US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Why don't you trash the democrats being anti-Trump, anti-wall, anti-get along for the sake of America?

Originally Posted by vienna

I don't bother with those who are not in power or who probably won't ever be in power; they are irrelevant;

I believe that the Congresswoman from California's 12th Congressional district is in power and is currently the Speaker of the House.

Have at it.

[Jimbuna]

Now we see a video dug up that is fifteen years old

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/-daily...-1423368771998

[Skybird]

The region around Idlib ha sbeen surrendered by the Kurds to a fundamentalist militia that is a split-off from Al Quaida. This milita has been negotioated with and is actively supported by turkey Erdoghan. First American equipment and troops are being withdrawn from Syria. The demand for guarantees not to slaughter the Kurds has been rejected by Erdoghan.



This^ is what Trump's fantasizing about "defeat of IS in Syria" looks like. Reading the future from the giblets of sacrificial chicken would bring more truths to light, than listening to the Donald's great revelations.

[Skybird]

Also interesting is how US inner politics and foreign politics influence what the Russians do. The Americans cannot like what Russia does:

I just read an update on the development of the Russian finances and reserves. Since years they have reduced the US treasuries they held, but since the sanction, they have dramatically cut them back to now almost meaningless 1.6 billion - some years ago it were over 180 billion. In spring 2018 alone they had sold off 81% of their formerly owned US bonds.

https://www.welt.de/finanzen/article...01c4eedaca.png

Russia's reserves in available capital are some of the highest in the world. Despite the sanctions, they build these even further during the time of the sanctions. They now stand at 467 billion USD. The share of dolalrs in that treausy, is steeply falling, currently cut down to 21%, with 32% of their reserves held in Euros, climbing, 15% are in Yuan, climbing, and 18% are solid gold. This means Russia has bought up one fourth of all gobally available Yuan reserves.



Source of original numbers: Bloomberg.


A very dramatic shift away fromt he dollar and towards China, and towards gold, and Euros.


It also shows that they are bitterly determined to cut ties to the US,and form a new bond with China.

It also shows that they probably can see what is coming at the Western economies - different to the Westerners themsleves who still deny the fallout from their desastrous bank "rescue" operation of the past ten years.

Trump and Putin close buddies? Before the camera maybe. But in reality the third world war has gone hot behind the curtain since long time, it is being fought with cyberspace weapons, in the media arena and by influencing public opinion by wepaons of "populism", and it is being fought in currencies and paper assets on the level of national economies and global currency organisation.

And we are currently in the loosers' seat while celebrating how fantastic we are.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The region around Idlib ha sbeen surrendered by the Kurds to a fundamentalist militia that is a split-off from Al Quaida. This milita has been negotioated with and is actively supported by turkey Erdoghan. First American equipment and troops are being withdrawn from Syria. The demand for guarantees not to slaughter the Kurds has been rejected by Erdoghan.



This^ is what Trump's fantasizing about "defeat of IS in Syria" looks like. Reading the future from the giblets of sacrificial chicken would bring more truths to light, than listening to the Donald's great revelations.

And another view point.

This is geopolitical malpractice. Yet, this is not all that the DC consensus has gotten wrong and that Trump has gotten right.

The consensus also argues that America should maintain what is effectively a permanent presence in Syria and Afghanistan. This is particularly problematic given that the United States has been in Afghanistan over four times as long as the time it took for it to defeat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II and with no end in sight according to policy elites.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature...t-change-41077

Now, rather than focusing on America’s greatest challenge—the rise of China—while dealing with unsustainable spending, U.S. policy elites are determined to mire America down in a morass of multiple distractions in peripheral theaters.

That is not what a large portion of the American public wants nor is it what that sector of society voted for when they elected Trump as president—or even Obama prior to Trump. Further, it is also a serious overstretch that violates the old adage of the great Prussian strategist, Frederick the Great, “He Who Defends Everything, Defends Nothing.”

[Skybird]

I know all that, u_crank. And some of the points, especially the overstretching argument, I have given myself often enough. Even more, I have been against any Western engagement in Syria, if you remember, whether American or European. Still, Trump is deceiving the public opinion when claiming that IS has been defeated. Its not even half-finished business. Its having helped to replace one horror with another. It was all started for wrong reasons, but this is what makes prematurely ending it now wrong once again.

Iraq: failure. Afghanistan failure. Now Syria:failure. The US seems to have the ambition to install itself as world champion of needless strategic defeats. All muscles, no brains.

In fact a fundamentalist organisation as horrific as Al Quaeda or IS is being established now - tolerated by the US, actively supported by US-"ally" Turkey.

Fan-tas-tic.

[Buddahaid]

Not to worry. Trump will just fire the enemy for not doing what he wants.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iraq: failure. Afghanistan failure. Now Syria:failure. The US seems to have the ambition to install itself as world champion of needless strategic defeats. All muscles, no brains.

It's a sad tale, but I agree completely. And I would add to that list Libya. The Neocon dream of bookending Iran by establishing Democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq will go down as one of the great strategic mistakes in that region. Rather than contain Iran, the destabilizing of Iraq has increased their influence. Syria is a gift to Tehran as well.

One could almost be led to believe that this was the plan along. Pick a fight with Iran. War is big business.

American presence in Syria is a man standing at the edge of a rabbit hole. Yes ISIS still exists. But if Bashar al-Assad, Russia, Iranian-backed Shia militias from Iraq, Hezbollah, and various groups supported by Turkey can't defeat ISIS then what is the answer? A very large US military involvement would simply repeat previous mistakes. The answer in my opinion is to let these people solve their own problems and stop creating more problems.

