Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah, yeah, we know how it goes. Pavonis substitutes a strawman based on a stereotype for someone else's argument. Instead of backing away gracefully, he engages in trollish behavior like feigned ignorance and pretending his previous posts didn't happen as a form of self-esteem maintenance.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, we know how it goes. Pavonis substitutes a strawman based on a stereotype for someone else's argument. Instead of backing away gracefully, he engages in trollish behavior like feigned ignorance and pretending his previous posts didn't happen as a form of self-esteem maintenance.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

What are you babbling about? I haven't substituted any strawman arguments. If you think I have, then we have not communicated well, and that's as much your fault as mine.

 

I have been trying to understand the idea that enforcement of taxes and filing of taxes is a "waste", and why a "simple" tax code would be desirable or even feasible. It's not clear to me why that would be the case, and I doubt that all economists agree with that position, and you're the third- or fourth-best thing, behind CM, to ask about this idea, because you seem intelligent enough to be an expert, somehow, on these topics. Who knows what you do or what your education is, though? Honestly, I'm not certain why you think you know more on these topics than actual experts, but you're here and they're not, so here we are, in another snippy little "argument". Do you think defining "useful" as "having utility and forwards the agenda of the primary parties involved" is an insightful or educational reply? It's an insult that you think I couldn't just look that definition up for myself. I was more interested in your views and thoughts on the matter because you represent a different viewpoint, and unless you've written a textbook or a paper on the matter, I can't get those views from you anywhere but here. But no, you're not interested in having that discussion or sharing any of your own opinions on it, not with me anyway, so you just shut me down. It'd be less insulting if you just didn't reply at all. If you're finding it unpleasant to interact with me, it's unfortunate that the feeling is mutual, but I'm accustomed to learning from people who are otherwise unpleasant but still knowledgeable on a subject. There are lots of arrogant experts in academia. You can't just ignore the ones that have unpleasant personalities. Unfortunately, I'm not learning anything from you here, just being condescended to by you. At least CM's posts were simultaneously entertaining, educational, and insulting rather than just nakedly contemptuous. You should aim to be more like her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe making resolutions that hampered Israel and emboldened Palestine was the wrong thing to do in the first? Threats of violence from terrorist countries.....haven't heard that ever. As a child we learned that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. As an adult we learned that it is, but it really isn't, but it still kinda is. And we wonder why kids aren't learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the bell rings, I have some points:

 

This is costly for us. By the time an embassy is built we will have elected the nut out of office. Not to mention the shit storm of people who are anti-American that this will kick over and possibly cost us in lives and military expenditures.

 

Uhm, wouldn't Israel have to approve and work with us to set up an embassy and if this was doable why wasn't this done way back in '67 after the Six Day War or after World War II? There must be a reason...For me I feel like this is Israel's choice not some nut we elected into office that just makes announcements because he doesn't understand the complicated matters he's sticking his head into. FYI, Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel but Tel Aviv was chosen for a different reason to be the proxy. The countries which operate Consulates to Jerusalem, generally do not regard them as diplomatic missions to Israel or Palestinian Authority, but as diplomatic missions to Jerusalem as corpus seperatum. Most of the countries with consulates in Jerusalem have separate embassies in Tel Aviv that are accredited to Israel. But sure let's paint a target on a religious city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably have a more sympathetic view of this if I believed that the Israelis and Palestinians could find a common ground in my lifetime let alone my kids'. I might have believed Trump's decision was wrong if past administrations hadn't said the same things yet failed to act. At least Obama wore his disdain for Israel on his sleeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's just the moving of the embassy, or is the it the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital that gets you more? Who are we antagonizing? Countries are against the move because of fear. None of them truly care about the right or the wrong of it. Palestinians are going to start stuff. It's what they do. They don't want negotiations because it requires compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Palestinians were actually moving toward compromise. A lesson learned about walls. Recently they oustered a lot of Hamas through votes. I actually like Obama's tact with Israel and his deal with Iran. It was possibly the best thing Obama did as president.

 

As for about Trump naming Jerusalem as the capital I feel like it's been the capital for the length of time Israel was created. For me that was naming the obvious. The bigger problem is moving the embassy. It's going to simply cost money and lives and he won't even be president when it finally opens - if it ever opens. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

 

This all boils down to Trump following a campaign promise and tearing down anything previous administrations have implemented. We contribute 3.1 billion dollars to Israel on average to help support them. It's not like we abandoned Israel or they're being treated poorly. It's all about that spin they get from Breitbart in this administration. Much like Trump's attitude to NATO I wonder if this about putting a flag on Jerusalem because the US is the new state and sticking it to the Jews because we give that money to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I actually like Obama's tact with Israel and his deal with Iran. It was possibly the best thing Obama did as president.

 

Jesus. Aiding antisemitism and rewarding nuclear development with a huge pile of money to slow down for a ridiculously small time is the best thing Obama did?

 

Obama's foreign policy pretty much equaled hug your enemy, slap your friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do not agree with that last sentence but cannot address it right now. Obama's policies were thought out and bought real results. What you describe is more like what Trump is doing now with Russia. It's a razed earth policy that Trump brings and it won't be fruitful. People outside of the US dismiss Trump as president already. Trump's the idol of the minority of people who just happen to vote in US elections in more quantities than people with critical thinking brains and live on a diet of Brietbart newsfeeds and were craving change. They bought a lame duck president to bring them change and got an emperor in new clothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Obama's policies were thought out and bought real results.

 

Obama's policies were just as surly and reactionary as Trump's in their own way. From pulling out of Iraq to spite Bush at the beginning of his administration to getting one last gratuitous slap across Israel's face on the way out the door.

 

I've seen no evidence that they produced results. Just to opposite. And Obama's zeal for placing the international community's wants above his own nation's consensus might have felt farsighted. But a foreign policy not backed domestically is not sustainable and will cause damage when it inevitably changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, the Iran deal was a real winner. We give the country who has partnered with North Korea in missiles and nuclear weapons $billions and all the sudden Little Kim has made huge advances in both. But hey, at least the Iranians aren't doing the research in Iran right? Bankrolling their weapons programs doesn't strike me as a well thought out policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look. If you cannot see the benefits of the Iran Deal it's because you are not looking. We learned more about Iran's nuclear capabilities. The money Iranians got from it was theirs to begin with - we are not thieves. Israel was forced into being a better neighbor. Hamas actually lost traction. Long term I think Obama genuinely thought Clinton would be in office and stability and a more open relationship would have happened with Iran that would bring about more than peace and open the US to more business opportunities. Now we just have chaos. And no value as a negotiator in any capacity under Trump. I guess you can make budget cuts when you no longer want to be a global policeman which is essentially what Trump's voters want anyways. Let's start pulling troops out of all those sandtraps and let the middle east and Afghanistan burn and have no opportunity to be in the region who most wants to demolish us. But we'll have a embassy in Jerusalem - hopefully by the end of Trump's term. I pity Tillerson. He's the only one in office with some thought and foresight in this administration.

 

The idiot savant watches tv endlessly and can barely roll out of bed to get to the Oval Office by 9 AM and has had more golfing taxpayer funded holidays than any other president. I want more for my money than this BS. The tax reform bill is BS too. OMG. I can't even. That's why I don't respond much. This stuff makes me seeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you cannot see the benefits of the Iran Deal it's because you are not looking.

 

 

They'll get their bomb, they just have to wait a very short amount of time. They've got their money. The sanctions have been eased.

 

Democrats have been theorizing for the last 15 years or so with the idea that if we just let Iran establish themselves as the preeminent power of the region, it will turn out well. Where this comes from, I've no clue. Obama desperately gave away the store to test the theory though and never understood that time passes faster than you would think.

 

 

 

The money Iranians got from it was theirs to begin with - we are not thieves

 

Freezing assets isn't the same as theft.

 

Israel was forced into being a better neighbor.

 

Reminds me of how the redeemers won the South after Reconstruction.

 

 

 

And no value as a negotiator in any capacity under Trump

 

I think it's fairly obvious that Obama had no leverage either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama had more leverage than Trump - he got Iranians to the table and because of that we have more information on the region and Iran's nuclear program capabilities. Trump's idea is basically following Sherman's march to the sea and just carpet bomb and raze everything and to take as many golfing vacations as possible. That's not much of a negotiating position. I love his bleating to China to do something about North Korea.

 

On the flip side, Brown from California has a seat at the table concerning commitments to climate change and Trump is turning into the circus monkey with delusions of grandeur. "What are going to do tonight, Pinky?" The same thing we do every night... wait and Tweet at 5 am in the morning and go back to bed until I have to go in and have someone give me some happy news because I can't read daily briefings or participate in a democracy for the people".

 

You can see how I'm seething. I mean this is the impression I have our current president. I never thought like this with Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama had more leverage than Trump - he got Iranians to the table and because of that we have more information on the region and Iran's nuclear program capabilities.

 

Obama had a crippling sanctions regime in effect. That was his leverage. The Iranians wanted the boot off their neck.

 

What do you think this information is worth? Once again, we handed Iran a ton of money to delay their nukes a short period of time. Iran made out like bandits by being brought to the table.

 

Now the leverage is gone. Obama spent it fecklessly in his desperate desire to get a "deal". Obama was so unwilling to walk away from a bad deal, that the leverage transferred to the country that was feeling the pain. There was no Reagan walking away from Gorbachev at Reykjavík moment or even the threat of such. Heck, the French had more backbone than Obama in demanding more concessions. And you call that wisdom?

 

Worse, Obama did it against the strong objections of Congress and the American public. That's typical of Obama's arrogance and belief that he knows best. And just asking for the policy to be tossed into the trash can by a president who doesn't want Iran to get that bomb in a few years.

 

 

 

On the flip side, Brown from California has a seat at the table concerning commitments to climate change

 

<shrug>

 

Other countries want to make unenforceable commitments to climate change, they're welcome to do it. Our being there makes little difference. What would a seat get us? The opportunity to make our own commitments? That only buys a feeling a virtue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.