Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I didn't know I was debating an Austrian Economist. We have been in a trade war for a long time, the solution our government has taken is absolute surrender.

The trade war started the day Trump decided that tariff was the way to go. Today the main engine driving the U.S. economy is the service sector. And also people jumping the bandwagon of whatever new thing that is trending. That way they can survive. I'm not saying this is right and fair. I'm just drawing the picture of the current state of the global economy. And it is not something you can change or fix with tariff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padme said:

The trade war started the day Trump decided that tariff was the way to go. Today the main engine driving the U.S. economy is the service sector. And also people jumping the bandwagon of whatever new thing that is trending. That way they can survive. I'm not saying this is right and fair. I'm just drawing the picture of the current state of the global economy. And it is not something you can change or fix with tariff.

Wrong. We were in a trade war long before Trump. Were the Chinese and other countries putting up barriers to American products before Trump? Yes. That's a trade war. The US government response was unconditional surrender, and to let the plutocrats running the country plunder wealth that should have been flowing to the lower classes. Now Trump has been doing little things to interrupt this, but my criticism of him is he hasn't done near enough in this regard. He changed NAFTA, but only slightly, basically put a band aid on it. He's essentially a sheep in wolf clothing. Big talk, little stick. I would prefer Bernie on this issue.

Also, the US had tarriff's in place as a policy before WWII. After WWII they started lowering and lowering and drove them down to basically nothing. Taking over for the British empire, they decided to take over the British empire's policy of free trade. 

It's lunacy to say you can't fix anything through policy. EVERY economy is planned, including ours. The only thing is, who's doing the planning and to what extent. Tax policies, trade policies, federal reserve policies, foreign policies. The US has all of these things. That's all planning and creates incentives that affects the everyday economics we're talking about. Fuck the gig economy, the people deserve better.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, action said:

the most "dangerous" leaders on earth today, off the top of my head:

putin

kim yong un

erdogan

It is my observation, that relationships with these leaders is "pretty well" since trump was elected. I hear far less talk about war with any of those countries, than prior to trump's election.

So again, I have to say: the duty of a captain is getting his ship from one harbour to the next. It doesn't matter if he does so while being a dickhead.

It's not all good and well of course. People like Merkel and May don't have a lot of good things to say about trump. Relations are pretty bad with those countries I give you that. But May is an utter joke of a leader, and Merkel isn't doing much better either. Two very weak characters if you ask me. I hope they quit their job soon.

It's news to me that the U.S. was closer to war with Russia, North Korea, and Turkey under Trump than under Obama.  When was America ever at risk of a war with Turkey?

How is America any further away from military conflict with North Korea?  Prior to the summit Trump was calling Kim crazy and rocket man.  Those summits have done nothing to deter the North Koreans from advancing their nuclear capabilities.  

And you might want to pay attention to what's going on with Iran.  Trump tore up the nuclear deal and now is outwardly hostile and threatening Iran almost daily, undermining America's allies who support the deal that was, by and large, working to keep Iranian nuclear ambitions in check.

It's not just Britain and Germany that have issues.  Almost every western developed nation, save for maybe Poland and Hungary, are now outright antagonistic to America because of Trump.  America's abandonment of TPP, regardless of whether you agreed with it in principle or practice, have given Asian nations incentive to court with China.  

So again, I'm not sure how anyone could possible justify or defend Trump with respect to his discourse and actions towards international relations.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Wrong. We were in a trade war long before Trump. Were the Chinese and other countries putting up barriers to American products before Trump? Yes. That's a trade war. The US government response was unconditional surrender, and to let the plutocrats running the country plunder wealth that should have been flowing to the lower classes. Now Trump has been doing little things to interrupt this, but my criticism of him is he hasn't done near enough in this regard. He changed NAFTA, but only slightly, basically put a band aid on it. He's essentially a sheep in wolf clothing. Big talk, little stick. I would prefer Bernie on this issue

I believe since the days of Nixon and Kissingger the U.S. wanted good relationship with China, including trade. My biggest problem with China is that the U.S. turns a blind eye to the fact that China is a dictatorship. Business is more important that human rights.That's a shame. I never believe Trump wanted to get rid of NAFTA. And I'm not sure what kind of benefit could come up without NAFTA. Wealth flowing to lower classes will never happened, not in huge amounts. The U.S. never was Norway or Sweeden. I believe a big amount of people in the U.S. don't want that.

