EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 279
| 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 | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On June 10 2018 12:39 NewSunshine wrote: Great, so we're making enemies out of our allies now. The President is a petulant child, and he has no idea what he's doing. He's just in office to do whatever damage he can, and peace out afterward. This is insane. The damage Trump is doing to the United States' reputation, and therefore its ability to make deals with other nations, is going to linger for decades, because no matter how popular future presidents are overseas, and no matter how reasonable the deals they're trying to negotiate are, other countries are going to ask "What's stopping the US from electing another guy like Trump who wrecks all of this in a couple of years?" and we're going to have no answer. And I wouldn't say that Trump is in office to do damage. He's in office to undo everything Barrack Obama accomplished and piss off liberals as much as possible while doing so. It just so happens that undoing Obama's accomplishments means doing damage is every case I can think of. On June 10 2018 13:00 WolfintheSheep wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason these tariffs are for "national security reasons" is because that's the only way Trump can implement these without Congressional approval? You're not wrong. It makes the lack of response from Congress even more egregious. Republicans in Congress could reclaim some of the powers they've let accrue to the executive branch and if not stop Trump, at least slow him down. McCain tweeted something suggesting doing this, but got dogpiled from his right for it. The rest of the GOP seems to consider any possible damage Trump does less bad than the damage to their careers that will come from standing up to him in any way. | ||
KwarK
United States43430 Posts
On June 10 2018 13:00 WolfintheSheep wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason these tariffs are for "national security reasons" is because that's the only way Trump can implement these without Congressional approval? Essentially yes. Trump maintains that he is legitimately afraid that Canada may burn down the White House but it's one of the few times that even Trump knows that Trump is lying. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
// see spoiler for actual video of Trump saying this + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I am sure someone else posted that video already. The point being that anyone who pretends there isn't a Russia connection is just gaslighting at this point. Trump remarkably praises only 1 other leader from the G7 summit. Guess which one. Guess which one also happens to think Russia should be admitted back into the G8(G7). + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
pmh
1395 Posts
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. This is starting to look somewhat likely,though I would have deemed this forever impossible if you would have asked me about this 2 years ago. Usa has been 2 parties for as long as I can remember. There have been outsiders like ross perot and now the greens but they where never a serious option for most voters because they never stood a serious chance. Maybe the democratic party will split up eventually,a progressive fraction for the Bernie supporting young people and a conservative traditional political elite party for some of the other voters. Like democrats they thought they could count on trump to mess up. An outsider who messed up would make it easier for the democrats to keep outsiders away from being the candidate. But thus far trump didn't really mess up,despite what the media tries to make people believe. The republican political elite they do not care so much I think,as long trump gets the job done. Which he has thus far with the tax deal. So if this continues the republicans will happily go with trump again the next election and if the democrats then come with a figure similar to Clinton they are going to lose again. Maybe then the progressive section of the voters has had enough and the democratic party could split. Though in all fairness it still seems highly unlikely,it seems like unthinkable and I am pretty sure that is how most democrats see it as well. On the other hand it was also unthinkable trump would become president when he entered the race for the republican nomination. There is a major shift going on right now,not only in the usa but also the world as a whole. Its like all control has been lost every where. This cant end well you would think,something will explode somewhere eventually but lets hope it wont. | ||
|
A3th3r
United States319 Posts
On June 10 2018 12:57 Plansix wrote: 70 year old alliances are going to be flushed down the drain. If congress doesn’t act and reign him in, forgien leaders are just going to assume our country is not longer a reliable partner. Trump is more interested in the optics of a meeting with NK than keeping our oldest allies. We have never been weaker. Agreed. Trump isn't good at the "foreign policy" portion of the presidential duties. Dealing with business issues & trade as well as handling "threatening" countries, such as Iran & North Korea, is more his bread & butter. Congress & the judicial branch of government should specifically address mistakes that are made by the executive branch. The system of checks & balances works when punishments, such as fines, are meted out from time to time. The trade summits are important symbolically so that the people see that the president is interacting with world leaders on a "grand stage," but are more "for show" than anything. The presidency is largely a "show position" but is important for morale. That said, he has turned it