Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] Talk about the Foreign Policy of the United States

134689100

Posts

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    doing it vs saying you're not gonna do it but still doing it aren't meaningfully different for others. being "better" is not about just feeling more bad about what you're doing.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    ... Reagan was popular, so how was he ignoring democratic influence? Isn't that how democratic influence is measured, by how popular a leader is? If a leader's policies are popular, then democratic influence is "working," or at least it's not demonstrably not working. If a leader's policies are unpopular, but they remain in power, then democratic influence is not working.

    You seem to be using "democratic influence" as a byword for "what Julius wants." If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    hippofant on
    Harry Dresdenshryke
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    The arms sales were reported on November 3, 1986. Reagan publicly apologized on November 13. Talks had been ongoing at the time of the leak, and a shipment of TOWs had gone through on October 26 just a week earlier.

    So, yes: when secrecy failed, the free press and popular opinion did force Reagan to immediately modify his policy. That he was able to escape criminal charges through Ollie North's fuckery is immaterial. Had the same thing happened in Putin's Russia, the story would be quashed and protests forcibly dispersed. Putin would neither publicly express regret nor modify his policy. (indeed it is unlikely the Duma would have passed a Boland amendment restricting Putin's power in the first place)

    how is Reagan not actually getting into trouble immaterial?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    ... Reagan was popular, so how was he ignoring democratic influence?

    It seems like you're just using "democratic influence" here to mean "what Julius wants." Sometimes democracies vote for things you don't like. That doesn't mean "democratic influence" isn't working; that's just the result of "democratic influence."

    he was ignoring democratic influence by breaking the law, that thing that is the expression of democracy.

    obviously democracies sometimes vote for things one doesn't like, but here what democracy voted for was totally ignored.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    The Kremlin is nowhere near as susceptible to popular influence. They have far greater control of the media and hence far greater control of popular opinion.

    Sure, but we were talking about democratic influence. Despite blatant election fraud and pressure, 1. Russia is still democratic and the government subject to democratic pressure. The problem in Russia is that the president and government, or at least their policies, are very popular. Similarly, popular opinion and media are already significantly on the side of Russian conservatism. Press freedom is heavily repressed, and it has been getting worse and worse under Putin, but I doubt more press freedom would change popular opinion regarding general policy much, especially foreign.

    Putin is not repressing people out of fear they would object to his foreign policy, he is doing it out of fear they object to him. (and y'know, his blatant robbing of the country.)

    Which is similar to the US. 2. Yeah the government is way more susceptible to popular influence, but generally only about domestic policy and maybe starting massive unwinnable wars (which Russia and China don't even do anyway). The freedom to oppose is not worth much if nobody cares.

    Which is my point. Theoretically both the USA and Russia are susceptible to popular influence, but on foreign policy in reality they are not.

    1. This is significantly less true in how the super-presidential system the Russians are currently under actually operates compared to their constitutional construction. The government (the executive) determines the agenda and actions of every other institution and most of the political parties. The government determines not only executive policy but literally writes and promotes legislation and the Duma and Federation Council act as rubber stamps. This is largely because Putin exerts control over all national level politics and any sub-federal politician who wants to remain a politician accedes to Putin's influence or control.

    This is not true in the US. The popular narrative here is that POTUS Trump is some kind of authoritarian fascist wielding outsize control over the US, but he isn't even exerting outsize control over the GOP. That there is any legislative or judicial resistance to his administration shows the substantial difference between our system and the current Russian system.

    oh shit yeah I forgot about all those times Republican congress members really resisted instead of just going along with it.

    get real dude. there is no meaningfull resistance within the GOP because these fuckers are completely behind this regressive agenda. Ben Sasse ranting about decency doesn't mean he actually votes against Trump.


    2. It is generally true that domestic politics are more important for the domestic audience. This holds true in pretty much every case. It is also true that domestic politics can effect foreign policy. In the case of the US we can look at the policy differences (and similarities) between the Obama administration and the Bush 43 administration. Or we can look back at the example I gave which you ignored regarding Nicaragua. In the Nicaragua case if the US was replaced by Russia or China as they exist today, there would have been no such thing as the Iran-Contra Scandal because there would have been no domestic political tension between the legislature and executive and Putin's government and the PRC would have laughed in Paul Reichler's face right before he was in an unfortunate accident in which he fell on a bunch of bullets.

    ok but you realise how this is not meaningfully different for the people getting bombed, right? like, they never stopped arming the guys. Reagan not even getting punished for it is not consolation.

    As to your first point: it isn't just resistance from GOP legislators or state level politicians but an inability to filter candidates who want to run. Which is how you get open pedophiles and open Neo Nazis running for state offices claiming GOP affiliation without any actual connection to a state or the national level party.

    Otherwise, yes political parties generally don't get in the way of their own agenda. That is still not even close to how the Russian system works. If the US was under a super presidential system like Russia's Trump would outright control the Democratic Party, personally determine which candidates can run for office beyond the local level, the house and Senate would be rubber stamps for any legislation Trump desired, there would be no criticism of Trump in domestic media etc.

