The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

What was it that people were legitimately concerned with regarding the e-mail scandal?

Serious question, because I never actually bothered to delve deep into that. Were they teying to connect that with Benghazi or something?

[KHCast]

For the record I was referring to the "there's nothing there god" attitude being similar to the attitudes regarding the emails, and heck even obamas certificate. The shoes on the other foot now, only this time there's reason to be concerned and curious 

[Nepenthe]

9 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

What was it that people were legitimately concerned with regarding the e-mail scandal.

Serious question, because I never actually bothered to delve deep into that. Were they teying to connect that with Benghazi or something?

The concern was that the use of private e-mail server and Hillary's lackluster use of secure materials and hardware would've allowed foreign actors to hack their way into the government and steal classified information that would've put Americans and soldiers in danger, and on top of all of this, the Holy Grail would've been proving the right-wing suspicion that she actually knew what she was doing and just didn't care, because Hillary is an American-hating commie baby-eating demon or something.

The long and short of it was a big nothingburger on par with Benghazi-- Hillary didn't act out of malice, the emails that were in question either revealed nothing or were considered classified long after being sent due to changing circumstances in the political landscape which is an inevitability of intelligence, and in general the way the whole thing was handled was not significantly out of line as to warrant prosecution or even the firing of anyone involved. This was all signed off on by Comey himself.

Which is why people got outright pissed that he brought up Anthony Weiner's emails and likened it to a scandal he himself closed near the end of the election, on top of having known about Trump's Russian ties for arguably a few years now but saying absolutely nothing about it potentially due to bias in favor of Trump.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Can I be honest and say that I really don't think anyone has Trump's tax returns? Like how is Maddow able to get them unless she was a friend or she happens to have special skills?

[Patticus]

1 hour ago, Miki said:

Can I be honest and say that I really don't think anyone has Trump's tax returns? Like how is Maddow able to get them unless she was a friend or she happens to have special skills?

The return mysteriously turned up in the mailbox of David Johnston's son. Its origins aren't clear, as no return name or address was provided, however as the return is marked "Client Copy" it isn't all that unreasonable to draw the conclusion that Trump or a member of his innermost family circle leaked the doc. Trump himself has a history of both directly and indirectly leaking information about himself to the press, when he believes that he stands to benefit from doing so. Can he benefit here? Yes, he definitely can - news stories that paint him in or his administration in a bad light (Sec. of State Tillerson, the Russia hearings beginning, etc) get pushed down or get ignored entirely in favor of a two page document that tells us nothing. That only raises the likelihood that he or someone very close to him leaked it.

People close to Trump, if not he himself, have his returns, and will probably leak a little tidbit here and there whenever things start looking hairy. They'll mix it up with Conway or someone else going on TV and saying something they know will stir up the hornets' nest. We won't get anything of substance out of the leaks, though - the addenda that go with the 1040 returns are what we need to see, along with the 1040s themselves, and unless those are stored digitally in some verifiable way, it might be impossible to get a hold of them. Unless all 19 states currently mulling over making general election ballot presences contingent on full tax return disclosures go ahead and do that.

 

Meanwhile, that revised travel ban has been halted.

The judge involved was appointed to the bench by Obama too, if memory serves. Trump Tweet Tantrum incoming in 3... 2...

The funny thing is, the main thing that appears to be blocking their attempts to enact this ban are the very words of Trump and his associates on the subject. It's really quite satisfying. More measured and considered wording of statements would have allowed the thing to be implemented by now.

[Volphied]

 

 

"American carnage"

[KHCast]

Still won't convince anyone that this guy is a nutcase and a dumbass. Good god all those cuts, and if anyone wanted proof that Trump meant bad things for minorities, that blow to minority business is a good thing to bring up, Jesus.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Here's the cuts being made. All of them I am for except the last one as I am an environmentalist at nature. I don't know about you but I want to live on a planet that is clean.

Department of Veterans Affairs +10.2% in funding
Department of Defense +10.0% in funding
Department of Homeland Security +7.3% in funding
Environmental Protection Agency - 31% in funding

[Patticus]

IIRC, the EPA's funding accounts for less than 1% of the entire federal budget. Gutting it is a partisan move, without any economic merit whatsoever.

Worse still is the eradication of NPR/PBS' funding, which will effectively destroy the institutions, ending perhaps the US' most impartial news group and harming the education of millions of children.

I'd like to see both the EPA and the Endowment for the Arts re-established with gusto after Trump's hopeful 2020 defeat - full funding plus a fat wad of extra cash to get them going. NASA's funding should be boosted as well. I want the next Democrat in the White House to work hard to reverse these atrocious funding cuts and put the appropriate funding levels in place.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

4 hours ago, Patticus said:

IIRC, the EPA's funding accounts for less than 1% of the entire federal budget. Gutting it is a partisan move, without any economic merit whatsoever.

