Political Roundtable Part XII

[nate33]

Continued from here

[FAH1223]

Good post, FAH1223. I agree that the decline of the dollar as the world's currency is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The fantasy foreign policy where the U.S. can strongarm countries to get whatever it wants, wherever it wants has come to an end. Perennial war in the Middle East is no longer possible. Military threats against Russia are now insane. Picking and choosing the regimes to run various Middle Eastern countries is no longer feasible.

It'll be interesting to see how things shake out under Trump. On one hand, Trump has expressed reservations about the U.S. meddling overseas, including the Middle East, NATO and even Japan. He seems like he wants to scale back our commitments, or at least demand better compensation for them. On the other hand, he talks really tough about ISIS, and it seems like the Jewish support he gets in his administration are from the more Zionistic, Israeli-nationalist end of the spectrum. Is that a hint that he will sacrifice American blood and treasure in defense of Israel? That would presumably embroil us in more Middle Eastern wars.

During the primary, Trump boasted about self-funding. During the general, he got money from Sheldon Adelson who was backing Rubio mainly. The language on Israel has become nauseating and its become more extreme in both parties who are essentially defending an extreme right wing government that has moved on from a two state solution. You'll see the next administration turn a blind eye to the Palestinians (not that Obama or Bush did much anyway) and the facts on the ground dictate a one state solution is the only way to end the conflict. The annexation of the West Bank will continue and basically every country in the world will be calling them out on it. The US Embassy moving to Jerusalem might actually happen and no doubt that will have a reaction from the Palestinians both peaceful and violent.

In terms of the region, I think Trump really wants to coordinate to fight ISIS in Syria with Russia. There's very little coordination and very little the US has been doing. A recording of John Kerry to the Syrian opposition basically had him admit to him that we saw ISIS grow in Eastern Syria and that we thought their prescense would force Assad to negotiate. Well, Assad called Putin and the Russians deployed more of their men to their naval base, put in anti-air defense systems, and Kerry admitted this - started fighting ISIS as well as the Syrian opposition groups which have increasingly ceded a lot of control to Al-Qaeda's affiliate (Jabhat Fatah Al Sham in Aleppo, Idlib, and the Damascus outskirts). If the US and Russia coordinate it'll make things easier to fight ISIS. Right now, Turkish troops are on the ground with the Syrian rebels they support in Northern Syria (Russia has been providing air support recently which has been interesting) and they're fighting ISIS there. In the East, the Syrian army with its airforce along with Russia have been fighting ISIS in the city of Deir Ezzor and the ancient city Palmyra. However back in September, the US bombed Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor which killed 60 Syrian soldiers... while they were fighting ISIS. And it only stopped after the Russians got in contact and said WTF are you doing. So, more coordination has to be in play. The peace talks in Kazakhstan are also about to be in play and the US was sidelined from it but it could enter the fray with the new administration.

I don't think much will change with NATO. The Russians are obviously pissed about it being ever more closer on its border. Mattis and Tillerson have said the US will keep its word with the Baltics. Ukraine also is a big issue... Trump isn't crazy about arming the government but his party hawks are.

East Asia will be interesting. North Korea is a bargaining chip by China. It is 100% dependent on Chinese aid, and the Chinese can make it collapse at will. This is another carrot and stick approach they're doing but towards South Korea and to a lesser extent Japan.

The premise is basically: You want reunification like east and west Germany? Ditch the US bases.

South Korea already has a modern military that is equal to Turkey right now and does not need US troops in the first place. US bases are a form of control over our vassals. Countries with the largest bases like Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea are not fully independent.

The Kuril Islands is an example. A couple weeks ago, Putin was in Japan. Both he and Abe were talking of strengthening economic ties. The Islands have been controlled by Moscow since the end of WWII. Japan wants them back. Reading between the lines Putin is basically like hmm no thanks, not right now, perhaps in the future. Handing it over now is basically giving it to the US.

[AFM]

"Part X" smh...

the stupidity in this thread has caused a time rift in the wormhole space based continuum, sending us back up the river of time smh...

[nate33]

"Part X" smh...

the stupidity in this thread has caused a time rift in the wormhole space based continuum, sending us back up the river of time smh...

A simple PM to me would have sufficed.

[montestewart]

"Part X" smh...

the stupidity in this thread has caused a time rift in the wormhole space based continuum, sending us back up the river of time smh...

back into time

Watch on YouTube

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

And yet, with all of that - I am still convinced that Hillary lost when she let slip:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Why do I think that? So many of the opinion pieces that I read from plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc. reference the quote. It ended the Democrats as the party of inclusion.

Sadly, the Ds have gone all in on this... it is allowing them the opportunity to place blame anywhere else but on party, politics and position. And I see that as a bad thing. The 60M voters of the 218M eligible is nothing to sneeze at...

But, in the House, the picture was a bit different, Republicans took 56.3M vs. the Democrats 53.2M. I think this figure is more telling. The House was always meant as the bellwether of immediacy.

In the previous 8 years, Democrats had lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. The trend had already been set when the Ds tragically let Hillary become the nominee and then get pulled hard to the left by Bernie. And yet they were sure of the outcome of the election and shocked by the results.

The Russian "thing" may be a good short-term way to distract the new administration.

I think that the Ds need to take a good long hard look in the mirror but I don't think it solves their root messaging problem.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

And yet, with all of that - I am still convinced that Hillary lost when she let slip:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Why do I think that? So many of the opinion pieces that I read from plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc. reference the quote. It ended the Democrats as the party of inclusion.

Sadly, the Ds have gone all in on this... it is allowing them the opportunity to place blame anywhere else but on party, politics and position. And I see that as a bad thing. The 60M voters of the 218M eligible is nothing to sneeze at...

But, in the House, the picture was a bit different, Republicans took 56.3M vs. the Democrats 53.2M. I think this figure is more telling. The House was always meant as the bellwether of immediacy.

In the previous 8 years, Democrats had lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. The trend had already been set when the Ds tragically let Hillary become the nominee and then get pulled hard to the left by Bernie. And yet they were sure of the outcome of the election and shocked by the results.

The Russian "thing" may be a good short-term way to distract the new administration.

I think that the Ds need to take a good long hard look in the mirror but I don't think it solves their root messaging problem.

To be honest with you....if you believe the polls, Hillary wasn't actually lying about a large segment of Trump supporters.

Now whether she should have said it....



But back to Comey.....you don't think his behavior is peculiar?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

And yet, with all of that - I am still convinced that Hillary lost when she let slip:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Why do I think that? So many of the opinion pieces that I read from plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc. reference the quote. It ended the Democrats as the party of inclusion.

Sadly, the Ds have gone all in on this... it is allowing them the opportunity to place blame anywhere else but on party, politics and position. And I see that as a bad thing. The 60M voters of the 218M eligible is nothing to sneeze at...

But, in the House, the picture was a bit different, Republicans took 56.3M vs. the Democrats 53.2M. I think this figure is more telling. The House was always meant as the bellwether of immediacy.

In the previous 8 years, Democrats had lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. The trend had already been set when the Ds tragically let Hillary become the nominee and then get pulled hard to the left by Bernie. And yet they were sure of the outcome of the election and shocked by the results.

The Russian "thing" may be a good short-term way to distract the new administration.

I think that the Ds need to take a good long hard look in the mirror but I don't think it solves their root messaging problem.

To be honest with you....if you believe the polls, Hillary wasn't actually lying about a large segment of Trump supporters.

Now whether she should have said it....

But that is the problem, no? The language - they have painted a large swath of the population as "ics". More than a majority of the population at that... with no grey area.

For example: take a look at her comment about "sexist". The definition has changed over time. You just need to go online to look at some examples of what defines a sexist. By that definition - more than a majority of individuals are sexist. So, when you say that Hillary wasn't lying, you are right within the context of a moving target.

And that utterance about the deplorables ultimately did her in... but it had been reflected in politics as outlined above for quite some time, it said, "you aren't up to our standards - we don't need or want you". And that was that.

My question is how will the party move forward and out of oblivion. Any opinions on that?

[dckingsfan]

@Wizardspride - BTW, I do think that the Rs will self-destruct and the Ds will come back into power based upon the Rs ineptitude. But that doesn't get the Ds what they want.

[nate33]

I would like someone to define for me the terms "racist" and "sexist".

[Wizardspride]

I would like someone to define for me the terms "racist" and "sexist".

You define it and I'll tell you if I agree.

[AFM]

And yet, with all of that - I am still convinced that Hillary lost when she let slip:



Why do I think that? So many of the opinion pieces that I read from plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, etc. reference the quote. It ended the Democrats as the party of inclusion.

Sadly, the Ds have gone all in on this... it is allowing them the opportunity to place blame anywhere else but on party, politics and position. And I see that as a bad thing. The 60M voters of the 218M eligible is nothing to sneeze at...

But, in the House, the picture was a bit different, Republicans took 56.3M vs. the Democrats 53.2M. I think this figure is more telling. The House was always meant as the bellwether of immediacy.

In the previous 8 years, Democrats had lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governorships, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. The trend had already been set when the Ds tragically let Hillary become the nominee and then get pulled hard to the left by Bernie. And yet they were sure of the outcome of the election and shocked by the results.

The Russian "thing" may be a good short-term way to distract the new administration.

I think that the Ds need to take a good long hard look in the mirror but I don't think it solves their root messaging problem.

To be honest with you....if you believe the polls, Hillary wasn't actually lying about a large segment of Trump supporters.

Now whether she should have said it....

But that is the problem, no? The language - they have painted a large swath of the population as "ics". More than a majority of the population at that... with no grey area.

For example: take a look at her comment about "sexist". The definition has changed over time. You just need to go online to look at some examples of what defines a sexist. By that definition - more than a majority of individuals are sexist. So, when you say that Hillary wasn't lying, you are right within the context of a moving target.

And that utterance about the deplorables ultimately did her in... but it had been reflected in politics as outlined above for quite some time, it said, "you aren't up to our standards - we don't need or want you". And that was that.

My question is how will the party move forward and out of oblivion. Any opinions on that?

Relevant:


Need a candidate that can speak to all those voters the D's have lost in mid-america. Bernie would have been a good one...

[nate33]

I would like someone to define for me the terms "racist" and "sexist".

You define it and I'll tell you if I agree.

No. You go first.

[Wizardspride]

I would like someone to define for me the terms "racist" and "sexist".

You define it and I'll tell you if I agree.

No. You go first.

You want the terms defined in general (dictionary definition) or is this just about (some)Trump supporters?

Just trying to see where you're coming from.

[nate33]

You define it and I'll tell you if I agree.

No. You go first.

You want the terms defined in general (dictionary definition) or is this just about (some)Trump supporters?

Just trying to see where you're coming from.

It's about Trump supporters. I took from your exchange with dckingsfan above that there was nothing wrong with Hillary's "deplorables" comment because half of Trump supporters are indeed racist and therefore deplorable. I'm just trying to understand your definition of racism when you make that statement.

[Wizardspride]

No. You go first.

You want the terms defined in general (dictionary definition) or is this just about (some)Trump supporters?

Just trying to see where you're coming from.

It's about Trump supporters. I took from your exchange with dckingsfan above that there was nothing wrong with Hillary's "deplorables" comment because half of Trump supporters are indeed racist and therefore deplorable. I'm just trying to understand your definition of racism when you make that statement.

Oh ok.

Well yeah, you're not far off. Though I'm not sure the number is as high as half of Trump supporters.

Still think it's a signficant number.

I'm basing my opinions off of various polls.

This explains where I'm coming from.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables