Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

That reputation (or lack thereof) matters in terms of my country's ability to interact diplomatically (or in any way other than unilateral violence) with the rest of the world.

Then you have to, um, work to restore it. A reform of the broken electoral system that gave us two terms of Dubya the Warmonger and Trump could be a start... wait, not possible.

You know you're preaching to the choir here.

True that. But the US is already rapidly losing power, because the world's changing. I just hope it happens in a safe and controlled way, that's the best I can hope for, kind of like the post WWII removal of the British Empire. But Trump isn't at all reassuring in that regard!

Indeed.

No, you didn't, because you were against, that's why I feel sorry... but the country as a whole, maybe yes (though I feel sorry even for them, even for idiots whose relatives were deported by Trump because they were immigrants). Because Trump is a symptom of deep defects in the society.. not easily healed.

I suppose we're all culpable in that we all could have been better, and done more, to prevent this.

But most of the American people do not want and do not respect Trump. It is, as you said, a consequence of a broken electoral system (as well as a culture of increasing political radicalism on the one hand, and political apathy and cynicism on the other).

[LaCroix]

But most of the American people do not want *snip* Trump.

Wrong.

The majority of eligible voters did not care for either candidate.

[The Romulan Republic]

But most of the American people do not want *snip* Trump.

Wrong.

The majority of eligible voters did not care for either candidate.

Do note that "Most voters did not want Trump" and "Most voters did not want either candidate" are in no way contradictory statements.

Although, the majority not voting does also not mean that the majority was opposed to both candidates, either. It simply means they didn't support one of them enough to get off their arses (in some cases), or that they could not vote due to being minors/non-citizens/felons/in places with restrictive voter ID laws/etc. (in others).

[LaCroix]

Those who could not vote for legal reasons are summed up under ineligible.

But it meant that 30% of the voters did not find Trump abhorrend enough to support the other candidate. Not voting means "I'm ok with any outcome", not "I don't want either of them". Because you will get one of them, anyway, so you should at least chose which one you find less bad.

Thus 49.4 % of eligible voters were fine with Trump being President, only 19.8% against him.

Granted, a few percent of the 49% could be people who had non-legal reasons, but still, they didn't care enough to overcome whatever hurdle there was.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's... overly simplistic.

There are people, for example, who profess to despise both Trump and Clinton, both Democrats and Republicans, and vote third party, or don't vote out of a sense of futility or protest.

Now, I think those people are generally self-deluded and self-indulgent, but I don't think its necessarily fair to lump them in with Trump supporters.

[K. A. Pital]

But they aren't supporters, they are just either indifferent or hate both camps enough to have enabled the end result.

Maybe they weren't wrong to hate both, but the result was the same, no?

I say this as someone who had no opportunity to vote, but if I had one, I'd be exceptionally hard to use my right when choosing between such bad candidates.

[The Romulan Republic]

No argument there.

I think the "Both parties are just as bad" anti-establishment crowd... weren't all Trumpers (though some of them certainly were), but were certainly thoroughly played by the Trumpers.

[K. A. Pital]

No argument there.

I think the "Both parties are just as bad" anti-establishment crowd... weren't all Trumpers (though some of them certainly were), but were certainly thoroughly played by the Trumpers.

No, the Trumpers got very lucky that the other candidate was so hated by anti-establishment people. If this was an Obama-type of candidate, Trump would eat dirt. But the issue was compounded by the fact Obama let some of the anti-est people who voted for "Hope" & "Change" down, so the disillusionment was even stronger.

Trumpers got lucky and they had good knowledge of geography and able staff, and there was a myriad other cirumstances as well.

If only Trump lost we'd still be talking about just how bad Hillary and the establishment are, trust me, and not just for the fun of it but rather due to real problems with her as a candidate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I'll agree that Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate, though how much of her baggage is genuine short-comings on her part, and how much was manufactured by her opponents over the course of an arguably unprecedented multi-decade smear campaign, is debatable.

Still, you are quite correct, I think, that Obama (or any other comparably prominent Democrat, ie Joe Biden) would have mopped the floor with Trump.

[Thanas]

This also does not help

[K. A. Pital]

I kind of understand Russia. Trump working hard to ensure the US empire self destructs. At the same time, talk of Lifting sanctions. Pretty good on the balance. The Xi-Putin gambit proceeding along nicely. Trump pushing the US hard into dustbin of history.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump has cancelled his UK visit to open the new US embassy:

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-12/dona ... y-embassy/

Can't say I'm surprised; Madame Tussauds also took the opportunity to wheel out a new waxwork of him. The sculpture needed to be more orange, though.

[Crazedwraith]

Trump has cancelled his UK visit to open the new US embassy:

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-01-12/dona ... y-embassy/

Can't say I'm surprised; Madame Tussauds also took the opportunity to wheel out a new waxwork of him. The sculpture needed to be more orange, though.

You've rather broken that link. The url needs to be inside the first tag. The text of the links between the tab.
Like This


It's because it's bad decision by Obama (Bush) to move the embassay and not because we might protest him.

Sadly the full state visit is still happening at some point.

[Thanas]

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump has cancelled his UK visit to open the new US embassy:

Link

Can't say I'm surprised; Madame Tussauds also took the opportunity to wheel out a new waxwork of him. The sculpture needed to be more orange, though.

You've rather broken that link. The url needs to be inside the first tag. The text of the links between the tab.
Like This


It's because it's bad decision by Obama (Bush) to move the embassay and not because we might protest him.

Sadly the full state visit is still happening at some point.

Crap, I don't know how I messed that up, I must have done hundreds of links correctly

I don't much fancy our government using our time and money to protect the biggest douchebag on the planet when he arrives.

[Ralin]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

[K. A. Pital]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

You heard immigrants describe it, but try saying to a person his country is a shithole in his face and the reaction might be the same level of anger.

[Thanas]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

You heard immigrants describe it, but try saying to a person his country is a shithole in his face and the reaction might be the same level of anger.

Just look at how many 'muricans react on this board to criticism of their country and regularly accuse people who do so of being anti-american.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it weird that the shithole countries comment has struck such a nerve out of all the crap Trump has said and done. I mean, yeah it's racist given the context, but I've heard immigrants from underdeveloped countries describe them the exact same way. It is in fact how I routinely describe Louisiana.

You heard immigrants describe it, but try saying to a person his country is a shithole in his face and the reaction might be the same level of anger.

Just look at how many 'muricans react on this board to criticism of their country and regularly accuse people who do so of being anti-american.

I don't know who you're referring to, but for my part, I do not have objections to criticisms of America or its official policies. I engage in such criticisms routinely myself, as you are doubtless aware.

What I DO object to is sweeping, sterotyped attacks on Americans in general, or "collective guilt" where people are treated as personally responsible for whatever bullshit the US government did today simply because they happened to be born Americans.

Just like I'd have a problem with that sort of treatment of the citizens of any other country (and before anyone mentions Russia, I defy anyone on this board to find any point where I have ever expressed hatred or contempt towards the Russian people- my hostility is focused on the regime of Vladimir Putin, much as my criticisms of Trump do not reflect a hatred of Americans).

[Thanas]

What I DO object to is sweeping, sterotyped attacks on Americans in general, or "collective guilt" where people are treated as personally responsible for whatever bullshit the US government did today simply because they happened to be born Americans.

Collective guilt goes hand in hand with popular sovereignty. To disavow one is to disavow the other.

[K. A. Pital]

You know, TRR... that post was not meant to be replied to. You made it too obvious that you’re getting riled up when the US is bashed. That aside, I think you would be a bit offended if I would’ve called the US a shithole nation.

Just as people got offended by Trump calling their nations “shithole”.

[The Romulan Republic]

What I DO object to is sweeping, sterotyped attacks on Americans in general, or "collective guilt" where people are treated as personally responsible for whatever bullshit the US government did today simply because they happened to be born Americans.

Collective guilt goes hand in hand with popular sovereignty. To disavow one is to disavow the other.

That seems a fairly simplistic position.

As I understand it, your argument is that in a democracy, the government represents the people and the people are therefore collectively responsible for their government's actions?

That sounds perfectly reasonable, put that way. But...

At what point has democracy been sufficiently undermined (the Electoral College, voter supression, gerrymandering, etc.) that the government can no longer be considered a reflection of the will of the people? Do we take degrees of guilt into account? Are all Americans equally guilty, or are those who voted against Trump less guilty of his actions than those who voted for him? What about those people in America who could not legally vote at all (non-citizens, the underage, many felons, people who got fucked over by voter suppression laws)?

