hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2458 of 2708 FirstFirst ... 145819582358240824482455245624572458245924602461246825082558 ... LastLast
Results 49,141 to 49,160 of 54142

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #49141
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,511
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    We really need a final solution to Trumps base.
    weebs and bronies first against the wall confirmed

  2. #49142

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    and Justin Bieber #blameCanada
    But then again, for each Justin Bieber, there's an Amanda Tapping #praiseCanada

  3. #49143
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Meanwhile.. In China (you have to read that how trump says it)

    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-a...ling-trump-and

    Sometimes I love this world.
    Yeah, but she's good looking, so it's OK ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  4. #49144
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,745
    At the G7, Trump may have had a point about one thing ...

    There, I said it ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  5. #49145
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    At the G7, Trump may have had a point about one thing ...

    There, I said it ...
    Indeed, I dont even think he is wrong about the tariff's aswell but he does it in the wrong way, wrong channels, and with the wrong products. If he breaks open the mess maybe with a new president there can be new negotiations in the WTO (i know i know but i can have my little daydreams cant i)
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  6. #49146
    vDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Location
    �� out there
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Meanwhile.. In China (you have to read that how trump says it)

    http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-a...ling-trump-and

    Sometimes I love this world.
    Yeah, but she's good looking, so it's OK ...
    Also the daughter of the US ambassador in Russia haha

  7. #49147
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,745
    Soooo, no war, conflict, or outbreak of violence in Asia, right?

    Here, hold my beer ...

    There has never been a period in communist China in which there have been so many violent suppressions of unrest and dissent within the PRC since it founding than in the last 5 years. You don't hear about them, because the great firewall of China suppresses almost all international mention of them, but they're there. And China has just created an authoritarian president for life in Xi. Guess how he'll keep dealing with those. Protests in HK, BTW, are common, and everyone's just waiting for them to turn violent; not least because mainland China is actively suppressing the young and the students (also: massive housing problems, not least created by mainland China). Relations with the DPRK is (still) shaky at best, and certainly not very good with South Korea (who China still sees as a threat). And those are the best foreign relations it has in the region! Relations with Japan are in the cooler, with Taiwan they're openly hostile. Not least because of regular military threats and incursions. But wait, there's more. Because that's nothing compared with what's going on the Chinese sea! Where China is basically throwing it's weight around with every country in the south-east asia; including Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, even bloody Laos. Not to mention the Philipines, which is run by a violent criminal and out-right idiot, and which has had to content with violent rebels basically on a yearly basis (killing and maiming thousands). Internal unrest in Cambodia, and Thailand is rife (both almost or entirely under military rule), and every so often mass protests are violently put down there too. Then there's Xi's Road and Belt initiative, which is basically a massive bribe campaign for the local rich and powerful, while the poor, as always get screwed. The tensions that is creating are massive everywhere. Then there's Indonesia, which is slowly descending into a Islamist quagmire. Do I really need to bring up Burma, and their latest genocide?

    I could go on for a while longer, but suffice it to say that Asia is brewing with violence, oppression, and conflict, and has been for a while. The conflict between the US, Taiwan, Japan, most of coastal south east Asia, and the Philippines over the south China sea, however, remains a major hotspot. More so than with best Korea even. And if that one goes (and neither Trump nor Xi are backing down, nor can they) you'll have your generational war right then and there. This time between the biggest and the third biggest nuclear power in the world. If that one doesn't end with a bang, it'll surely end in a whimper.

    So to say that Asia is pretty safe from the prospect of war: Nah, I don't think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  8. #49148

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    At the G7, Trump may have had a point about one thing ...