    To the second: I'm sure the Sandinistas would have thought there was a significant difference between the two types of systems considering they succeeded in affecting US foreign policy by paying to directly lobby Congress.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    ... Reagan was popular, so how was he ignoring democratic influence?

    It seems like you're just using "democratic influence" here to mean "what Julius wants." Sometimes democracies vote for things you don't like. That doesn't mean "democratic influence" isn't working; that's just the result of "democratic influence."

    he was ignoring democratic influence by breaking the law, that thing that is the expression of democracy.

    obviously democracies sometimes vote for things one doesn't like, but here what democracy voted for was totally ignored.

    This is some extremely tortured logic. So Reagan does X, the American public says X is cool with them, and somehow this is undemocratic. Instead, the fact that the American public liked Reagan is itself a sign of democratic influence not working, because Reagan should have done what the voters wanted him to do, according to you, as opposed to what the voters wanted him to do according to them, even though the voters were exerting no influence on him to do that.

    You're really not talking about "democratic influence" here.

    hippofant on
    shrykeHefflingElldrenPLA
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    but the public, in the form of elected representatives, said it wasn't cool.


    also, Russia and China are also doing what the public wants.

    also also, doing what the public wants considered like this can't be construed as a defense of "betterness". nobody cares that the people at home agree with what you're doing.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    but the public, in the form of elected representatives, said it wasn't cool.


    also, Russia and China are also doing what the public wants.

    also also, doing what the public wants considered like this can't be construed as a defense of "betterness". nobody cares that the people at home agree with what you're doing.

    I didn't say anything about "betterness." I just don't think a popular leader can be evidence of democratic influence failing to affect said leader. In this case, democratic influence is working - or at least not demonstrably not working - as the voters are exerting no democratic influence on the leader to change their currently popular policies.

    If your argument is that the public said it wasn't cool, and so that demonstrates that democratic influence was not working on Reagan, that'd be an argument I could plausibly entertain, but that wasn't what you posted. You said that Reagan's popularity demonstrated that, which is absurd. And then you suddenly shifted to some idea of the law being the purest form of democracy - which isn't one-to-one with "democratic influence" anyways, nor is Reagan's criminality relevant to the popularity of his foreign policies - and now you're shifting again to saying that the people's elected representatives are their true democratic opinion, which again seems to clash with your citing Reagan's public popularity in the first place.

    You are conflating many different ideas into a series of posts with little coherence or consistency between them.

    hippofant on
    AnteCantelopeGnome-Interruptus
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    but the public, in the form of elected representatives, said it wasn't cool.


    also, Russia and China are also doing what the public wants.

    also also, doing what the public wants considered like this can't be construed as a defense of "betterness". nobody cares that the people at home agree with what you're doing.

    I didn't say anything about "betterness." I just don't think a popular leader can be evidence of democratic influence failing to affect said leader. In this case, democratic influence is working - or at least not demonstrably not working - as the voters are exerting no democratic influence on the leader to change their currently popular policies.

    If your argument is that the public said it wasn't cool, and so that demonstrates that democratic influence was not working on Reagan, that'd be an argument I could plausibly entertain, but that wasn't what you posted. You said that Reagan's popularity demonstrated that, which is absurd.

    You are conflating many different ideas into a series of posts with little coherence or consistency between them.

    ok but TryCatcher talked about the US being better, and that was what I was going off.

    and NSDFRand said it was because the US system was more open to democratic influence. but if that just means popular it is not actually different. I literally never said democracy wasn't working.

    also I meant that Reagan and his crew not suffering any consequences despite ignoring the system means the system does not actually have any effect. I assumed NSDFRand meant the political system of the USA with representatives at different levels and all that, not some vague notion of popular opinion.



    I also assumed you could understand my posts in the context of the discussion and not just grab onto the last post.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    The Kremlin is nowhere near as susceptible to popular influence. They have far greater control of the media and hence far greater control of popular opinion.

    Sure, but we were talking about democratic influence. Despite blatant election fraud and pressure, 1. Russia is still democratic and the government subject to democratic pressure. The problem in Russia is that the president and government, or at least their policies, are very popular. Similarly, popular opinion and media are already significantly on the side of Russian conservatism. Press freedom is heavily repressed, and it has been getting worse and worse under Putin, but I doubt more press freedom would change popular opinion regarding general policy much, especially foreign.

    Putin is not repressing people out of fear they would object to his foreign policy, he is doing it out of fear they object to him. (and y'know, his blatant robbing of the country.)

    Which is similar to the US. 2. Yeah the government is way more susceptible to popular influence, but generally only about domestic policy and maybe starting massive unwinnable wars (which Russia and China don't even do anyway). The freedom to oppose is not worth much if nobody cares.

    Which is my point. Theoretically both the USA and Russia are susceptible to popular influence, but on foreign policy in reality they are not.

    1. This is significantly less true in how the super-presidential system the Russians are currently under actually operates compared to their constitutional construction. The government (the executive) determines the agenda and actions of every other institution and most of the political parties. The government determines not only executive policy but literally writes and promotes legislation and the Duma and Federation Council act as rubber stamps. This is largely because Putin exerts control over all national level politics and any sub-federal politician who wants to remain a politician accedes to Putin's influence or control.

