EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 178
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 09 2018 10:39 ShoCkeyy wrote: Let’s say from a legal standpoint. i'm not familiar with the particulars of circumstantial evidence jurisprudence as it relates to politicians; but from what I do know generally, it'd be very hard to find things that would qualify as such. a VERY wide latitude would be given; especially as things can be dumb decisions for the country, but make sense for the political career of a politician. from a practical perspective; it'd also depend on whether it's a question of fact being assessed in court, or the question of law on whether something is even admissible. I imagine some of the stuff would reach the level that they'd allow you to argue the point; but it wouldn't be near enough to actually sustain a conviction/finding of liability. there's also a very big difference between somethin gproviding a bit of extra circumstantial evidence, and it really helping to make the prima facie case; and in the context of the questioin I was asked i'm no sure which one was referred to. a rather vague answer, but i'm not sure how to put it any better. | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
On May 09 2018 10:31 mozoku wrote: The way you put it, I woulda thought the US-European coalition was some kind of of global military-economic junta. I was always under the impression they were united by a common belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity. They're allowed to disagree on the best way to achieve that goal, no? You're all going to have a hard time arguing the the deal was working as intended when Iranians recently held their largest protest in a decade and it was literally about the sanction funds going to military adventurism rather than the public good. That's hardly part of the common interests above, and Iran was allowed to pursue nuclear weapons again in 7 years. Considering the internal divisions that the EU itself faces, I struggle to understand why the Europeans are flabbergasted when they have tactical divisions with their partners across the Atlantic as well. It's the nature of managing a coalition. To say that the US is leaving the coalition is silly hyperbole. ------------------ On a side note, I'm utterly baffled how (other than media attention) the US leaving the Iran deal is a bigger affront to the US-European coalition than multiple European countries trying to lift sanctions on a major geopolitical adversary that just tried to interfere in the US's election (Russia).... in the name of cheaper oil? I'm not trying to start a cross-Atlantic internet battle (I think the US-Euro relationship is important and I'm ambivalent about the Iran deal withdrawal), but more interested in that impact of media attention and the apparent dysfunction of democracies in general. How could anyone argue that allowing Iran to start pursuing nuclear weapons again right now is aligned with a "belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? There's no real disagreement to be had among foreign policy experts, they all agreed it was important to stay in the deal. Any delay at all (it's actually longer than 7 years, if you actually knew anything about the JCPOA) in a nuclear weapons program in a Middle Eastern country with a recent history of instability and a susceptibility to radical influences is a laudable achievement. The withdrawal of the US from this deal is a major blow to the safety of the region, and by extension, the rest of the world. If the civil war in Syria and the resultant refugee crisis has taught us anything, it is that the problems of this hotbed of conflict will no longer stay geographically contained. The rest of this post is shameful Euro-bashing. This isn't a "tactical division", it's a full-scale withdrawal from a multilateral agreement. Trying to somehow place the blame on the EU for this is nothing short of deceit - they held up their end of the bargain and the US is explicitly refusing to continue their obligations. The fact that Trump has been adversarial to Merkel and made gestures towards leaving NATO in the past is only further points to the US being at fault for this divide, one that makes some European countries' willingness to negotiate with Russia instead much more understandable from a political perspective. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 09 2018 09:12 Womwomwom wrote: Someone probably already posted but it feels like this is getting buried under the Iran talk. AT&T is basically admitting to bribing Donald Trump: For people who might not remember, AT&T wanted to merge with Time Warner and a whole host of other things. They paid Cohen for "insight". Coincidentally, this consulting deal ended when Net Neutrality got repealed. While every country has to deal with special interest groups and lobbyists, I don't think I've seen such open corruption from the federal government since ever. Hell, there's also news that a Russian oligarch (lmao) has been funneling money into Cohen's coffers while Trump is President. The Trump Administration is basically the Simpsons three stooges theory in action. There's so much corruption and bullshit happening that its impossible to keep track of all of it. Feel like this deserves some highlighting. At this point, Trump's people have really been riding the idea of the "Big Lie" to the extreme. Who would've guessed when Cohen started getting implicated that it ran this deep, and that he was this dumb about it? I suppose at this point, neither of those things are much of a surprise, but come on. | ||