    There, I said it ...
    No he didn't. A sunset clause in a free trade agreement is just silly. Setting one at five years is patently absurd. Monbiot is, as per usual, talking absolute shit. The whole article rests on this little snippet

    Even if the people of the US, Canada and Mexico had explicitly consented to Nafta in 1994, the idea that a decision made then should bind everyone in North America for all time is repulsive.
    No one is suggesting that NAFTA bind anyone for all time. As sovereign nations any one of the participants can walk away at any time they damned well please. What Monbiot is trying to say is that he thinks NAFTA was a bad treaty. If he really, really believed in the argument that he's proposing, he'd have been up there with Farage and Banks and Gove and co waving his little england flag to bring down the EU. He, as it won't surprise anyone to learn, was an ardent remainer, exactly because the EU has the power to override the UK government's more self destructive tendencies.

    Putting sunset clauses, particularly ones that short, in international treaties just makes them completely nonfunctional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Indeed, I dont even think he is wrong about the tariff's aswell
    He's about as wrong as it is possible to be.

  9. #49149
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    So the CAL-3 Ballot Initiative will be on the Nov. ballot this fall.

    This is the "Split California Into 3 States" concept.

    For those unfamiliar: https://cal3.com/about/

    Have to imagine it goes down in a landslide, but it'll be interesting to watch none the less.


  10. #49150
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,977
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Indeed, I dont even think he is wrong about the tariff's aswell
    He's about as wrong as it is possible to be.
    I should have elaborated. I think the current system of WTO trade agreements are fucked up for mostly the third world. Just one example: When it is possible for dutch onion farmers to completely destroy the domestic ghana onion industry (important staple food there) despite a 30% import tax there is something very wrong.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  11. #49151
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    At the G7, Trump may have had a point about one thing ...

    There, I said it ...
    No he didn't. A sunset clause in a free trade agreement is just silly. Setting one at five years is patently absurd. Monbiot is, as per usual, talking absolute shit. The whole article rests on this little snippet

    Even if the people of the US, Canada and Mexico had explicitly consented to Nafta in 1994, the idea that a decision made then should bind everyone in North America for all time is repulsive.
    No one is suggesting that NAFTA bind anyone for all time. As sovereign nations any one of the participants can walk away at any time they damned well please. What Monbiot is trying to say is that he thinks NAFTA was a bad treaty. If he really, really believed in the argument that he's proposing, he'd have been up there with Farage and Banks and Gove and co waving his little england flag to bring down the EU. He, as it won't surprise anyone to learn, was an ardent remainer, exactly because the EU has the power to override the UK government's more self destructive tendencies.

    Putting sunset clauses, particularly ones that short, in international treaties just makes them completely nonfunctional.
    I disagree.

    Your only alternative to a sunset clause seems to be any one of the participants walking out of the treaty at any time. What does that do for certainty for business? How would that work for anyone in fact?

    Moreover, beyond creating even more uncertainty for business, the repercussions of such a unilateral move would be massive. As we now know full well, with Trump threatening to do exactly that.

    Meaning, as you know fully well, that this is very unlikely to actually happen, so that such a treaty is, in effect, set in stone for perpetuity. That may make for certainty for big business, but is bad for everyone else.

    Business environments change, unwanted consequences may arise, no trade agreement can ever be perfect for all time, and some issues may become more important over time (e.g., climate change), etc., etc.

    A sunset clause, and we can argue about the time spans involved, provides a meaningful time limit for the treaty, a mechanism which can then be used to, periodically, update the treaty so that it remains fit for purpose, adjusted to changing environments, and to address any mistakes originally made or unwanted consequences that may have arisen since.

    Instead of having one trade agreement set in stone for all time, you'd have a framework of periodically adjusted trade agreements. I have no clue how that makes the agreement non-functional. Just stating that it does, doesn't make it true.

    In fact, had this been applied to NAFTA, a lot of (democratic) issues with the agreement would have been solved by now, while the gross abuse US big business has been inflicting on Mexico and Canada would have been prevented. It could even have meant that there would now have already been a comprehensive trade agreement between the US and the EU, as the massive issues with NAFTA were basically preventing TTIP from ever happening.

