US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[bury the year]

And China has started to put sanctions and such on NK, even if they are just in line with UN reconomendations it's a positive first step. They are never going to be truly hard on the North Koreans because they have funk all to gain by doing so. If NK collapses they have to do most of the clean up.

Eh, not really.

 

Even though they're an ally, China has incentive to pressure NK because they, outside of SK, are the country with the most to lose. Having a land border with NK means that if something over there goes hot, China will take a good deal of it.

 

China's main goal for NK is to see the status quo remain: they don't care so much about improving the country as they do not seeing it sour. Regime collapse is the worst possible outcome for China. There's a reason why even though it's the largest aid donor to NK in the world, their economic relationship as of late has chilled off. The CCP is worried that Kim Jong-Un's governance has become more and more unstable as of late, and they're worried that something at some point is going to topple.

[vla1ne]

 

But otherwise, as an ethnic Russian, I have no problem with my ancestral home expanding back to it's former glory 

no. cannot be supporting countries taking parts of other countries. too much would spark if any large country started militant expansion again.

 

 

 

As a European citizen I don't want to see an US leader and such with ties to Russia that may in fact drive them to prioritise friendship with them over Friendship with is scary because if Russia expands, it expands in my direction. And a lot of Europe has not to distant memories of a time where a power marched in from the east. It marks an awful lot of our history. On top of ignoring some few hundred years of close ties with Europe instead of Russia. Russia isn't even a particularly good partner for the US other than for say military and oil because the Russian economy is just awful, but the US has that in abundance anyway.

 

Personal ties are probably fine. Buisness ties are more of an issue because it means the Russian government has undue levels of infulence which they can then use as leverage to get s*** from Europe they shouldn't do.

 

So my opposition is more personal, because I quite like not seeing Europe slowing being assimilated into Russia.

 

And China has started to put sanctions and such on NK, even if they are just in line with UN reconomendations it's a positive first step. They are never going to be truly hard on the North Koreans because they have f*** all to gain by doing so. If NK collapses they have to do most of the clean up.

hopefully russia doesn't start expanding, but even so, the alliance with russia is more to soothe over tensions between superpowers than it is to screw over the EU, in one case, should the US and russia be on any tense terms, the EU would be caught in the middle regardless, and on the other, should russia and the US be on good terms, any agression from an side coud more easily be shut down, without the need for violence, or at least with far less violence. as for business aggression, that's how the game's played right now, russia and europe aren't on such tense terms that it would ruin either country to play hardball, and i doubt trump would let russia get away with using american connections as a proxy to screw europe over.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

no. cannot be supporting countries taking parts of other countries. too much would spark if any large country started militant expansion again.

 

 

 

hopefully russia doesn't start expanding, but even so, the alliance with russia is more to soothe over tensions between superpowers than it is to screw over the EU, in one case, should the US and russia be on any tense terms, the EU would be caught in the middle regardless, and on the other, should russia and the US be on good terms, any agression from an side coud more easily be shut down, without the need for violence, or at least with far less violence. as for business aggression, that's how the game's played right now, russia and europe aren't on such tense terms that it would ruin either country to play hardball, and i doubt trump would let russia get away with using american connections as a proxy to screw europe over.

What if the US and Russia both started expanding? There's not a ton of countries that can stand up to an Moscow-Washington Alliance

 

Europe has too many small countries in the east that are a constant thorn to productivity. Lowering the world entropy isn't a bad idea in my eyes

 

In any case, I just want Russia to let us deal with the Middle East. But I wouldn't oppose the US annexation of Canada or Mexico 

[vla1ne]

no. we've finally made it past that, as far as first world countries go. taking down smaller countries is just not right in any way. smaller countries have more than enough to deal with, without larger countries preying on them. not to mention alliances would be broken and reformed far to quickly to keep track of should any large country begin re expanding.

[VCR_CAT]

But I wouldn't oppose the US annexation of Canada

 

Oh yeah, invading the number 2 most reputable nation in the world with allies everywhere, mmmm yes what could possibly go wrong

 

Joking aside, no I absolutely do not support expansionism. Crimea alone was an illegal annexation by Russia and needs to be reversed, we don't need leaders going "Eh, I kinda want more territory."

[Sunshine Jesse]

What if the US and Russia both started expanding? There's not a ton of countries that can stand up to an Moscow-Washington Alliance

 

Europe has too many small countries in the east that are a constant thorn to productivity. Lowering the world entropy isn't a bad idea in my eyes

 

In any case, I just want Russia to let us deal with the Middle East. But I wouldn't oppose the US annexation of Canada or Mexico 

Okay.

 

How the funk is that any different from globalization?

