|
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 June 10 2018 01:14 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win. The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans.
Sounds to me like we're gearing up for Trump pt 2: electric boogaloo.
If Bernie's popularity holds into the next election cycle, that seems to me like a devastating blow for the Democratic Party. Way worse than just Trump winning. That'll be them deliberately having kicked out the guy their own voters want to vote for. That's the kind of thing that can kill a party outright.
|
If you're fortunate, you may actually see more political parties spring out of this.
And if you're unfortunate, spineless Republicans will keep kissing Trump's ass, so you'll just have a progressive and democrat party splitting the vote, and the crazies will keep running the show.
|
On June 10 2018 02:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 01:14 Kyadytim wrote:On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win. The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans. Sounds to me like we're gearing up for Trump pt 2: electric boogaloo. If Bernie's popularity holds into the next election cycle, that seems to me like a devastating blow for the Democratic Party. Way worse than just Trump winning. That'll be them deliberately having kicked out the guy their own voters want to vote for. That's the kind of thing that can kill a party outright.
Yuuup. Reading that article was the first time I seriously considered the possibility of Trump getting reelected. The Democratic Party seems to be doing a their best to provide a live demonstration on how to lose power.
Based on their actions, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they're actively trying to throw the elections.
From a different perspective, that rules change is an admission that they don't have any candidates that they think could beat Sanders in a primary.
The message they're sending to all of the young people who were really enthusiastic about Sanders in 2016 is "We're not interested in representing you." I really question the decision to intentionally push young liberals out of the party, but when you put it next to their solicitousness towards the Obama->Trump voters, the message they're really sending is "We want to move to the right." I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the Democratic Party is attempting to move to the right to occupy the space that the Republican party occupied as of around 2000 to 2004.
And that's just fucked up.
|
On June 10 2018 03:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
If you're fortunate, you may actually see more political parties spring out of this.
And if you're unfortunate, spineless Republicans will keep kissing Trump's ass, so you'll just have a progressive and democrat party splitting the vote, and the crazies will keep running the show. The US voting system will always converse on a 2 party system. In theory new parties can form, in practice they will swiftly be absorbed by either side because more then one party on a political side is a death sentence.
|
On June 10 2018 02:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 01:14 Kyadytim wrote:On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win. The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans. Sounds to me like we're gearing up for Trump pt 2: electric boogaloo. If Bernie's popularity holds into the next election cycle, that seems to me like a devastating blow for the Democratic Party. Way worse than just Trump winning. That'll be them deliberately having kicked out the guy their own voters want to vote for. That's the kind of thing that can kill a party outright.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? There was a primary in 2016 and Bernie lost by millions of votes.
Check the Bernie endorsed candidates. Note that his challenger endorsements versus ESTABLISHMENT-NEOLIBERAL-SOROS-SHILLS have consistently lost.
https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Bernie_Sanders
If he is so great, and democrats love him so much, why aren't his endorsements doing anything?
“Bernie is Bernie, it’s a one-person movement,” said Sean Bagniewski, the Democratic Party chairman for Polk County, which includes Des Moines.
If the Sanders machine can’t produce votes for a candidate who shares his policy platform, has a full-throated endorsement and remains connected to top volunteers, it raises the question of whether Mr. Sanders can turn out his voters for any candidate here and beyond.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanderss-endorsement-appears-to-do-little-to-boost-democratic-candidates-1528120801
Bernie petulantly decided not_to_endorse Diane Feinstein (the neoliberaliest of neoliberal shills). And Diane overwhelmingly won her primary.
https://www.complex.com/life/2018/03/bernie-sanders-will-not-endorse-senator-dianne-feinstein
Do you have any evidence of Bernie immense popularity with Democrats? If you just FEEEEEELLLL it is true, how do you maintain that feeling in the face of so many elections going against Bernie's endorsements?
|
A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government.
So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly?
WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries.
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source
|
No proof of collusion?
Manafort indicted for working hand in hand with a RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AGENT. The chairman of a sitting President's campaign. Indicted with a Russian spy.
And now Trump wants Russia added back in to the G7. The country that attacked us during the election and continues to be a bad actor. With the support of our President and only our President. All while he praises Putin and figuratively sucks his dick.
