As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Trump Administration Thread Is Now Happening

QuidQuid Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
edited January 2017 in Debate and/or Discourse
Elki wrote: »
Ground Rules:

Don't be dickholes.
This is not a general politics thread.
Not a 2016 election thread.
Shut up.

Adding my own rule here:

Please don't advocate treason, violent rebellion, or killing people. No not even as a joke.







Our soon to be president, fellow citizens.

Quid on
«134567101

Posts

  • Mx. QuillMx. Quill I now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually... {They/Them}Registered User regular
    I dunno, man's got four and change days left to fill up another thread.

    And as we've seen over the last two or three, he's not showing signs of slowing his ignorance roll.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    He's being investigated for Russians connections and for Russian influence in the election and his first stop is Putin's house???

    Please tell me that was fake news designed to generate clicks from Democrats

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    He's being investigated for Russians connections and for Russian influence in the election and his first stop is Putin's house???

    Please tell me that was fake news designed to generate clicks from Democrats

    What do you think?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular




    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Arch wrote: »
    He's being investigated for Russians connections and for Russian influence in the election and his first stop is Putin's house???

    Please tell me that was fake news designed to generate clicks from Democrats
    Imagine how invincible he feels right now. The dude, at his baseline, is a cartoonish example of hubris. Now add on to the fact that he just won the highest office in the strongest nation to ever have existed, despite all the shit he has said and done in his life. Given all that, it's honestly quite modest of him to not be fucking hookers in Paul Ryan's office.

    Hoz on
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka Metal Hell adjacentRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »




    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

    Which is funny because Carl Bernstein was the one who helped break the news on CNN

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Quid wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Ground Rules:

    Don't be dickholes.
    This is not a general politics thread.
    Not a 2016 election thread.
    Shut up.







    Our soon to be president, fellow citizens.

    Yeah, John Lewis. What did you ever do for your country?


    lew0-018a.gif

    lewis-zwerg.jpg

    Lewis-Mugshot.jpg

    EDIT: Just for the sake of clarity, the second image is not related to the first. Lewis & his colleague sustain those injuries after being beaten with bats & pipes by for-reals fascists in the south during their Freedom Ride demonstration.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Is the Trump/Trumpians M.O.: Tearing down what is considered sacred to change it to their own image. They did that to the Reagan cult and (mostly) to the MSM, now imagine them doing that to concepts like the Civil Rights Movement. That's why many people are bothered by Trump going against Inauguration traditions, they aren't relevant, but they are the stepping stone to Trump going against bigger traditions.

  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    The Civil Rights movement was the beginning of "the bad new times" for most of their supporters (except the more Randian nutters, like someone i remember who told me, straightfaced, that Grover Cleveland was probably the last good president we ever had), but it does hold a special place in America's hagiographies still. They already got the Voting Rights Act, the next step is to get back private segregation, probably by the back door of their religious freedom acts.

  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    It gives me great comfort knowing Trump is 70 years old and not in the best of health

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    A series of unfortunate election results.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    The Civil Rights movement was the beginning of "the bad new times" for most of their supporters (except the more Randian nutters, like someone i remember who told me, straightfaced, that Grover Cleveland was probably the last good president we ever had), but it does hold a special place in America's hagiographies still. They already got the Voting Rights Act, the next step is to get back private segregation, probably by the back door of their religious freedom acts.

    Gut the civil rights division and hud fair housing enforcement and you can leave them on the books.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Recognize the pattern on this two declarations. First, from CIA head John Brennan:
    "I think Mr Trump has to understand that absolving Russia of various actions that it's taken in the past number of years is a road that he, I think, needs to be very, very careful about moving down," he said.
    Mr Brennan said "talking and tweeting" was not an option for Mr Trump, who takes office next Friday.

    "Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests and so therefore when he speaks or when he reacts, just make sure he understands that the implications and impact on the United States could be profound," he said.

    "It's more than just about Mr Trump. It's about the United States of America."