    How Monbiots opposition to NAFTA somehow makes him a closet UKIPer I really have no clue either. You sound massive confused; if not desperately grasping for straws ... killing the messenger is never a good look ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  12. #49152

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Your only alternative to a sunset clause seems to be any one of the participants walking out of the treaty at any time.
    No. I wasn't presenting an alternative. I was illustrating how monbiot's assertion that a treaty "bind people for all time" is entirely false. Read things more carefully.

    A sunset clause, and we can argue about the time spans involved, provides a meaningful time limit for the treaty, a mechanism which can then be used to, periodically, update the treaty so that it remains fit for purpose, adjusted to changing environments, and to address any mistakes originally made or unwanted consequences that may have arisen since.
    No, it doesn't. All it does is provide uncertainty. If we were talking about something akin to the WTO's routine rounds of talks then you'd be onto something. That's a vehicle for continuous review and reform. What Trump was talking about was a nuclear button to pull out of NAFTA. It's in the same family of absolute insanity as the US's debt limit, or the US's sequestration, or the US's DACA. All of these things were done with the (supposed) intention of hard-limiting the government to force them to take action or face absolute chaos. They chose chaos every single time.

    Repeat after me: Time limits are not a good thing.

    How Monbiots opposition to NAFTA somehow makes him a closet UKIPer I really have no clue either. You sound massive confused; if not desperately grasping for straws ... killing the messenger is never a good look ...
    I didn't say he's a closet kipper. I said quite the opposite. I said he's an ardent pro-European. I even provided a link of him saying that much. If anyone here is confused it's you.

    What I was saying is that he doesn't really believe in his argument. If he did he would be a kipper. Because he's making the same argument that the kippers make - that decisions of past generations shouldn't bind future generations and that supra-national agreements should always be strictly subordinate to national government. This is a silly argument that he doesn't really believe in. He's making it because he's a fuckwit, and to say what he really thinks (that NAFTA is a terrible treaty) makes for much more boring article that no one would read.

    And I'm not alone in this thinking - take thirty seconds to read the comments below the article.

  13. #49153
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So the CAL-3 Ballot Initiative will be on the Nov. ballot this fall.

    This is the "Split California Into 3 States" concept.

    For those unfamiliar: https://cal3.com/about/

    Have to imagine it goes down in a landslide, but it'll be interesting to watch none the less.
    Yeah, not going to happen. A wild republican fantasy to try and remain relevant in California politics.

  14. #49154
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Your only alternative to a sunset clause seems to be any one of the participants walking out of the treaty at any time.
    No. I wasn't presenting an alternative. I was illustrating how monbiot's assertion that a treaty "bind people for all time" is entirely false. Read things more carefully.
    Except that it is a piss-poor illustration then. Because how ever much Trump is blowing hot air, no signatory of the NAFTA is ever going to walk away from the agreement. In practise either your alternative or illustration will never happen. So in practise that agreement does 'bind people for all time'.

    A sunset clause, and we can argue about the time spans involved, provides a meaningful time limit for the treaty, a mechanism which can then be used to, periodically, update the treaty so that it remains fit for purpose, adjusted to changing environments, and to address any mistakes originally made or unwanted consequences that may have arisen since.
    No, it doesn't. All it does is provide uncertainty. If we were talking about something akin to the WTO's routine rounds of talks then you'd be onto something. That's a vehicle for continuous review and reform. What Trump was talking about was a nuclear button to pull out of NAFTA. It's in the same family of absolute insanity as the US's debt limit, or the US's sequestration, or the US's DACA. All of these things were done with the (supposed) intention of hard-limiting the government to force them to take action or face absolute chaos. They chose chaos every single time.

    Repeat after me: Time limits are not a good thing.
    Repeat after me: NAFTA doesn't include anything like 'WTO's routine rounds of talks'. Nor will it ever, because, according to you, the only way to get it in there is for one of the signatories to walk away from the agreement entirely.