    This is not true in the US. The popular narrative here is that POTUS Trump is some kind of authoritarian fascist wielding outsize control over the US, but he isn't even exerting outsize control over the GOP. That there is any legislative or judicial resistance to his administration shows the substantial difference between our system and the current Russian system.

    oh shit yeah I forgot about all those times Republican congress members really resisted instead of just going along with it.

    get real dude. there is no meaningfull resistance within the GOP because these fuckers are completely behind this regressive agenda. Ben Sasse ranting about decency doesn't mean he actually votes against Trump.


    2. It is generally true that domestic politics are more important for the domestic audience. This holds true in pretty much every case. It is also true that domestic politics can effect foreign policy. In the case of the US we can look at the policy differences (and similarities) between the Obama administration and the Bush 43 administration. Or we can look back at the example I gave which you ignored regarding Nicaragua. In the Nicaragua case if the US was replaced by Russia or China as they exist today, there would have been no such thing as the Iran-Contra Scandal because there would have been no domestic political tension between the legislature and executive and Putin's government and the PRC would have laughed in Paul Reichler's face right before he was in an unfortunate accident in which he fell on a bunch of bullets.

    ok but you realise how this is not meaningfully different for the people getting bombed, right? like, they never stopped arming the guys. Reagan not even getting punished for it is not consolation.

    As to your first point: it isn't just resistance from GOP legislators or state level politicians but an inability to filter candidates who want to run. Which is how you get open pedophiles and open Neo Nazis running for state offices claiming GOP affiliation without any actual connection to a state or the national level party.

    Otherwise, yes political parties generally don't get in the way of their own agenda. That is still not even close to how the Russian system works. If the US was under a super presidential system like Russia's Trump would outright control the Democratic Party, personally determine which candidates can run for office beyond the local level, the house and Senate would be rubber stamps for any legislation Trump desired, there would be no criticism of Trump in domestic media etc.

    To the second: I'm sure the Sandinistas would have thought there was a significant difference between the two types of systems considering they succeeded in affecting US foreign policy by paying to directly lobby Congress.

    my first point is that there is no resistance from his own party, so you can't point to it.

    also that is not the Russian system. There is an opposition in the Duma and all that. It's just way smaller, but it is Putins own party that controls most seats and is thus the rubber stamp.

    but the Republican party is a rubber stamp for Trump (and would be for any GOP president). and 70% vs 51% doesn't matter.

    second: but the contras still got arms. my point is that they didn't succeed because not following the law is not different from not having the law in the first place.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    but the public, in the form of elected representatives, said it wasn't cool.


    also, Russia and China are also doing what the public wants.

    also also, doing what the public wants considered like this can't be construed as a defense of "betterness". nobody cares that the people at home agree with what you're doing.

    I didn't say anything about "betterness." I just don't think a popular leader can be evidence of democratic influence failing to affect said leader. In this case, democratic influence is working - or at least not demonstrably not working - as the voters are exerting no democratic influence on the leader to change their currently popular policies.

    If your argument is that the public said it wasn't cool, and so that demonstrates that democratic influence was not working on Reagan, that'd be an argument I could plausibly entertain, but that wasn't what you posted. You said that Reagan's popularity demonstrated that, which is absurd.

    You are conflating many different ideas into a series of posts with little coherence or consistency between them.

    ok but TryCatcher talked about the US being better, and that was what I was going off.

    and NSDFRand said it was because the US system was more open to democratic influence. but if that just means popular it is not actually different. I literally never said democracy wasn't working.

    also I meant that Reagan and his crew not suffering any consequences despite ignoring the system means the system does not actually have any effect. I assumed NSDFRand meant the political system of the USA with representatives at different levels and all that, not some vague notion of popular opinion.



    I also assumed you could understand my posts in the context of the discussion and not just grab onto the last post.

    Again, you seem to miss the point here. YOU said that Reagan's popularity proved that US foreign policy is not open to democratic influence. I fail to see how popularity -> not open to democratic influence. I am not arguing that democratic influence == popularity nor that popularity -> open to democratic influence, and indeed I could see how !popularity -> not open to democratic influence, but the deduction does not seem to work in the manner in which you used it. That is what I am seeking clarity on.


    I am also reading the other posts here and I am using them as context, but that context does not in any way justify false arguments used within. You seem to be urging me to ignore this insensible statement you made in favour of your broader argument, and/or adjusting your previously made arguments on the fly with new, irrelevant, and underdeveloped ideas that don't really change the matter. It doesn't matter if NSDFRand "meant the political system of the USA with representatives at different levels and all that, not some vague notion of popular opinion," when you posted that Reagan's popularity demonstrates that US foreign policy is not open to democratic influence. It still doesn't add up. How does Reagan's popularity demonstrate that the political system of the USA with representatives at different levels and all that had no influence on US foreign policy? It. Still. Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense.