    The CIA director also took Mr Trump to task for accusing the intelligence services of leaking an unverified dossier which suggests Russian security officials have compromising material on him, which could make him vulnerable to blackmail.

    "What I do find outrageous is equating the intelligence community with Nazi Germany," he said, referring to a tweet by Mr Trump last Wednesday.
    "There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly."

    Second, from China:
    “There is only one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable region of China, and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing China,” spokesperson Lu Kang was quoted as saying.

    “The ‘One China’ principle, which is the political foundation of the China-US relations, is non-negotiable.”

    Lu warned the president-elect that the only way to avoid “disruption” to the relationship was for him to recognise the “high sensitivity” of the Taiwan question and approach the issue with “prudence and honour”.

    Answer: Both are threats to Trump to stop swinging his dick around or else. Of course, Trump being Trump, is easy to predict what comes next: Trump telling them to piss off. This car crash would be very interesting if it wasn't terriffyng.

  • XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It gives me great comfort knowing Trump is 70 years old and not in the best of health

    We don't have any idea what kind of health he's in. His medical disclosure was a joke. We know precious little detail about lots of personal things about him and nobody cares because he's a loud asshole.

    We could easily be stuck with him for another 20 years with the best medical technology in the world if he's got no major conditions.

    Xantomas on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

    Which is funny because Carl Bernstein was the one who helped break the news on CNN

    They are tied together by history, but they aren't really 'together'. Woodward is a lifelong republican. He broke Watergate because it was his job.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »




    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

    Which is funny because Carl Bernstein was the one who helped break the news on CNN

    This is standard MO for Woodward. He's a hack and moron and has been since at least the 90s.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

    Which is funny because Carl Bernstein was the one who helped break the news on CNN

    They are tied together by history, but they aren't really 'together'. Woodward is a lifelong republican. He broke Watergate because it was his job.

    If I might veer into speculative territory, it was also because back in the days of Watergate, Woodward believed that if someone doesn't uphold the actual values of the party, then they should be called out for it - Nixon's actions would reflect poorly on his political party, so he had to be stopped.

    Now fast-forward to today, and one could say (from this speculation) that Woodward has lost his moral convictions from back then. Or, perhaps, Woodward recognizes that Trump does embody the values of his party as of today.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Pulling this from the last thread, because ... well, because I'm highly interested in NATO and the international relations situation in East Asia:
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't really see the US fully dropping out of NATO but if the US is going to be selective about who it will support based on whether they are paying their dues then I think that the various members of NATO would be wise to pay their dues in order to maintain the surety of the alliance.

    I mean, this is hardly a new line of thought. The US has always been unhappy about various European states leaving the cost to Uncle Sam, and it's definitely understandable. The UK was in danger of dipping below the 2% until Barack Obama made the consequences to the US/UK relationship of that quite clear, and he quietly bumped up spending to match. Obama was unhappy about it, Bush wasn't happy about it, this goes back. But there was always an understanding that the unhappiness didn't translate to an American unwillingness to back the alliance, and Obama was keen for European leadership on things that were in the European sphere of influence because he wanted to push for a more multi-spearhead NATO.

    Trump is publically destabilising NATO, which is potentially disastrous. On the other hand, those European nations should probably buy some more armoured battalions, NATO is a goes both ways partnerships. There was always going to be a point when America said "hey you know what, this is really expensive fuck you" and we're close to reaching it.

    Again, I think this is overly simplistic. A NATO in which European members pay a larger share/provide more of the muscle is an alliance in which NATO's balance of political power is also going to be shifted. It may be worthwhile nonetheless, but it's not going to be as simple a matter as, its European members contributes more, everything else stays the same. When the European nations develop larger militaries, they're going to seek to maximize their returns from those militaries, which may include deployments that the US might approve of.