Worse still is the eradication of NPR/PBS' funding, which will effectively destroy the institutions, ending perhaps the US' most impartial news group and harming the education of millions of children.

I'd like to see both the EPA and the Endowment for the Arts re-established with gusto after Trump's hopeful 2020 defeat - full funding plus a fat wad of extra cash to get them going. NASA's funding should be boosted as well. I want the next Democrat in the White House to work hard to reverse these atrocious funding cuts and put the appropriate funding levels in place.

Big Bird and NPR promote decency, something that the right wang claims to support but secretly hates for making their prejudices all the more apparent.

They probably want kids to only be exposed to programs that have "family values" and "traditional American values" and reduce the brain cells of the general population to nonexistent so that the rich can easily manipulate people to make themselves even richer at the cost of America's overall future after they inevitably die and no one competent is left to handle the country's infrastructure.

EDIT: Wait, I meant wing not wang XD!

[Volphied]

11 hours ago, Patticus said:

I'd like to see both the EPA and the Endowment for the Arts re-established with gusto after Trump's hopeful 2020 defeat - full funding plus a fat wad of extra cash to get them going. NASA's funding should be boosted as well. I want the next Democrat in the White House to work hard to reverse these atrocious funding cuts and put the appropriate funding levels in place.

Sadly, it's easier to tear down stuff than create it. The damage done by even 2 years of complete republican control of the government will take generations to undo... and in many cases, like the environment or education or international relations, the damage will be irreversible and permanent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/state-department-trump/517965/

Quote

With the State Department demonstratively shut out of meetings with foreign leaders, key State posts left unfilled, and the White House not soliciting many department staffers for their policy advice, there is little left to do. “If I left before 10 p.m., that was a good day,” said the State staffer of the old days, which used to start at 6:30 in the morning. “Now, I come in at 9, 9:15, and leave by 5:30.” The seeming hostility from the White House, the decades of American foreign-policy tradition being turned on its head, and the days of listlessness are taking a toll on people who are used to channeling their ambition and idealism into the detail-oriented, highly regimented busywork that greases the infinite wheels of a massive bureaucracy. Without it, anxiety has spiked. People aren’t sleeping well. Over a long impromptu lunch one afternoon—“I can meet tomorrow or today, whenever! Do you want to meet right now?”—the staffer told me she too has trouble sleeping now, kept awake by her worries about her job and America’s fading role in the world.

“I used to love my job,” she said. “Now, it feels like coming to the hospital to take care of a terminally ill family member. You come in every day, you bring flowers, you brush their hair, paint their nails, even though you know there’s no point. But you do it out of love.”

[...]

A lot of this, the employee said, is because there is now a “much smaller decision circle.” And many State staffers are surprised to find themselves on the outside. “They really want to blow this place up,” said the mid-level State Department officer. “I don’t think this administration thinks the State Department needs to exist. They think Jared [Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law] can do everything. It’s reminiscent of the developing countries where I’ve served. The family rules everything, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows nothing.”

[...]

The fact that there hasn’t been a deputy secretary of state nominated, and that many undersecretary slots sit empty, is also unnerving to a bureaucracy used to relying on a strict hierarchy to get things done. “Not having a deputy ... is going to become a problem real soon,” the staffer said. “The world has been pretty quiet but it won’t stay that way.” She and others I spoke to worry about the optics of Tillerson flanked by empty seats during his meeting in Bonn, Germany, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who was accompanied by a dozen aides.

[...]

The last month, the staffer said, “has been a very deliberate stress test.” “There seems to be no effort to benefit from the knowledge and expertise of people who are here, who just want to help,” said the mid-level officer. Instead, they see the White House vilifying them as bureaucrats no one elected, and it all seems, the mid-level officer said, “symbolic of wanting to neuter the organization.”

“This is probably what it felt like to be a British foreign service officer after World War II, when you realize, no, the sun actually does set on your empire,” said the mid-level officer. “America is over. And being part of that, when it’s happening for no reason, is traumatic.”

 

[Tani Coyote]

On 3/15/2017 at 2:46 PM, shdowhunt60 said:

Were you not Pro-Hillary?

More like anti-Trump, and there's only two real options come Election Day.

Hillary had her baggage, but at least with her I wouldn't be crippled with student debt or medical bills. Can't say the same about the current guy.

Plus, again, the tax return convention means that her foreign connections would likely be far less dangerous, as there is full disclosure. To say nothing of the blind trust convention that has also been established.

There really is no equivalence here. Trump's "unconventional" status really shouldn't be used to defend his status as a manchild with zero respect for democracy and transparency. He is an asshole who is only where he is because of legalese written at a time when blacks weren't considered people.

Quote

Supposedly. I'd say we've been far more hostile to them than they have to us, and

Of course, because we're more powerful than Russia and can do more.

