2016 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Note to self: never sign treaty with jenks

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes. Because that is what people are upset about. That question.

 

 

That's not the part of his interview anyone's criticizing him for, especially in this thread, so it sounds like you're trying to play a semantic game where you can score points than actually engage the criticism of Trump.

 

I didn't mean to throw that in as a "ah ha! you see!" I just thought it was interesting to point out his very reasonable statement that we should look at our own f***ed up situation before we start lecturing other countries. The dude in The Atlantic article made a big deal about this, like no US citizen has ever spoken ill of the country before.

 

[lostfan]

I didn't mean to throw that in as a "ah ha! you see!" I just thought it was interesting to point out his very reasonable statement that we should look at our own f***ed up situation before we start lecturing other countries. The dude in The Atlantic article made a big deal about this, like no US citizen has ever spoken ill of the country before.

Trump has actually said other things I agree with in the past (yeah... I know...) but I don't bring those things up, obviously, since I don't take issue with them. Trump is very much a "broken clock" type. He is almost always wrong, except the couple of times when he isn't.

[Jenksismyhero]

Note to self: never sign treaty with jenks

 

Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump has actually said other things I agree with in the past (yeah... I know...) but I don't bring those things up, obviously, since I don't take issue with them. Trump is very much a "broken clock" type. He is almost always wrong, except the couple of times when he isn't.

 

Ok, but bmags posted an article with a bunch of dumb points, and one of the dumb points was about that particular statement. I was just responding to it. I wasn't bringing up past things with Trump just to prove he can be right about something.

[lostfan]

Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties.

It's not Trump's first go-round with this, he's s*** on NATO previously. However, I'll give you this, he has always stopped just short of saying "we should pull out of NATO."

[bmags]

Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties.

 

If you think your negotiations with a car salesman are equal to geopolitical negotiations...

 

You don't hold public statements indicating the US will not support its allies to force estonia to marginally up it's military. Perhaps he should ask his butler Newt whether their alliance with the Baltic states is important.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you think your negotiations with a car salesman are equal to geopolitical negotiations...

 

You don't hold public statements indicating the US will not support its allies to force estonia to marginally up it's military. Perhaps he should ask his butler Newt whether their alliance with the Baltic states is important.

 

So creating/holding leverage has no use in geopolitical negotiations? That's your position?

 

 

[illinilaw08]

Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties.

 

But the leverage that he's talking about here is not assisting a NATO nation if they are invaded. That has massive ramifications in Eastern Europe, particularly in the face of a very aggressive Russia.

 

It's not the first time that Trump has talked about leverage as if he were a private businessman negotiating a deal with a creditor. Remember when he said that he would tell America's creditors that they would take less money on America's debt? That works when you are in the private sector. That doesn't work when the ramifications are people stop lending to America, or lend at significantly higher rates.

 

Yeah, the headline in that Atlantic article is bad, but an American Presidential candidate even implying that he might not honor the NATO treaty has major potential ramifications...

 

 

[bmags]

So creating/holding leverage has no use in geopolitical negotiations? That's your position?

 

No, Jenks, my position that threatining the stability of Eastern Europe (which borders our strongest and oldest allies) in the face of an aggressive Russia that has already performed a land grab against strategically unimportant lands for the benefit of seeing the tiny baltic nations up their military presence (which even hypothetically doesn't stand a chance vs. Russia) is not just stupid it is actually dangerous to the world.

 

This is the whole point of Trump. People convince themselves it's not that big of a deal. But President of the United States hold major responsibilities that affect the globe over. "What, so what, why shouldn't they pay" is so basic.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I mean, that's kind of a good point actually... we nominated a permanently sunburnt racist with no political experience whatsoever as a nominee for President, so yeah, maybe we shouldn't be going around the world telling people how to govern themselves.

 

That's different from telling countries to stop murdering people though. You went a little extreme there with your example.

 

I mean, that was the example Trump gave. Some of our police officers have been killed by crazies, therefore we can't criticize other countries even about huge, broad things like democratic violations.

[Jenksismyhero]

But the leverage that he's talking about here is not assisting a NATO nation if they are invaded. That has massive ramifications in Eastern Europe, particularly in the face of a very aggressive Russia.