    For example, a more robustly militarized France and UK could choose to intervene in Syria or Libya without American participation, or Greece and Italy might take more aggressive postures in the Mediterranean, or we could imagine, in a post-Brexit world, minor naval altercations between the UK and other EU nations over sea rights. Or, for a non-hypothetical example, consider Turkey's unilateral operations in Syria and the inability of the US and Turkey to find convergence on their Syria strategies.

    Now, NATO's a relatively stable alliance. With the formation of the EU, there are few diplomatic tensions, and one can generally be safe in assuming that a more militarized Europe won't result in a less stable Europe in the short-term. This is absolutely not the case in East Asia, where many of the US's allies have historical and modern grievances with one another that they've only temporarily set aside. South Korea, for example, opposes Japanese re-militarization, despite it being part of the US's long-term Asian realignment plan, and has previously pursued nuclear weapons when faced with the prospect of American abandonment, which could obviously trigger North Korea in any number of ways. The Philippines' Duterte might possibly be insane, but he might also be hedging against a Trump foreign policy, suggesting that he might prefer to align with an eager China rather than pay an unenthusiastic USA.

    Again, obviously, Europe is not East Asia, but how much of that is because of US hegemony, and if the US were to withdraw its hegemonic influence from Europe for a more feudal model, the long-term political dynamics of Europe might change drastically. Consider, for example, how the US has destabilized South Asia with its increased cooperation with Afghanistan and India, which has exacerbated Pakistani insecurities, causing Pakistan to ramp up its military expenditures and seek an alliance with China, effectively crafting a dangerous two-alliance standoff between heavily militarized nations with deep cultural and historical differences reminiscent of the day before WWI.

    Not saying how that's going to play out, but there's a lot more going on here than who pays what. The situation could easily end up with a sweep of European elections by Russian-influenced nationalists beginning with France eventually leading to a gradual realignment of European states with a Russia willing to provide them with natural resources and to protect their interests in the Middle East and Caucasus, or a new German-dominated continental European faction whose increased levels of militarizations might result in a resurgence of old WWII-era rivalries, or a complete unraveling of the EU driven, in part, by inability to find agreement on their mutual security and defense responsibilities, already a significant point of crisis for the EU nations, or it might go the opposite way, and the European nations might decide to go all-in on the EU as a new, mutual defense pact and largely abandon a NATO only marginally committed to their interests. (Remember, not all EU nations are NATO members.) After all, why pay the Americans for security when we have to provide our own anyways?

    These are incredibly tricky problems and it's difficult to even determine what outcomes the US would find desirable, never mind how likely they are and how to bring them about, which would undoubtedly require a remarkable amount of finesse. I'm sure there are people thinking about this sort of thing in the US sec-def sector, but ... you know, is Trump listening, or are the people Trump listening to unbiased (Michael Flynn)?

    hippofant on
  • a nu starta nu start Registered User regular
    The thing with John Lewis is that a lot of people on the right don't give a shit about civil rights. I don't know how many times I've heard "Why do black people get their own history month? Where's White History Month?", ignoring the fact that all of history is white history.

    Even had a coworker denounce MLK with some stupid shit that sounded straight out of 4chan.

    He still took the holiday off though.

    Number One Tricky
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »




    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/

    Bob Woodward disagrees with news agencies reporting on the intelligence report. I don't agree with him but whatever.

    What I find far more concerning is that Trump still doesn't seem to understand that his intelligence chiefs had nothing to do with it.

    Woodward has been a fucking hack for at least 30 years. Worships power, especially Republicans who "project strength." Which is hilarious.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Let's put it this way if a NATO country requests help and doesn't it get it from the US the alliance is dead

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pulling this from the last thread, because ... well, because I'm highly interested in NATO and the international relations situation in East Asia:
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't really see the US fully dropping out of NATO but if the US is going to be selective about who it will support based on whether they are paying their dues then I think that the various members of NATO would be wise to pay their dues in order to maintain the surety of the alliance.