    You keep throwing this new stuff out here, and none of it explains anything else, and it is all a disjointed mess. I am still trying to figure out what the hell you were trying to say about Reagan, I'm trying to understand this single point that you made earlier, and evaluate it as a counter-example to NSDFRand's example of the Sandanistas, and instead of explaining it to me, you just amp up the confusion with more complex, seemingly irrelevant "context," and I'm just like, are you telling me that I have to believe that the law is the true embodiment of the democratic spirit and wrap my head around that before I can understand your post about Reagan's popularity?! Are you saying that Reagan being imprisoned despite high public popularity and despite the fact that Congress didn't impeach him - so God only knows who's imprisoning him - that'd be democratic influence in action? To understand your small, singular point, I first need to accept your overarching framework about where the democratic spirit truly resides in the law, that the law is the truest "expression of democracy?" The silent "context" you seem to be asking me to accept first before I read any of your posts is "the entirety of Julius' worldview." What in heaven's name are we talking about here?

    If the public was okay with what Reagan did - given the high popularity he left office with that you cited - and if Reagan didn't get impeached by Congress - that is to say, "the political system of the USA with representatives at different levels and all that" didn't decide to remove him from office - where exactly was the "democratic influence" that US foreign policy was closed to? You need to show democratic influence, and then US foreign policy not responding to that influence, but instead, you just keep showing me US foreign policy that you insinuate is "bad" and then a populace and its representatives that don't really give a fuck that it might be bad,* and I am baffled at how the absence of X is supposed to prove anything about X.

    The best I can figure so far is that the "democratic influence" exerted on the Reagan administration didn't go as far or in the direction that you'd have liked it to, but that in no way demonstrates that US foreign policy is not open to democratic influence; it only indicates that you disagree with the "democratic influence" exerted by the American public and their representatives.


    * Actually, as Meqee noted, there was a foreign policy change in response to the domestic backlash, so it's puzzling that you're citing this as an example of democratic influence not working on foreign policy. It was after the fact, yes, because democratic influence can't work on policies that aren't public, but when the policy became public, the American public forced its change, and whether the actors involved were (sufficiently) punished or not doesn't really change the fact that the public forced a change in policy.

    hippofant on
    Harry DresdenNSDFRandGnome-InterruptusElldren
  • Dongs GaloreDongs Galore Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    The arms sales were reported on November 3, 1986. Reagan publicly apologized on November 13. Talks had been ongoing at the time of the leak, and a shipment of TOWs had gone through on October 26 just a week earlier.

    So, yes: when secrecy failed, the free press and popular opinion did force Reagan to immediately modify his policy. That he was able to escape criminal charges through Ollie North's fuckery is immaterial. Had the same thing happened in Putin's Russia, the story would be quashed and protests forcibly dispersed. Putin would neither publicly express regret nor modify his policy. (indeed it is unlikely the Duma would have passed a Boland amendment restricting Putin's power in the first place)

    how is Reagan not actually getting into trouble immaterial?

    Because simply getting caught forced him to stop doing what he was doing. Do you think Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin would stop just because they got caught? (do you think the Duma or People's Congress could even pass a Boland Amendment for him to break?)

    Dongs Galore on
    Harry DresdenNSDFRandMeeqeCptKemzik
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    The arms sales were reported on November 3, 1986. Reagan publicly apologized on November 13. Talks had been ongoing at the time of the leak, and a shipment of TOWs had gone through on October 26 just a week earlier.

    So, yes: when secrecy failed, the free press and popular opinion did force Reagan to immediately modify his policy. That he was able to escape criminal charges through Ollie North's fuckery is immaterial. Had the same thing happened in Putin's Russia, the story would be quashed and protests forcibly dispersed. Putin would neither publicly express regret nor modify his policy. (indeed it is unlikely the Duma would have passed a Boland amendment restricting Putin's power in the first place)

    how is Reagan not actually getting into trouble immaterial?

    Because simply getting caught forced him to stop doing what he was doing. Do you think Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin would stop just because they got caught? (do you think the Duma or People's Congress could even pass a Boland Amendment for him to break?)

    Also Reagan DID get in trouble! His popularity plummeted! There was a special prosecutor. People went to prison. And then the policy was reversed, Reagan publicly apologized, and his popularity went back up. He wasn't impeached or imprisoned, but neither of those are requisites for democratic influence working on foreign policy.

    I do not at all understand how this Reagan example demonstrates that US foreign policy is closed to democratic influence, when as far as I can tell, it's an example of the opposite.

    hippofant on
    NSDFRandCouscousMeeqe
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    The Kremlin is nowhere near as susceptible to popular influence. They have far greater control of the media and hence far greater control of popular opinion.

    Sure, but we were talking about democratic influence. Despite blatant election fraud and pressure, 1. Russia is still democratic and the government subject to democratic pressure. The problem in Russia is that the president and government, or at least their policies, are very popular. Similarly, popular opinion and media are already significantly on the side of Russian conservatism. Press freedom is heavily repressed, and it has been getting worse and worse under Putin, but I doubt more press freedom would change popular opinion regarding general policy much, especially foreign.

    Putin is not repressing people out of fear they would object to his foreign policy, he is doing it out of fear they object to him. (and y'know, his blatant robbing of the country.)

    Which is similar to the US. 2. Yeah the government is way more susceptible to popular influence, but generally only about domestic policy and maybe starting massive unwinnable wars (which Russia and China don't even do anyway). The freedom to oppose is not worth much if nobody cares.