 

It literally results in the same thing. Except it's violent, so it's even less defensible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh yeah, invading the number 2 most reputable nation in the world with allies everywhere, mmmm yes what could possibly go wrong

Very little if you were intelligent about it. All you really need is a loose cannon like North Korea or Iran to destabilize things a little, just enough for a white knight situation 

 

The whole syrian conflict makes so much sense now....this is why the GOP are suddenly bleeding their little hearts about the matter. Dems likely don't care as much, but they're superficial enough to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Trump

Okay.

 

How the funk is that any different from globalization?

 

It literally results in the same thing. Except it's violent, so it's even less defensible.

Globalization was bringing non-American values into America

 

This would bring American values to non-America

 

It's different depending on where you stand

 

US Annexing Canada or (lol) Mexico was honestly a joke, we're not culturally similar enough. Russia and Crimea are, that's why I support what Putin did there.

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's even worse if Russia does it because they're a backwards country with a crumbling infrastructure and barely-functional economy that can only assert its place in the world by waving around a big stick. They'd have nothing but a bad effect on anything they annexed.

 

I'm actually not even anti-globalization, for the record. I just don't like the corporate globalism that trade deals accomplish.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's even worse if Russia does it because they're a backwards country with a crumbling infrastructure and barely-functional economy that can only assert its place in the world by waving around a big stick. They'd have nothing but a bad effect on anything they annexed.

 

I'm actually not even anti-globalization, for the record. I just don't like the corporate globalism that trade deals accomplish.

The people of Crimea beg to differ. They're "crumbling" because Clinton and Obama passed their failed policies's impacts off on Russia

 

There's actually not a great analogy for US expansionism. Maybe cutting a pathway to Alaska, but Canada isn't belligerent enough to warrant that.

 

Russia cleaning up some the smaller lawless states in the east really doesn't worry me. It's overall a good thing for America if the EU breaks down

[VCR_CAT]

The people of Crimea beg to differ. They're "crumbling" because Clinton and Obama passed their failed policies's impacts off on Russia

 

There's actually not a great analogy for US expansionism. Maybe cutting a pathway to Alaska, but Canada isn't belligerent enough to warrant that.

 

Russia cleaning up some the smaller lawless states in the east really doesn't worry me. It's overall a good thing for America if the EU breaks down

 

Wouldn't they be crumbling because of the illegal annexation Russia did on them and how their economy is a part of Russia's own crumbling infrastructure?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wouldn't they be crumbling because of the illegal annexation Russia did on them and how their economy is a part of Russia's own crumbling infrastructure?

Maybe if the GOP hasn't backed an illegal coup that overthrew the democratically elected leader of Ukraine for a nutjob they wouldn't have needed to turn to russia...Idk...just some inconvenient facts

[VCR_CAT]

Maybe if the GOP hasn't backed an illegal coup that overthrew the democratically elected leader of Ukraine for a nutjob they wouldn't have needed to turn to russia...Idk...just some inconvenient facts

 

Oh, don't get me started on the BS that the US has pulled when they've interfered with foreign nations in order to push their own agenda. What Russia did was bad, but the US is definitely far from blameless.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh, don't get me started on the BS that the US has pulled when they've interfered with foreign nations in order to push their own agenda. What Russia did was bad, but the US is definitely far from blameless.

Not like the good folks of the UK or Canada didn't have any fingers in that Ukraine pie either. 

 

The point being, the EU and NATO had a hand in the unrest of Crimea, mainly blaming the Russians for doing what the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted them to do is shortsighted 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Why are you blaming the GOP for this one? 

 

US interests had very little to do with the Ukraine revolution to my understanding. The revolution came about because the president at the time, Viktor Yanukovyk refused to approve a deal designed to integrate the Ukraine and the EU somewhat closer. Riots started in November 2013, and escalated to full blown conflict earlier in the next year, leading to the coup and the establishment of a new Ukranian government. The suspension of the deal was, in the presidents own words, a result of Russia asking it not to and offering an extension to a few existing trade deals between the Ukraine and Russia. Which a lot of people didn't like because the Ukraine has been trying to integrate itself into the EU for a decade and a half. 

 

Russia then immediately makes plans to annex Crimea, and then moves soldiers in to seize control shortly before the people of Crimea hold a referendum to free themselves from Ukraine, and then integrate themselves into Russia. The issue there being obviously the fact that Russia moved in before any kind of formal vote by Crimea happened. Additionally in the months following that, Russia continued to be aggressive and seized many parts of land on the land border between the two.

 

It is true to say that Crimea wanted to be part of Russia, but they still violated diplomatic protocol and infringed upon the sovriengity of the Ukraine in doing so. Which given that the Ukraine is a former soviet state should be worrying; The nation had been shifting closer to NATO in the past decade and a half than Russia, which does suggest in no small part that it wishes to be it's own state and not part of Russia.

