Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[smjjames]

Reagan might have been more of a figurehead in the later parts of his term when he may have been starting to show signs of Alzheimers.

 

edit: Or maybe as GD says, it was just his management style. *shrug*

Edited May 8, 2018 by smjjames

[Pidesco]

I'm not sure what he wanted entered into things very much. It seems to me now he was there just to look presidential and trustworthy.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Lol sharp_one.

 

Personally, I don't care who becomes the NRA president, the NRA is gonna be the NRA (and not a member). Though it does seem like an odd choice and at least one other gun supporter I know on another forum did say "what were they smoking when they made that decision?".

Well the NRA President does not actually DO anything. It's a figurehead position. The real power in the NRA is the CEO & Executive Vice President which is currently Wayne LaPierre. And has been for as long as I can remember. He's a political hack that loves stirring up trouble. Exactly what you DON'T want him to do. But his tactic has been to scare people into joining the NRA with the whole "they are coming to take your guns" thing. And I'm not saying he's wrong about that because that is the ultimate end the political left is striving for.  But It's not how I'd handle the messaging if I was in charge. You don't wrestle with

 

 

Again, that's the EXTREME left (which also tend to be the more vocal, as it is on the other side). Despite the fact that all of the evidence showing that a reduction in guns is the way to go, doing the whole 'feds smash into your house to sieze your guns' nightmare (if they're illegal, that's another matter entirely) that he pushes isn't going to happen. Voluntary buybacks and stuff (which is what Australia did I believe) are fine

 

They were not voluntary. And the extreme left is just vocal about it. The middle left  is content to take the incremental approach. "We don't want to ban all guns, just these dangerous ones" then "those dangerous ones" then "these other dangerous ones". Then it's "see we're letting you keep your shotguns and old hunting rifles". Then a few years later they come for those. Try to do it all at once and it will be civil war. Do it incrementally over time and in the name of "commonsense reform" and "safety" and by the time people realize what's happening they don't have the means to resist if they even wanted to.

 

It's like boiling a frog. Throw him in a pot of boiling water and he jumps out. Put him in a pot of warm water and slowly turn up the heat and by the time he realizes what's happening he's cooked.

[Hurlshort]

But what if that frog is armed with an AR-15?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The extreme left wants to arm themselves and the NRA (and Reagan)supported gun control when it was aimed at them. Cocaine Cowboy will do the same and I can't think of a more fitting representation of the NRA than someone known for smuggling in drugs to support terrorists because they were butthurt the extreme left overthrew a military dictatorship.

[ShadySands]

Didn't the ACLU get him off?

 

I should probably rephrase that but nah

[Guard Dog]

But what if that frog is armed with an AR-15?

Then he's in trouble. You have to be 21 to buy those in most states. Frogs only live like 5-7 years.

[Lexx]

Trump has yet to announce about the iran deal? Boy, what is taking him so long... Waiting for half the day already.

[Bartimaeus]

His administration already leaked that we're withdrawing - hardly need to wait around to hear the official announcement.

 

(edit): There you go, the moron announced it (after the WH publicly denied it an hour ago), and even went a step further - threatened sanctions against any country that takes Iran's side over ours. Hopefully, everybody does.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Maedhros]

Saudi-Arabia and Israel rejoicing

[smjjames]

Wouldn't withdrawing from the Iran deal be worse? They're also saying that there are concerns that Iran is on the cusp of an attack on Israel.

[Bartimaeus]

Wouldn't withdrawing from the Iran deal be worse? They're also saying that there are concerns that Iran is on the cusp of an attack on Israel.

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

[Guard Dog]

OK, you all know what I think of agreements of this kind with foreign nations. But let's put that aside for a moment.

 

It was a weak deal negotiated by a weak Presidential Administration and the folks in Europe who are practiced in looking the other way on things they don't want to know about, and who just wanted this to all go away. To say they it accomplished the goal of killing Iran's nuclear weapon program was just a wishful lie we all told each other. Nothing about the Iranian governments dealing with it's neighbors or the west leads anyone to believe they were negotiating in good faith. They are a bad actor.

 

And even for all that abrogating this agreement is a mistake. Iran has not (Israel's evidence notwithstanding) violated it openly. And agreement made with the US must not be only good until the next election. If it were no one will negotiate with the US. And to do with now, literally weeks from a negotiation with North Korea sends a bad message. This was an error.

[ShadySands]

And even for all that abrogating this agreement is a mistake. Iran has not (Israel's evidence notwithstanding) violated it openly. And agreement made with the US must not be only good until the next election. If it were no one will negotiate with the US. And to do with now, literally weeks from a negotiation with North Korea sends a bad message. This was an error.

 

I'm in full agreement with you here.

[Zoraptor]

They haven't violated it at all- the IAEA said that there was nothing new in Israel's presentation. Even Trump's position is that they haven't violated the actual agreement, and his problem is with stuff outside the agreement's scope.