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Also, the US had tarriff's in place as a policy before WWII. After WWII they started lowering and lowering and drove them down to basically nothing. Taking over for the British empire, they decided to take over the British empire's policy of free trade. 

That was 80 years ago! The world was different. AND there was a Great Depresion in those days. So probably tariff at that time made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Padme said:

I believe since the days of Nixon and Kissingger the U.S. wanted good relationship with China, including trade. My biggest problem with China is that the U.S. turns a blind eye to the fact that China is a dictatorship. Business is more important that human rights.That's a shame. I never believe Trump wanted to get rid of NAFTA. And I'm not sure what kind of benefit could come up without NAFTA. Wealth flowing to lower classes will never happened, not in huge amounts. The U.S. never was Norway or Sweeden. I believe a big amount of people in the U.S. don't want that.

That was 80 years ago! The world was different. AND there was a Great Depresion in those days. So probably tariff at that time made sense.

The US had tariff's from at least the time of Lincoln (maybe even before I'd have to research further) until shortly after WWII. The US built itself into an industrial superpower with tariffs in place. I don't want to make this all about tariff's, but that was one of the policies in place that I think is unfairly looked down upon now. And I'm not even saying you need tariff's on everything, but you'd at least want to protect some industries that you see as vital to your country and it's people.

Regarding Nixon and China. That is true, they decided to open up China to split up China and the USSR. But that was a decision made in the 1970's. There's no reason the US shouldn't have reassessed that policy since then.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

It's news to me that the U.S. was closer to war with Russia, North Korea, and Turkey under Trump than under Obama.  When was America ever at risk of a war with Turkey?

How is America any further away from military conflict with North Korea?  Prior to the summit Trump was calling Kim crazy and rocket man.  Those summits have done nothing to deter the North Koreans from advancing their nuclear capabilities.  

And you might want to pay attention to what's going on with Iran.  Trump tore up the nuclear deal and now is outwardly hostile and threatening Iran almost daily, undermining America's allies who support the deal that was, by and large, working to keep Iranian nuclear ambitions in check.

It's not just Britain and Germany that have issues.  Almost every western developed nation, save for maybe Poland and Hungary, are now outright antagonistic to America because of Trump.  America's abandonment of TPP, regardless of whether you agreed with it in principle or practice, have given Asian nations incentive to court with China.  

So again, I'm not sure how anyone could possible justify or defend Trump with respect to his discourse and actions towards international relations.  

 

The real question people should be asking is why the extreme hostility to Iran. Is Iran objectively more "evil" than Saudi Arabia, I don't know how one could quantify a yes there. Does Iran fund terrorists that attack America, no. Or is it something else. Is Trump actually beholden to a foreign power not named Russia? That's the third rail no one wants to touch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The US had tariff's from at least the time of Lincoln (maybe even before I'd have to research further) until shortly after WWII. The US built itself into an industrial superpower with tariffs in place. I don't want to make this all about tariff's, but that was one of the policies in place that I think is unfairly looked down upon now. And I'm not even saying you need tariff's on everything, but you'd at least want to protect some industries that you see as vital to your country and it's people.

Regarding Nixon and China. That is true, they decided to open up China to split up China and the USSR. But that was a decision made in the 1970's. There's no reason the US shouldn't have reassessed that policy since then.

Again, something that worked and it was a good policy 150 years ago. It doesn't mean it can be done in 2019.  I don't want all the steel and car factories moving to China or Mexico. I just think a trade war won't fix anything. There is no magic solution.

2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The real question people should be asking is why the extreme hostility to Iran. Is Iran objectively more "evil" than Saudi Arabia, I don't know how one could quantify a yes there. Does Iran fund terrorists that attack America, no. Or is it something else. Is Trump actually beholden to a foreign power not named Russia? That's the third rail no one wants to touch.