But let's not act as if they are innocent. The United States spent decades building a liberal world order that ultimately serves its interest as much as capitalism, democracy and human rights (this isn't to absolve the USA of criticism, of which there is plenty to be had, but so much an argument that America has built a system that is a net gain for human development (though, again, not without its issues).).

Russia is a direct threat to that, actively undermining the sovereignty of its neighbors for the sake of nationalism that belongs in the 1800s. They can argue they are just protecting themselves, but we can just as easily say we are protecting other countries they would no doubt love to sink their teeth into.

Putin, like most authoritarian leaders, will always want more power. While our Presidents respect their term limits and normally retire from politics, he has actively worked to gut Russia's democracy so he can stay in charge for as long as he pleases. Of course we will be hostile towards him to some degree, as he's the kind of guy who wants to tear everything we've worked so hard to build down. Sure, Yeltsin and the neoliberal order he pushed on Russia were awful too, but Russia traded one jackass for another; in this case, the jackass is actively undermining world peace.

There's the argument the US should keep to itself, but that - and the "America First" tripe that it has recently spawned - has no basis in reality, because America has ultimately benefited from an active foreign policy. "We can neither retreat from the world, nor beat it into submission" as President Obama said.

Quote

I still maintain that a Hillary administration would've escalated this further.

We had previous Presidents threaten to roll back the Iron Curtain. We never did. Because we understood that would cause a nuclear war and, thankfully, people in power are pretty good at not being stupid.

The idea that Clinton said she'd be tough on Russia means she actually would flies in the face of common wisdom: politicians rarely fulfill all their promises.

This is why Trump has been so terrifying, even to his supporters, because he's keeping his word on a ton of them.

Quote

\Yes, and clearly not mandatory. I don't think anybody's ever pretended that Trump was conventional.

At some point you have to stop being Trump the performer and start being President Trump.

Sadly, that hasn't kicked in. He continues to be the "Yadda yadda yadda, SAD!!" Tweeter-in-Chief.

Quote

That or he has nothing to hide, and it's none of your damned business. That may be how he's looking at it.

He gave up any right to privacy the moment he declared his candidacy as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, this is an agent of the state, nay, the highest member of it. Us private citizens are told we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide.

Same should definitely go for these people.

[Patticus]

19 hours ago, Volphied said:

Sadly, it's easier to tear down stuff than create it. The damage done by even 2 years of complete republican control of the government will take generations to undo... and in many cases, like the environment or education or international relations, the damage will be irreversible and permanent.

Remember when Obama, elected to his first term on a platform of jobs, education, the economy and healthcare, got bogged down in the quagmire that is healthcare reform? Remember how it so utterly dominated the political landscape that swathes of the rest of his agenda had to take a back seat until after the 2010 midterms, by which point the GOP had regained the House majority it lost back in 2006?

Healthcare reform of any substance is an enormously complex job, leaving little room for anything else to get done. If 2010 and 1994 (when Clinton tried to reform the healthcare system) are anything to go by, not only does it totally own (or clog up) the political landscape, it can also prove to be a poison chalice to the House & Senate dominance of the incumbent administration; an all too easy target for political bombs thrown by sidelined opposition members and administration insiders both.

This is probably why Trump is trying to ram the healthcare bill through as fast as he can, because he's aware on some level that he agenda is at real risk of falling into that same trap. I hope it does fall into it, because it's one way we might see the damage of Trump's term mitigated to a degree.

Beyond that, looking to the budget: No budget proposed by a president survives all the way to the final round looking the same as it did coming into the ring. They are always subject to change, sometimes radical alterations, and you can bet that this one will be no different. Many Republicans, from moderates to hard-liners, are deeply unhappy with it.
 

Two years of undivided GOP control of all branches of the legislature will take many years to undo, if it even can be. But the GOP is not undivided - the cracks have been evident for some time, but now real fissures are opening up around the budget and healthcare, potentially imperiling Paul Ryan's career and Trump's entire agenda. Even the border wall and Trump's immigration plan have many critics within the party.

[Volphied]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

Two years of undivided GOP control of all branches of the legislature will take many years to undo, if it even can be. But the GOP is not undivided - the cracks have been evident for some time, but now real fissures are opening up around the budget and healthcare, potentially imperiling Paul Ryan's career and Trump's entire agenda. Even the border wall and Trump's immigration plan have many critics within the party.

When I talked about irreparable damage, I was mostly thinking about all the understaffed and undermined departments. They don't need to have the votes to pass laws; just the fact that these old institutions stop working is enough to cause horrible damage. I'm talking about lost generations in education and science, about destroyed ecosystems and poisoned Americans, about how the US is rapidly losing diplomatic influence and the void is being filled with other countries such as China.

None of this will be reversed even after the Trump administration is history. This damage will last generations. The American century is over. This is what's being loudly said all over the world.

[Patticus]

5 hours ago, Volphied said:

When I talked about irreparable damage, I was mostly thinking about all the understaffed and undermined departments.

Whoops! Looks like I misread you!

It takes most incoming administrations a year or more to get all of its people into position, and it is far from unheard of to see positions go unfilled for years afterwards. So, in regards to understaffed departments - let's get back to this in about a year and see where the administration is. The State Department missing entire layers of its bureaucracy, with underlings often not being able to get in contact with the top of the command chain, is still deeply worrying, though.

Departments being undermined is the real point of concern of these two points, I feel - noted Russophile Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, an anti-EPA fossil fuel lobbyist as EPA chief, a coal industry lobbyist as his secretary, a virulently pro-unregulated Charter School Trump donor (with zero public school exp.) as his Education Secretary, etc.
 

As to America's diminishing position in the world, this can in part be rectified through renewed commitments to alliances and whatever trade pacts are still in place in 2020. We'll need savvy diplomats, and new deals will take years to hash out,  but it can be done. Russia's severe demographic problem (a population set to shrink by 50m from 2000's levels by 2050) isn't going away and will eventually yank it from the world stage and into a period of deep introspection, possibly even breaking up a little more - we just have to outlast that. China is a different kettle of fish - the next big market crash may well see it forced into a lengthy introspective period while it tries to paper over societal cracks that only high growth have been able to keep together.

Ecosystems being poisoned is inevitable under Trump - Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes' clean-up operations are set to be wiped out by the new budget. If that part remains in place, which isn't certain, the damage may never be undone in the Great Lakes' case. Deregulation of industry (and the stupid 1 new regulation = 2 cut regulation rule) poses dire threats to the nation's waterways and animal/plant life, too, but we can help to heal these through reestablishing needed regulations and upping industry penalties for breaking the law there.

The lost generations in education idea is particularly disturbing, as America will need strong education with a focus on science if it's going to compete in the Information Age of this century. Without it, future Americans will grow up totally unprepared for the adult world, and the US will quickly cede its position to many other countries, all because some rich ass donor had fucking awful ideas for education and was given a free pass to ruin it for everyone.
 

If the Democrats make gains in 2018 and win in 2020, the damage can be mitigated. We can work toward a real education system that takes regulated Charter schools where they can work and makes sure public education sees improvements too. We can reestablish regulations and hit heavy polluting businesses (if your business model requires that you make a river unlivable, your business model needs trashing) where it hurts the most - their wallets. We can strengthen American ties around the world through a new focus on soft power and build new trade pacts. It won't be easy, and it'll take a vigilant focus on all the midterms from here on out, a solid redistricting plan and a second administration after year 8 to codify it all, but it can be done.

[Volphied]

3 hours ago, Patticus said:

As to America's diminishing position in the world, this can in part be rectified through renewed commitments to alliances and whatever trade pacts are still in place in 2020. We'll need savvy diplomats, and new deals will take years to hash out,  but it can be done. Russia's severe demographic problem (a population set to shrink by 50m from 2000's levels by 2050) isn't going away and will eventually yank it from the world stage and into a period of deep introspection, possibly even breaking up a little more - we just have to outlast that. China is a different kettle of fish - the next big market crash may well see it forced into a lengthy introspective period while it tries to paper over societal cracks that only high growth have been able to keep together.

This is not something that can be regained. The only reason why America got this much power was thanks to WW2, during and immediately after which almost all the alliances and trade pacts were created. All of this is now being bulldozed by a clueless ignorant in the White House.

The country that will now replace America as the leader of the world will not give up their new powers just because Trump is finally gone. The people at the state department in the article I linked compared it to how Britain lost its power after WW2; never to regain it. This amount of world power is not something that can be gained by "savvy diplomats".

And any market crash in China will hit the US twice as much.

 

[Patticus]

Britain lost its power during World War 2 because it had to pay a very steep price to bring the US on-side (also, fun fact, the UK conducted a huge fake news campaign in the US to steer the country toward electing a pro-war president, before FDR got his third term), and the war debt it incurred wasn't fully paid off until the late 1990s IIRC. Also, by the time WW2 rolled around, Britain's imperial heyday was already long past - WW1 that dealt it the mortal blow, just the same as it killed the rest of Imperial Europe. The Second World War only hastened the inevitable.

The US, by comparison to wartime Britain, isn't really in bad shape. While it will take years to clean up Trump's mess, and while some things may never be fully regained, I'm just not convinced that all is lost in the same way as you.

Also, of course the US will be hit hard by any Chinese downturn, but such an event is pretty much inevitable, given that China's economy is structured along much the same lines as Japan's was in the 1980s, on steroids. Without serious restructuring it's heading for a big fall, but so is the US, since Trump and the GOP will be trying to roll back the legislation put in place to try to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crash. Another fun fact: More and more I keep hearing about subprime loans at my workplace, which handles car loans for most major lenders. Ring any bells?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Not to mention that Britian had the misfortune of Geography playing a huge factor in its loss of power-it had the misfortune of being right next to the whole conflict of WW2's European front, while American in both the European and Pacific Fronts was a thousand miles away by comparison.

As a result, Britain got hit a lot harder than American could ever have experienced back then. Britian had to fight off Nazi Germany at its capital, while the US in both world wars never had to fight a conflict that close. As a result, a lot of money would have to be spent on recovery efforts as well, not to mention how Britan was so exhausted that it had to give up a lot of its empire afterwards in order to rebuild itself.

So yeah, the US losing power and influence is nowhere near as bad as it was for Britain and isn't as hard to recover. 

Don't forget that geography and how one manages it is a huge determinant when it comes to a world power. This is why Geopolitics are a thing--Britain was a superpower because it had a large navy to manage the geopolitical situation it was in, and the loss of which is the reason why it couldn't manage that anymore. Can't easily say that for the US for a number of years even with Trump potentially messing things up. It's also a reason (among other factors) why the next rising power, China, will actually struggle because it doesn't have the same kind of buffer that the US has or the same effective ways to manage it (which is one reason why they're militarizing the South China Sea given that the US Navy can easily blockade it otherwise). Yeah, it's an ocean away from the current superpower, but it has several more nations than the US right at its doorstep, and many of them are not fond of its bullying.

[Volphied]

Again, the comparison to Britain's loss of influence came from the people working in the State Department. Please don't take this as an insult, but I'll take their word over yours.

 

4 hours ago, Patticus said:

Also, of course the US will be hit hard by any Chinese downturn, but such an event is pretty much inevitable, given that China's economy is structured along much the same lines as Japan's was in the 1980s, on steroids. Without serious restructuring it's heading for a big fall, but so is the US, since Trump and the GOP will be trying to roll back the legislation put in place to try to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crash. Another fun fact: More and more I keep hearing about subprime loans at my workplace, which handles car loans for most major lenders. Ring any bells?

I think your overview of China is a decade behind. This country is transforming fast.

China is investing into the future:

Quote

China will plough 2.5tn yuan (£292bn) into renewable power generation by 2020, the country’s energy agency has said, as the world’s largest energy market continues to shift away from dirty coal power towards cleaner fuels.

The investment will create more than 13m jobs in the sector, the National Energy Administration said in a blueprint document that lays out its plan to develop the nation’s energy sector during the five-year 2016 to 2020 period.

The NEA said installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power would contribute to about half of new electricity generation by 2020.

 The spending comes as the cost of building large-scale solar plants has dropped by as much as 40% since 2010. China became the world’s top solar generator last year.

“The government may exceed these targets because there are more investment opportunities in the sector as costs go down,” said Steven Han, renewable analyst with securities firm Shenyin Wanguo.

About 700bn yuan will go towards wind farms and 500bn to hydro power, with tidal and geothermal getting the rest, the NDRC said.

They are already beating the US:

Quote

China is cementing its global dominance of renewable energy and supporting technologies, aggressively investing in them both at home and around the globe, leaving countries including the US, UK and Australia at risk of missing the growing market.

A report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (Ieefa) found China’s dominance in renewables is rapidly spreading overseas, with the country accelerating its foreign investment in renewable energy and supporting technologies.

Analysing Chinese foreign investments over US$1bn, Ieefa found 13 in 2016, worth a combined $32bn. That represented a 60% jump over similar investments in 2015.

China was already widely recognised as the largest investor in domestic renewable energy, investing $102bn in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance – more than twice that invested domestically by the US and about five times that of the UK.

The big foreign investments in 2016 included two in Australia, two in Germany and two in Brazil, as well as deals in Chile, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan and Vietnam.

•     In Australia, China Light & Power struck a $1.1bn deal, buying power from wind and solar farms.
•     In Chile, Tianqi Lithium spent $2.5bn acquiring a 25% stake of a lithium miner and processor. (Lithium is essential for lithium batteries used in electric vehicles and home battery storage.)
•     In Germany, Beijing Enterprises Holdings Ltd spend $1.6bn on a Waste to Energy development.

The report noted the global expansion cements China’s total domination of renewable energy growth globally. China now owned:

•     Five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms
•     The largest wind-turbine manufacturer
•     The world’s largest lithium ion manufacturer
•     The world’s largest electricity utility

Tim Buckley, director of Ieefa and author of the report, said the election of Donald Trump in the US and lack of supportive policy in Australia left those countries at risk of missing a huge opportunity.

“At the moment China is leaving everyone behind and has a real first-mover and scale advantage, which will be exacerbated if countries such as the US, UK and Australia continue to apply the brakes to clean energy,” he said.

“The US is already slipping well behind China in the race to secure a larger share of the booming clean energy market. With the incoming administration talking up coal and gas, prospective domestic policy changes don’t bode well,” Buckley said.

