Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP  (Read 6864986 times)

0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Agree with the above, but is our political system any more broken than it's always been?

I'm gonna say yeah. There's a hypothesis that the structure of the US government (primarily Congress) doesn't function well with ideologically opposed parties, instead of the weird amalgams that the parties used to be. I don't know if that's right but it feels plausible.

And ironically if you re-visited political theorizing in the 50's through the 70's, you would regularly and often come across arguments for how a lack of clearly defined party lines was harming democracy.



Nola

  • Senior Member
I read the 1960 party platforms for both parties once and they were virtually identical. They even both included civil rights. I know there was a post war consensus still in effect at the time, but, I'm gonna say that two choices is better than one?
Thats the catch 22 that seems to be a major question in political science.

What is the right balance between clearly defined party cue's for voters and too much polarization to the point it damages the basic functioning of democratic institutions?

And while both mentioned civil rights in their platform, there are some pretty interesting hypothesis's about how that cooperation, and the enormous civil unrest we saw at that time, was both in part due to the fact that civil rights issues were largely left off the governing agendas of both parties. As it was the largest cleavage in society of the day(arguably still is). So the only way to bring attention to those issues was an  ever intensifying amount of social unrest. That incorporating it into the fold by way of primarily the Democratic Party(over the long-term) almost certainly was a major factor in that steady drifting apart of the parties, but that it's incorporation was probably a net positive by finally giving a political outlet that before was only going to be addressed through intense social unrest.

Mandark

  • Icon
I read the 1960 party platforms for both parties once and they were virtually identical. They even both included civil rights. I know there was a post war consensus still in effect at the time, but, I'm gonna say that two choices is better than one?

I think that misses that both parties had a lot more internal ideological diversity than they do now, for better and for worse.

Mandark

  • Icon
Cross-party coalitions were fairly normal in American politics up until recently, which is what I'm getting at.

kingv

  • Senior Member
This seems to be less significant a question in ranked or multiparty voting systems where coalitions can form around any particular subject.

I was about to say something similar. Part, maybe even most, of the problem comes from the fact that the two parties have essentially stacked the deck so heavily against any sort of third party.

So when there is some crazy counter culture movement they aren’t creating some weird splinter party but instead they are fighting to takeover the party from within, which is relatively easy actually because hardly anybody votes in primaries, and  then also many people don’t vote in the general elections.

American democracy is, IMO, deceptively weak because of that.

Nola

  • Senior Member
This seems to be less significant a question in ranked or multiparty voting systems where coalitions can form around any particular subject.

It likely prevents some of the basic governing problems America has been experiencing, that certainly seems to be the case, and may have some increased resilience due to that. Thanks to things like coalition governments for instance. However, the increasing trends of polarization, tribalism, and their pressures on parties and democracy seem to largely be immutable regardless of the democratic system.

Plenty of parliamentary systems with coalition governments that have fallen into autocratic shells or at a minimum embracing regressive platforms. I mean Russia has a parliament, so does Turkey. In fact that seems to be the trend. There are more elections then ever and yet the world is becoming less democratic.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Or instead of either/or you can aim for finding a functioning balance in between the two extremes that seem to debilitate the system in different ways. Recognizing the strengths and flaws inherent to each, so as to maintain basic governing functionality, while avoiding debilitating polarization. :idont





Mandark

  • Icon
Trump going to withdraw from the JCPOA. Sigh.

Steve Contra

  • Bought a lemon tree straight cash
  • Senior Member
Oh boy.
vin

agrajag

  • Senior Member
so this guy has an opportunity for a "major win" with peace in the Korean peninsula, but now he's trying to fuck that up with Iran? I don't get it.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
BREAKING NEWS: Trump destroys everything he touches, like a reverse King Midas.
dog

Mandark

  • Icon
He's too stupid to understand how this would impact the NK negotiations, he hates Obama, and he thinks he can make good "deals" personally, even though he hasn't negotiated a single bilateral deal since he became president.

Also NK's not giving up its nukes anyways. The question is what happens when Trump realizes that.

agrajag

  • Senior Member


Also NK's not giving up its nukes anyways. The question is what happens when Trump realizes that.

I'm going with

"Trump throws a tantrum" for 500, Alex

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Trump just signed away the Iran deal. Promises even more heavy sanctions.