    I mean, this is hardly a new line of thought. The US has always been unhappy about various European states leaving the cost to Uncle Sam, and it's definitely understandable. The UK was in danger of dipping below the 2% until Barack Obama made the consequences to the US/UK relationship of that quite clear, and he quietly bumped up spending to match. Obama was unhappy about it, Bush wasn't happy about it, this goes back. But there was always an understanding that the unhappiness didn't translate to an American unwillingness to back the alliance, and Obama was keen for European leadership on things that were in the European sphere of influence because he wanted to push for a more multi-spearhead NATO.

    Trump is publically destabilising NATO, which is potentially disastrous. On the other hand, those European nations should probably buy some more armoured battalions, NATO is a goes both ways partnerships. There was always going to be a point when America said "hey you know what, this is really expensive fuck you" and we're close to reaching it.

    Again, I think this is overly simplistic. A NATO in which European members pay a larger share/provide more of the muscle is an alliance in which NATO's balance of political power is also going to be shifted. It may be worthwhile nonetheless, but it's not going to be as simple a matter as, its European members contributes more, everything else stays the same. When the European nations develop larger militaries, they're going to seek to maximize their returns from those militaries, which may include deployments that the US might approve of.

    For example, a more robustly militarized France and UK could choose to intervene in Syria or Libya without American participation, or Greece and Italy might take more aggressive postures in the Mediterranean, or we could imagine, in a post-Brexit world, minor naval altercations between the UK and other EU nations over sea rights. Or, for a non-hypothetical example, consider Turkey's unilateral operations in Syria and the inability of the US and Turkey to find convergence on their Syria strategies.

    Now, NATO's a relatively stable alliance. With the formation of the EU, there are few diplomatic tensions, and one can generally be safe in assuming that a more militarized Europe won't result in a less stable Europe in the short-term. This is absolutely not the case in East Asia, where many of the US's allies have historical and modern grievances with one another that they've only temporarily set aside. South Korea, for example, opposes Japanese re-militarization, despite it being part of the US's long-term Asian realignment plan, and has previously pursued nuclear weapons when faced with the prospect of American abandonment, which could obviously trigger North Korea in any number of ways. The Philippines' Duterte might possibly be insane, but he might also be hedging against a Trump foreign policy, suggesting that he might prefer to align with an eager China than pay an unenthusiastic USA.

    Again, obviously, Europe is not East Asia, but how much of that is because of US hegemony, and if the US were to withdraw its hegemonic influence from Europe for a more feudal model, the long-term political dynamics of Europe might change drastically. Consider, for example, how the US has destabilized South Asia with its increased cooperation with Afghanistan and India, which has exacerbated Pakistani insecurities, causing Pakistan to ramp up its military expenditures and seek an alliance with China, effectively crafting a dangerous two-alliance standoff between heavily militarized nations with deep cultural and historical differences reminiscent of the day before WWI.

    Not saying how that's going to play out, but there's a lot more going on here than who pays what. The situation could easily end up with a sweep of European elections by Russian-influenced nationalists beginning with France eventually leading to a gradual realignment of European states with a Russia willing to provide them with natural resources and to protect their interests in the Middle East and Caucasus, or a new German-dominated continental European faction whose increased levels of militarizations might result in a resurgence of old WWII-era rivalries, or a complete unraveling of the EU driven, in part, by inability to find agreement on their mutual security and defense responsibilities, already a significant point of crisis for the EU nations, or it might go the opposite way, and the European nations might decide to go all-in on the EU as a new, mutual defense pact and largely abandon a NATO only marginally committed to their interests. (Remember, not all EU nations are NATO members.) After all, why pay the Americans for security when we have to provide our own anyways?

    These are incredibly tricky problems and it's difficult to even determine what outcomes the US would find desirable, never mind how likely they are and how to bring them about, which would undoubtedly require a remarkable amount of finesse. I'm sure there are people thinking about this sort of thing in the US sec-def sector, but ... you know, is Trump listening, or are the people Trump listening to unbiased (Michael Flynn)?

    Europe is not going to turn to Russia for energy security. This idea was all the rage a few years back until the gas price dispute in Poland saw Russia start reducing pipeline pressures in the middle of winter till international outcry so stopped then.

    But the message was clear: with even a tiny bit of expected leverage, Russia turns into a bully.

    If Europe does anything, it'll be Germany suddenly finding nuclear power palatable again (and convenient for rearmament).

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pulling this from the last thread, because ... well, because I'm highly interested in NATO and the international relations situation in East Asia:
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't really see the US fully dropping out of NATO but if the US is going to be selective about who it will support based on whether they are paying their dues then I think that the various members of NATO would be wise to pay their dues in order to maintain the surety of the alliance.

    I mean, this is hardly a new line of thought. The US has always been unhappy about various European states leaving the cost to Uncle Sam, and it's definitely understandable. The UK was in danger of dipping below the 2% until Barack Obama made the consequences to the US/UK relationship of that quite clear, and he quietly bumped up spending to match. Obama was unhappy about it, Bush wasn't happy about it, this goes back. But there was always an understanding that the unhappiness didn't translate to an American unwillingness to back the alliance, and Obama was keen for European leadership on things that were in the European sphere of influence because he wanted to push for a more multi-spearhead NATO.

    Trump is publically destabilising NATO, which is potentially disastrous. On the other hand, those European nations should probably buy some more armoured battalions, NATO is a goes both ways partnerships. There was always going to be a point when America said "hey you know what, this is really expensive fuck you" and we're close to reaching it.

    Again, I think this is overly simplistic. A NATO in which European members pay a larger share/provide more of the muscle is an alliance in which NATO's balance of political power is also going to be shifted. It may be worthwhile nonetheless, but it's not going to be as simple a matter as, its European members contributes more, everything else stays the same. When the European nations develop larger militaries, they're going to seek to maximize their returns from those militaries, which may include deployments that the US might approve of.

    For example, a more robustly militarized France and UK could choose to intervene in Syria or Libya without American participation, or Greece and Italy might take more aggressive postures in the Mediterranean, or we could imagine, in a post-Brexit world, minor naval altercations between the UK and other EU nations over sea rights. Or, for a non-hypothetical example, consider Turkey's unilateral operations in Syria and the inability of the US and Turkey to find convergence on their Syria strategies.

    Now, NATO's a relatively stable alliance. With the formation of the EU, there are few diplomatic tensions, and one can generally be safe in assuming that a more militarized Europe won't result in a less stable Europe in the short-term. This is absolutely not the case in East Asia, where many of the US's allies have historical and modern grievances with one another that they've only temporarily set aside. South Korea, for example, opposes Japanese re-militarization, despite it being part of the US's long-term Asian realignment plan, and has previously pursued nuclear weapons when faced with the prospect of American abandonment, which could obviously trigger North Korea in any number of ways. The Philippines' Duterte might possibly be insane, but he might also be hedging against a Trump foreign policy, suggesting that he might prefer to align with an eager China than pay an unenthusiastic USA.

    Again, obviously, Europe is not East Asia, but how much of that is because of US hegemony, and if the US were to withdraw its hegemonic influence from Europe for a more feudal model, the long-term political dynamics of Europe might change drastically. Consider, for example, how the US has destabilized South Asia with its increased cooperation with Afghanistan and India, which has exacerbated Pakistani insecurities, causing Pakistan to ramp up its military expenditures and seek an alliance with China, effectively crafting a dangerous two-alliance standoff between heavily militarized nations with deep cultural and historical differences reminiscent of the day before WWI.

    Not saying how that's going to play out, but there's a lot more going on here than who pays what. The situation could easily end up with a sweep of European elections by Russian-influenced nationalists beginning with France eventually leading to a gradual realignment of European states with a Russia willing to provide them with natural resources and to protect their interests in the Middle East and Caucasus, or a new German-dominated continental European faction whose increased levels of militarizations might result in a resurgence of old WWII-era rivalries, or a complete unraveling of the EU driven, in part, by inability to find agreement on their mutual security and defense responsibilities, already a significant point of crisis for the EU nations, or it might go the opposite way, and the European nations might decide to go all-in on the EU as a new, mutual defense pact and largely abandon a NATO only marginally committed to their interests. (Remember, not all EU nations are NATO members.) After all, why pay the Americans for security when we have to provide our own anyways?

    These are incredibly tricky problems and it's difficult to even determine what outcomes the US would find desirable, never mind how likely they are and how to bring them about, which would undoubtedly require a remarkable amount of finesse. I'm sure there are people thinking about this sort of thing in the US sec-def sector, but ... you know, is Trump listening, or are the people Trump listening to unbiased (Michael Flynn)?

    Europe is not going to turn to Russia for energy security. This idea was all the rage a few years back until the gas price dispute in Poland saw Russia start reducing pipeline pressures in the middle of winter till international outcry so stopped then.

    But the message was clear: with even a tiny bit of expected leverage, Russia turns into a bully.

    If Europe does anything, it'll be Germany suddenly finding nuclear power palatable again (and convenient for rearmament).

    You mean like how there's no way the Philippines would align with a bullying China, that literally bullied them not too long ago? (Something that I, honestly, might have said a year ago.)

    I think there's absolutely a rational, persuasive line of reasoning that goes something like, "The US doesn't care about us; Russia's going to win anyways; I'd rather be first in the Russian sphere than last in the American one." (A major difference being historical, in that the Philippines have never endured Chinese occupation.)

    Also yes. It seems unlikely that the European nations, in any way, could muster sufficient conventional forces to hold off a Russian invasion anyways, at least for the next half-century or so, so their militarization independent of a protective US ally would likely be nuclear and asymmetric. Which, you know, a whole other set of problems.

    hippofant on
  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    At this point I hope Germany takes helm of the European ship in order to keep the continent from falling into full-formed civil and resource conflict.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    At this point I hope Germany takes helm of the European ship in order to keep the continent from falling into full-formed civil and resource conflict.

    Unfortunately, their hard on for austerity is crippling the economies of southern Europe and pushing them towards radical solutions (e.g. Golden Dawn). Though I think Germany's Vice Chancellor finally acknowledged that a couple weeks ago.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    a nu start wrote: »
    The thing with John Lewis is that a lot of people on the right don't give a shit about civil rights. I don't know how many times I've heard "Why do black people get their own history month? Where's White History Month?", ignoring the fact that all of history is white history.

    Even had a coworker denounce MLK with some stupid shit that sounded straight out of 4chan.

    He still took the holiday off though.

    Yup. Hence why Trump got elected.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Pulling this from the last thread, because ... well, because I'm highly interested in NATO and the international relations situation in East Asia:
    Solar wrote: »
    I don't really see the US fully dropping out of NATO but if the US is going to be selective about who it will support based on whether they are paying their dues then I think that the various members of NATO would be wise to pay their dues in order to maintain the surety of the alliance.

    I mean, this is hardly a new line of thought. The US has always been unhappy about various European states leaving the cost to Uncle Sam, and it's definitely understandable. The UK was in danger of dipping below the 2% until Barack Obama made the consequences to the US/UK relationship of that quite clear, and he quietly bumped up spending to match. Obama was unhappy about it, Bush wasn't happy about it, this goes back. But there was always an understanding that the unhappiness didn't translate to an American unwillingness to back the alliance, and Obama was keen for European leadership on things that were in the European sphere of influence because he wanted to push for a more multi-spearhead NATO.

    Trump is publically destabilising NATO, which is potentially disastrous. On the other hand, those European nations should probably buy some more armoured battalions, NATO is a goes both ways partnerships. There was always going to be a point when America said "hey you know what, this is really expensive fuck you" and we're close to reaching it.