We may not like the result but what is the chance that we would get a result that we would like. History so far says less than zero.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

American presence in Syria is a man standing at the edge of a rabbit hole. Yes ISIS still exists. But if Bashar al-Assad, Russia, Iranian-backed Shia militias from Iraq, Hezbollah, and various groups supported by Turkey can't defeat ISIS then what is the answer?

Their frustration can be seen in the use of chemical weapons of warfare to harm and scare the people into surrender

[ikalugin]

A US policy maker once saying that in his view nuclear war can be won.

 

Interesting to see those historic views of the new US policy makers, Dr. Charles Kupperman, Bolton's new deputy national security advisor.


With this mindset getting to run the US policy DPRK and even PRC may consider expanding their detterrents.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

A US policy maker once saying that in his view nuclear war can be won.

Interesting to see those historic views of the new US policy makers, Dr. Charles Kupperman, Bolton's new deputy national security advisor.

With this mindset getting to run the US policy DPRK and even PRC may consider expanding their detterrents.

Don't believe everything you hear ... just like the Chinese Admiral that thinks he could take out a couple of US Navy carriers and get away with it ...

not everyone of the China's military would agree with that statement.

The men or women that would have the US use nuclear weapons first are like all of the planes and ships of the Vietnam war era all put to rest in grave yards and can not be used anymore

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I believe that the Congresswoman from California's 12th Congressional district is in power and is currently the Speaker of the House.

Have at it.

My response is the same one I gave when I used to play in bands and during my brief stint as a DJ:

"I don't do requests..."...


As I said before (you should really read my posts more carefully before you comment on them GRIN), there are more than enough posters to take on Pelosi, et al, in this thread, so I don't feel any pressing need or urgency to pile on needlessly. I do understand that, lacking any reasonable, logical, or ethical means to even begin to, in even a minor fashion, defend Trump and his minions, that you feel the need to lash out at those who, while not even a part of the argument of Trump's fitness or suitability for office, so as to give what you believe is 'weight' to your arguments. What I find amusing is how the 'logic' of those arguments work; for example, someone points out Trump is a liar, so the Trumpettes' response is "So is Bill Clinton!!". Now what is one to make of this? Are the Trumpettes, who in the past expressed great moral outrage about Clinton's lie, now that Trump has made blatant lying a standard in the Oval Office, are they now saying lying is a good thing? If that's the case, then who cares if Clinton lies; why bring it up at all? Or, if they are taking a moral stand on Clinton lying, why aren't they equally or, given the massively blatant lies told by Trump, even more morally outraged at Trump? This applies to all the deflective finger pointing the Trumpettes do when they can't find an even barely reasonable way to defend Trump. Honestly, they remind me of one of a pair of kids who, when caught in a lie, flusters about and points to the other kid and says "He/she lied, before, too!" Fine, then, kids. You're both liars and, because you were the most recent, and blatant liar, you're the one who catches it this time...


Or as the saying goes, "Be grown up and own up"...


Regarding Pelosi's 'power', it doesn't really extend beyond the House; or did I miss where a House Speaker can declare, on their own initiative, a national emergency? Or how about issue an Executive order, or impose tariffs, or send troops out, or freeze Federal funds, or negotiate treaties, or call for a declaration of war, etc., etc., etc. In a contest of 'who's got the biggest', a House Speaker loses to a President any day. If the President sneezes, the country, and possibly, the world, catches the flu; if a House Speaker sneezes, a nose is wiped and the world carries on. No, in the great scheme of things, Pelosi may have a title, but her 'powers' do not even begin to approach the dangers of misuse of powers posed by an occupant of the Oval Office; and the fact there is so much danger in the misuse of Presidential powers is precisely why an occupant of the Oval is held to so much higher a standard and is subject to so much greater scrutiny, and it is why the Founding Fathers made freedom of the press, in order to give transparency and review of the machinations of the nation's leaders, among the very first concerns when writing the Constitution. There is an old saying about the purpose of the press is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. Trump was comfortable when he was in private life where his failings, misdeeds and criminality were hidden behind the thin gauze of 'celebrity' and the fact the vast majority of the people didn't really care about him; now under the direct light of scrutiny, he is no longer hidden and is certainly not comfortable any longer. He wanted the office and title but, as in so very many things he does or undertakes, he didn't really think through what would be the downsides. And I am more than comfortable with Trump suffering his own self-inflicted afflictions You know what they say: "Be careful of what you wish for..."...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

there are more than enough posters to take on Pelosi, et al, in this thread, so I don't feel any pressing need or urgency to pile on needlessly.

Ditto with the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd. That is why I find it totally unnecessary to criticize the current occupant of the WH. I wouldn't want to get run over just crossing the street.

Regarding Pelosi's 'power', it doesn't really extend beyond the House;

I don't recall saying that it did. But you will have to admit she has some power. What is going on in Washington right now kinda says that she does. She leads one of the chambers of the United States Congress. Most people would consider that a powerful position albeit different than the Presidency. Considering the fact that the House can bring articles of impeachment against the President I see it as a very powerful position. Congress can do things the President cannot and they can also stop him from doing things. Your description makes it sound like she is just collecting a paycheck.

Frankly I think you are dodging. If you don't want to criticize Pelosi because she is a Democrat just say so. I'll understand. I'm an understanding kinda guy.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

Frankly I think you are dodging. If you don't want to criticize Pelosi because she is a Democrat just say so. I'll understand. I'm an understanding kinda guy.

Were not requesting anything vienna ... we just wonder what you think of the other anti-Trumpers ... Those two on the news all the time hate him and say they represent America.

I disagree they don't represent my views

[mapuc]

Following the news here in Denmark, Sweden and a little in this thread

I can't decide which was best the old original series "Soap"
or
The new one "Soap in the White House"

Because for me it's nothing more than one big Soap episode.

Markus