Meanwhile, the Republican party will ensure that the US will continue to do literally the opposite of what China is doing. The results will not be pretty.

Mark my words, when the next market crash comes, China will come out on the top while the US will be permanently crippled. The Chinese government, unlike the US, is actually working to prepare for a volatile future.

[Candescence]

You're ignoring that the Chinese economy is also sitting on a massive house of cards that can easily come down any day now - especially since it is also based on being the world's manufacturing base. A trade war with the US would suck for both sides, but it'd crash the Chinese economy hardcore, especially since any number of Asian/African countries can take its place in terms of manufacturing. The Communist Party is terrified of this outcome, hence why it intervenes regularly in the stock market and in the economy to desperately avert potential problems.

[Tani Coyote]

22 hours ago, Volphied said:

This is not something that can be regained. The only reason why America got this much power was thanks to WW2, during and immediately after which almost all the alliances and trade pacts were created. All of this is now being bulldozed by a clueless ignorant in the White House.

 

6 hours ago, Volphied said:

Again, the comparison to Britain's loss of influence came from the people working in the State Department. Please don't take this as an insult, but I'll take their word over yours.

Allow a historian to say the State Department is wrong in its comparison.

Everyone's pointing to World War II, which created the present situation, but we shouldn't pretend the US' power derives from World War II in substance rather than application.

Towards the end of the 1800s, the US was quite clearly on its way to being a booming industrial power. First, we humiliated Spain. Then Teddy Roosevelt crammed Panamanian independence down Colombia's throat. Each succession of Presidents began to gradually expand American power, which ultimately rested in its economy. The world recognized American influence to a point we were invited to put down the Boxer Rebellion in China; we were no longer upstart colonials, but a power in our own right.

The territory that is the United States is blessed with insane amounts of natural resources as well as plenty of agricultural production. Result: we had a massive population to exploit a massive resource base, while aggressive industrialization and immigration policies of early governments laid the foundation for an industrialized state.

The real reason Britain lost power isn't World War II. It's the fact a tiny island was trying to rule a landmass and population far, far larger than its own, almost all of them with different cultures and even those who weren't too different (Australia, Canada, etc.) were clearly interested in separation due to vastly different interests. The British Empire, as with most empires, was inherently unsustainable, as it was a small minority trying to govern a much larger realm. The cost of the wars just was the nail in the coffin.

The United States, on the other hand, has a central cultural identity that cuts across most of its residents, as well as abundant resources in its home territory (as opposed to needing to steal other countries'). We see similar cases with Russia and China, states whose empires have fallen, but they retain the bulk of what they historically ruled as a result of mass assimilation and acculturation; most of the territory and people in the historical American, Russian and Chinese empires identifies with the dominant culture. In America's case, it certainly helped that disease wiped out the bulk of the native population that was already present, and none of these various peoples were unified until it was far too late.

In short, yes, the United States owes a lot of its influence as currently realized to the events of World War II, but it has far more to fall back on than any of the European powers (Russia aside). Trump may tear down a lot of the post-Cold War order, but the United States isn't going to become a minor partner in the world economy any time soon. It is going to remain a country with a massive population, massive economy, and no doubt continue to have a serious lead on other powers militarily.

It is falsely deterministic to think World War II is the main reason the United States is where it is, as opposed to its simply massive economic and cultural base, which laid the foundation for military dominance in the post-war decades. If we want to talk about the US "losing" power, then that has already happened; Europe is no longer a wartorn hellhole, while Japan and China have long since recovered. The US has shed a lot of its relative power over the last few decades, but it remains a leader not just because of historical developments, but the simple fact it has a lot to offer.

[Volphied]

21 hours ago, Candescence said:

You're ignoring that the Chinese economy is also sitting on a massive house of cards that can easily come down any day now - especially since it is also based on being the world's manufacturing base. A trade war with the US would suck for both sides, but it'd crash the Chinese economy hardcore, especially since any number of Asian/African countries can take its place in terms of manufacturing. The Communist Party is terrified of this outcome, hence why it intervenes regularly in the stock market and in the economy to desperately avert potential problems.

Once again, China knows all of this and is working hard on preparing for the future. And Trump's idiocy gives them a perfect chance:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-s-withdrawal-from-asia-trade-deal-viewed-as-boon-for-china

Quote

U.S. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from a long-planned Pacific trade pact creates a political and economic vacuum that China is eager to fill, potentially damaging American prestige in Asia.

With Trump making good on his campaign pledge to nix a deal that was the centerpiece of predecessor Barack Obama’s Asia policy, China’s leaders are already ramping up support for globalization and free trade. In a speech last week to the World Economic Forum at Davos, President Xi Jinping likened protectionism to "locking oneself in a dark room."

[...]