    Again, I think this is overly simplistic. A NATO in which European members pay a larger share/provide more of the muscle is an alliance in which NATO's balance of political power is also going to be shifted. It may be worthwhile nonetheless, but it's not going to be as simple a matter as, its European members contributes more, everything else stays the same. When the European nations develop larger militaries, they're going to seek to maximize their returns from those militaries, which may include deployments that the US might approve of.

    For example, a more robustly militarized France and UK could choose to intervene in Syria or Libya without American participation, or Greece and Italy might take more aggressive postures in the Mediterranean, or we could imagine, in a post-Brexit world, minor naval altercations between the UK and other EU nations over sea rights. Or, for a non-hypothetical example, consider Turkey's unilateral operations in Syria and the inability of the US and Turkey to find convergence on their Syria strategies.

    Now, NATO's a relatively stable alliance. With the formation of the EU, there are few diplomatic tensions, and one can generally be safe in assuming that a more militarized Europe won't result in a less stable Europe in the short-term. This is absolutely not the case in East Asia, where many of the US's allies have historical and modern grievances with one another that they've only temporarily set aside. South Korea, for example, opposes Japanese re-militarization, despite it being part of the US's long-term Asian realignment plan, and has previously pursued nuclear weapons when faced with the prospect of American abandonment, which could obviously trigger North Korea in any number of ways. The Philippines' Duterte might possibly be insane, but he might also be hedging against a Trump foreign policy, suggesting that he might prefer to align with an eager China than pay an unenthusiastic USA.

    Again, obviously, Europe is not East Asia, but how much of that is because of US hegemony, and if the US were to withdraw its hegemonic influence from Europe for a more feudal model, the long-term political dynamics of Europe might change drastically. Consider, for example, how the US has destabilized South Asia with its increased cooperation with Afghanistan and India, which has exacerbated Pakistani insecurities, causing Pakistan to ramp up its military expenditures and seek an alliance with China, effectively crafting a dangerous two-alliance standoff between heavily militarized nations with deep cultural and historical differences reminiscent of the day before WWI.

    Not saying how that's going to play out, but there's a lot more going on here than who pays what. The situation could easily end up with a sweep of European elections by Russian-influenced nationalists beginning with France eventually leading to a gradual realignment of European states with a Russia willing to provide them with natural resources and to protect their interests in the Middle East and Caucasus, or a new German-dominated continental European faction whose increased levels of militarizations might result in a resurgence of old WWII-era rivalries, or a complete unraveling of the EU driven, in part, by inability to find agreement on their mutual security and defense responsibilities, already a significant point of crisis for the EU nations, or it might go the opposite way, and the European nations might decide to go all-in on the EU as a new, mutual defense pact and largely abandon a NATO only marginally committed to their interests. (Remember, not all EU nations are NATO members.) After all, why pay the Americans for security when we have to provide our own anyways?

    These are incredibly tricky problems and it's difficult to even determine what outcomes the US would find desirable, never mind how likely they are and how to bring them about, which would undoubtedly require a remarkable amount of finesse. I'm sure there are people thinking about this sort of thing in the US sec-def sector, but ... you know, is Trump listening, or are the people Trump listening to unbiased (Michael Flynn)?

    Europe is not going to turn to Russia for energy security. This idea was all the rage a few years back until the gas price dispute in Poland saw Russia start reducing pipeline pressures in the middle of winter till international outcry so stopped then.

    But the message was clear: with even a tiny bit of expected leverage, Russia turns into a bully.

    If Europe does anything, it'll be Germany suddenly finding nuclear power palatable again (and convenient for rearmament).

    Well, remember also that the solar technology of today is not the solar technology of ten years ago. I used to be 100% in the camp of saying that nuclear power was our only hope. But with modern technology solar and wind is more than good enough to see us through until fusion works.

    Not that we shouldn't have used nuclear extensively for the last twenty years, but now, solar has handed us a literal miracle technology when combined with modern batteries.