Really? 35-40% of America doesn't see it? That makes me incredibly sad. Our country is stupid as fuck. But I guess that's expected when the party who has held power the longest (Republicans) despise education and see informed citizens as "elitists".
Feelsbadman.jpg
EDIT: My timing was pretty good considering the previous post is about this administration's attempts to shit all over science and facts. Gotta keep people dumb and poor to control them. Good job Republicans. You're very successful.
|
On June 10 2018 04:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government. So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly? Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries. Show nested quote +
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
Show nested quote +
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source
I can see why you’d want nuclear nonproliferation policy advisors/negotiators, but actual nuclear physicists sounds like overkill. Are they inspecting and dismantling during the summit or something? Physicists are a bit of an off fit here if you ask me.
|
On June 10 2018 05:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 04:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government. So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly? WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries.
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source I can see why you’d want nuclear nonproliferation policy advisors/negotiators, but actual nuclear physicists sounds like overkill. Are they inspecting and dismantling during the summit or something? Physicists are a bit of an off fit here if you ask me.
Well I can imagine if NK is serious about denuclearization that they will have some form of proposal of what happens to their current nuclear arsenal. If nobody there is capable of understanding what this proposal would mean on the effectiveness of their nuclear capabilities, then how can you accurately judge what the proposal is worth?
|
Trump just raised the stakes from a possible Trade War to a possible Trade Nuclear War. Plainly said that if the other G7 countries dont remove their long standing tariffs on US goods and create a tariff free zone that he will consider "stopping trade with them." Also, that responding to our steel tariffs on them "would be a mistake."
Most dangerous position to be in relative to Trump is as his ally. Seen this on the international and national stage.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/americas/donald-trump-g7-nafta.html
Any of the more economically inclined want to play out what such an escalation would look like in reality? I'm genuinely curious how the other G7 respond to this ultimatum.
|
On June 10 2018 03:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 02:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 10 2018 01:14 Kyadytim wrote:On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win. The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans. Sounds to me like we're gearing up for Trump pt 2: electric boogaloo. If Bernie's popularity holds into the next election cycle, that seems to me like a devastating blow for the Democratic Party. Way worse than just Trump winning. That'll be them deliberately having kicked out the guy their own voters want to vote for. That's the kind of thing that can kill a party outright. Do you have any evidence for this claim? There was a primary in 2016 and Bernie lost by millions of votes. Check the Bernie endorsed candidates. Note that his challenger endorsements versus ESTABLISHMENT-NEOLIBERAL-SOROS-SHILLS have consistently lost. https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Bernie_SandersIf he is so great, and democrats love him so much, why aren't his endorsements doing anything?
Of course we have evidence for this claim. The issue has been polled, both with the entire population and with democrats. The picture painted of his popularity is consistent and clear. The very fact that the DNC feels like they have to do something like this is further evidence. They're not doing it because they fear Ted Cruz is going to run as a democrat, are they.
Why aren't his endorsements doing anything? First, that's not the case; progressives have been doing pretty well, Our Revolution has something like 40% winrate which is amazing for a group created in 2016. You also have to keep in mind the additional context that the progressive candidate is going to be the underdog in every race by virtue of having less money, not having the party on their side, and sometimes even having the party actively work against them.
|
On June 10 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Trump just raised the stakes from a possible Trade War to a possible Trade Nuclear War. Plainly said that if the other G7 countries dont remove their long standing tariffs on US goods and create a tariff free zone that he will consider "stopping trade with them." Also, that responding to our steel tariffs on them "would be a mistake." Most dangerous position to be in relative to Trump is as his ally. Seen this on the international and national stage. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/americas/donald-trump-g7-nafta.htmlAny of the more economically inclined want to play out what such an escalation would look like in reality? I'm genuinely curious how the other G7 respond to this ultimatum.
What would it look like if the US stopped trading with the other G7 countries?
A complete collapse of the US economy.
No one is going to take that threat seriously.
|
On June 10 2018 05:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Trump just raised the stakes from a possible Trade War to a possible Trade Nuclear War. Plainly said that if the other G7 countries dont remove their long standing tariffs on US goods and create a tariff free zone that he will consider "stopping trade with them." Also, that responding to our steel tariffs on them "would be a mistake." Most dangerous position to be in relative to Trump is as his ally. Seen this on the international and national stage. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/americas/donald-trump-g7-nafta.htmlAny of the more economically inclined want to play out what such an escalation would look like in reality? I'm genuinely curious how the other G7 respond to this ultimatum. What would it look like if the US stopped trading with the other G7 countries? A complete collapse of the US economy. No one is going to take that threat seriously.