The Iranians are so fucked.  :doge
🤴

Nola

  • Senior Member
It likely prevents some of the basic governing problems America has been experiencing, that certainly seems to be the case, and may have some increased resilience due to that. Thanks to things like coalition governments for instance. However, the increasing trends of polarization, tribalism, and their pressures on parties and democracy seem to largely be immutable regardless of the democratic system.
Do you have any evidence that cultural bifurcation happens in European countries to the same degree it demonstrably happens in the US? I've always been of the opinion that the French, for instance, don't cleave themselves in two like we do, except maybe the "immigrant issue".

Quote
Plenty of parliamentary systems with coalition governments that have fallen into autocratic shells or at a minimum embracing regressive platforms. I mean Russia has a parliament, so does Turkey. In fact that seems to be the trend. There are more elections then ever and yet the world is becoming less democratic.
I have to apologize, I'm not sure where this fits in with the rest of the discussion. I thought we were talking about dysfunction, not constitutional collapse into autocracy.

Proof of the exact same degree, no. But the rise in political identification and electing of far-right political parties/platforms that organize primarily around those issues of nativism and anti-tolerism is one obvious trend that suggests some concurrent forces playing out across the ocean. Which you can see in digging through ParlGov data. France for instance saw a huge jump in support for Le-Pen's far-right party, Germany is seeing similar rises as well.

I would argue that dysfunction brought on by that increased tribalism and polarization - largely organized around conservative anti-tolerism  - is often a major marker involved in the erosion of democratic norms, institutions, and processes across democratic systems. Which is why I added that loose side point onto what I said. The sort of polarization and dysfunction we see is often the sort that breaks down democratic systems, like has happened in many formerly more democratic countries. America is already been on a steady path of turning polarization and increased tribalism not just into dysfunction, but democratic erosion(mostly stemming from the right, but not exclusively). Was I guess also part of the point.

Nola

  • Senior Member
High possibility Europe and Asia do not reinstate its own sanctions and Iran simply stays in the deal, which would leave US and Israel isolated regarding Iran.

But now with a heightened chance of conflict.

The administration seems to be calculating that such a move will weaken the regime, eventually collapsing it, but that seems to be a hard sell given that other countries are unlikely to follow suit, like you say.

Using sanctions as a bludgeon to beat a country to death as opposed to their normal purpose of coercing a bad actor to change behavior seems like it only even has a slim chance if everyone is cooperating, like with North Korea. Which didn't collapse the regime either. So Iran will continue doing Iran and what will the administration's response be the next time something Iran does inevitably catches their ire? Regime change? Hard sell other allies to drop support? Forcing a nuclear breakout race for Iran.






Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
The EU strongly rejects Trump policies by holding a summit next week.
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/993921364997361664

By the time they hold this summit the Israeli's may have well destroyed the Iran Nuclear Program  :neogaf
🤴

agrajag

  • Senior Member
How many civilians deaths are the Israelis going to take as collateral damage?  :gurl

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
Trump is a monstrous asshole.  Fuck everyone who voted for him.
püp

Nola

  • Senior Member
Trump is a monstrous asshole.  Fuck everyone who voted for him.

...Or refuses to vote against him.


Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
How many civilians deaths are the Israelis going to take as collateral damage?  :gurl



spoiler (click to show/hide)
[close]
©@©™

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
https://twitter.com/AP/status/993927954588733440

 :picard
I don't know what's worse. Trump playing geo-politics or the EU and some media channels acting like Iran is some sort of cute fluffy teddy bear land.
🤴

Nola

  • Senior Member
https://twitter.com/AP/status/993927954588733440

 :picard
I don't know what's worse. Trump playing geo-politics or the EU and some media channels acting like Iran is some sort of cute fluffy teddy bear land.

Trump playing geopolitics....But no one of note thinks Iran is some innocent actor in all this, that doesn't mean you break your side of the agreement and try to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, which was holding their most dangerous ambitions at bay.

Nola

  • Senior Member
Europe will stay in the deal and Iran will continue to not develop weapons.

Seems highly likely(always sort of did), along with China and Russia.