The 16-nation Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership being championed by China takes in Southeast Asia countries, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India. Some leaders from TPP nations signaled after Trump’s election they’d shift their attention to the RCEP, with the next round of talks due to be held as soon as next month in Japan.

While some TPP leaders have indicated they might try and push on without the U.S., the pact looks to have run its course, said Victor Gao, director of the China National Association of International Studies who was a translator for late leader Deng Xiaoping.

"In China, we have an old saying: if a ship idles by the river bank by itself, other ships will keep sailing forward, and will leave the idled ship behind,” he said.

Obama regularly warned that failure to pass the TPP would let Beijing replace Washington in driving the rules of global trade. And his Council of Economic Advisers estimated the passage of RCEP would lead to the loss of market share among U.S. industries that now export more than $5 billion in goods to Japan.

 

All of you seem to think that China will, like, sit on their hands, or something? Absolutely not. It's the US that will suffer the most.

 

Quote

Trump may tear down a lot of the post-Cold War order, but the United States isn't going to become a minor partner in the world economy any time soon. It is going to remain a country with a massive population, massive economy, and no doubt continue to have a serious lead on other powers militarily.

Comments like the one above make me believe that many Americans still don't understand the gravity of the situation.

Here's the latest example of how America's "serious lead on other powers militarily" is being demolished right before our eyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/18/trump-merkel-nato-germany-owe-money-tweet

Quote

On the heels of a visibly awkward visit from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Donald Trump said on Saturday that Germany owed “vast sums of money” to Nato and the US, even though the alliance does not stipulate payments to America.

His remarks prompted a former US permanent representative to Nato to reply “that’s not how Nato works”, and to add that increased European spending on defense was not a “favor (or payment) to the US”.

Trump, who was at his Mar-a-Lago estate for the weekend and spending the morning at Trump International Golf Course, sent two tweets early in the day. The first denounced “the FAKE NEWS” for what he said was mistaken coverage of a “GREAT” meeting with Merkel.

Trump’s public appearances with Merkel betrayed an awkwardness between the two leaders, including during two widely remarked upon appearances in the White House. In one, the leaders failed to stage a handshake for cameras in the Oval Office, and in another Merkel looked baffled by comments made by Trump during a joint press conference. Before the visit Trump had repeatedly called Merkel’s policies “insane” and a “disaster” for Germany.

Trump’s tweets on Saturday suggested a misunderstanding of the way Nato is funded. According to Nato’s official guidelines, member nations are expected to spend at least 2% of their country’s gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. However, only a handful of the 28 members actually meet that target.

At a 2014 summit in Wales, members pledged to increase their military spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, a goal some have said is unachievable and unrealistic for several member states.

Ultimately, members’ contributions are based on each nation’s capability. Therefore, Nato member nations do not “owe” or have to compensate any other country.

On Saturday Ivo Daalder, who was permanent representative to Nato from 2009 to 2013, respond to Trump in a series of tweets.

“Sorry, Mr President, that’s not how Nato works,” he wrote. “The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending Nato. This is not a financial transaction, where Nato countries pay the US to defend them. It is part of our treaty commitment.

“All Nato countries, including Germany, have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. So far five of 28 Nato countries do. Those who currently don’t spend 2% of their GDP on defense are now increasing their defense budgets. That’s a good thing.

“But no funds will be paid to the US. They are meant to increase Nato’s overall defense capabilities, given the growing Russian threat. Europe must spend more on defense, but not as favor (or payment) to the US. But because their security requires it.”

Daalder added that the “large military commitment” of the US to Nato was “not a favor to Europe” but was “vital for our own security”.

[...]

In an interview with the New York Times editorial board, Trump implied that US defense of a Nato ally would depend on whether the country was contributing proportionally to the alliance’s defense spending.

Asked whether the US would provide military defense to Baltic countries if Russia were to attack, Trump said: “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”

Pressed on what course of action he would take if the answer were no, Trump said: “Well, I’m not saying if not,” he said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”

There are multiple US military base on EU grounds. Trump, due to his bottomles idiocy, doesn't understand the fundamental reason why having the US military in the EU is actually benefiting the US economy to great extents, and basically thinks of their military as mercenary or "pay for play" or a protection racket.

Without Rammstein base the US would not be able to stear a single drone in Asia, without Stuttgart they would need to relocate the whole Africom command structure and without Landstuhl they would need to transport injured soldiers all the way back to the US.

The US, without its allies, is nothing. And Trump is both powerful and stupid enough to bring catastrophe on the US.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-s-comey-testifies-house-intel-committee-russia-n735696

And in a surprise move that only surprises Trump's most diehard, gaslit supporters, Comey has found no evidence backing Trump's wiretap claims.

The FBI is also investigating Russia's role in the election, and whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with them.