The no trade thing is only part of it. He also said he has no problem with a trade war (with our allies mind you) because "we win that 1000 out of 1000 times." This seems to indicate he isn't backing down and the only way we avoid a trade war is if everyone else 100% capitulates since Trump seems to think trade wars really are "easy to win."
|
On June 10 2018 05:50 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Trump just raised the stakes from a possible Trade War to a possible Trade Nuclear War. Plainly said that if the other G7 countries dont remove their long standing tariffs on US goods and create a tariff free zone that he will consider "stopping trade with them." Also, that responding to our steel tariffs on them "would be a mistake." Most dangerous position to be in relative to Trump is as his ally. Seen this on the international and national stage. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/americas/donald-trump-g7-nafta.htmlAny of the more economically inclined want to play out what such an escalation would look like in reality? I'm genuinely curious how the other G7 respond to this ultimatum. What would it look like if the US stopped trading with the other G7 countries? A complete collapse of the US economy. No one is going to take that threat seriously. The no trade thing is part of it. He also said he has no problem with a trade war (with our allies mind you) because "we win that 1000 out of 1000 times." This seems to indicate he isn't backing down and the only way we avoid a trade war is if everyone else 100% capitulates since Trump seems to think trade wars really are "easy to win." He can think that all he wants. Lets see what happens with Congress when counter tariffs hit their states hard. My bet is on Trump getting railed in quickly, stripping the Presidency of the power to impose tariffs in any capacity if necessary.
There is no reality in which the US can win a trade war against the rest of the world. Especially if such a war is conducted by Trump who has no idea what he is doing.
|
On June 10 2018 05:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:14 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2018 04:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government. So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly? WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries.
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source I can see why you’d want nuclear nonproliferation policy advisors/negotiators, but actual nuclear physicists sounds like overkill. Are they inspecting and dismantling during the summit or something? Physicists are a bit of an off fit here if you ask me. Well I can imagine if NK is serious about denuclearization that they will have some form of proposal of what happens to their current nuclear arsenal. If nobody there is capable of understanding what this proposal would mean on the effectiveness of their nuclear capabilities, then how can you accurately judge what the proposal is worth?
It would be a serious oversight if nobody there is an expert in nonproliferation, disposal, and nuclear weapon capabilities. The presence or absence of a PhD nuclear physicist, say one that has done doctoral work in correlation effects in nuclear transparency, is not a useful measure of whether such experts are present. You don't have to know how to interpret color coherent phenomena in the collisions of high energy particles with nuclei to have a useful background in the dismantling, storage, inspection, and nuclear capabilities. It's kind of a non-issue unless you have evidence to show everybody on Trump's team is a total dunce. Now if we moved to more scientific-centered fields of environmental policy goals for climate, ozone layer, and pollution, I'd be in partial or full agreement with you.
|
On June 10 2018 06:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 10 2018 05:14 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2018 04:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government. So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly? WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries.
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source I can see why you’d want nuclear nonproliferation policy advisors/negotiators, but actual nuclear physicists sounds like overkill. Are they inspecting and dismantling during the summit or something? Physicists are a bit of an off fit here if you ask me. Well I can imagine if NK is serious about denuclearization that they will have some form of proposal of what happens to their current nuclear arsenal. If nobody there is capable of understanding what this proposal would mean on the effectiveness of their nuclear capabilities, then how can you accurately judge what the proposal is worth? It would be a serious oversight if nobody there is an expert in nonproliferation, disposal, and nuclear weapon capabilities. The presence or absence of a PhD nuclear physicist, say one that has done doctoral work in correlation effects in nuclear transparency, is not a useful measure of whether such experts are present. You don't have to know how to interpret color coherent phenomena in the collisions of high energy particles with nuclei to have a useful background in the dismantling, storage, inspection, and nuclear capabilities. It's kind of a non-issue unless you have evidence to show everybody on Trump's team is a total dunce. Now if we moved to more scientific-centered fields of environmental policy goals for climate, ozone layer, and pollution, I'd be in partial or full agreement with you.