 

It's not the first time that Trump has talked about leverage as if he were a private businessman negotiating a deal with a creditor. Remember when he said that he would tell America's creditors that they would take less money on America's debt? That works when you are in the private sector. That doesn't work when the ramifications are people stop lending to America, or lend at significantly higher rates.

 

Yeah, the headline in that Atlantic article is bad, but an American Presidential candidate even implying that he might not honor the NATO treaty has major potential ramifications...

 

But his statement about the Baltic states or of Ukraine in particular are just examples, right? It's him spitballing. Everything he said in that interview is consistent with his general foreign policy, which is we can't afford to be the world's police and other countries should start picking up the slack and/or starting paying us to be their defenders. He's an isolationist. That's part of it.

 

Yes, we can argue whether that's good policy of the US or not, but it doesn't mean that it's Trump's desire to back out of NATO and let Putin run roughshod over eastern europe, which is what that article says and what bmags wants to believe.

 

[illinilaw08]

But his statement about the Baltic states or of Ukraine in particular are just examples, right? It's him spitballing. Everything he said in that interview is consistent with his general foreign policy, which is we can't afford to be the world's police and other countries should start picking up the slack and/or starting paying us to be their defenders. He's an isolationist. That's part of it.

 

Yes, we can argue whether that's good policy of the US or not, but it doesn't mean that it's Trump's desire to back out of NATO and let Putin run roughshod over eastern europe, which is what that article says and what bmags wants to believe.

 

At what point is what Trump says meaningful and not "spitballing" to you?

[bmags]

At what point is what Trump says meaningful and not "spitballing" to you?

 

It's not when he's asked point blank if he'd defend a NATO ally if invaded by Russia, we know that boundary.

[Soxbadger]

But his statement about the Baltic states or of Ukraine in particular are just examples, right? It's him spitballing. Everything he said in that interview is consistent with his general foreign policy, which is we can't afford to be the world's police and other countries should start picking up the slack and/or starting paying us to be their defenders. He's an isolationist. That's part of it.

 

Yes, we can argue whether that's good policy of the US or not, but it doesn't mean that it's Trump's desire to back out of NATO and let Putin run roughshod over eastern europe, which is what that article says and what bmags wants to believe.

 

But Mike Pence said last night that we need to be more assertive in foreign policy, that we have become too weak.

 

So which is it?

 

No President should ever even imply that we will not 100% hold up our end of NATO. This is not a settlement negotiation, this is not "My client is going to file BK so if you dont take $.10 on the dollar you get nothing", these are treaties that were put into place to protect other countries, with the US fully well knowing that it would never be an equal partnership. Even more importantly this isn't a negotiation at all, members of NATO are supposed to be our partners.

 

I dont even know what the Republican party is anymore. And its become blatantly obvious that Trump has not even contemplated how to implement his ideas. Its really easy to say "I am going to make a better car that is also cheaper." The hard part is actually delivering, and anyone who has ever had the displeasure of working with a Trump run business knows that he very rarely delivers.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

At what point is what Trump says meaningful and not "spitballing" to you?

 

Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic.

 

If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But Mike Pence said last night that we need to be more assertive in foreign policy, that we have become too weak.

 

So which is it?

 

No President should ever even imply that we will not 100% hold up our end of NATO. This is not a settlement negotiation, this is not "My client is going to file BK so if you dont take $.10 on the dollar you get nothing", these are treaties that were put into place to protect other countries, with the US fully well knowing that it would never be an equal partnership. Even more importantly this isn't a negotiation at all, members of NATO are supposed to be our partners.

 

I dont even know what the Republican party is anymore. And its become blatantly obvious that Trump has not even contemplated how to implement his ideas. Its really easy to say "I am going to make a better car that is also cheaper." The hard part is actually delivering, and anyone who has ever had the displeasure of working with a Trump run business knows that he very rarely delivers.

 

So no matter what happens between now and the end of time, we should never reconsider NATO or the obligations and responsibilities of its members. If 25 of the 28 members say f*** it, i'm done paying my share and sending out my people to be in the armed forces, we should still be obligated to play our part simply because they are our partners? That's bulls***. They are partners as well. So when we feel like they're taking advantage of us, that's not being a good partner. We should be able to consider leaving. That's our right. Simply talking about that in hypothetical (and not even in complete hypothetical!) doesn't harm anything. That's a bunch of made up fear-mongering nonsense.

[bmags]

Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic.

 

If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why?