    Which is my point. Theoretically both the USA and Russia are susceptible to popular influence, but on foreign policy in reality they are not.

    1. This is significantly less true in how the super-presidential system the Russians are currently under actually operates compared to their constitutional construction. The government (the executive) determines the agenda and actions of every other institution and most of the political parties. The government determines not only executive policy but literally writes and promotes legislation and the Duma and Federation Council act as rubber stamps. This is largely because Putin exerts control over all national level politics and any sub-federal politician who wants to remain a politician accedes to Putin's influence or control.

    This is not true in the US. The popular narrative here is that POTUS Trump is some kind of authoritarian fascist wielding outsize control over the US, but he isn't even exerting outsize control over the GOP. That there is any legislative or judicial resistance to his administration shows the substantial difference between our system and the current Russian system.

    oh shit yeah I forgot about all those times Republican congress members really resisted instead of just going along with it.

    get real dude. there is no meaningfull resistance within the GOP because these fuckers are completely behind this regressive agenda. Ben Sasse ranting about decency doesn't mean he actually votes against Trump.


    2. It is generally true that domestic politics are more important for the domestic audience. This holds true in pretty much every case. It is also true that domestic politics can effect foreign policy. In the case of the US we can look at the policy differences (and similarities) between the Obama administration and the Bush 43 administration. Or we can look back at the example I gave which you ignored regarding Nicaragua. In the Nicaragua case if the US was replaced by Russia or China as they exist today, there would have been no such thing as the Iran-Contra Scandal because there would have been no domestic political tension between the legislature and executive and Putin's government and the PRC would have laughed in Paul Reichler's face right before he was in an unfortunate accident in which he fell on a bunch of bullets.

    ok but you realise how this is not meaningfully different for the people getting bombed, right? like, they never stopped arming the guys. Reagan not even getting punished for it is not consolation.

    As to your first point: it isn't just resistance from GOP legislators or state level politicians but an inability to filter candidates who want to run. Which is how you get open pedophiles and open Neo Nazis running for state offices claiming GOP affiliation without any actual connection to a state or the national level party.

    Otherwise, yes political parties generally don't get in the way of their own agenda. That is still not even close to how the Russian system works. If the US was under a super presidential system like Russia's Trump would outright control the Democratic Party, personally determine which candidates can run for office beyond the local level, the house and Senate would be rubber stamps for any legislation Trump desired, there would be no criticism of Trump in domestic media etc.

    To the second: I'm sure the Sandinistas would have thought there was a significant difference between the two types of systems considering they succeeded in affecting US foreign policy by paying to directly lobby Congress.

    my first point is that there is no resistance from his own party, so you can't point to it.

    also that is not the Russian system. There is an opposition in the Duma and all that. It's just way smaller, but it is Putins own party that controls most seats and is thus the rubber stamp.

    but the Republican party is a rubber stamp for Trump (and would be for any GOP president). and 70% vs 51% doesn't matter.

    second: but the contras still got arms. my point is that they didn't succeed because not following the law is not different from not having the law in the first place.

    1. I'm not, I'm stating that resistance from his own party is not the only way to measure resistance to policy. I presented two other methods which proved effective in my example: an actual robust opposing party and direct lobbying by an involved party (the Sandinistas via Paul Reichler). Edit: though it's not guaranteed that members of a party will always agree with foreign policy making or that foreign policy making which is violent in nature is a failure of Democratic institutions. That the GWOT became unpopular does not mean that its existence is inherently a failure of democratic institutions. And actors who are affected by our foreign policy certainly believe their lobbying can have an effect or they wouldn't pay for lobbying services or open offices in the capital to organize and lobby out of.

    2. Which party is the "opposition party" in the Duma? The two largest parties, UR and the CP, are either Putin's own party or an "opposition party" that was only allowed to form again with Putin's blessing. That's how electoral politics work in Russia. The only true opposition politician is Alexei Navalny and he is the only one in his party to hold office.

    3. You're again ignoring the outcome.

    NSDFRand on
    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    Commander ZoomCelestialBadger
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    If an American President does X, and the American public say, X is cool, then... what... like what exactly is undemocratic here?

    but the public, in the form of elected representatives, said it wasn't cool.


    also, Russia and China are also doing what the public wants.

    also also, doing what the public wants considered like this can't be construed as a defense of "betterness". nobody cares that the people at home agree with what you're doing.

    So in his 2nd term, Obama shouldn't have tried to get anything accomplished because the elected representatives in the House and Senate didn't want him to succeed?

    Hell, by your own logic, Reagan did just fine. After all, the public continued to elect Republicans to major offices like POTUS afterwards.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    The arms deals maintain the neo-colonial system. The West sells arms to and guarantees the survival of these shitty regimes so they keep their resources on the world market that the West dominates. The dictators repress their populations so we don't have to do it ourselves. We outsource oppression.

    I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but: Is either that or let China and Russia grab everything not nailed down. I made my choice. You are naive if you think that small countries actually take their own decisions.

    Sort of like: the people in the small countries are going to suffer no matter who's in charge among the USA, China, or Russia, so given that the suffering is unavoidable, might as well be America who benefits from it, since if it were China or Russia, the USA would be worse off?