At a most basic level, there needs to be someone there who knows which isotopes of uranium are relevant. If Kim offers a deal to give up a all of his stocks of bunch of different uranium isotopes and not produce all of those and some more, there needs to be somebody in the room who can tell Trump that those specific isotopes aren't used in nuclear weapons. Because we already know that if someone tries to give Trump a list of isotopes, he's just going to see a bunch of numbers and not be interested in reading it.
|
On June 10 2018 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The most shocking thing is that this wasn't a rule in the first place. And no, Bernie is no Democrat and the Democrats have no obligation to follow him. You can keep dreaming about his numbers but he already tried and lost.
You seem unusually emotionally invested in this position for a foreigner?
Do the Democrats have an obligation to at least get out of his way if he's the best chance to remove Trump or do they have another option that wouldn't make them as bad or worse than Bernie and his supporters in 2016?
|
On June 10 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The most shocking thing is that this wasn't a rule in the first place. And no, Bernie is no Democrat and the Democrats have no obligation to follow him. You can keep dreaming about his numbers but he already tried and lost. You seem unusually emotionally invested in this position for a foreigner? Do the Democrats have an obligation to at least get out of his way if he's the best chance to remove Trump or do they have another option that wouldn't make them as bad or worse than Bernie and his supporters in 2016? My only investment is being tired of you talking about him.
No the Democrats have no obligation to get out of the way of anyone any more then Bernie is 'obligated' to not run as an independent.
Again, Bernie had his run. He lost by every metric in the primary.
|
United States24751 Posts
On June 10 2018 06:42 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 06:08 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2018 05:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 10 2018 05:14 Danglars wrote:On June 10 2018 04:28 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:A long article about one of the scarier sides of this administration, the systematic removal of science as a guideline for policy. The parts quoted below are related to the upcoming summit with NK, but the article is a lot bigger and hits on science devaluation in many fields of government. So it seems there's no actual scientists at the top level of advising, which looks like a big oversight for the meeting with NK. The NSC says there will be materials prepared for the meeting written by scientists. But that's not the same as having actual science advisers. It's been well documented that Trump hardly ever reads his briefings. And he has many quotes showing lack of technical understanding. So when they are going to discuss 'Denuclearization', who will be able to understand actual details? Bolton? Pompeo? Miller? Kelly? WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
“You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. “You can be sure the other side will have that.”
The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy.
There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
These and other decisions have consequences for public health and safety and the economy. Both the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have disbanded climate science advisory committees. The Food and Drug Administration disbanded its Food Advisory Committee, which provided guidance on food safety.
Government-funded scientists said in interviews that they were seeing signs that their work was being suppressed, and that they were leaving their government jobs to work in the private sector, or for other countries.
The White House declined to comment on these and other suggestions that the role of science in policymaking has been diminished in the Trump administration. Regarding the coming talks with Mr. Kim, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Garrett Marquis, emphasized that “the president’s advisers are experts in their fields.”
The larger matter, though, is the president’s lack of a close senior adviser at the White House level, someone who has Mr. Trump’s trust and his ear, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton.
“I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the post-World War II period where issues as important as nuclear weapons are on the table, and there is no serious scientist there to help the president through the thicket,” he said. “This reverberates throughout policy.”
While the State Department declined to characterize the makeup of its preparatory team for the North Korea meeting, set for Tuesday in Singapore, Mr. Trump could of course tap any number of government nuclear physicists to accompany him.
And Mr. Marquis, the National Security Council spokesman, emphasized that many of the president’s advisers “have advanced degrees and have worked on these complex issues in and out of government.”
“The materials that have gone to the president ahead of the negotiation reflect the work of more than a dozen people at the Ph.D. level in relevant fields,” he added, including “at least one” in nuclear engineering.
A State Department spokeswoman referred questions to the National Security Council.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Trump prepares for the talks, he has no close aides on par with those who helped President Barack Obama negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Mr. Obama’s advisers included Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who led the Energy Department and oversaw the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and John Holdren, a physicist and expert in nuclear arms control who served as the White House science adviser.
“There is going to be the requirement for trade-offs, and that judgment is best made by people with technical expertise who are also very senior politically,” Mr. Moniz said. “That just does not exist in this administration.”
Of course, Mr. Trump was an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama’s Iran deal and withdrew from it last month.