|
jubil
United States2602 Posts
It's been tacitly accepted that the President acting alone has the power to terminate a treaty given certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is if the treaty was violated by the other party, which Trump would claim happened and pro-JCPOA parties would claim had not. No President has yet tried to withdraw the United States from a treaty purely for reasons of the national interest without invoking some sort of cover under international treaty law, but I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump to have tried such a thing, especially considering he bombed Syria without much of a cover under international law of war, or under US law either (War Powers Resolution). What's more, if Trump did unilaterally cancel an Iran deal treaty, you can count on the Republicans in Congress to decline to challenge his action with any sort of official Congressional response, even if it does potentially intrude on Senate powers. Individual senators cannot sue over this sort of thing. In fact, whether anybody could is pretty unclear. (Goldwater v. Carter). In terms of whether or not it was a right idea, well in my opinion the JCPOA is not perfect but it was far better than the escalation of tensions we had previously (anyone recall the bomb Iran chants?). The JCPOA was always going to need renegotiation further down the line when some of its provisions began to expire, but ideally by that point Iranian moderates would have had more influence and the negotiation would be easier. Now, Iranian hard-liners appear vindicated, and either the US withdrawal will have little effect (EU keeps trading with Iran) or the US/EU split gets deeper (US puts sanctions on EU businesses which trade with Iran). And while I'm sure Trump is still eager to cut a deal with the DPRK (because that one will be his achievement rather than Obama's), there's no way the North Koreans aren't feeling more uneasy seeing this all go down. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 09 2018 11:10 yamato77 wrote: How could anyone argue that allowing Iran to start pursuing nuclear weapons again right now is aligned with a "belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? There's no real disagreement to be had among foreign policy experts, they all agreed it was important to stay in the deal. Any delay at all (it's actually longer than 7 years, if you actually knew anything about the JCPOA) in a nuclear weapons program in a Middle Eastern country with a recent history of instability and a susceptibility to radical influences is a laudable achievement. The withdrawal of the US from this deal is a major blow to the safety of the region, and by extension, the rest of the world. If the civil war in Syria and the resultant refugee crisis has taught us anything, it is that the problems of this hotbed of conflict will no longer stay geographically contained. The rest of this post is shameful Euro-bashing. This isn't a "tactical division", it's a full-scale withdrawal from a multilateral agreement. Trying to somehow place the blame on the EU for this is nothing short of deceit - they held up their end of the bargain and the US is explicitly refusing to continue their obligations. The fact that Trump has been adversarial to Merkel and made gestures towards leaving NATO in the past is only further points to the US being at fault for this divide, one that makes some European countries' willingness to negotiate with Russia instead much more understandable from a political perspective. Well if Iran has a right to self-determination, and self-defense is part of self-determination, it would seem that allowing the pursuit of nuclear weapons is aligned with a belief in democracy and human rights. "Global prosperity" is a hegemonic term of domination so it's hard to address without plumbing some deeper assumptions. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On May 09 2018 11:10 yamato77 wrote: How could anyone argue that allowing Iran to start pursuing nuclear weapons again right now is aligned with a "belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? There's no real disagreement to be had among foreign policy experts, they all agreed it was important to stay in the deal. Any delay at all (it's actually longer than 7 years, if you actually knew anything about the JCPOA) in a nuclear weapons program in a Middle Eastern country with a recent history of instability and a susceptibility to radical influences is a laudable achievement. The withdrawal of the US from this deal is a major blow to the safety of the region, and by extension, the rest of the world. If the civil war in Syria and the resultant refugee crisis has taught us anything, it is that the problems of this hotbed of conflict will no longer stay geographically contained. The rest of this post is shameful Euro-bashing. This isn't a "tactical division", it's a full-scale withdrawal from a multilateral agreement. Trying to somehow place the blame on the EU for this is nothing short of deceit - they held up their end of the bargain and the US is explicitly refusing to continue their obligations. The fact that Trump has been adversarial to Merkel and made gestures towards leaving NATO in the past is only further points to the US being at fault for this divide, one that makes some European countries' willingness to negotiate with Russia instead much more understandable from a political perspective. Because