    Not that it would actually matter if there were WTO rounds of talks, as they never seem to address any of the issues, at least not if you're not a US oligarch. That's not a vehicle for continuous review and reform, that's a venue for making sure that (US) neoliberalism will always continue to rule, no matter the cost to people or the countries.

    In order for there to be a real incentive for review and reform, in line with the democratic will of all the people involved in or affected by the agreement, it has to go back and/or through the democratic process, i.e., parliament/congress/whatever. Otherwise it'll just be the same big business bought cronies making backroom deals at the cost of the people. And for that to happen, there has to be the backstop of the agreement falling through. Without that it won't work; it'll just be another stitch up.

    And no, this has little to nothing to do with the purely US insanity of the US debt limit, US sequestration, or the US DACA debacle. All these are, and were, purely domestic issues, which international trade agreement are not. The clue is in the word 'international'.

    And BTW, neither TPP or TTIP had anything like WTO's routine round of talks about review and/or reform in them; and this was by design. No wonder they got nowhere. The rest of the world, having looked at how Mexico and Canada were getting screwed by US big business had no intention of signing away their national sovereignty and/or democratic process to the whims of some US oligarchs and their bought-and-paid for US congress.

    And I, for one, am glad that there are time limits on political positions. In fact, I'd like some more of them as well. Like on Senators, Congressmen, MPs, etc. I'm sick and fucking tired of these glued-in-their-chair morons fucking up everything with no end in sight. The argument in favour of democracy is that things can be bad for a while, but that then the people take the power away from the fucktards, and move on. It'll work that way with Trump. It is time it works that way for the rest as well. Time limits are the way to do it.

    Time limits work. Why else do you think dictators like Putin and Xi were so eager to do away with them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  15. #49155

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    A sunset clause, and we can argue about the time spans involved, provides a meaningful time limit for the treaty, a mechanism which can then be used to, periodically, update the treaty so that it remains fit for purpose, adjusted to changing environments, and to address any mistakes originally made or unwanted consequences that may have arisen since.
    This is all well in theory and I personally would like to see that happen. But my experience and the cynic in my leads me to the suspicion that this would be abused to blackmail each other ("change this (in our favor) or else we will not vote for prolonging this treaty...")

  16. #49156

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Because how ever much Trump is blowing hot air, no signatory of the NAFTA is ever going to walk away from the agreement.
    Just like in practise no member of the EU is ever going to leave, right? People are likely to stay in NAFTA not because it's an antidemocratic corporatist takeover of the nation but because, bad as parts of it are, staying in it is better than leaving. That it exists is better than it not existing. That's why having a time limit is just daft.

    Repeat after me: NAFTA doesn't include anything like 'WTO's routine rounds of talks'. Nor will it ever, because, according to you, the only way to get it in there is for one of the signatories to walk away from the agreement entirely.
    Jesus christ you dumb fuck I know this. That's not a reason to declare all international treaties antidemocratic, nor is it a reason to say treaties should come with sunset clauses, which is what he was saying. Your problem, like Monbiot's, is not that NAFTA doesn't have a time limit, it's that it exists. He's dressing up an argument for hard limits as an appeal to democracy because he knows railing against NAFTA is the domain of champagne socialist weekend antifas from Berkeley, and that doesn't sell ads. You should not be dumb enough to fall for that, particularly given his long, long history of arguing for the EU.

    Term limits on politicians is a completely different issue. If you oust a leader, do you know what you get? A new leader. If you end a treaty, do you know what you get? Nothing. It's the international equivalent of putting a gun to each others' heads to force you all act but promising you'll never really pull the trigger. At some point some idiot is going to pull the trigger. In the age of Trump that's every other week.

  17. #49157

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    3,976
    comedy week with Donald


  18. #49158
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/polit...eam/index.html

    Trump Lawyer Cohen dumps his legal team.


  19. #49159

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    comedy week with Donald

    True, it's been replaced by Trump as the most dangerous problem.

  20. #49160
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,250
    Why do I have the feeling Dolan Drumpf was breastfed until he was like 13 or something
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •