The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[Willbacker]

Trump "wants to" do a lot of things that he never ends up doing because he realizes they're probably dumb ideas. Pretty sure Trump could unilaterally get us out of Iran Deal if he actually wanted to, but he hasn't, so ya know, keep on being an apologist if you want. It's more amusing this way.

Are they holding up their end of the deal? Two part answer

1. What's the alternative? Not having any deal at all to enforce and watching them turn into a North Korea that you have to take seriously?
2. There is talk they've violated the deal by storing weapons outside the country, but that the Trump administration's fault for understaffing its embassies and failing to enforce the deal.

Republicans said the deal was bad because it would require enforcement. (No shit.) And now, the Donald is failing to enforce it. VERY interesting.

No you didn't need to lift the sanctions that were already in place and then give them billions of dollars. They were hurting. Now they're free to build on their nuclear capabilities.

Was Obama enforcing or kissing ass? Like he kissed the Saudi kings ring. And how do you want to enforce it? The Republicans were right.

 

[Willbacker]

I've seen it and I'm
Not buying it. Regulations are bad in a free and open market, but the internet is a straight up monopoly and always will be and in this case we need regulations

It cant be a monopoly if there's more than one player but I hear ya since theres very few players. The regulations just shouldn't be too heavy handed to make you jump thru hoops to be innovative. Big reason why I'm against major corporation mergers. Creates less competition and creates domination.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

Honestly I don't see an awful lot of evidence that Kim is unstable or a lunatic.

He may not be unstable, but he's a lunatic. He said he could speak to dolphins.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

Susan Anthony was a Repub for chrissakes.

I would be very careful using this as an argument. Being Republican or Democrat does not make you inherently liberal or conservative and party labels and ideologies have shifted over time.

Unless you want to take credit for Republican Lincoln creating the IRS which conservatives and libertarians coin thievery.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

in other news, net neutrality has been repealed

Still has to make it through congress to my understanding. The FCC has agreed to repeal it.

 

[The Raven]

I would be very careful using this as an argument. Being Republican or Democrat does not make you inherently liberal or conservative and party labels and ideologies have shifted over time.

Unless you want to take credit for Republican Lincoln creating the IRS which conservatives and libertarians coin thievery.

Eh, that was before realignment -- back when Republicans were the liberals. Lincoln was a liberal.

 

[K-Dog]

Still has to make it through congress to my understanding. The FCC has agreed to repeal it.

correct.
As of this moment, nothing has changed on our end.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

Eh, that was before realignment -- back when Republicans were the liberals. Lincoln was a liberal.

That's my point. You can't call Susan B Anthony a Republican and leave out the entire history of the US.

Unless we don't remember Federalists, Anti Feds, Whigs, Democratic Republicans, and the National Union Party

 

[RavensMania]

No you didn't need to lift the sanctions that were already in place and then give them billions of dollars. They were hurting. Now they're free to build on their nuclear capabilities.

Was Obama enforcing or kissing ass? Like he kissed the Saudi kings ring. And how do you want to enforce it? The Republicans were righut.

If anyone kissed the Saudi Kings ring it was George W. Bush.

 

[Inqui]

It's not like trump is the first president to be fully against NK having nukes, it's been a hit button issue for years and Russia is probably the only country who's secretly ok with NK having nukes. Japan is shitting their pants over this as is SK and china isn't too happy either. I agree that if NK and US can agree to disagree and then nukes stay stationed as a deterrent then that is fine, if no nukes are getting launched then it's just another country with a nuclear deterrent, but the Kim regime has been hellbent on destroying the US and it's not a secret, it just doesn't strike me as a deterrent for them.

The issue isn't with Trump being anti-NK nukes, it's the "fire and fury" rhetoric he uses to make it look like he's taking a strong stance on NK. My assertion is that NK won't do a thing unless they feel like a US first strike is imminent (you don't get a second chance to strike first and all), which is why previous presidents have been keeping the regime at arm's length. I don't think all the big talk (which is the same as Kim's "wiping the American bastards off the map" bollocks - it's big but it's just talk) moves the needle in the bigger picture, but I don't see how it creates a better outcome for anyone.

Like I say, India and Pakistan would genuinely wipe each other off the map in a second given the chance. But despite their nuclear arsenals they've held their fire for nearly 60 years. If neither of those two are willing to strike first, why would North Korea? The US has hundreds of missiles in the region pointed at Pyongyang and they're at least two technological generations more advanced than anything Kim will ever come up with. If he gets bored and launches all his nukes, he'll be lucky if he's still got a country to rule over 24 hours later, and he knows it. He's a despot but he's not a dumbass, and despite what he may say he doesn't hate the US more than India and Pakistan hate each other. South Korea maybe, but by now his own regime's survival is clearly the most important thing to him.

As another example, Reagan often referred to the Soviets as an "evil empire" and talked about "consigning them to the trash heap of history" but never fired first. Why is Kim more credible when he talks about obliterating the US?

He may not be unstable, but he's a lunatic. He said he could speak to dolphins.

The next-level propaganda he uses is logical for an authoritarian regime (just like his dad claiming he invented the game of golf). It's fun to laugh at but it's more about the regime surviving than any kind of insanity. And the idea that he's a lunatic has been repeated in the west so often that it's often believed without really feeling the need to justify it - it becomes the claim and the evidence. And that (combined with a tight grip on any press that comes out of the country) makes his regime a breeding ground for some pretty wild urban legends that add to the idea that he's a lunatic. Firing missile tests while Xi was in Mar-a-Lago was all about trying to see how a new US administration would respond, while assassinating Kim Jong-nam was about making it less likely that Beijing would replace him with its own guy. They're all self-interested moves from a regime obsessed with its own survival and not the kind of bloke who'd start a nuclear war because the voices in his head told him to.

 

[Oldfaithful]

He may not be unstable, but he's a lunatic. He said he could speak to dolphins.

And my dolphin brothers are deeply offended by this bullshit

 

[Ice Bowl]

Oh great that Neutrality net thing scares me. I hope they get rid of it.

 

[Oldfaithful]

View attachment 368

I mean basically. I understand government is necessary but welcome to 2018!!!!!

 

[JoeyFlex5]

It cant be a monopoly if there's more than one player but I hear ya since theres very few players. The regulations just shouldn't be too heavy handed to make you jump thru hoops to be innovative. Big reason why I'm against major corporation mergers. Creates less competition and creates domination.

Duopoly, is that a word lol?

But in most of the country there is only one producer with 21st century technology, major metro areas on the coasts and a few Midwest cities and major cities in Texas have fios, so Verizon has a stranglehold there, and everywhere else is dominated by Comcast because the only compeitors are using decrepit DSL infrastructure and holding on to the last few idiot customers who like dial up speeds.

And the regulations weren't heavy handed, they were about fair practices and consumer protection, the only 2 good things that can come from regulations are: worker satisfaftion, customer satisfaction, and one of those has just been removed and the other will be unaffected. This just isn't gonna lead to innovation, cable companies owning internet is bad because they're bleeding profits from cable package losses, their entire focus is now going to be making up for their losses from cable and will be gouging our pockets as a big "fuck you" for dropping an obsolete technology in favor of streaming.

 

[The Raven]

Pretty sure the repeal of net neutrality, the continued merging of cable companies, and the scarcity of ISPs will inevitably lead to duopolies or even a monopoly. It's time to start enforcing antitrust laws and putting an end to that bullshit. TR sued dozens of trusts back in the early 1910s. Hopefully our next president will do the same, because we all know this one won't.

Oh, and update on the net neutrality repeal for those who think it won't be problematic. Comcast has deleted from its website its pledge not to have paid prioritization and its pledge to ensure low income families have internet access. In other words, Comcast appears fine with the creation of fast lanes that poor people won't be able to afford. I can easily see this leading to a slippery slope in which more low income folks are pushed out of Internet. "Want faster speed? Just pay me more."

 

[Willbacker]

If anyone kissed the Saudi Kings ring it was George W. Bush.

No Bush kissed him on the lips lol. Obama kissed the ring. And Trump is embarrassing lol.

 

[SepticeyePoe]

 

[Willbacker]

I would be very careful using this as an argument. Being Republican or Democrat does not make you inherently liberal or conservative and party labels and ideologies have shifted over time.

Unless you want to take credit for Republican Lincoln creating the IRS which conservatives and libertarians coin thievery.

No I shouldn't have to. Lincoln created it for war in 1862 to cover costs. Grant (R) got rid of it 10 yrs later. Alexander (D) recreated it in 1894. Thank you very much.

Oh btw party ideologies haven't shifted you guys still in big govt, higher taxes and racism.

 

[Willbacker]

 

[29BmoreBird22]

No I shouldn't have to. Lincoln created it for war in 1862 to cover costs. Grant (R) got rid of it 10 yrs later. Alexander (D) recreated it in 1894. Thank you very much.

Oh btw party ideologies haven't shifted you guys still in big govt, higher taxes and racism.

Well you should because there were Feds, Anti Feds, Whiggs, Democratic Republicans, and National Union Party members (which Lincoln actually was after his first term).

Grant didn't repeal it. The law was always meant to be a war time only law, but it was actually put permanently into effect under Taft, a Republican. Under CLEVELAND, it was actually struck down in 1894, but unsurprisingly, the Democrat CLEVELAND was voted in by every southern state, something we see commonly of Republicans today.

Party ideologies absolutely have. What parties delivered what message and what areas they attacked have heavily changed through history

It would be incredibly naive to say that Republicans and Democrats today (and all their preceding named parties) are the same today as they were in the 1800s, 1700s, 1600s.

It's the reason I never say I'm Democrat or Republican. In 50 years, I may very well be a supporter of the working man party or some new party name.