Summit with Putin

[ThisDinosaur]

Plus, evidence of collusion would have been very damaging for Putin if Hillary had won, which was the likely scenario according to the polls.

Disagree. Evidence of election tampering (which we have) would have forced president Hillary to act. But evidence of collusion with Trump would have been no worse than that, which agrees with your previous point that there is no reason Putin would have needed Trump's help.

However, Russians may have offered Trump's campaign support in exchange for foreign policy promises. Taped recordings of these conversations or similar evidence could be "dirt" that Putin has on Trump to ensure POTUS follows through.

I’m not sure how Trump’s embarrassing performance at the Summit equates to a threat on our democracy?

The president has made it clear that he has no intention of correcting holes in our election security. This undermines confidence in our democracy, since neither side will trust any election outcome.

He did well with North Korea and I think he will do well with Russia.

I will give him credit for how the North Korea situation is unfolding. But I think this was more luck than shrewdness.

[Jason]

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist. --- The Origins of Totalitarinism (1951)

In other words, truth in a totalitarian state can only be that which is not yet known.

[Seppia]

Thanks all and in particular to Dave an ffj (the “trump supporters”*) for taking the time to chime in.


*dave: I know you said you are not a “trump supporter” but you helped me understand the point of view of one

[IlliniDave]

*dave: I know you said you are not a “trump supporter” but you helped me understand the point of view of one

Glad to help. I have the apparently rare habit of going out of my way to get "news" (it isn't really news at all--I'm old enough to remember when there really was news) from the media arm of both the blue and red parties and believe, correctly I think, that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Luckily the mostly conservative-leaning people I am surrounded with are very tolerant of heretics. Many of them are both of high intellect and high character so I do have good access to a reasoned conservative perspective. But I don't think much of that came through in what I said above--I just watched the PC and tried to bring as little preconception as I could.

I dunno what I'll do in 2020. Maybe libertarian again. By then I'll be in a blue state that in national elections is controlled by one large city, so I can pretty much submit a protest vote with no guilt about potentially altering the outcome. But I'll have to lie about it because my blue friends there are not as tolerant as my red friends here.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@ffj & IlliniDave

Would you rather the Democratic Party have a full-blown Socialist Democrat who wants to hire unemployed children as caregivers for their unemployed parents, or a Neoliberal Establishment Democrat that wins votes by pushing for affirmative action whilst accepting donations from opioid-manufacturers and/or Saudi elites?

Bonus: Both candidates want to grab your guns. But if you don’t vote for one of them, you’re a racist and you turn a blind eye to pussygrabbing.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Luckily the mostly conservative-leaning people I am surrounded with are very tolerant of heretics. Many of them are both of high intellect and high character so I do have good access to a reasoned conservative perspective.
....
I dunno what I'll do in 2020. Maybe libertarian again.
....
But I'll have to lie about it because my blue friends there are not as tolerant as my red friends here.

Are you suggesting that your blue friends are more opposed to dissenting opinion?

Never would have thunk it!

[BRUTE]

I'll be in a blue state that in national elections is controlled by one large city, so I can pretty much submit a protest vote with no guilt about potentially altering the outcome. But I'll have to lie about it because my blue friends there are not as tolerant as my red friends here.

this was hil(l)arious to brute in this last election. all humans were screaming "go vote! go vote! it's important! trump!".

in California. it's literally a waste of time to vote Democrat in California. but they really needed to make it 99.99999% instead of 99.99998%.

brute's take on Trump is very close to the "wheaton level 2 high schooler".

have humans here ever known a tall sales guy from a wealthy family who's a bit of a jerk? that's how Trump strikes brute. just being talk, talking loudly, and having some money goes a long ways in many circles.

brute knows such sales guys. they're not bad or evil humans. they'll lie, but psychopath is the wrong word. Trump seems to lie like humans lie to get females into bed or males to buy sports cars.

almost nothing bad has originated from Trump so far. ok, Muslim ban: stupid and unnecessary. tariffs: stupid and unnecessary. throwing that MOAB the one time (wow it seems so long ago): stupid and unnecessary. but that's about it.

Trump is pretty incompetent at the job in a sense, but so were all presidents. brute honestly believes that flipping a coin for president would roughly achieve the same outcomes over 8 years. thus it doesn't matter that Trump can't keep a thought straight.

it alters the aesthetic of US politics. Obama had a certain aesthetic. some humans loved it, some hated it. Trump is pretty much the opposite. some humans love it, some hate it.

but Trump has not actually attacked the press any more than calling them names. he hasn't started a war. there doesn't seem to be any evidence he colluded with Russia to meddle in the election. (the accusation of "dealing with Russians" is hilarious to brute: since when is it illegal to deal with foreign nationals?! this is Obama-is-Kenyan-level absurd).

hating on "principled Republicans" for not speaking out against Trump also seems insincere to brute. no principled human has become president since.. Teddy Roosevelt? no, Teddy was a populist, too.

the only strategy in this game is to nominate a charming performer, latch on to him, and then try to work on policy while he's in power. performer in power does and says stupid shit? well, at least he's <this side>'s idiot! the exact same thing happened under Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan..

brute thinks everything will be just fine. Trump will be in the news every day for the next 7 years. humans will be outraged. some policy will get passed. the country will survive just fine.

the only reason brute sees for Trump not winning reelection is if the economy crashed shortly before. but that wouldn't have been Trump's fault, since the economy is pretty independent of the President.

brute sees Trump a bit like that jerk of a sales guy. he'll talk shit, he says mean things sometimes, brute has to roll his eyes and shake his head a lot. but he's hardly a threat to the system.

[Finn]

The fact that the US (Trump) is currently pulling out of trade deals and treating their Western allies as adversaries is a tectonic shift in global politics. The world will see many changes in the next 3/7 years.

[BRUTE]

US != Trump

he's just a guy.

[BRUTE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCrx_u3825g

[IlliniDave]

Mister I, r.e. the Democratic party: it will have to reform itself a lot from where it's turned since Autumn 2016 before I will consider entrusting them with my vote again. R.e. my blue friends (and I have to include much of my family there) and intolerance: Yes, during the latter part of 2016 something changed abruptly. I think it is less dissenting opinion they have difficulty with than it is dissenting persons they will not tolerate, as any hints of disagreement proceed immediately to derogatory labeling, shunning, and the like. Like you alluded to above, no matter what topic you might disagree on, you get stuffed into the same 2 or 3 boxes. I hope it's a passing fad.

Finn, I would encourage you to remain hopeful and wait and see what actually happens before yielding all hope for the future. I don't know first hand what European talking heads think of the US and DT at present, but I can guess, and regarding Trump his actual goals are likely different from what the experts and analysts are proclaiming them to be. Regarding US persons, they probably want the same things for themselves fundamentally that the Finns want for themselves.

[Finn]

Oh, I haven’t given up hope at all — EU just negotiated a trade deal with Japan and Harley-Davidson has announced that they will start manufacturing in Europe as a result of Trump’s tariffs.

EdithKeeler has it absolutely right, we’ll just trade with other parts of the world. We’re already shifting our focus. It’s just rational, and the EU is first and foremost a trade union.

So I’m not really having an emotional reaction here, I just have to acknowledge that this is a major, major shift in US foreign relations. A complete 180 by one guy. The global outlook is that everything has been destabilized in a matter of months.

[IlliniDave]

Finn, it is true that trading may shift some, with different parties enjoying more of the benefit (or detriment depending on your opinion) of trading with the US. My prediction, which when combined with a $5-bill will net you $2.50, is that when the dust settles the US will have trade deals with whomever comes to closest to matching terms with the US at as close to zero tariffs/gov't intervention as either side will tolerate. I believe Trump is using tariffs to rattle the content-with-the-status-quo-because-it-is-advantageous-to-us* crowd to sit down and negotiate even more reciprocally barrier-free agreements than what exists now. In other words, he's using the threat of tariffs to ultimately lower tariffs and government subsidization overall. Individual countries or blocs will have to decide what access to US markets is worth to them, and we'll have to make the reciprocal calculations.

The caveats are many. Lowering tariffs and barriers might not be economically wise (I'm not an economist). It will create winners and losers in the US (as well as abroad), so there's a political price to be paid for that end goal. I might be misreading Trump's intentions. But from things I've heard discussed by smarter people than me, China is beginning to indicate a willingness to come to the table, so maybe like with North Korea, it sometimes takes speaking bluntly enough to be considered crass by polite Western standards to communicate that you are serious.

*an attitude shared by many in America--changing up the tariff landscape is unpopular here, especially among strong conservatives who want no tariffs or state subsidies at all and view DT's short-term maneuvers unfavorably.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@IlliiniDave

I was joking of course, the Democrats (and Republicans) will offer us nothing but hideous choices, but I have to second all that brute wrote above. See my Gore Vidal quote higher on the page. It’s amusing to me that everyone allows the media to work them up into a frenzy.

I was speaking with an older black colleague at work. “I don’t understand,” he said. “The media would have you believe that we are still arguing about things our fathers and grandfathers already agreed upon.”

Like RFK says in the link brute posted, the majority of whites and blacks DO want to live in harmony, and the media wants to have everyone split up along antiquated lines and bicker. It’s a ridiculous farce.

[Seppia]

*on tariffs*

It is pretty much an accepted fact that globalization is a huge net positive (just look at poverty rates across the globe)
So these moves will mostly create losers in the aggregate (unless rapidly reversed, but that doesn't look to be the most probable outcome)

I'm not sure how slapping tariffs on european countries on the (absolutely bogus) "national security" excuse can be a way to muscle europe into reducing their trade barriers: the average EU tariff on USA goods is around 3%, so already in rounding error territory.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@Seppia

Regarding protectionism, I think Trump is still trying to play to his constituency for 2020 (whether he is actually succeeding or working against that goal is another matter).

[jennypenny]

The tariffs are intended to coerce European nations to contribute more to NATO.

[Seppia]

The tariffs are intended to coerce European nations to contribute more to NATO.

This wasn't made very clear tbh.
Trump always spoke about Europe non-existent "massive" tariffs as the reason.

I am all for muscling Europe in spending more for defense. We have been free riding the USA's military for 80 years, I think it's time we stop.

[jennypenny]

Haha, no, Trump doesn't make much clear in his extemporaneous remarks. Same with the Summit ... he was supposed to make nice with Putin to strengthen our position with China, not because we thought Putin was innocent.

[BRUTE]

does jennypenny know if all the trash talk about trade deficits is just talk, or if Trump really believes in them? it's so obviously quackery from an economics point of view.