|
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 |
Provided the situation with Iran stays calm for the next eleven months I see this as a minor win for Trump. I fully agreed with Tucker's take that he would lose the election if we got into a full-scale conflict. I'm confident in saying that the American public at large doesn't want another war. In his campaign rallies, he decried the disastrous war in Iraq and that resonated with the rank and file GOP voter. Personally, it intrigued me and really granted some credibility to his "outsider" status in people's minds. Putting America First didn't include more war in the Middle East in its original 2015 sales pitch.
I'm not a fan of the strike. None should bear remorse for Qasem Soleimani as he had the blood of American lives on his hands but I just don't see how killing him advances our position in the region at all or has a lasting positive impact on the relationships there. Trump's gotta watch his step here, theoretically all he has to do is ride the job and wage growth numbers in the fall and he can win. He got lucky this time.
Also, the lack of democratic primary polling is maddening. I want to make a final projection soon but even the early states haven't had a steady string of polling since mid-December.
|
On January 09 2020 13:37 Gorgonoth wrote:
Provided the situation with Iran stays calm for the next eleven months I see this as a minor win for Trump. I fully agreed with Tucker's take that he would lose the election if we got into a full-scale conflict. I'm confident in saying that the American public at large doesn't want another war. In his campaign rallies, he decried the disastrous war in Iraq and that resonated with the rank and file GOP voter. Personally, it intrigued me and really granted some credibility to his "outsider" status in people's minds. Putting America First didn't include more war in the Middle East in its original 2015 sales pitch.
I'm not a fan of the strike. None should bear remorse for Qasem Soleimani as he had the blood of American lives on his hands but I just don't see how killing him advances our position in the region at all or has a lasting positive impact on the relationships there. Trump's gotta watch his step here, theoretically all he has to do is ride the job and wage growth numbers in the fall and he can win. He got lucky this time.
Also, the lack of democratic primary polling is maddening. I want to make a final projection soon but even the early states haven't had a steady string of polling since mid-December.
What wage growth? lol
For all he likes to bluster about the economy because of the stock market, it means jack shit for most Americans because people don't have enough money to invest into stocks.
|
On January 09 2020 13:37 Gorgonoth wrote:
Also, the lack of democratic primary polling is maddening. I want to make a final projection soon but even the early states haven't had a steady string of polling since mid-December.
Ironic considering debate entry is literally dependent on it and there's far less this cycle than 2016 when it wasn't.
|
On January 09 2020 12:43 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? I remembered linking the conversation sometime in 2019 and found that instead. The conversation we're having now has reoccured a few times (up to and including the question you just asked).
That is amazing - and doesn't it kind of support my point that this thread needs new, in this case right-wing, perspectives to be interesting and not only an echo-chamber?
|
I mean, except for p6, who wasn't banned, most of those people are still around to one degree or another, and nobody who has been banned was involved at all.
You'll need to expand that point a little.
|
Trump is holding a rally down the street from my work today, and folks are expecting huge crowds in favor and in protest. Should be interesting lol
|
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect...
|
On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed?
|
United Kingdom10010 Posts
On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed?
I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though.
Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics).
I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On January 09 2020 17:23 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 12:43 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 12:21 Aquanim wrote:On January 09 2020 07:57 IgnE wrote:
is GH a 9/11 truther? that doesnt seem right I suggest you read (for instance) the conversation following this post and draw your own conclusions. I'm amazed you somehow dug that up. How in the world did you find a post from 2018? I remembered linking the conversation sometime in 2019 and found that instead. The conversation we're having now has reoccured a few times (up to and including the question you just asked). That is amazing - and doesn't it kind of support my point that this thread needs new, in this case right-wing, perspectives to be interesting and not only an echo-chamber?
The term echo chamber is rather liberally applied these days, there’s rather a lot of disagreement on almost everything in here, so I don’t think it fits.
By my barometer we’ve got folks from genuine socialists all the way through to people right of centre, there’s a fair bit of divergence there.
I guess I could LARP as a right winger for a bit if that would help.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On January 09 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed? I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though. Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics). I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME.
Bad actors exist in the region, it’s harder to find a decent one it’s not really a reasonable point if you’ll let Saudi Arabia kill journalists and not give them so much as a slap on the wrist. Or refrain from criticising Israel on anything.
Added to the backdrop of the Trump administration’s continual attacks on multilateral institutions, traditional allies in NATO, cheerleading Britain leaving the EU, leaving the Kurds to it etc etc.
I think his and his administration’s actions thus far represent far more than a mere difference in methodology, they’re a clear break from what we saw under Obama in both rhetoric and action.
|
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do.
|
My impression about Trump foreign policy is that he is willing to erode US longterm credibility for short term gain. It is true that US has a lot of leverage on most of its allies as they come to rely on US heavily. But the more he is using that levarage the less incentive US allies has to continue to rely on US. This might initiate strategic shifts which will be felt many years from now.
|
Trump doesn't have a foreign policy for USA. What short term gain has he gained for the US foreign policy wise? He has made all American nationals less safe in the region. Iraq has issued a demand for American troops to leave the country. Even Isreal and Saudi Arabia is alarmed by the assassination.
|
United Kingdom10010 Posts
Here's some more information about the Iran plane crash for those who insisted on jumping to conclusions. The possibility of a drone collision actually seems like the cause i would be most likely to believe.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/09/iran-plane-crash-terrorism-and-drone-collision-being-explored-ukraine
A senior Ukrainian security official has said his country’s investigators will explore a range of possible reasons why one of its passenger jets crashed in Iran, including a drone collision, a terrorist bomb and a missile attack, but did not rule out a technical fault was to blame.
Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s national security council, cited unconfirmed reports circulating on social media that debris from a Russian-made missile had been found at the site, on the outskirts of Tehran, where the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed on Wednesday, killing all 176 passengers and staff onboard.
“Our commission is currently agreeing with the Iranian authorities to travel to the place of the crash, and plans to search for debris of a Russian surface-to-air Tor missile, according to information which was published on the internet,” he said in a Facebook post on Thursday.
Some members of the investigative team had been involved in the probe into the 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine by Russian-armed rebels, Danilov added. “We will use all our best practices from investigating the attack on MH17 to find out the truth in the case of the Ukrainian plane in Tehran,” he said.
|
United Kingdom10010 Posts
On January 09 2020 22:49 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed? I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though. Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics). I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME. Bad actors exist in the region, it’s harder to find a decent one it’s not really a reasonable point if you’ll let Saudi Arabia kill journalists and not give them so much as a slap on the wrist. Or refrain from criticising Israel on anything. Added to the backdrop of the Trump administration’s continual attacks on multilateral institutions, traditional allies in NATO, cheerleading Britain leaving the EU, leaving the Kurds to it etc etc. I think his and his administration’s actions thus far represent far more than a mere difference in methodology, they’re a clear break from what we saw under Obama in both rhetoric and action.
I was talking mostly about the difference between Hilary and Trump specifically regarding Iran, rather than taking into account their ME foreign policy as a whole. I could have made that clearer.
I think if you look at a 4 year term, Hilary and Trump's main difference would be in what they said about Iran, rather than what they did about Iran.
Honestly I think they would both be as vulnerable as each other to being led by senior military figures in their attitude to foreign policy. Hilary would just figure out a way to explain it that seems justified, whereas Trump doesn't give a fuck.
Obviously I can't actually know that.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On January 09 2020 23:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 22:49 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 09 2020 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2020 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 22:18 Slydie wrote:
Theoretical question but how would Hillary have dealt with Iran? She probably would not have redrawn from the treaty but the middle East is a hard nut for any president. Obama and Clinton were very far from perfect... As you say, not leave the treaty and allow relations to slowly improve? Is any more 'dealing with' needed? I don't know if Iran would have been particularly cooperative though. Say what you want about Trump, he makes some reasonable points about Iran. They aren't the innocent little children here, they are waging quite a vicious anti-coalition war in the ME (whether or not its their right to do so is another question, but I can't imagine Hilary disagreeing with Trump on anything except the operational specifics). I don't know that Hilary would have been much better than Trump in this, just more competent at the disaster management that is a natural part of US policy in the ME. Bad actors exist in the region, it’s harder to find a decent one it’s not really a reasonable point if you’ll let Saudi Arabia kill journalists and not give them so much as a slap on the wrist. Or refrain from criticising Israel on anything. Added to the backdrop of the Trump administration’s continual attacks on multilateral institutions, traditional allies in NATO, cheerleading Britain leaving the EU, leaving the Kurds to it etc etc. I think his and his administration’s actions thus far represent far more than a mere difference in methodology, they’re a clear break from what we saw under Obama in both rhetoric and action. I was talking mostly about the difference between Hilary and Trump specifically regarding Iran, rather than taking into account their ME foreign policy as a whole. I could have made that clearer. I think if you look at a 4 year term, Hilary and Trump's main difference would be in what they said about Iran, rather than what they did about Iran. Honestly I think they would both be as vulnerable as each other to being led by senior military figures in their attitude to foreign policy. Hilary would just figure out a way to explain it that seems justified, whereas Trump doesn't give a fuck. Obviously I can't actually know that.
They probably wouldn’t be radically different, no, but Clinton would at least not have rolled back the small baby steps in thawing relations that Trump has done.
Trump isn’t exactly led by military advice either, given how much of what he does in this domain is generally followed by public disagreement, or anonymous leaks.
|
|
|
On January 09 2020 23:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do.
What is going on here?
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 09 2020 23:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's probably more that every now and then GH and mini GH would explode together in massive amounts of volume of posting against one guy. Rather uncomfortable to see. Just witness the conversation with SC2Ren a few pages back. At some point there was "the enemy" and "did you not udnerstand the point of the excercise?". It's not opinions but how it is done. I read the economist. Now label me as right winger for all the good that'll do. I always thought of The Economist as left wing, neoliberal. Breitbart, Gatestone, Zero Hedge, Spectator are right wing, imo. Fox is neocon (but Tucker isn't). AP and Reuters are center. Curious where everyone else would place outlets on the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