I will touch it. Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country that has some sort of good relationship with Israel. Iran on the other hand is one of the worst enemies Israel has. Besides within the Middle East there are always tribal problems and wars among themselves. Saudi Arabia is the best or one of the best business partners when it comes to made in U.S. weapons. The U.S. makes billions selling weapons. Most if not all western developed countries make a lot of money selling weapons

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

 

Do they have the numbers in the Senate floor? And then there is the House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Padme said:

I will touch it. Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country that has some sort of good relationship with Israel. Iran on the other hand is one of the worst enemies Israel has. Besides within the Middle East there are always tribal problems and wars among themselves. Saudi Arabia is the best or one of the best business partners when it comes to made in U.S. weapons. The U.S. makes billions selling weapons. Most if not all western developed countries make a lot of money selling weapons

I think there are a few other Middle East countries that are on board with Israel but yes Saudi Arabia is the main one. I think making money off arms sales to Saudi Arabia is the cherry on top, but the main reason is Israel wants to wipe out it's enemies in the Middle East and throw the region into further chaos, and unfortunately they have a very powerful lobby on our government.

10 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

 

Conservatives LOVE socialism if it involves the military. They are Ayn Rand when it comes to domestic non arms spending and Leon Trotsky when it comes to the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard would re-enter the Iran nuclear deal if elected

Quote

"So, as president, I would re-enter the Iran nuclear deal. I would work out the difference separately outside of that and de-escalate the tensions that are, unfortunately, bringing us to the point where we are at a brink of war with Iran today.

One of the few adults in the room, Tulsi Gabbard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dazey said:

I think I probably owe you an apology for some earlier comments. 

Well go on then, lets have it, take your cap off and get engraving fatty :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of his judicial picks, one area Trump's presidency will leave lasting damage is in foreign relations.  Here's a good run down on why Trump's decision to leave the Iranian deal is so damaging to U.S. relations going forward:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/trump-foreign-policy-broken-trust-america.html

"If it becomes the norm that agreements struck by a U.S. president will be kept only so long as that president’s party is in power, why would any country ever sign a deal with the U.S. ever again? If the entire disposition of U.S. foreign policy transforms depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican occupies the White House, it will have a destabilizing impact on international relations long after Trump leaves office."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why i feel its important we follow this shitshow up with Sanders as opposed to Biden.

I know Sanders wont transform this country into a progressive paradise but it would be putting the country on the right track and would represent atleast some upside that came out of this mess.

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you motherfuckers elect Biden, I will quit you. 

And not only me, there are of course those who would start to calculate that their options for peaceful revolution would start to run out in light of a disastrous electorate, within the climate change timeline. The surveillance state and big data closing in from one side and climate crisis on the other. Theyd need to act before the state has facial recognition and other biometrics on all of us. There would be an internal logic to their potential actions even if Id disagree with them in tactic.

If for nothing else, remember that one cant fight climate change and fight wars. It doesnt matter at all what a corporate dinosaur Dem like Biden might do to curb emissions in industry, if he's also gonna fill the skies with drones, fighter jets, bombers and troop deployments. I dont figure the aircraft carriers are collecting all the plastic waste fro the ocean while they terrorize people of colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soon said:

If you motherfuckers elect Biden, I will quit you. 

And not only me, there are of course those who would start to calculate that their options for peaceful revolution would start to run out in light of a disastrous electorate, within the climate change timeline. The surveillance state and big data closing in from one side and climate crisis on the other. Theyd need to act before the state has facial recognition and other biometrics on all of us. There would be an internal logic to their potential actions even if Id disagree with them in tactic.

If for nothing else, remember that one cant fight climate change and fight wars. It doesnt matter at all what a corporate dinosaur Dem like Biden might do to curb emissions in industry, if he's also gonna fill the skies with drones, fighter jets, bombers and troop deployments. I dont figure the aircraft carriers are collecting all the plastic waste fro the ocean while they terrorize people of colour.