it isn't happening in a vacuum. Your analysis is uselessly simplistic and your post is mostly worthless assertions. How is effectively choosing to fund Iranian military bases in Syria and proxy wars in Yemen aligned with the goals of "democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? It's not. There's no sense in having a discussion with anyone who attempts to simplify sovereign policymaking into naive absolutes. As of this morning, there were two paths: a) stay in the deal, and continue to underwrite the increase in funding for Iran's proxy wars that destabilize the region--with the benefit of delaying Iran's nuclear program by ~7 years... assuming it is serious about the program to begin with (it isn't 2015 anymore, sir--2025 is 7 years from today); or b) leave the deal and aim to end Iran's proxy wars by cutting off its funding--at the cost of Iran probably restarting its nuclear program ~7 years earlier than expected. If you're cutting out the politics, partisanship, media attention, etc., and focus solely on saving the maximum number of potential war casualties, you're left with: (immediate number of lives saved via limiting Iran's proxy war capability and the potential negative effects [including the possibility of wars with Israel and Saudi Arabia] of increased Iranian influence in the region) ? < ? (casualties resulting from a ~7 year acceleration in Iran's nuclear program after weighting for the (< 1) probability that Iran chooses to build nukes and the probability that Iran would choose to use nukes assuming they built them) ... Which isn't a clear cut case at all. You'd have to make all kinds of uncertain assumptions about probabilities, find a way to weight immediate lives lost today vs uncertain future lives lost, etc. I could understand an argument for either side, but I do not understand how you're claiming to have a significant degree of certainty that continuing to fund the Iranian regime is "obviously" the right choice. Try explaining your certainty to Yemeni civilians whose family members who have been killed by the Iran-funded Houthi rebels, if you're so confident. --------- As for my "shameful Euro-bashing", I'd appreciate if you did what they call "taking the most charitable interpretation" on a point I deliberately added "not trying to start a trans-Atlantic internet battle" and either bothered to address my point or just ignored it. This is a theme I've raised in my posts many times prior to this one (the dysfunction of democracy and the role of the media and feeding it), so I'm not sure how you could, in any way, justifiably call it mere "shameful Euro-bashing." | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On May 09 2018 10:26 Ryzel wrote: At what point does Trump’s actions serve as circumstantial evidence that he is attempting to undermine the country (presumably for personal gain)? This question applies equally to members of Congress. Unfortunately, the "both sides do it" argument will be used to excuse his (and congress') behavior. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 09 2018 12:00 mozoku wrote: Because it isn't happening in a vacuum. Your analysis is uselessly simplistic and your post is mostly worthless assertions. How is effectively choosing to fund Iranian military bases in Syria and proxy wars in Yemen aligned with the goals of "democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? It's not. There's no sense in having a discussion with anyone who attempts to simplify sovereign policymaking into naive absolutes. As of this morning, there were two paths: a) stay in the deal, and continue to underwrite the increase in funding for Iran's proxy wars that destabilize the region--with the benefit of delaying Iran's nuclear program by ~7 years... assuming it is serious about the program to begin with (it isn't 2015 anymore, sir--2025 is 7 years from today); or b) leave the deal and aim to end Iran's proxy wars by cutting off its funding--at the cost of Iran probably restarting its nuclear program ~7 years earlier than expected. If you're cutting out the politics, partisanship, media attention, etc., and focus solely on saving the maximum number of potential war casualties, you're left with: (immediate number of lives saved via limiting Iran's proxy war capability and the potential negative effects [including the possibility of wars with Israel and Saudi Arabia] of increased Iranian influence in the region) ? < ? (casualties resulting from a ~7 year acceleration in Iran's nuclear program after weighting for the (< 1) probability that Iran chooses to build nukes and the probability that Iran would choose to use nukes assuming they built them) ... Which isn't a clear cut case at all. You'd have to make all kinds of uncertain assumptions about probabilities, find a way to weight immediate lives lost today vs uncertain future lives lost, etc. I could understand an argument for either side, but I do not understand how you're claiming to have a significant degree of certainty that continuing to fund the Iranian regime is "obviously" the right choice. Try explaining your certainty to Yemeni civilians whose family members who have been killed by the Iran-funded Houthi rebels, if you're so confident. --------- As for my "shameful Euro-bashing", I'd appreciate if you did what they call "taking the most charitable interpretation" on a point I deliberately added "not trying to start a trans-Atlantic internet battle" and either bothered to address my point or just ignored it. This is a theme I've raised in my posts many times prior to this one (the dysfunction of democracy and the role of the media and feeding it), so I'm not sure how you could, in any way, justifiably call it mere "shameful Euro-bashing." You're assuming that the sanctions impact the amount of funding Iran dedicates to its proxy wars, which is just a guess by you. On the other hand, it seems pretty likely that Iran now ramps up its nuclear program, considering that the deal to convince it to stop doing so no longer exists. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