The larger problem is going to be how it deliberately elevates tensions in the region as a Trump strategy, emboldens certain actors like Israel, and what, if any, knockdown effects it will have with things like future negotiations like North Korea(though I suspect North Korea will let the three prisoners go regardless because the optics only benefit them).

FStop7

  • Senior Member
I agree re: Israel. It's obvious Israel is engaging in regional imperialism, for instance with the missile strikes in Syria. Weakening Iran is a huge plus for them because they're still under constant threat from Hezbollah, not to mention a compliant Iran is a growing and strengthening one. They want Iran to be weak and isolated irrespective of any weapons program.

My opinion about Kim Jong Un is he's very suggestible and really did see a peace agreement as a way to stage off impending intervention. But his calculus could change substantially if he sees that Trump is not a good faith negotiator.

Kim didn't go to the trouble of developing ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs just to get rid of them a year later.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
President was banned for negotiating in bad faith

Be Best
©@©™

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Europe will stay in the deal and Iran will continue to not develop weapons.

That's the best-case scenario, yeah.
dog

Nola

  • Senior Member
And somehow Russia comes out of this mostly better off once again.   :doge

They get to strengthen their regional influence by way of Iran, while still keeping nuclear weapons out of the fray, which they certainly will use all of this as cover to uphold current relations, and it drives yet another wedge into the post WWII western alliance through these secondary sanctions that could do real damage to long-term relations. An alliance that Putin has sought to weaken for years now.  Oh, and the sanctions the Trump administration is seeking to reimplement would predominately harm Iran's oil sector, giving Russia greater leverage and better deals, as many will no doubt choose access to American markets over access to Iranian oil.



Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Kim didn't go to the trouble of developing ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs just to get rid of them a year later.
Oh, but Iran did?
Of course the know-how and all the infrastracture are still there. They were to halt development, not shoot everyone with the know-how in the head and burn down the infrastructure.

Mandark

  • Icon
Kim didn't go to the trouble of developing ICBMs and thermonuclear bombs just to get rid of them a year later.
Oh, but Iran did?
Dumb post.

I don't know what's worse. Trump playing geo-politics or the EU and some media channels acting like Iran is some sort of cute fluffy teddy bear land.

Dumber post.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 04:34:49 PM by Mandark »

Nola

  • Senior Member

kingv

  • Senior Member
And somehow Russia comes out of this mostly better off once again.   :doge

They get to strengthen their regional influence by way of Iran, while still keeping nuclear weapons out of the fray, which they certainly will use all of this as cover to uphold current relations, and it drives yet another wedge into the post WWII western alliance through these secondary sanctions that could do real damage to long-term relations. An alliance that Putin has sought to weaken for years now.  Oh, and the sanctions the Trump administration is seeking to reimplement would predominately harm Iran's oil sector, giving Russia greater leverage and better deals, as many will no doubt choose access to American markets over access to Iranian oil.

I kind of get a feeling that most of our allies have decided to try to keep the status quo going until Trump is gone, and are expecting the next President to be somewhat normal.

Mandark

  • Icon

Rufus

  • 🙈🙉🙊
  • Senior Member
Most of the infrastructure is part of the development. In fact that's the whole point of the deal, to roll back breakout time from 3 months to over a year.
Development of nuclear weapons, sorry.

Mandark

  • Icon
>:( what's the difference between NK and Iran?

First, many things.

Second, only one has an actual fucking stockpile of nuclear weapons?

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
And somehow Russia comes out of this mostly better off once again.   :doge

They get to strengthen their regional influence by way of Iran, while still keeping nuclear weapons out of the fray, which they certainly will use all of this as cover to uphold current relations, and it drives yet another wedge into the post WWII western alliance through these secondary sanctions that could do real damage to long-term relations. An alliance that Putin has sought to weaken for years now.  Oh, and the sanctions the Trump administration is seeking to reimplement would predominately harm Iran's oil sector, giving Russia greater leverage and better deals, as many will no doubt choose access to American markets over access to Iranian oil.
I don't see how this benefits Russia at all.

Iran is an ally of Russia they will feel the sanctions and Putin's coffers are empty after he bungled Ukraine and had to step into Syria. He gained nothing from both adventures financially.
Also, the Israeli and US air force is freely engaged in Syria and the world can see that the Russian anti-air weapons do jack shit.