into a 3-ring circus because he finds that "brash New York real estate guy" schtick so funny. He could go in the direction of LBJ, who knew everything there is to know about being president & was heavily involved in day-to-day affairs of state, or, alternatively, phone it in like GWB did but have good handlers in place to deal with various issues & be more of an "attitude & direction" kind of guy. Clearly he is leaning towards the latter, probably because he's that kind of guy anyways. The vast majority of business that happens on a day-to-day basis in these countries is local, not international. That said, that is absolutely a poor showing by Trump of how to deal with other countries & their affairs, & I'd have to say that the G-7 meeting is a diplomatic failure. The guy does not have much tact or grace, & I think I'd characterize the guy as being a major buffoon. Trump is like Shrek: big, loud, & obnoxious! He is a fan of wrestlers & comedians rather than engineers https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/freedom-caucus-co-founder-jim-jordan-wants-to-be-speaker-of-the-house | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 10 2018 13:46 A3th3r wrote: agreed. Trump isn't good at the "foreign policy" portion of the presidential duties. Dealing with business issues & trade as well as handling "threatening" countries, such as Iran & North Korea, is more his bread & butter. Congress & the judicial branch of government should specifically address mistakes that are made by the executive branch. The system of checks & balances works when punishments, such as fines, are meted out from time to time. The trade summits are important symbolically so that the people see that the president is interacting with world leaders on a "grand stage," but are more "for show" than anything. The vast majority of business that happens on a day-to-day basis in these countries is local, not international. That said, that is absolutely a poor showing by Trump of how to deal with other countries & their affairs, & I'd have to say that the G-7 meeting is a diplomatic failure. The guy does not have much tact or grace, & I think I'd characterize the guy as being a major buffoon. Trump is like Shrek: big, loud, & obnoxious! Foreign policy with allies, not so good. Foreign policy with Iran & North Korea, much better than the previous administration if you ask me. His foreign policy is somewhere in the middle. Congress should withdraw the tariff power from the executive branch. It's not just Trump being Trump, it's Trump and a historically weak Congress perfectly willing to sub out its duties. They then blame the agencies or president that they gave power for using it badly. Ludicrous. It isn't about punishments and fines, it's about taking back control. It isn't the judicial branch either, no matter how much certain judges want to try their hand at foreign policy in the past year. + Show Spoiler + "How much is Angela Merkel's latest in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign worth?" | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
also, Trump is not doing this for US, men; stop perpetuating that joke. Trump wants deals for him personally and for his backers(corporations &Co.). as far as "the US" goes, he only cares about his image and not about the people being/representing that US. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen. I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On June 10 2018 15:13 Womwomwom wrote: I'm not sure how his approach on North Korea is much better than the previous administration (or any administration really) considering everything points to him either exacerbating the situation or completely folding. There's nothing suggests he's going in with any degree of actual planning or preparation, the US is basically going in with zero expectations or knowledge of what they even want to get out of the situation. You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen. I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote: How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? Has anything Trump ever done merit giving him the benefit of the doubt? If there is planning and preparation (that won't be thrown out at the summit), it'll be the first time in his presidency. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On June 10 2018 17:26 WolfintheSheep wrote: Has anything Trump ever done merit giving him the benefit of the doubt? If there is planning and preparation (that won't be thrown out at the summit), it'll be the first time in his presidency. Not that I'm sure Trump is as prepared as he should be. He should probably prepare more. But what irks me (and many conservatives) is how much the media has given Obama a pass on everything and shit on Trump for every little thing he does. Shitting on Trump may be warranted, given he has made his fair share of mistakes, but when he gets blamed for everything and everything he does has a bad spin put on it, it just proves his point more - the 'elites' are out to get him. So for those who oppose Trump, it might do you more good to save your criticism for when it matters, because otherwise it just gets tuned out and then he gets to serve 8 years in office. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43430 Posts
On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote: How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? The state department has been gutted. The career civil servants whose job it was to do the planning no longer work there. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 10 2018 17:31 gobbledydook wrote: Not that I'm sure Trump is as prepared as he should be. He should probably prepare more. But what irks me (and many conservatives) is how much the media has given Obama a pass on everything and shit on Trump for every little thing he does. Shitting on Trump may be warranted, given he has made his fair share of mistakes, but when he gets blamed for everything and everything he does has a bad spin put on it, it just proves his point more - the 'elites' are out to get him. So for those who oppose Trump, it might do you more good to save your criticism for when it matters, because otherwise it just gets tuned out and then he gets to serve 8 years in office. If an international trade war and two denuclearization treaties (one which he scrapped the existing deal for) aren't "when it matters", I'm not sure what else is. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote: How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? Because no one has any idea what the actual US stance on North Korea actually is. There is absolutely zero chance that they will get complete denuclearisation so we have to assume they're bailing on this stance if they're having the summit. No one in the region - China, South Korea, North Korea, Russia - believes in complete denuclearisation, so what on earth is the United States aiming to achieve from this summit outside of a photo opportunity. Being Michael Scott and screaming "I DECLARE NORTH KOREA WILL DENUCLEARISE" to world does not make that a reality. Combine with the obvious flip flop of stances resulting from the Bolton and Pompeo power struggle, can you honestly tell me the US has adequately planned for North Korea? Because this doesn't look like an administration that knows what they're doing, it looks like one that's winging it like a university student changing his mind on how to approach that final year project. Which is utterly unsurprising since there is no functional state department anymore, heck the entire US government is understaffed right now. You're welcome to answer me what the US stance on North Korea is and what they hope to get out of this summit. You're also welcome to answer if Trump actually understands the economics of North America's steel and aluminium industry (hint: there's a reason why a lot of the industry is situated near the Great Lakes) because the answers aren't too different. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
Both sides exactly know that the other side uses a completely different definition of the term, but the ambiguity is nice to glance over that their positions have nothing in common and so both sides love to talk about denuclearization. | ||
|
pmh
1395 Posts
On June 10 2018 15:06 xM(Z wrote: EU and Canada have signed a trade agreement so you can't go after one(EU) and not the other(Canada). it's basic logic, else EU would use Canada to siphon not-overtaxed american goods. also, Trump is not doing this for US, men; stop perpetuating that joke. Trump wants deals for him personally and for his backers(corporations &Co.). as far as "the US" goes, he only cares about his image and not about the people being/representing that US. That's not really how it works. The usa is not taxing their own exports,they are taxing their imports to make imported goods more expensive in the usa. You can go after one and not after the other, it is difficult to dodge this by for example exporting to Canada who then flips it around to the usa. They can demand letters of origin or something to show where a product has originated,pretty much everything is tracked already and no western country would help with a sceme like this on a big scale. If Canada would do they would simply be added to the list if not worse. | ||
|
pmh
1395 Posts
I don't see the purpose behind this top in Singapore tbh and it is difficult to make sense of it. like what possible outcome would be good here? Kim giving in to all American wishes in exchange for the acknowledgement of his regime? I don't think kim would do that and he doesn't really need the usa to acknowledge his regime either as long as he has support from china. I don't see any significant progress coming from this top other then ease the tension and some nice words. Its difficult to see korea unite or any good outcome for that matter. It will never unite under American influence that much is clear,completely impossible. Maybe unite as a democracy under Chinese influence,amerika would have to give up its influence on south korea. They will be forced to do so eventually anyway I think but I doubt they are ready to do so yet,would be a huge blow to their prestige. Maybe trump is looking for a way out without loosing face as he can never get a good deal here,go back to how it was and just ignore north korea and pretend the whole situation didn't happen. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22036 Posts
Unification, I don't see it either. It would basically be dissolving the NK state. What does NK get out of it? I would also expect that China would demand a full withdraw from the US, since that's why the split happened in the first place. Opening of borders between NK-SK doesn't look like an option either since NK would see a mass exodus. At best I think we'll get a slight warming of relations with no real consequences. Even a halt of military exercises by SK-US and arms testings from NK seems unlikely since fear of the 'other' is a powerful weapon to keep the population in line for NK. That said, even if there is no real view of a solution a summit can be a good thing. People who are talking are not fighting. The issue is that one of the participants is Trump, who is likely to cock up even the smallest of possible gains. And speaking of that. How do you think Trumps actions at the G7 summit will impact this one? Refusing to sign the joint statement they drafted hours after leaving? Once again reinforcing that everything he says is empty air and nothing can be relied upon. | ||
| ||
