.4 billion (21.3% of total car exports)
Japan: $93.4 billion (12.6%)
United States: $53.6 billion (7.2%)
Canada: $46.4 billion (6.3%)
United Kingdom: $41.9 billion (5.7%)
Mexico: $41.7 billion (5.6%) China doesn't even export any cars that I know of, but they certainly import them. He's expecting that tariffs would increase the demand for GM and Ford cars within the US if he doesn't find some kind of deal. Now don't ask me what kind of deal that could be (I suspect he doesn't like the strict regulations on food imports we have in the EU), but I can see where he's coming from. Conclusively, that's more I can mention from a US president than the things I would have been able to mention during the Obama presidency. That could be cause he was more focused on matters within the nation than outside. Otherwise, maybe the intervention in Lybia is worth mentioning. I think Gaddafi wanted to stop being paid in USD for oil or something, but I'm not sure if I got that from a bad source.
This is in conflict with all reporting and statements from our allies. They tolerated the George Bush era seeing it as single administration. Now we are in the Trump era where the president only is attacking them, but threatening to pull out of alliances that have been around for 70 years. This is on top of the tariffs and screwing them over on the Iran agreement, which they all agreed to under US leadership.
But that isn’t the most damning part. It is the inaction by congress to stop Trump that is going to hurt our alliances long term. No nation wants to deal with the whims of another nation’s local political non-sense. No one wants to buy cars from a country that will levy tariffs just to win an election. They will just take their business elsewhere. And we have proven that not only are we not a reliable trading partner any more, but we are also a shitty ally. And this damage will exist long after Trump.
|
I think you're giving Trump too much credit for having any idea how tariffs work. The man has said China is now paying us billions of dollars in tariffs. Not "China is losing out on billions of dollars thanks to tariffs." No, they're "paying us." He's also said trade wars are good and easy to win.
If that doesn't show you the man has no grasp of international economies and how they interact, I don't know what does.
|
The tariff problem is going to be much larger in the next election because they are taxes on Americans. And that is what the Democrats are going to call them.
|
On February 28 2019 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:I think you're giving Trump too much credit for having any idea how tariffs work. The man has said China is now paying us billions of dollars in tariffs. Not "China is losing out on billions of dollars thanks to tariffs." No, they're "paying us." If that doesn't show you the man has no grasp of international economies and how they interact, I don't know what does.
Not just Trump. Vivax or whatever his name is, neither.
Here's some facts.
Trump wants to sell more american cars, he argues. He argues, that taxes on european cars will help with that. He of course left out the fact that Trump raised the price of the materials that a car is to 90% made out of by 25% (and yes, american steel and aluminium rised in price sharply directly after it was announced that chinese wares were taxed higher), which would show that the entire "argument" is just pure bullshit.
You can't expect to sell cars by literally raising the price of them. Not to mention that the big three don't even compete with european car manufacturers: europeans don't build pickups (well, they do a few, but they're all shit), and the US doesn't build decent sedans. There lies the problem. If you want to sell cars, make them desirable. Especially in the market where money is less of an issue (premium sedans, which is what trump is bitching about). Why would anyone in their right mind buy an american sedan if he could have an M5 for the same money? Or any 5 series, for that matter?
And, lets be real here, if it indeed were a "incentive" to buy american cars.. You do realise that out of the ten best selling sedans in the USA, two are american - and the rest is japanese and korean? In fact the Top 7 there's one korean, and 6 japanese cars. 8th is the ford fusion, then there's many japanese and korean cars (and i think two more US cars) all the way down to rank 20, with the first german car - the Jetta.
Yeah, that absolutely makes sense.
In reality what he wants to do is force the EU to drop taxing US pickups. Which, even if they were tax free, wouldn't even make a dent in the numbers because the vast (and i mean, vast, more than 90%) majority of people here doesn't want a pickup truck. And even IF they need one for work, they buy a Hilux.
No one else needs, and more importantly, wants, a pickup. So selling them over here is never going to happen either way.
|
Small quibble, the US does technically build good sedans, only they’re built in foreign owned plants and factories located in the US. Honda, for instance, rates better than its American counterparts in terms of how much of its vehicles are manufactured/assembled on US soil iirc.
|
On February 28 2019 05:54 Vivax wrote:You already have China which is a legitimized totalitarian regime with unhindered access to the global economy and huge leverage by having access to rare resources. Why make such a fuss over NK which is largely insignificant if you don't consider the threat for SK. Russia is certainly closer to western ideals and I'd rather say that Russia is doing Russia things and China is more aggressive. I also wouldn't say that Trump is alienating his allies cause he's causing a ruckus over car exports. The EU and US are in competition in that sector and I'd say that the EU is in much better shape when it comes to exports + Show Spoiler +Germany: US$157.4 billion (21.3% of total car exports)
Japan: $93.4 billion (12.6%)
United States: $53.6 billion (7.2%)
Canada: $46.4 billion (6.3%)
United Kingdom: $41.9 billion (5.7%)
Mexico: $41.7 billion (5.6%) China doesn't even export any cars that I know of, but they certainly import them. He's expecting that tariffs would increase the demand for GM and Ford cars within the US if he doesn't find some kind of deal. Now don't ask me what kind of deal that could be (I suspect he doesn't like the strict regulations on food imports we have in the EU), but I can see where he's coming from. Conclusively, that's more I can mention from a US president than the things I would have been able to mention during the Obama presidency. That could be cause he was more focused on matters within the nation than outside. Otherwise, maybe the intervention in Lybia is worth mentioning. I think Gaddafi wanted to stop being paid in USD for oil or something, but I'm not sure if I got that from a bad source.
You have a very narrow view of foreign policy.
Putting your allies in danger by allowing Russia to lawfully build mid-range nukes is alienating allies.
Threatening to leave NATO by arguing falsely that the other countries are not paying their dues when you are taking into account the crazy military spending of the US, which is NOT dedicated to NATO instead of the contributions to the alliance, thus self-exposing weaknesses to your allies' enemies is alienating allies.
Leaving all kind of treaties and committees, or even international courts because you do not recognize them, is alienating allies.
Destroying the world order that your predecessors spent decades to build is dangerous to allies and alienating them.
Getting cozy with enemies, and conversely, removing the checks on others, even if imperfect (Iran), trying to put sanctions on the rest of the world while doing so, is also...
Overall, showing contempt to other allied leaders and insulting them, is also...
Completely giving up Africa to China, also...
Trade is another issue, but can be understandable to some extent, and is far from the worse of the lot.
Lybia, I believe is on Sarkozy. The weasel had ties to Khadafi and tried desperately to silence him to save himself and avoid investigations. It didn't really work... well, he's not in jail yet, so I guess it did.
|
I'm loving this.. Couldn't watch for ~3 hours, still going when i come home.
Americans just do the best drama tv. The questions are still as stupid, he looks a bit more tired but in the end? Its just a bullshit shitshow and its plainly about opinion, not truth.
In famous words: "sad".
I posted this before the non stop race baiting women that didn't have a question but was just ranting... Extraordinary
|
On February 28 2019 06:56 Velr wrote:
Americans just do the best drama tv. T
Have you seen UK House of Commons live?
|
UK parliament is just shouting and the occasional "Order".. These guys act like they listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