As for Mr. Kim’s advisers, “The North Korean nuclear scientists are very, very competent and I would expect them to advise their government well,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico and an expert on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
source I can see why you’d want nuclear nonproliferation policy advisors/negotiators, but actual nuclear physicists sounds like overkill. Are they inspecting and dismantling during the summit or something? Physicists are a bit of an off fit here if you ask me. Well I can imagine if NK is serious about denuclearization that they will have some form of proposal of what happens to their current nuclear arsenal. If nobody there is capable of understanding what this proposal would mean on the effectiveness of their nuclear capabilities, then how can you accurately judge what the proposal is worth? It would be a serious oversight if nobody there is an expert in nonproliferation, disposal, and nuclear weapon capabilities. The presence or absence of a PhD nuclear physicist, say one that has done doctoral work in correlation effects in nuclear transparency, is not a useful measure of whether such experts are present. You don't have to know how to interpret color coherent phenomena in the collisions of high energy particles with nuclei to have a useful background in the dismantling, storage, inspection, and nuclear capabilities. It's kind of a non-issue unless you have evidence to show everybody on Trump's team is a total dunce. Now if we moved to more scientific-centered fields of environmental policy goals for climate, ozone layer, and pollution, I'd be in partial or full agreement with you. At a most basic level, there needs to be someone there who knows which isotopes of uranium are relevant. If Kim offers a deal to give up a all of his stocks of bunch of different uranium isotopes and not produce all of those and some more, there needs to be somebody in the room who can tell Trump that those specific isotopes aren't used in nuclear weapons. Because we already know that if someone tries to give Trump a list of isotopes, he's just going to see a bunch of numbers and not be interested in reading it.
I think your example of uranium isotopes is a bit silly but illustrates the general point. Nuclear physics is very complicated, and specialized knowledge about how nuclear weapons production works is needed to speak intelligently about how to denuclearize a country. Former Department of Energy Secretary Moniz played a major role in the Iran nuclear deal, and he relied heavily on his nuclear physics background, not just general knowledge of how international politics works.
|
On June 10 2018 05:50 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2018 05:38 On_Slaught wrote:Trump just raised the stakes from a possible Trade War to a possible Trade Nuclear War. Plainly said that if the other G7 countries dont remove their long standing tariffs on US goods and create a tariff free zone that he will consider "stopping trade with them." Also, that responding to our steel tariffs on them "would be a mistake." Most dangerous position to be in relative to Trump is as his ally. Seen this on the international and national stage. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/world/americas/donald-trump-g7-nafta.htmlAny of the more economically inclined want to play out what such an escalation would look like in reality? I'm genuinely curious how the other G7 respond to this ultimatum. What would it look like if the US stopped trading with the other G7 countries? A complete collapse of the US economy. No one is going to take that threat seriously. The no trade thing is only part of it. He also said he has no problem with a trade war (with our allies mind you) because "we win that 1000 out of 1000 times." This seems to indicate he isn't backing down and the only way we avoid a trade war is if everyone else 100% capitulates since Trump seems to think trade wars really are "easy to win."
Trump "Trade wars are easy to win, I'm the best at this."
*cheers*
*Trump ends press conference, turns around*
EVERY SINGLE TRUMP ADVISOR: "We can't fight this trade war, it will completely crush our economy and put us into another great depression."
Trump: "Oh."
It's hard to know with Trump what he knows, what he thinks he knows, and what he knows is nonsense but he'll say anyway either to double down on something he's already said or just to gaslight the entirety of the world. The problem is he's dealing with a lot of very experienced political entities who have made it clear they're willing to consider a world wherein America is politically isolated from basically everything.
I don't know if that world is viable, but I do know that several leaders have been talking about it.
I think it's very telling that Trump opened up his presence on the world stage with his toughman impression on China, and China simply sat back, steepled its fingers, and waited for him to break. He thinks he has all the cards. Everyone else knows what cards they have. That makes them much harder to scare/intimidate, and Trump doesn't realise that. He thinks if he says he's going to do one thing and then withdraw that he has them all wrongfooted, chasing after him. Instead, the other world leaders just shrug, say, 'he's not a rational actor, we can't trust, rely or deal with him, how can we work around, isolate and ignore him?'
The G7 has the potential to be very interesting, on that front.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