    Also, you know, that being on the US sphere of influence is better for (most) countries than being on the Russia/China one.

    Yes, I'm saying that there is a "less bad" option.
    Why the hell is it better? Do you think saying it is less bad makes it so?

    Despite FP establishment "consensus" our system is a lot more open and susceptible to democratic influence. So either domestic politics (not always, because it seems that US voters don't vote primarily on foreign policy issues) or even direct lobbying from parties in the countries affected by our foreign policy can influence FP decisions. The Russian and Chinese systems are immune from this domestic pressure and because of their super presidential and party systems foreign lobbying is likely to be less effective.

    The Russian system has this same theoretical openness to domestic pressure, and arguably any government has to deal with pressure from domestic parties (democratic or not) and foreign lobbyist. I don't see how the USA government is somehow more open to listening to foreign governments than Russia or China.

    More importantly, I'd expect something more than some theoretical argument about democracy for how US influence is better. Like maybe examples of the USA not backing brutal dictators and condoning genocides and war crimes. You're not even saying "it's better than being dominated by Russia or China" but "it could be better than being dominated by Russia or China".

    The truth is that they're all shit and "well somebody has to do the imperialism, might as well be us" is a shit justification for condoning atrocities. The USA (much like Russian and China) has backed the overthrow of popular governments by brutal dictators for entirely selfish gain. You're not the less bad option, you're just the one pretending the hardest that they're good.

    You skipped right over my example with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the paragraph you decided not to respond to. Which was why the Iran-Contra scandal was even a scandal.

    I skipped over it because I fail to see your point. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal because it involved the illegal sale/trade of arms to Iran and the illegal sale of arms to the Contras by the CIA and government.

    But I don't really see how that in any way can be construed as "better". Selling arms is not something I'd call good. Sure they eventually stopped selling them, but it is a phenomenal stretch to say that makes the USA better.

    I mean, you can't talk about US susceptibility to democratic influence and then point to when the government blatantly ignored it to fund rebels to overthrow communists. Reagan left office with the highest approval rating yet! Everybody got pardons!

    Your argument is that democracy isn't working because Reagan was popular? Wut.

    My argument should be very clear and obvious.

    If "democratic influence" is why the USA is better than Russia as a meddling force,

    then that time Reagan flat out ignored such democratic influence, and got away with it, should not be considered as an argument in favour of that proposition.

    The arms sales were reported on November 3, 1986. Reagan publicly apologized on November 13. Talks had been ongoing at the time of the leak, and a shipment of TOWs had gone through on October 26 just a week earlier.

    So, yes: when secrecy failed, the free press and popular opinion did force Reagan to immediately modify his policy. That he was able to escape criminal charges through Ollie North's fuckery is immaterial. Had the same thing happened in Putin's Russia, the story would be quashed and protests forcibly dispersed. Putin would neither publicly express regret nor modify his policy. (indeed it is unlikely the Duma would have passed a Boland amendment restricting Putin's power in the first place)

    how is Reagan not actually getting into trouble immaterial?

    Because simply getting caught forced him to stop doing what he was doing. Do you think Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin would stop just because they got caught? (do you think the Duma or People's Congress could even pass a Boland Amendment for him to break?)

    Also Reagan DID get in trouble! His popularity plummeted! There was a special prosecutor. People went to prison. And then the policy was reversed, Reagan publicly apologized, and his popularity went back up. He wasn't impeached or imprisoned, but neither of those are requisites for democratic influence working on foreign policy.

    I do not at all understand how this Reagan example demonstrates that US foreign policy is closed to democratic influence, when as far as I can tell, it's an example of the opposite.

    Nobody went to prison dude. Everybody got probation and then almost everybody got a pardon. Reagan got a little dip in popularity and is now straight up worshipped by the Republican party.

    I'm saying that, from the perspective of those on the receiving end of the bombs, going "well we tut-tut-ed at them a little bit and now every politician has to praise Reagan as this great guy if they want to seriously run" is not evidence of democratic influence making US meddling meaningfully better.

    like
    Again, you seem to miss the point here. YOU said that Reagan's popularity proved that US foreign policy is not open to democratic influence. I fail to see how popularity -> not open to democratic influence. I am not arguing that democratic influence == popularity nor that popularity -> open to democratic influence, and indeed I could see how !popularity -> not open to democratic influence, but the deduction does not seem to work in the manner in which you used it. That is what I am seeking clarity on.

    I never said his popularity proved there was no democratic influence, I just pointed to the end-result to show that ignoring that influence, in the assumed form of laws and such, had no serious consequences. I didn't say the Reagan example was an argument against this idea, just that it is not in favour. like, it is not a demonstration of the theory it is supposed to support.



    more importantly though, my point before we got sidetracked into discussing how the Iran Contra scandal is somehow an example of better US foreign policy, is that "well the Russians or Chinese would have been worse in this case" is a counterfactual with zero weight. one would actually need to show how US influence has actually been better.

    like, for all I know the US system is really more open to democratic influence. but if everybody is totally in favour of arming brutal dictators to secure profits for oil companies, then it is not actually better than more authoritarian regimes like those of Russia and China.

