|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Portrait of Donald Trump |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I’d just like to express our collective thanks to Trump for helping this thread achieve Clokeian proportions. 100 pages is a great achievement. It’s the VPT equivalent of 100,000 followers on Instagram. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | I’d just like to express our collective thanks to Trump for helping this thread achieve Clokeian proportions. 100 pages is a great achievement. It’s the VPT equivalent of 100,000 followers on Instagram. |
Still needs another 692 pages to surpass the "what made you happy today" thread _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
What are people’s thoughts on that NYT article by an anonymous Trump official?
I’m not sure that I agree with a lot of it, but this is an interesting response:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-mattis-kelly-new-york-times/569416/
Quote: | The op-ed is so bizarre that it is tempting to dismiss it as fantasy—akin to the obviously bogus Twitter accounts that flourished early in the administration claiming to be by saboteurs inside the White House. (While the Times has likely done its homework, expect the president to question the veracity of the source.) Yet what the anonymous official says lines up closely with the accounts in Woodward’s book, in which officials steal documents, act on their own, and simply disregard orders from the president.
If you believe that Trump does not have the judgment and temperament for office—not a difficult conclusion to draw—this is a win of a sort. Yet the actions described in the book and in the op-ed are extremely worrying, and amount to a soft coup against the president. Given that one of Trump’s great flaws is that he has little regard for rule of law, it’s hard to cheer on Cabinet members and others openly thwarting Trump’s directives, giving unelected officials effective veto power over the elected president. Like Vietnam War–era generals, they are destroying the village in order to save it. As is so often the case in the Trump administration, both alternatives are awful to consider. |
On one level, the actions of these advisers are clearly undemocratic, and I can’t imagine any liberals or leftists would be tolerating it if it was their guy in charge. But if these treacherous advisers are all that stands in the way of Trump making a catastrophic decision (such as taking out Assad, as he seemingly intended), then pointing sternly to the rulebook doesn’t seem to be the most urgent response here.
Even so, the op-ed was astonishingly counterproductive. If the goal is to secretly undermine Trump, then the first step is to not tell everyone you’re doing it. That way most likely leads to a White House purge and a more autocratic presidency. But I guess it’s too much to expect common sense from any of these people. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
From day one, there has been a concerted effort to undermine and delegitimise the Trump presidency from the Democrats and "Never Trump" Republicans aided and abetted by the mainstream media so this doesn't surprise me one bit
In a way this could be seen as a victory for Trump. It will reinforce his outsider status and the fact that the "deep state" is trying to destroy his presidency. His core base won't abandon him over this, but it could actually strengthen him in many ways if he can manipulate it in his favour.
You're right though that liberals and leftists wouldn't tolerate this if their man was in charge instead, and something similar was happening.
On the issue of Syria, Trump has been inconsistent with his statements on Syria but he would lose votes from his base if turned into a NeoCon (akin to Bush or McCain) and set about removing Assad from power, so I doubt he really contemplated regime change. After all, Trump instructed the CIA to stop arming the anti-Assad rebels last year. _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Jezza wrote: | On the issue of Syria, Trump has been inconsistent with his statements on Syria but he would lose votes from his base if turned into a NeoCon (akin to Bush or McCain) and set about removing Assad from power, so I doubt he really contemplated regime change. After all, Trump instructed the CIA to stop arming the anti-Assad rebels last year. |
If they're hoping for Trump to be ideologically consistent, I think they'll either be disappointed, or else (more likely) have to engage in a great deal of self-convincing spin over the next couple of years when he fails to do what they want. One must consider these White House leaks sceptically, of course, but that doesn't mean we should or can dismiss them as fantasy; personally, I don't find the suggestions about his intent on Syria after the chemical weapons strike all that implausible, given what we know about Trump.
Many politicians backflip on issues; but where someone like, say, Clinton seemed to do it tactically (for instance, in response to popular opinion), Trump seems to be genuinely fickle – whether it's a question of who's in his ear at a given point in time, or slightly altered circumstances, he seems quite capable of abruptly changing his mind in a moment, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs (on other issues, such as trade, he seems more consistent). This, incidentally, is also why accusations about him being a Russian agent don't hold water: his attitude to Putin's geopolitical agenda seems unpredictable at best, and I'm not sure that anyone – not Russia, and perhaps not even the White House – really knows what tack he's going to take from one moment to the next. He's the "mad dog" that Nixon tried to play, except that (like or unlike Nixon) he might actually be mad. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Great. Now, for those following at home, we have a clear perspective on what the order of power is in the world:
1. The US
2. International law, regulations and institutional bodies
3. Every other country
(I'm being sarcastic, by the way. It really isn't great.) _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
A fair few countries have either withdrawn from being parties to the Hague, or never signed on in the first place.
It only has authority over people in your country if you agree to let it, so it effectively has no authority over the USA, Israel, Russia China or India to name just a few, which is a fair chunk of the worlds population and power. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Aside from a few arguably peremptory norms, everything is optional (as, if you think about it for a moment, almost everything must be in international law).
Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States all voted against the Rome Convention when it was originally established. That's fine company the US has been keeping.
The present status of the treaty is here: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en#12
In short, there are, I believe, presently 123 State parties and 138 signatories (including the US, which is a signatory but not a party). |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
Trump donated his $400k salary to rebuild military cemeteries today.
We won't see that on the news.... _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|