And the president is bragging about increasing military spending by 145% during his term. And they're stepping up support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And they're building a military base in Syria. It's well-documented that Iran is working to develop its ballistic missile program as well. --------------------------------- I mean, sure, they could be funneling that sanctions money into hookers for Khamenei and funding the new military investment from the savings they built up from the years of recession caused by the previous sanctions, but I think my understanding of events is a little easier to believe. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10871 Posts
Well, at least it fits this giant shitshow you call your goverment. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On May 09 2018 15:04 mozoku wrote: Iran has nothing on Israel as far as conflicts(started/maintained/backed) go.Well the money certainly isn't reaching the people. And the president is bragging about increasing military spending by 145% during his term. And they're stepping up support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And they're building a military base in Syria. It's well-documented that Iran is working to develop its ballistic missile program as well. --------------------------------- I mean, sure, they could be funneling that sanctions money into hookers for Khamenei and funding the new military investment from the savings they built up from the years of recession caused by the previous sanctions, but I think my understanding of events is a little easier to believe. random: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/unpacking-the-israel-kenya-deal-to-help-wage-war-in-somalia/ Kenya’s battle to fight al-Shabaab, the fundamentalist Islamist group in Somalia that has been tied to numerous suicide bombings, is set to be assisted by Israel. there are no justifications for any of these but to allege that what Iran is doing somehow justifies/gives legitimacy to israeli actions is ludicrous...... There is a history of Israel arming unsavory dictatorships and regimes around the world, from apartheid South Africa to countries in Latin America. As Phyllis Bennis writes in a chapter to Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict+ Show Spoiler + As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalates, a dangerous illusion persists that the American Jewish community speaks with a single voice, expressing universal, uncritical support for the policies of the Sharon government. This appearance of unanimity does grave disservice to the heterogeneity of Jewish thought, and to the centuries-old Jewish traditions of lively dispute and rigorous, unapologetic skeptical inquiry. Wrestling with Zion brings together prominent poets, essayists, journalists, activists, academics, novelists, and playwrights, representing the diversity of opinion in the progressive Jewish-American community regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All the participants share three things: a Jewish identity, an American identity, and a sense of urgency, refusing to ignore the catastrophic injustice that has been visited upon the Palestinian people, while at the same time being passionately committed to Jewish survival and American legacies of compassion and moral courage. The contributors — including Nathan Englander, Susan Sontag, Robert Pinsky, Daniel Wolfe, and many others — have considered certain essential questions: What is at the heart of the connection between Israel and American Jews? What is Israel's role in shaping Jewish-American identities? How has this role changed historically? And what is the history, both familiar and forgotten, of Zionism's political, cultural, and spiritual meaning? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23810 Posts
That's why you can find articles like this almost lamenting peace as it hurts profits. Notably, the index is still beating the market over the past year—with tensions continuing with other nations. “With the threat environment unlikely to abate per a host of global tensions spanning China, the Mideast, North Korea, and Russia, we do not foresee any imminent fall-off in US military budgets,” wrote Morgan Stanley analysts led by Rajeev Lalwani. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8247 Posts
As other people have mentioned, even if you can find legit reasons for breaking the agreement, none of them have been provided by Trump or his administration themselves. It's clear whatever reasons you might manage to dig up, none of them were in the forefront of Trumps brain when he did this. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23810 Posts