    DoodmannTicaldfjam
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese Listen and Learn
    Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones.

    But her emails

    wandering on
    monikerCelestialBadgershrykeiTunesIsEvilCommander Zoomvalhalla130Mild ConfusionSmrtnikElldrenFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusMorganVHarry DresdenelectricitylikesmehonovereMrVyngaardVeagleBullheadFryCptKemzikkimeemp123JazzKristmas Kthulhu
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese Listen and Learn
    Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones.

    But her emails

    imagine writing this in a fictional story about a republican president in 2009

    nobody would have let you get away with it. nobody

    obF2Wuw.png
    KetBrawanderingProhassMr FuzzbuttshrykeiTunesIsEvilDarkPrimusRedTideOrcaCommander ZoomTNTrooperHefflingElldrenMegaMekFencingsaxHarry DresdenelectricitylikesmeMrVyngaardVeagleEtiowsaHavelock2.0naengwenLegacyemp123BandableJazzSolarKristmas Kthulhu
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Trump’s problem is that he hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt. On anything.

    For all I know, he could be making the best decision on something, but since what usually ends up happening is we learn that what he does is to enhance his greed or compensation for his Toad-like penis or it’s done for teh evulz or pure incompetence that just happens to blunder into stopped clock territory.

    When the stopped clock is right, it's still right. You should just ignore it and look for info elsewhere, not take it as some kind of reverse guidance.


    No, when a stopped clock is right, it’s still a broken clock. You don’t ignore it, you point out how broken it is, else people will point to the two times a day the clock is right as proof it’s always telling the right time.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    CouscousmonikerElldrenMegaMekFencingsaxGnome-InterruptuselectricitylikesmeshrykeMortal Skyemp123Kristmas Kthulhu
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese Listen and Learn
    Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones.

    But her emails

    You know who I feel sorry for in all this?

    Whatever Chinese/Russian spy draws the short straw and has to listen to those phone calls. I can't fucking get through 5 minutes of this man speaking. More than a minute of that grating voice, endless narcissism and crap speaking style and I just go to something else.

    Now imagine having to listen to that all day long. Because its your job.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    Commander ZoomCelestialBadgerwanderingmonikerElldrenGennenalyse RuebenStabbity StyleForarvalhalla130MorganVelectricitylikesmeBullheadBloodsheedtyniclonelyahavaDisruptedCapitalistemp123Jazz
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Trump’s problem is that he hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt. On anything.

    For all I know, he could be making the best decision on something, but since what usually ends up happening is we learn that what he does is to enhance his greed or compensation for his Toad-like penis or it’s done for teh evulz or pure incompetence that just happens to blunder into stopped clock territory.

    When the stopped clock is right, it's still right. You should just ignore it and look for info elsewhere, not take it as some kind of reverse guidance.


    No, when a stopped clock is right, it’s still a broken clock. You don’t ignore it, you point out how broken it is, else people will point to the two times a day the clock is right as proof it’s always telling the right time.

    The problem with the broken clock analogy is that you're basically saying the source could be wrong or right at any time. It's only a useful idea in retrospect when you already know what the truth is, not when things are happening in real time and information is scarce.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    monikerRchanenshrykePLA
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese Listen and Learn
    Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones.

    But her emails

    You know who I feel sorry for in all this?

    Whatever Chinese/Russian spy draws the short straw and has to listen to those phone calls. I can't fucking get through 5 minutes of this man speaking. More than a minute of that grating voice, endless narcissism and crap speaking style and I just go to something else.

    Now imagine having to listen to that all day long. Because its your job.

    Trump is running his own personal black site torture facility and he doesn't even know it.

    monikerElldren
  • H0b0manH0b0man Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    When Trump Phones Friends, the Chinese Listen and Learn
    Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones.

    But her emails

    You know who I feel sorry for in all this?

    Whatever Chinese/Russian spy draws the short straw and has to listen to those phone calls. I can't fucking get through 5 minutes of this man speaking. More than a minute of that grating voice, endless narcissism and crap speaking style and I just go to something else.

    Now imagine having to listen to that all day long. Because its your job.

    Imagine you're the linguist who listens to this. You spent years learning English as a second language and then you hear this guy talk. Every report you file you have to be sweating bullets. "Was that actually what he said? There's no way somebody would talk like that. I must have made a mistake and not be as good as I thought I was."

    3DS: 3995-6597-6461 PSN: Agran-
    Kayne Red RobeHarry DresdenVeagleBullheadBlackDragon480monikerBloodsheedwanderingSmrtnikFencingsaxDarkPrimusRchanenRedTideElldrenSkeithemp123JazzGennenalyse RuebenKristmas Kthulhu
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Translating Trumpese to other languages is an actual journalistic problem across the world.

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
    Mild ConfusionCouscousHarry DresdenTraceNeveronshrykemonikerBloodsheedwanderingFencingsaxHenroidCelestialBadgerStabbity StyleDarkPrimusRchanenMr FuzzbuttFANTOMASElldrenSkeithkimeMegaMekPLACaedwyrLegacyemp123ForarJazzHefflingGennenalyse RuebenKristmas Kthulhu
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Translating Trumpese to other languages is an actual journalistic problem across the world.