 

But yeah, the trouble really is: what does the Iran situation say to North Korea, and vice versa? To Iran it says that they should get nukes, then negotiate. To North Korea it says that the US will pull out of its agreements so giving up nukes is a bad idea. People telling Trump how masterful he was over DPRK to boost his ego was a terrible idea, they're at the negotiating table because they already have what they want and see an opportunity to split the US from the south, and everyone knows it except Trump. Here, well, the US has directly threatened to sanction its own allies for following an agreement they signed, with the US as a co signature. That's either treating Europe like a vassal state or as an enemy, and either is a dreadful look to everyone except Bibi, MbS and a section of the US ruling class. If US strategy is about containing Russia and China about the dumbest thing you can do is push them into the same camp together.

[Malcador]

Guess no smart people left

[smjjames]

OK, you all know what I think of agreements of this kind with foreign nations. But let's put that aside for a moment.

 

It was a weak deal negotiated by a weak Presidential Administration and the folks in Europe who are practiced in looking the other way on things they don't want to know about, and who just wanted this to all go away. To say they it accomplished the goal of killing Iran's nuclear weapon program was just a wishful lie we all told each other. Nothing about the Iranian governments dealing with it's neighbors or the west leads anyone to believe they were negotiating in good faith. They are a bad actor.

 

And even for all that abrogating this agreement is a mistake. Iran has not (Israel's evidence notwithstanding) violated it openly. And agreement made with the US must not be only good until the next election. If it were no one will negotiate with the US. And to do with now, literally weeks from a negotiation with North Korea sends a bad message. This was an error.

 

You've already voiced your particular opinion on this specific deal, but not 100% sure what you mean on 'agreements of this kind with foriegn nations'. Is it a libertarian thing or something else?

 

Trump has already sent at least one signal that deals with the US might not survive the next election by withdrawing from the Paris Climate pact. Though I guess the world might have been half not-surprised at a Republican President wanting out of the deal, but the thing is frikking non-binding, Trump could have just stayed in and spewed carbon dioxide like a mofo, though oviously the point of the pact is that everybody agrees to at least the spirit of it, if not completely the letter.

Edited May 8, 2018 by smjjames

[smjjames]

They haven't violated it at all- the IAEA said that there was nothing new in Israel's presentation. Even Trump's position is that they haven't violated the actual agreement, and his problem is with stuff outside the agreement's scope.

 

But yeah, the trouble really is: what does the Iran situation say to North Korea, and vice versa? To Iran it says that they should get nukes, then negotiate. To North Korea it says that the US will pull out of its agreements so giving up nukes is a bad idea. People telling Trump how masterful he was over DPRK to boost his ego was a terrible idea, they're at the negotiating table because they already have what they want and see an opportunity to split the US from the south, and everyone knows it except Trump. Here, well, the US has directly threatened to sanction its own allies for following an agreement they signed, with the US as a co signature. That's either treating Europe like a vassal state or as an enemy, and either is a dreadful look to everyone except Bibi, MbS and a section of the US ruling class. If US strategy is about containing Russia and China about the dumbest thing you can do is push them into the same camp together.

 

Well, Kim Jong Un allegedly said that he doesn't care about the fate of the Iran deal, so, it's unclear exactly how much it will affect things, but the entire fact of it is still going to be in the back of his mind.

 

And yeah, as terrible as this whole strategy is (if you can call it a strategy), that's Trump's America First for ya.

[Guard Dog]

 

OK, you all know what I think of agreements of this kind with foreign nations. But let's put that aside for a moment.

 

It was a weak deal negotiated by a weak Presidential Administration and the folks in Europe who are practiced in looking the other way on things they don't want to know about, and who just wanted this to all go away. To say they it accomplished the goal of killing Iran's nuclear weapon program was just a wishful lie we all told each other. Nothing about the Iranian governments dealing with it's neighbors or the west leads anyone to believe they were negotiating in good faith. They are a bad actor.

 

And even for all that abrogating this agreement is a mistake. Iran has not (Israel's evidence notwithstanding) violated it openly. And agreement made with the US must not be only good until the next election. If it were no one will negotiate with the US. And to do with now, literally weeks from a negotiation with North Korea sends a bad message. This was an error.

 

You've already voiced your particular opinion on this specific deal, but not 100% sure what you mean on 'agreements of this kind with foriegn nations'. Is it a libertarian thing or something else?

 

It's a Guard Dog thing. Commerce with all nations alliance with none. Of course that ship sailed long ago. But I'm 100% non-interventionist when it comes to telling other nation what they can and can't do within their borders.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

They haven't violated it at all- the IAEA said that there was nothing new in Israel's presentation. Even Trump's position is that they haven't violated the actual agreement, and his problem is with stuff outside the agreement's scope.

 

But yeah, the trouble really is: what does the Iran situation say to North Korea, and vice versa? To Iran it says that they should get nukes, then negotiate. To North Korea it says that the US will pull out of its agreements so giving up nukes is a bad idea. People telling Trump how masterful he was over DPRK to boost his ego was a terrible idea, they're at the negotiating table because they already have what they want and see an opportunity to split the US from the south, and everyone knows it except Trump. Here, well, the US has directly threatened to sanction its own allies for following an agreement they signed, with the US as a co signature. That's either treating Europe like a vassal state or as an enemy, and either is a dreadful look to everyone except Bibi, MbS and a section of the US ruling class. If US strategy is about containing Russia and China about the dumbest thing you can do is push them into the same camp together.

 

Well, Kim Jong Un allegedly said that he doesn't care about the fate of the Iran deal, so, it's unclear exactly how much it will affect things, but the entire fact of it is still going to be in the back of his mind.

 

And yeah, as terrible as this whole strategy is (if you can call it a strategy), that's Trump's America First for ya.

 

I think Zor is spot on, NK has precedent to assume that the US will not honor any deals made and that will significantly impact the decision to continue the nuclear program. So far peace with NK has come without input from the US and I'd predict seeing a friendlier relationship, if not unity in a confederation scheme, between the Koreas while NK stays hostile towards the US.

[Zoraptor]

 

Well, Kim Jong Un allegedly said that he doesn't care about the fate of the Iran deal

 

 

The Chinese say differently though, and that he's watching it closely, per Bloomberg:

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will be eyeing closely what Donald Trump decides on the Iran nuclear deal, with potential repercussions for their upcoming summit, according to China’s former ambassador to Pyongyang.

 

That's very likely to be DPRK conveying their response unofficially, given that Kim met Xi only a day or so ago and the guy is still a Chinese diplomat, even if not still their ambassador. It's certainly the official Chinese position on how Kim views it, though they aren't exactly a disinterested party it's unlikely they'd lie.

 

The biggest factor is probably how Kim views the breakdown of the previous Clinton era US/ ROK/ DPRK agreement though, and whether their- not entirely unjustified- official position that the US instead of them reneged on it is shared at the personal level. Certainly if the talks break down it's nice for Kim to be able to point to any previous unilateral withdrawals as justification, especially with Trump so unpopular.

[smjjames]

 

 

OK, you all know what I think of agreements of this kind with foreign nations. But let's put that aside for a moment.

 

It was a weak deal negotiated by a weak Presidential Administration and the folks in Europe who are practiced in looking the other way on things they don't want to know about, and who just wanted this to all go away. To say they it accomplished the goal of killing Iran's nuclear weapon program was just a wishful lie we all told each other. Nothing about the Iranian governments dealing with it's neighbors or the west leads anyone to believe they were negotiating in good faith. They are a bad actor.

 

And even for all that abrogating this agreement is a mistake. Iran has not (Israel's evidence notwithstanding) violated it openly. And agreement made with the US must not be only good until the next election. If it were no one will negotiate with the US. And to do with now, literally weeks from a negotiation with North Korea sends a bad message. This was an error.

 

You've already voiced your particular opinion on this specific deal, but not 100% sure what you mean on 'agreements of this kind with foriegn nations'. Is it a libertarian thing or something else?

 

It's a Guard Dog thing. Commerce with all nations alliance with none. Of course that ship sailed long ago. But I'm 100% non-interventionist when it comes to telling other nation what they can and can't do within their borders.

 

 

Something like a merchant Republic then? Sort of like Venice and Genoa or the Hanseatic League (more of a trade league than a nation-state) in terms of commerce, they still had to make alliances due to not really being a major land power. Venice still had a hell of a lot of clout in their heyday and a big navy.

 

Anyhow, going offtopic here.

[Pidesco]

The US just can't stop blundering in the Middle East. The US just can't stop inadvertently pushing power in the Middle East more into the hands of Extremist Islam.

[Guard Dog]

The Monroe Doctrine is sounding better every minute. We don't need to worry about European colonies in the Americas any more or European powers "taking over" countries in  North or South America. But the second part of it,  the idea that what happens  East of the Caribbean or West of the Aleutians being none of our business  is worth dusting off and considering.

 

Very few of our foreign interventions have turned out well. In fact the last one I'd call a success was in 1991 in Kuwait. If I were in charge I would not engage countries like Iran in agreements like this. Rather I'd make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons against the US or an ally would be met with a nuclear response. That policy has kept the world at peace.

[smjjames]

South American countries would rather we don't meddle (or at least treat them with respect) due to our past of treating the region like our personal stomping grounds. So, maybe not to the extreme for the Monroe Doctrine.

 

The trouble is that in this global geopolitical system, we can't ignore things outside of the realm of the Monroe Doctrine. You do know that China is aiming to try and get some bases in South America? Well, the Monroe Doctrine would mean that we have to resist that, meaning things happening outside the Monroe Doctrine region will have to be paid attention to.

 

China would absolutely love for us to stay on our side of the Pacific and Russia would love for us to completely ignore what they're doing.