On May 09 2018 17:01 Excludos wrote: When the hell did "no sanctions" suddenly become synonymous with "funding"..? This isn't even remotely how economy works. As other people have mentioned, even if you can find legit reasons for breaking the agreement, none of them have been provided by Trump or his administration themselves. It's clear whatever reasons you might manage to dig up, none of them were in the forefront of Trumps brain when he did this. I got nothing on leaving the agreement other than our political system was designed and the deal executed in such a way that the president could leave on a whim and that's how pretty much everyone except Obama wanted it. Even Hillary didn't want the deal and definitely wanted to be able to choose to leave without congressional approval. This isn't as partisan as the kabuki in congress would make people think. But as to the 'funding' part, my understanding is pretty basic, but it boils down to what appears to be huge cash transfers (maybe gold as well) to Iran that would allow them to fund their military exploits without having to go through European banks or whatever to access the money. Essentially giving them invisible money to continue conflicts relatively untracked. The US's excuses don't pass the smell test as to why they had no choice but to pay in cash instead of wiring money to accounts where they would have to account for what the money was being spent on. Couldn't just cut a check from the account for 10 suicide bombers or something, but you can do that with a pile of cash and/or gold. Then you get to the part from mozu about it certainly looking like that cash got used the way it wasn't supposed to be. That's how 'removing sanctions' becomes 'funding their conflicts' basically. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 09 2018 04:37 Wulfey_LA wrote: Nah. No war. The military gamed out a conflict with Iran 10 years ago and it went badly. Our military position against Iran has not improved in 10 years. Further, we don't have the resources in place for anything but a pinprick strike like we do with Syria/Assad. This is just Trump wrecking Pax Americana and withdrawing America from its global leadership role. Countries will now be free to pursue their own bilateral deals without America wrangling the global powers into any kind of consensus. Iran can resume its weapons production freely now since the USA won't do anything and Europe doesn't care. Trump just made America smaller so that other countries can pursue their interests at their discretion. Can you expound on this? Isn't the US military like 100x more powerful than Iran's? I mean, the 'war' part of the war in Iraq was over in about two days, and the US steamrollered everything they ran into. I seem to recall there were more casualties from friendly fire than military action. If the US went in just to crush Iran and not to stick around waving signs with 'hi, I'm a target you hate and don't need a foreign holiday to shoot at, come have a go', I'd have thought it'd be much the same story. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On May 09 2018 17:44 iamthedave wrote: Can you expound on this? Isn't the US military like 100x more powerful than Iran's? I mean, the 'war' part of the war in Iraq was over in about two days, and the US steamrollered everything they ran into. I seem to recall there were more casualties from friendly fire than military action. If the US went in just to crush Iran and not to stick around waving signs with 'hi, I'm a target you hate and don't need a foreign holiday to shoot at, come have a go', I'd have thought it'd be much the same story. It wouldn't be a good idea to attack Iran, the damage would be tremendous, from conventional to no conventional attacks everywhere in the globe against american targets. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On May 09 2018 15:04 mozoku wrote: Well the money certainly isn't reaching the people. And the president is bragging about increasing military spending by 145% during his term. And they're stepping up support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. And they're building a military base in Syria. It's well-documented that Iran is working to develop its ballistic missile program as well. --------------------------------- I mean, sure, they could be funneling that sanctions money into hookers for Khamenei and funding the new military investment from the savings they built up from the years of recession caused by the previous sanctions, but I think my understanding of events is a little easier to believe. Why can't they build a base in Syria if they are there by request of the Syrian regime, while the americans already have several bases and are there as invaders? If they are being threatened ever single year by western warmongers they should be able to defend their country, the only way to do that is to develop more weapons capable of such task. They already received the s-300's from Russia, hopefully they will be able to embolden their air defenses even more in the coming months. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18255 Posts
On May 09 2018 17:44 iamthedave wrote: Can you expound on this? Isn't the US military like 100x more powerful than Iran's? I mean, the 'war' part of the war in Iraq was over in about two days, and the US steamrollered everything they ran into. I seem to recall there were more casualties from friendly fire than military action. If the US went in just to crush Iran and not to stick around waving signs with 'hi, I'm a target you hate and don't need a foreign holiday to shoot at, come have a go', I'd have thought it'd be much the same story. If that's your endgame, why bother invading at all? Just drop a nuke on Teheran and hang out the mission accomplished banner... | ||
| ||