    Yep, early in his presidency, translators were getting raked over the coals because Trump’s speech patterns being... difficult... to translate.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/trump-translation-interpreters

    This was the first article after a quick google search, but there were several.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    MorganVmonikerwanderingFencingsaxElldrenkimePLA
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Translating Trumpese to other languages is an actual journalistic problem across the world.
    Echo wrote: »
    Translating Trumpese to other languages is an actual journalistic problem across the world.

    Yes it is, when I read news in spanish the quotes are all doctored to make some sense. It sounds nothing like Trump, so a lot of people have the idea that he is not demented.

    MorganVElldrenCelestialBadgerFencingsax
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Trump translators should ask themselves, "How would I translate this to the language of a crazy old man in a bar in my local language?" because I'm sure every culture has crazy old men in bars ranting incoherently about the world.

    Commander ZoomRedTidemonikerSmrtnikMegaMekshrykeFencingsaxPLAElldrenBolthornemp123LovelyJazzKristmas Kthulhu
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    and then all of them in THIS country got together and elected one. :(

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    CelestialBadgermonikerAistan
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    The part where he repeats isolated words and phrases out of context is at least easy to match.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    We are now conducting foreign police by fucking meme:


    Susan Hennessey is an executive editor for Lawfare.


    Just...what the fuck.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ArbitraryDescriptormonikertynicBlackDragon480ElldrenBullheadSealDarkPrimusemp123JazzJohnny ChopsockyFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMild Confusion
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    And completely missing the point!

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    What a
    Dickbag

    DoodmannKetBraArbitraryDescriptorscherbchenThawmusGaddezmonikerExtreaminatustynicCantidekimeBlackDragon480ElldrenBullheadStabbity StyleRchanenSkeithemp123JazzboogedybooFencingsaxTNTrooperZomroGennenalyse RuebenAl_watMegaMekFoolOnTheHillKristmas Kthulhu
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Wait is that fuckin for real!?

    Holy shit what!?

    Just

    *internal screaming intensifies*

    Sleep on
    ArbitraryDescriptormonikerMorganVkimeAntoshkaElldrenStabbity StyleZombie HeroRchanenJazzFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenDoctor DetroitMegaMek
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Yeah it's real.

    Real fuckin dumb

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    CelestialBadgerXaquinRedTideGaddezmonikerGnome-InterruptusTomantakimeCogElldrenStabbity StyleSealRchanenemp123JazzCaptainPeacockFencingsaxTNTrooperZomroGennenalyse RuebenKristmas Kthulhu
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited November 2018
    So on top of that, Trump's comments about rocks being considered the same as firearms have already been used to horrible affect. The Nigerian army used video of Trump saying that shit to justify them shooting down unarmed protestors.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewchampion/trump-mexico-migrant-caravan-rocks-firearms-nigeria

    Edit - And while this isn't policy per se, it is the shithead having an impact internationally. Which is why I posted it here.

    Henroid on
    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
    PreachermonikerGnome-InterruptusiTunesIsEvilAimBlackDragon480ElldrenStabbity StyleDarkPrimusemp123JazzshrykeFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMild ConfusionKristmas Kthulhu
  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Registered User regular
    Does anyone know who we're supposed to be sanctioning?

    Trump announced his nominee for UN ambassador and we'll finally be getting someone with some real policy chops.

    Kidding, of course. He's nominating a Fox News Blonde whose only public service experience is her year as a State Department spokesperson.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    So on top of that, Trump's comments about rocks being considered the same as firearms have already been used to horrible affect. The Nigerian army used video of Trump saying that shit to justify them shooting down unarmed protestors.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewchampion/trump-mexico-migrant-caravan-rocks-firearms-nigeria

    Edit - And while this isn't policy per se, it is the shithead having an impact internationally. Which is why I posted it here.

    I kind of doubt anyone -suddenly- came to that action because of trump

    Kayne Red RobeForarAim
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »
    Does anyone know who we're supposed to be sanctioning?

    Trump announced his nominee for UN ambassador and we'll finally be getting someone with some real policy chops.

    Kidding, of course. He's nominating a Fox News Blonde whose only public service experience is her year as a State Department spokesperson.

    Iran.

    And it gets better - she was the host/anchor of Fox & Friends.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    matt has a problemCommander ZoommonikerGnome-Interruptusshryke
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    I Zimbra wrote: »
    Does anyone know who we're supposed to be sanctioning?

    Trump announced his nominee for UN ambassador and we'll finally be getting someone with some real policy chops.

    Kidding, of course. He's nominating a Fox News Blonde whose only public service experience is her year as a State Department spokesperson.

    He's restoring all sanctions on Iran.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46071747

    nibXTE7.png
    moniker
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    .
    I Zimbra wrote: »
    Does anyone know who we're supposed to be sanctioning?

    Trump announced his nominee for UN ambassador and we'll finally be getting someone with some real policy chops.

    Kidding, of course. He's nominating a Fox News Blonde whose only public service experience is her year as a State Department spokesperson.

    So you're saying that she's vastly more qualified then most of his appointees.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
134689100
This discussion has been closed.