Well who's the big money and big media behind. They are going to push corporate dems like Biden and Buttigieg. Bernie and especially Tulsi won't get the fair hearing they deserve even in liberal media. That's going to be awfully hard to overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soon said:

if he's also gonna fill the skies with drones, fighter jets, bombers and troop deployments

Who says he's going to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Bernie and especially Tulsi won't get the fair hearing they deserve even in liberal media

Really?  Sanders likely gets more attention and press than anyone else running for the Democratic nomination.

Tulsi gets as much attention as the other umpteenth congresspeople running.

Trump won the Republican nomination with far less money and political infrastructure.  The path to the nomination isn't what it once was.  

Shockingly, it's likely very possible that the candidate who ends up the nominee is one that generates the most support.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, downzy said:

Who says he's going to do that?

If you wanna pretend to live in a different world of US foreign policy where Biden isnt an expansionist and wasnt part of a regime that left an ocean of blood in its wake, that is you prerogative. But just dont expect anyone to take it seriously :lol:

He's big money, corporate Dem as I already described him as but you cut out when quoting me. Enough said. But one can add that he never said boo as VP when Obomber was terrorizing the world and targeting US citizens for assassination. 

Defending Biden? Now Ive fucking heard it all. We'll take it from here, thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, soon said:

And not only me, there are of course those who would start to calculate that their options for peaceful revolution would start to run out in light of a disastrous electorate, within the climate change timeline. The surveillance state and big data closing in from one side and climate crisis on the other. Theyd need to act before the state has facial recognition and other biometrics on all of us. There would be an internal logic to their potential actions even if Id disagree with them in tactic.

Armed revolution if people elect Biden? :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Armed revolution if people elect Biden? :lol: 

I think you'll find that armed insurrection in the US context has occurred primarily in the forms of sabotage, expropriation, underground building of above ground popular movements and early stage vanguardism.

I think you'd also find that the last wave of insurgency in the US ended as recently as 1985. Not really so funny.

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soon said:

If you wanna pretend to live in a different world of US foreign policy where Biden isnt an expansionist and wasnt part of a regime that left an ocean of blood in its wake, that is you prerogative. But just dont expect anyone to take it seriously :lol:

He's big money, corporate Dem as I already described him as but you cut out when quoting me. Enough said. But one can add that he never said boo as VP when Obomber was terrorizing the world and targeting US citizens for assassination. 

Defending Biden? Now Ive fucking heard it all. We'll take it from here, thanks.

 

I honestly don't think he's an expansionist.  

His foreign policy history isn't all that consistent on the matter of military interventions.  He was a staunch critic of the Vietnamese War, arguing it was a mistake and that the U.S. should pull out immediately.  Then in the 90s he argued for the "lift and strike" policy within Bosnia, advocating to support Muslim forces through air strikes and providing weapons as a backstop against the genocidal aims of the Serbs.  And while he did voted in favour in granting President Bush the use of military force in Iraq, it was only based on the assurances by Bush that the main purpose with the vote was to gain leverage for a UN resolution to restore weapons inspectors.  Bush promised that he would only resort to military force if the UN passed another resolution authorizing it.  No such resolution happened and Bush went to war anyway.  By 2006 Biden was arguing for a full withdrawal of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2009 Biden disagreed with Obama over Afghanistan.  Obama wanted (and eventually got) a deeper military commitment in Afghanistan against the criticisms of Biden.  Obama gave in to the generals who assured a 40k troop buildup would tip the scales but imposed an 18 month timeline to show results.  When the strategy failed, Obama sided with Biden, drew down troops, and refocused military efforts on counter-terrorism.

Biden is also on record opposing intervening in Libya.  Then again, he supported providing weapons to Ukraine when Crimea was annexed by Russia.

So to call him an expansionist is mischaracterizing his foreign policy positions.  He wants America to lead and provide support if and when necessary.  But that's a far cry from regime change and nation building.  

As for Obama's drone policy, that's something I don't have a problem with as I've largely supported it.  And guess what, neither does Sanders who is on record saying he'd use drones to combat terrorist threats around the world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×