 

The last time article 5 was invoked was on September 12 with the Nato allies coming to the defense of the United States. There is no obligation of those members to follow the US in all US foreign policy decisions, though most often do.

 

There's also the idea of deferrence. If Ukraine was in NATO it is unlikely Russia invades for Crimea. It was unlikely they invaded baltic states, as invading meant war with all of western Europe and biggest military in the world. Without question. You know, they have a treaty, you attack they all attakc.

 

But now you have a presidential candidate on the republican side saying that if you make your land grab, it isn't automatic you attack. No, you will only attack if you like how that country has behaved.

 

Then your deterrence isn't credible. Then you are rightly forced into the situation of "do we really want to go to war with russia over Estonia?" But, yeah. You already have, they are in a treaty with you. You don't back out of your most important treatys because they ...matter.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic.

 

If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why?

 

Because the US is the one who is trying to entice and keep Eastern European nations in NATO. With Putin trying to expand his influence in that region it is a buyers market. So sure, you can discuss changing things at the cost of losing influence in Eastern Europe, but what is the end game here?

 

NATO isnt why the US is bleeding money, NATO allies arent the reason why Putin is getting more bold in Eastern Europe.

 

The reason is that the US congress lacks any sort of direction and ability to work together. Instead of having a mutual understanding that ultimately we are ALL better off if we work together, we instead fight over inane nonsense that results in higher debt and more waste.

 

That is the real problem and everyone in the world knows it and is trying to take advantage of it.

[Soxbadger]

So no matter what happens between now and the end of time, we should never reconsider NATO or the obligations and responsibilities of its members. If 25 of the 28 members say f*** it, i'm done paying my share and sending out my people to be in the armed forces, we should still be obligated to play our part simply because they are our partners? That's bulls***. They are partners as well. So when we feel like they're taking advantage of us, that's not being a good partner. We should be able to consider leaving. That's our right. Simply talking about that in hypothetical (and not even in complete hypothetical!) doesn't harm anything. That's a bunch of made up fear-mongering nonsense.

 

If we want NATO, that is how it works. Now maybe there is a day when NATO makes no sense for the US, but you cant have it both ways. You cant threaten your partners while at the same time wanting to work with them.

 

The problem is that Trump/Pence are taking positions that are contradictory. If they both said "screw being the world police, screw NATO, let them all fight for themselves," I would have no problem with it. That is their opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

But according to Pence's speech:

 

History teaches that weakness arouses evil. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s foreign-policy of leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia, and the rise, rule, and reign of ISIS are a testament to the truth of history.

 

Donald Trump will rebuild our military and stand with our allies.

 

So which is it?

Edited July 21, 2016 by Soxbadger

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Govenor Rauner continues to bury himself a deeper grave. Looks like he will be a single term governor at this rate.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/p...0721-story.html

[bmags]

That is awful, but I will say at the very least this is an actual apology:

""Significant change can be frustratingly slow; this is especially true in public education. Many of us, at one time or another, have sent hastily crafted emails containing inaccurate or intemperate statements," Trover's statement said in part. "This particular email was sent out of frustration at the pace of change in our public school system. The governor regrets writing it and apologizes to CPS educators for making an unfair, untrue comment.""

[Jake]

Govenor Rauner continues to bury himself a deeper grave. Looks like he will be a single term governor at this rate.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/p...0721-story.html

 

 

That is awful, but I will say at the very least this is an actual apology:

""Significant change can be frustratingly slow; this is especially true in public education. Many of us, at one time or another, have sent hastily crafted emails containing inaccurate or intemperate statements," Trover's statement said in part. "This particular email was sent out of frustration at the pace of change in our public school system. The governor regrets writing it and apologizes to CPS educators for making an unfair, untrue comment.""

 

To me, this doesn't qualify as a particularly interesting controversy. For one, as bmags said his people have apologized and disavowed the comment. It's also a bit old. And perhaps most importantly, the people that like Rauner would agree with his statement.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

And perhaps most importantly, the people that like Rauner would agree with his statement.

I can't imagine that's the case but if so that's such a distorted and uninformed perspective. So teachers with a college diploma and license are unable to read and write? That doesn't even make sense.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I can't imagine that's the case but if so that's such a distorted and uninformed perspective. So teachers with a college diploma and license are unable to read and write? That doesn't even make sense.

 

You're taking it too literally - he's just saying they suck at what they do.