 

11 hours ago, Volphied said:

Once again, China knows all of this and is working hard on preparing for the future. And Trump's idiocy gives them a perfect chance:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-23/trump-s-withdrawal-from-asia-trade-deal-viewed-as-boon-for-china

This doesn't address Candescence's main point.

So China is expanding how many countries they export cheap, often low quality garbage to. That's great for them. But it doesn't address the underlying issue: they are still a manufacturing power.

That was Candescence's point. China has a large, cheap labor pool unified by a single government. It is more convenient to do business with China than the dozens of other developing and undeveloped countries. But if the world wanted to, it could shift production to several other countries, and China would see a rapid decline in its economic power.

Consumers hold the power in markets, and the same goes between countries.

11 hours ago, Volphied said:

The US, without its allies, is nothing.

The United States has around 1/5 of the world's GDP and 35% of its military spending.

Would damaged relations with Europe hurt us? Absolutely. But it's insane to think that America's power is entirely derived from its alliances. Iraq may have been a disaster (in the long term, since occupation and nation building are different than mere combat), but let's make note of what it was: the United States acting unilaterally.

Should the United States act in concert with other nations? Of course. Does it need to? Hell no.

This isn't me being some arrogant American. This is me citing actual economic and military statistics, and combining it with historical fact. For isolationism to really hurt the United States, it would have to entail North Korea-esque sanctions on the American economy, and I don't see even Trump prompting such things.

You raise the premise of military logistics. Yes, the US benefits enormously from being able to use bases in Europe and around the world. But do we need them to be powerful? I think not; we have plenty of carriers and naval vessels to assist in power projection. It is generally easier to drive to a location rather than bicycle to it, but both are still viable options.

Plus there's the simple fact that if we lost Europe, we'd likely just pick someone else up in their stead. Again, I don't think even Trump is capable of messing up relations so bad literally no one wants to ally with us. There are enormous benefits to being a US ally. Let's not act like this is a one-way relationship. Let's remember human tribalism. Chances are there's one country that doesn't like yours, so if you don't like us... we'll take our business their way. This results in your country trying to avoid breaking with us.

This is a tactic the United States perfected over the course of centuries to divide and conquer the Native American tribes.

Yes, some countries have begun a shift towards China. I don't think anyone is denying this; it is only a logical move because there is always the risk of another President like Trump coming to power. But it remains absurd to propose the United States will collapse like the British Empire, which was a fundamentally different type of superpower.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

That also doesn't get into the fact that other nations are far more apprehensive towards China than they are the US given how they've been fond of bullying the other Asian nations that the US is more interested in befriending by comparison (except North Korea, but fuck them). That's not to say that the US doesn't bully other nations, but we don't go and claim a whole goddamned sea outside of our EEZ that intrudes on other countries for example, despite being so powerful we could do just that with hardly anyone stopping us.

Other countries siding with China economically is one thing, but militarily and politically is another story. Japan and South Korea are still US allies that aren't too trusting of China, partly because of their support of North Korea and in Japan's case, their atrocities in WW2. And India, despite all their problems, isn't gonna be buddy buddy with a China that is more supportive of Pakistan. And that's before getting into how much of a paper tiger China is for a multitude of reasons.

[Tani Coyote]

15 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

That also doesn't get into the fact that other nations are far more apprehensive towards China than they are the US given how they've been fond of bullying the other Asian nations that the US is more interested in befriending by comparison (except North Korea, but fuck them). That's not to say that the US doesn't bully other nations, but we don't go and claim a whole goddamned sea outside of our EEZ that intrudes on other countries for example, despite being so powerful we could do just that with hardly anyone stopping us.

Other countries siding with China economically is one thing, but militarily and politically is another story. Japan and South Korea are still US allies that aren't too trusting of China, partly because of their support of North Korea and in Japan's case, their atrocities in WW2. And India, despite all their problems, isn't gonna be buddy buddy with a China that is more supportive of Pakistan. And that's before getting into how much of a paper tiger China is for a multitude of reasons.

Basically, this boils down to the tribalism thing I was talking about. All these various states may have dislike towards the US post-Trump (as if Bush wasn't enough reason to dislike us), but there are plenty of reasons to dislike China as much as each other.

In the end, it remains lucrative to maintain the USA as an ally for a variety of reasons.

For starters, simple damned ideology. Europe and America both pride themselves on democracy, human rights, etc. even as we've both struggled to reconcile that with a reality of exploitation of other cultures. It would be weird to jettison the USA in favor of China for everything. The same goes for the Pacific democracies. Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc. might have reason to work closer with China, but being outright allies would cause a serious crisis of conscience.

This is to say nothing of the radically different economic structure the US provides versus China. Never mind the trade advantages of English over Mandarin. While many argue this will change, let's remember languages are as much economic tools as they are cultural ones; English will always enjoy an advantage over Mandarin because it is going to be easier to learn for a variety of European language speakers. Combine this with historical advantage, and Mandarin has a tough battle.