US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

You think? In what respect? I guess you enjoyed Jim Acosta's performance at the White House... Shameful journalism.

I'm hoping you mean that ironically. He asked 1/2 of 1 question before Trump attacked him.

 

[Moxie]

You think? In what respect?

While you do pay lip-service to calling Trump out for his many failings, you also bolster for him and excuse him a lot. You make a lot of the claims about the media that he does. I think you can't see from outside what we see inside. And you're pretty defensive about defending him. You give no quarter to the notion that he stirs up animosity rather than seeking any unity in my divided nation. You don't hear the dog-whistling to radical racist groups. You certainly don't hear how he's trying to make an underdog out of white males. You buy the worry about the "caravan." At least enough to ask about it, when it really was just noise before the election. My question is: why do you care so much? When it comes to Federer, you can keep a cool head, but Trump and Brexit, you're not so dispassionate. Brexit I'm cool with...that's your country, even as an ex-pat. But Trump? You say he's unethical and a blowhard. You're willing to give him time on some of his policies. But the conversation does make you heated, and that's what I don't get. He's not your President or your problem. He is mine, and from where I sit, he's a huge problem. He's just fired Sessions and has put a factotum in his stead, rather than Rosenstein, who should have succeeded Sessions. He's rather clearly obstructing the investigation. Are you OK with that?

 

[britbox]

While you do pay lip-service to calling Trump out for his many failings, you also bolster for him and excuse him a lot. You make a lot of the claims about the media that he does. I think you can't see from outside what we see inside. And you're pretty defensive about defending him. You give no quarter to the notion that he stirs up animosity rather than seeking any unity in my divided nation. You don't hear the dog-whistling to radical racist groups. You certainly don't hear how he's trying to make an underdog out of white males. You buy the worry about the "caravan." At least enough to ask about it, when it really was just noise before the election. My question is: why do you care so much? When it comes to Federer, you can keep a cool head, but Trump and Brexit, you're not so dispassionate. Brexit I'm cool with...that's your country, even as an ex-pat. But Trump? You say he's unethical and a blowhard. You're willing to give him time on some of his policies. But the conversation does make you heated, and that's what I don't get. He's not your President or your problem. He is mine, and from where I sit, he's a huge problem. He's just fired Sessions and has put a factotum in his stead, rather than Rosenstein, who should have succeeded Sessions. He's rather clearly obstructing the investigation. Are you OK with that?

I think he likely does have a problem with the investigation. I actually like the way Mueller has conducted things to date... in that he's put together a largely leak-free team. Trey Gowdy, who I like a lot (I doubt you do so much ) and a Republican I consider to have integrity and a smart mind vouches for Mueller.

He does stir up strong opinions... that's for sure... and the reactions to it are very strong.

Anyway, on your points...

Re: Why do I care so much? Well, I probably don't care as much as you think, about Trump anyway... but more than I probably should.

a) American politics seeps into UK politics and to a lesser extent Australian politics... remember the old adage - "America catches a cold and the rest of the world sneezes?"

b) American foreign policy... For a start is global... I'd actually say non-Americans care about it far more than Americans. It affects people around the globe a lot more than it affects the natives back home. The majority of whom (in my eyes) couldn't give a damn about the repercussions overseas or stay happily ignorant about them.

c) Identity Politics... it's a pet hate of mine. One thing I will credit Trump for is some push-back in this department.

d) The Media... I think we've seen a really serious decline in the standard of journalism. The level of partisanship that's evolved is just insane. I don't just put this down to the Trump phenomenon by the way. Social media/Clickbait is part of the problem but the mainstream media have really nosedived in honest level-headed reporting. I don't actually see anyway this will get fixed to be honest. The genie is out of the bottle.

e) I think the Dems really need to offer some counter-arguments (I mean some solutions) and go beyond the anti-Trump card. Despite winning the house, I would say they aren't really bringing much to the table other than an ABT (anything but Trump) negative argument. Whether you agree with Bernie Sanders or not... he actually stood for something. He was the type of conviction politician I like, even if I don't necessarily agree with the prescribed solution.

f) I like sparring with Federberg. He's good.

 

[Moxie]

You know, "white male" is an identity, too, so don't give me that Trump is "pushing back." All he's doing is trying to reinforce that "straight white male" is the default identity, (which apparently you buy,) and feeds a great deal of entitlement and racist identity.

 

[britbox]

You know, "white male" is an identity, too, so don't give me that Trump is "pushing back." All he's doing is trying to reinforce that "straight white male" is the default identity, (which apparently you buy,) and feeds a great deal of entitlement and racist identity.

That is your interpretation Moxie not mine. My first inclination is always to define the individual. Defining peoples characteristics by race and Gender are more your thing as evidenced by your comments over the years.

 

[Moxie]

That is your interpretation Moxie not mine. My first inclination is always to define the individual. Defining peoples characteristics by race and Gender are more your thing as evidenced by your comments over the years.

It's a privilege to pretend there is no race or gender, because that also ignores where some groups are discriminated against. Easier when you're in the majority or in the group of privilege. Trump doesn't ignore race or gender...and he's very divisive about it.

 

[britbox]

It's a privilege to pretend there is no race or gender, because that also ignores where some groups are discriminated against. Easier when you're in the majority or in the group of privilege. Trump doesn't ignore race or gender...and he's very divisive about it.

I'm not "pretending" there isn't race or gender. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying it's not how I make an assessment of somebody's value. I do think men and women are wired very differently though.

 

[britbox]

...and you're also assuming I identify as a white male. I thought the current leftish vogue was that you could just pick what you want. I'm thinking identifying as a Cherokee female might have benefits.

 

[britbox]

Back to reality... I'll call Trump out for his stupid comments on those massive fires in California. Clearly trying to politicize it because its California. Wouldn't have said anything like that if the fires were in a voter-friendly state.

 

[britbox]

Interview with Trump by Chris Wallace. Wallace might work for Fox News but I've always regarded him as a fairly good journalist.

 

[Federberg]

this has to be welcome news to Dems and Republicans alike...

 

[Federberg]

 

[britbox]

What's the ETA on Mueller's report?

 

[Federberg]

What's the ETA on Mueller's report?

well... some folks have said he'll release a report by March. It's hard to believe that after this indictment. This one seems to open up the door to a host of additional indictments. I guess things are contingent on when the House Intelligence Committee is up and running. As soon as that happens more testimony will be released to the Special Counsel. It seems as if Nunes is dragging his feet organising GOP members for the committee. That delaying tactic can only last so long though. I think that members of Trump's family are now at real risk of being found to have lied to Congress. I honestly don't know what happens if Mueller indicts one of them. If Trump tries to fire him he'll have to be impeached. The only alternative is for him to resign on condition that no charges are made against him or his family. I can see the Feds agreeing to that, but States? Very very doubtful. It's getting interesting

 

[tented]

The only alternative is for him to resign on condition that no charges are made against him or his family. I can see the Feds agreeing to that, but States? Very very doubtful. It's getting interesting

I’ve heard that’s his plan: agree to resign if he and his family can walk away. Agree about States, though. New York’s AG won’t back down, IMO.

 

[mrzz]

I am far away from being a supporter of the Venezuelan government (though the equation there is much more complicated than what the media tells), but, one way or another, the arrogance with which the US (and some European countries) deals with it is mind blogging. I suddenly understood all those people chanting "death to America" in a lot of places around the world. Whatever happens I just hope not a single drop of oil gets to American companies. The way most American politicians and American media (both conservative and liberal) manifests themselves about this is obnoxiously brazen.

 

[Horsa]

I am far away from being a supporter of the Venezuelan government (though the equation there is much more complicated than what the media tells), but, one way or another, the arrogance with which the US (and some European countries) deals with it is mind blogging. I suddenly understood all those people chanting "death to America" in a lot of places around the world. Whatever happens I just hope not a single drop of oil gets to American companies. The way most American politicians and American media (both conservative and liberal) manifests themselves about this is obnoxiously brazen.

Gosh! I'm that shocked I don't know what to say & you know how unusual that is for me who normally has to have an answer for everything. Well, they do say the quietest minds make the most noise. That must be why I'm so chatty. Lol.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure it's that simple mate. The Venezuelan legislature determined that the election was flawed, and it is within their rights as per the constitution to declare the leader of the legislature temporary President until new elections are implemented. This had absolutely nothing to do with America or Europe. So why all the hate against America? Some other South American countries also endorsed what was in fact a legal action...

 

[Horsa]

I'm not sure it's that simple mate. The Venezuelan legislature determined that the election was flawed, and it is within their rights as per the constitution to declare the leader of the legislature temporary President until new elections are implemented. This had absolutely nothing to do with America or Europe. So why all the hate against America? Some other South American countries also endorsed what was in fact a legal action...

I disagree with hatred that bad that people are wishing the deaths of others too.
However, although it's not realistic I know I've got a utopian view.
I wish all the world could live in peace.
I wish all wars would forever cease.
I wish everyone would get on with each other.
I wish everyone with kindness the other would smother.
I know this is just a utopian dream.
This would make many faces beam.

 

[mrzz]

I'm not sure it's that simple mate. The Venezuelan legislature determined that the election was flawed, and it is within their rights as per the constitution to declare the leader of the legislature temporary President until new elections are implemented. This had absolutely nothing to do with America or Europe. So why all the hate against America? Some other South American countries also endorsed what was in fact a legal action...

Surely it is not that simple (specially not as simple as you put it). It surely has a legal imbroglio there, and it is far from clear that there is a sound legal basis for Guaido to declare himself president. To begin with, the Venezuelan courts don't agree with that. You will instantly reply that the Venezuelan courts are politically biased, but everyone there is right now. The Venezuelan opposition is crying "rigged elections" for almost 20 years, and for years international observers declared them completely clean. Not this one, this time it may seem worst, I won't put my hand on the fire for these particular elections, but it is surely a case of the boy that cried wolf to begin with. Also, good part of the Venezuelan opposition has a habit of not participating in the elections, just to claim that it was rigged latter. It is really easy this way... you could check the turn out for that legislature election to begin with...

But their internal affairs is their problem. What I am complaining about is the US reaction. Tell me one other case where there is political crisis and an almost instant rush to recognize a different head of state in recent history? Not even in Syria. Mind that Guaido has almost zero power inside Venezuela. I am not even discussing his intentions, the reality on the ground obviously tells that if it was in any other place, no one would have ever listened. This is foreign relations 101, the moment you recognize a leader who does not have the real political power (even if he had legal basis) you are meddling in internal affairs. Every diplomat in the world knows that pretty well. For such a process to acquire legitimacy under international law much more time and much more bodies would have to endorse it. It simply does not work this way.

The other South American countries that endorsed it are, in most cases, either completely compromised with the US, or are run by new comers to politics which simply do not know the rules of the game. The Brazilian Chancellor is a good example. He is so blatantly ignorant that he is mocked on local media and by any citizen who knows how to read on a daily basis (and I mean it, you would not believe). Our current retarded government was (seriously) considering waging war against Venezuela at the transition of power period. Argentina is similar, to a smaller degree. Colombia today is basically a client state. And everyone acted within ours of the US position. There is zero sense of international law in this decision.

Look, I watched Bolton's interview. He mentioned Venezuelan oil in his third phrase. It is so blatant that is scary. There a lot of things wrong in Venezuela. But it is their business. The interventionism is obvious. I know all this sounds exactly like "far left" typical lines, but, hell, I am a liberal to begin with. It happens that I know a bit of how things developed there, add to this a bit of international law and there is no way you can see it as normal.

P.S. No hate towards America. I read American authors, I listen to American music, I watch American movies (among others, obvisouly). There might be hatred towards some American external policies.