    In fact, if we hadn't just elected trump, I'd say that we were finally setting the light at the end of the tunnel scientifically.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Feinstein (ranking member on Intelligence Committee; also lifelong ally of the CIA) says that Russia "altered the outcome."

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    hippofant wrote: »
    You mean like how there's no way the Philippines would align with a bullying China, that literally bullied them not too long ago? (Something that I, honestly, might have said a year ago.)

    I think there's absolutely a rational, persuasive line of reasoning that goes something like, "The US doesn't care about us; Russia's going to win anyways; I'd rather be first in the Russian sphere than last in the American one." (A major difference being historical, in that the Philippines have never endured Chinese occupation.)
    It is more likely the reasoning behind any Philippines movement towards China is because Duterte is godawful and sees China as less likely to criticize his awfulness rather than US intransigence.

    Talking about European countries as a block like that is weird. Russia would have a very hard time invading most of them.

    Couscous on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular

    I am surprised he just hasn't started copy pasting these complaints with only the names changed. Being attacked by Trump is going to be a badge of honor.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    I am surprised he just hasn't started copy pasting these complaints with only the names changed. Being attacked by Trump is going to be a badge of honor.

    Took him a while to respond this time. Getting slow. Sad!

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Also, the latest development is that Duterte can have his cake and eat it too by, you guessed it, cozying up to Trump, that will let him get away with being godawful while also not having to be friendly to China.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    You mean like how there's no way the Philippines would align with a bullying China, that literally bullied them not too long ago? (Something that I, honestly, might have said a year ago.)

    I think there's absolutely a rational, persuasive line of reasoning that goes something like, "The US doesn't care about us; Russia's going to win anyways; I'd rather be first in the Russian sphere than last in the American one." (A major difference being historical, in that the Philippines have never endured Chinese occupation.)
    It is more likely the reasoning behind any Philippines movement towards China is because Duterte is godawful and sees China as less likely to criticize his awfulness rather than US intransigence.

    At this rate China might be more likely to criticize him than Trump, who apparently wants to be murder-bros with Duterte in exchange for a hotel. If Duterte is cunning enough he could try to play the US and China off each other.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Couscous wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    You mean like how there's no way the Philippines would align with a bullying China, that literally bullied them not too long ago? (Something that I, honestly, might have said a year ago.)

    I think there's absolutely a rational, persuasive line of reasoning that goes something like, "The US doesn't care about us; Russia's going to win anyways; I'd rather be first in the Russian sphere than last in the American one." (A major difference being historical, in that the Philippines have never endured Chinese occupation.)
    It is more likely the reasoning behind any Philippines movement towards China is because Duterte is godawful and sees China as less likely to criticize his awfulness rather than US intransigence.

    Talking about European countries as a block like that is weird. Russia would have a very hard time invading most of them.

    Le Pen's leading in first-round polling in France. Losing in second-round polling. Is she less godawful than Duterte?

    What if a combination of Brexit, ISIL, and Trump really do cause a rise of nationalism resulting in departures from the EU? You really don't think Russia might peel off some of those nations? Russian-Turkish relations are suddenly looking much better than they were in 2015 when Turkey shot down a Russian jet, not that I think Turkey has any interest in submitting to a Russian sphere of influence, but I think you're deeply underestimating the commonness of "godawfulness".

    Also, I'm not talking about them as a block; I'm talking about them at an abstract level. Nor am I suggesting that Russia will actually invade.

    hippofant on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular

    This is better than I expected for lifting sanctions on Russia, which previously was nothing.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular

    I don't get how that makes sense as a deal.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »

    I don't get how that makes sense as a deal.

    Because Trump makes the best deals.

    Believe him.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular

    I thought we were building a tonne of new super bombs trump? Already breaking more promises.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular

    To be fair, the sanctions were going to get lifted regardless given his picks for State and his closeness with Putin. At least this way there'll be an international deal to reduce nuclear weapons and chill out that bit of fanfare.

    I can't believe I've been stockholm-syndrom'd into being ok with this.

This discussion has been closed.