If being a part of the nation makes one guilty of its acts, then presumably the only way not to be guilty of them would be to cease being a citizen- to renounce one's citizenship and leave the country? But would that not be simply an abdication of responsibility? And if so- can a person be considered guilty if it is literally impossible for them to take any action that would make them NOT guilty?

Personally, I'll admit some responsibility for the current state of affairs, in that I could have done better, done more, to help prevent it. I certainly do not hold myself equally responsible to those who, say, voted for Trump and/or campaigned for him. Nor do I feel that one is automatically guilty for his acts, simply for having been born American.

You know, TRR... that post was not meant to be replied to.

If you post on a discussion forum, you generally expect people to respond to what you say.

You made it too obvious that you're getting riled up when the US is bashed. That aside, I think that you would be a bit offended if I would've called the US a shithole nation.

Um... yeah?

Though its not simply wounded national pride- I have a philosophical objection to collective guilt in general, which would extend to similar rhetoric against citizens of other countries as well.

Although... weather I would take offence to the US being called a shithole nation would probably depend on the way in which it was meant. If it was referring to the US as a geopolitical entity, ie the current US government and its actions... I'd probably be more likely to give you a thumbs-up.

I would object to the US people/culture being collectively referred to as a shithole, yeah.

Just as people got offended by Trump calling their nations "shithole".

Again... yeah?

They have every right to be offended. Hell, I was offended by it.

[K. A. Pital]

Well yeah, but that was my point.

[Thanas]

As I understand it, your argument is that in a democracy, the government represents the people and the people are therefore collectively responsible for their government's actions?

My argument is exactly what I wrote.

That sounds perfectly reasonable, put that way. But...

At what point has democracy been sufficiently undermined (the Electoral College, voter supression, gerrymandering, etc.) that the government can no longer be considered a reflection of the will of the people?

Certainly not at the current state unless you want to suggest Obama was a dictator.

Do we take degrees of guilt into account?

When it eventually comes to pass that the USA is occupied and every single one of its citizens has to appear before a tribunal of occupiers to determine their punishment then yes.

Are all Americans equally guilty, or are those who voted against Trump less guilty of his actions than those who voted for him? What about those people in America who could not legally vote at all (non-citizens, the underage, many felons, people who got fucked over by voter suppression laws)?

Every citizen that is in full possession of his and her rights and is able to exercise them is responsible for the outcome of a democratical process. This is something I have explained to you several times. And you never seem to remember those conversations. Why is that?

[The Romulan Republic]

My argument is exactly what I wrote.

Yes. But terms like "collective guilt" and "popular sovereignty" have somewhat complex definitions. So I was attempting to summarize what I thought you meant in slightly more detail, to make sure that we were on the same page.

Do you feel that I have in someway misinterpreted your meaning?

Certainly not at the current state unless you want to suggest Obama was a dictator.

Obama was not, to my knowledge, elected with the overt assistance of a foreign government. And IIRC "Citizens United" (and a whole lot of voter suppression/gerrymandering IIRC) have come subsequent to his election.

That said, I'm not going to take a stand here on weather the contemporary US qualifies as "sufficiently democratic". It is simply one of several complicating factors that must be considered in ANY case where you wish to hold the citizenry accountable for the actions of their government, and thus I included it in my summary of the issues involved.

When it eventually comes to pass that the USA is occupied and every single one of its citizens has to appear before a tribunal of occupiers to determine their punishment then yes.

I'm going to assume you are being facetious, because the alternative is that you are insane.

In fact, this is such a ridiculous hypothetical that I half-suspect it was included simply to try to get a rise out of me.

Every citizen that is in full possession of his and her rights and is able to exercise them is responsible for the outcome of a democratical process. This is something I have explained to you several times. And you never seem to remember those conversations.

I remember you saying so before, yes. As I said, I was attempting to provide a summary of the various issues involved. I was not attempting to make an assertion about what your position was.

But if that is your definition, then I wonder how you square "is able to exercise them" with the fact that a great many American citizens... aren't. Or at least are restricted in their ability to do so.

Which brings us back to the question of "what constitutes sufficiently democratic"?