As always the Iran thing has an economic background. The EU, looking to prop up the economy went balls deep into Iranian business after the sanctions were lifted by Obama.
They sold airplanes and whatnot to the regime and got all sorts of oil/gas contracts in return. US businesses were either snubbed or very cautious of entering the Iranian market. The only reason the EU is scrambling to save the deal is because they now have significant stakes in Iran. They were actually warned to not go all in because the deal (even under Obama) was flimsy in the first place but they did so anyway.

Trump and the Republicans have been gunning for this deal for ages. The EU should've tried to stall and keep Trump tied to it by a promise renegotiation or a second look or whatever. The moment the Iranians shut the door on making a 'better deal' with Trump they fucked themselves. And let's be honest here. The EU might like their newfound Iranian business but they won't risk a global economic crisis to keep it going and Trump has friends in Poland, Hungary and other states. There's never going to be unanimous retaliation coming from the EU only some weak-ass statement that they disagree with Trump and try to keep the deal alive themselves (to save their business deals).

Bolton might be crazy but he ain't stupid. He's a smart fucker, he knows all about how the global economic and power structure works. Which is why his first statement was: "I'm giving the Europeans months to pull-out from Iran starting from now"
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 05:37:47 PM by Nintex »
🤴

Mandark

  • Icon
Dumbest post.

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
nintex is a dark horse in the competition for dumbest poster here

Steve Contra

  • Bought a lemon tree straight cash
  • Senior Member
nintex is a dark horse in the competition for dumbest poster here
I just read a dumb post that ended with praise of John Bolton and yeah I think you're right.
vin

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Laugh all you want.

I've watched these crises where the EU had to reach a consensus play out before over the past few years. During the Euro crisis the EU held about 80+ summits and the Euro nearly collapsed anyway.
The refugee crisis has been discussed over 30 times already and still none of the states is keeping up their end of any of the agreements made.

The EU is entirely dysfunctional when it comes to these issues that need a consensus from all member states.

The most likely outcome of the summit is that Orban will announce his own nuclear program.

🤴



Mandark

  • Icon
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pskgpwr15r48tx5/Executive%20Summary.pdf?dl=0

Quote
Also included in these suspicious financial transactions are four payments in late 2017 and early 2018 totaling $399,920 made by global pharmaceutical giant Novartis directly to Essential in four separate transactions of $99,980 each (just  below $100,000). Following  these  payments, reports surfaced that Mr. Trump took a dinner meeting with the incoming CEO of Novartis before Mr. Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in late January 2018.

Huh.



FStop7

  • Senior Member
Seth Rich must have been onto them

kingv

  • Senior Member
https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/993965469429370882

https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/993983493033086977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchristinawilkie%2Fstatus%2F993983493033086977

Whoops. No collusion though.  :doge

So if the Russian government is reimbursing trumps lawyer for an illegal campaign loan... that would be a conspiracy with foreigners, Russians even,  to influence the election, innit?

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Not sure I read that right but companies like AT&T and Novartis bribed the president through his lawyer for the amounts of $200k and $400k?

These were not payments to his reelection campaign? Just into a personal account?

Mandark

  • Icon
Could also be people funneling money to Cohen himself with the expectation that he'd have access/influence with Trump. It says he extracted a million dollars from the LLC over three transactions.

*obligatory Drain the Swamp joke*

kingv

  • Senior Member
Next years congressional investigations are going to be fucking amazing.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
seth rich doe

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Money?? In my politics??

Reads like Cohen is a swamp. Not collusion. Just same old same old.

Money?? In my politics??

Reads like Cohen is a swamp. Not collusion. Just same old same old.




Coitus

  • Member
No collusion! says increasingly nervous man.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
I like how the hunter only shows up to deliver the latest twitter collusion drama. He's like the collusion faerie

I like how the hunter only shows up to deliver the latest twitter collusion drama. He's like the collusion faerie

Not true


I also annoy the shit out of you guys.  :doge

agrajag

  • Senior Member

Not true


I also annoy the shit out of you guys.  :doge

meh I'm one of the few people that doesn't mind you. We have worse

Mandark

  • Icon
Don Blankenship getting wrecked in West Virginia, so that's good.