 

The issue will always be the fact that Russia ignored diplomatic protocol, not whether or not Crimea actually wanted to be part of Russia again or not (Because it overwhelmingly did). Russia should not be able to annex portions of bordering nations at a whim without reconompense. Especially when you consider that most other European nations don't have the military assests that Ukraine does and thus are less capable of fighting back. (Ukraine has the second largest military outside of Russia in Europe iirc).

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First part, John McCain and his neocon pals were cheering on the situation. The fact that the CIA has been watching Manafort (who worked for the former Ukrainian president) makes me question just how clean the US was on the matter. 

 

As for the rest, I'll bite, do you think Northern Ireland should have the right to leave the UK post brexit?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yes. They have the right to leave right now if they want. They shouldn't because they couldn't support themselves, but they are entirely within there right to. Don't forget we had a Scottish independance referendum a few years back. If they want to leave, and they go through the proper process to do so, then it's completely fine. The issue comes when you don't obey this process.

 

My issue with Crimea has been that Russia annexed it, before any kind of due process was observed. They could have waited literally a week and an independace vote could have happened that would leave the same result, but without Russia being aggressors in the situation.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes. They have the right to leave right now if they want. They shouldn't because they couldn't support themselves, but they are entirely within there right to. Don't forget we had a Scottish independance referendum a few years back. If they want to leave, and they go through the proper process to do so, then it's completely fine. The issue comes when you don't obey this process.

 

My issue with Crimea has been that Russia annexed it, before any kind of due process was observed. They could have waited literally a week and an independace vote could have happened that would leave the same result, but without Russia being aggressors in the situation.

I get that angle, but given the nature of the coup that had just taken place it's not hard to understand that the crimeans felt insecure. They had no allies in the matter. The EU was openly hostile, and the US was at best a hostile non-participant 

 

There have been numerous surveys taken by non-Russian agencies after the annexation. And without fail the vast majority of Crimea does in fact validate the choice of the original referendum

 

X+Y, Y being the impact of Russian Troops, X being the impact of Crimean sentiment ends up being equal to X

 

The conclusion to draw from there is that Y had a negligible effect. You can argue that Russia should have waited, but I have little confidence that Ukraine would have respected the view of the Crimeans if it came down to it. 

 

What is irrefutable is that the people did overwhelmingly want out

 

---

 

https://www.docdroid.net/c6jyESW/ascertainment-pennsylvania.pdf.html

 

Pennsylvania is done

 

Tennessee certifies: Trump 1,522,925 (60.7%), Clinton 870,695 (34.7%), Others 114,407 (4.6%). Worst loss for a Dem in TN since 1972.

 

Michigan investigating democratic voted fraud in Detroit 

[Aerion Brightflame]

And again, I'm not questioning whether or not Crimea wanted out of Ukraine and into Russia; we know they did. Simply the fact that Russia over stepped it's boundaries and violated Ukraine's sovreingity in doing so. If a nation had done this to the US, it would be considered an act of war. Crimea was terratory of the Ukraine. Russia can't simply move troops in without the express permission of the nation.

 

It's not about 'standing up for Crimea' here. Crimea is irrelevant compared to Russia's hostile actions. If Russa had moved troops in, after Crimea had a referendum of joining the Russian federation, then they have a leg to stand on. The democratic process had been observed, and if it was then ignored by the Ukraine government, they are in the wrong. But Russia did not wait, they moved in before the referendum took place. And that will always be the issue; You simply can't allow a nation to move into a terratory of another sovreign nation and annex said terratory before any kind of democratic process occurs (Short of a war declaratin) without consequence.

 

Of course there is technically a legal argument saying that it is well within the rights of the Ukraine's parliament to dismiss the referendum results, because it is literally written in law that the Ukraine parliament can veto the Crimean one. Which serves to conflict matters frankly.

 

The results here, are frankly irrelevant to me. Crimea could be independant, they could not be independant, they could be part of Russia, whatever it is. The point is that Russia overstepped, and it has to be punished as a result. You have to tell them that they cannot infringe upon the sovriegnity of the border nations without allowing for extentisive amounts of due process. Russia is absolutely in the wrong there, and you have to enforce this idea upon them because otherwise there is the issue they will keep doing so.

 

Like currently Russia is a fairly weak oil based economy; But give them the Ukraine, as a whole, and suddenly they are one of the largest grain manufacturors and potential exports in the world (Because the Ukraine is). Allowing Russia to annex these kinds of nations will only strengthen them, and shift the balance of power in US-Russia relations in Russia's favour.

 

I simply do not accept 'results matter more than the method' here, because the issue at hand is the method that the Russians underwent this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It'll tilt the EU-Russian balance in Russia's favor. And I'm perfectly happy to see Russia eat away at the EU Tom

 

They've suffered a financial penalty for their actions. If you put Crimea back in Ukraine, they'll just sign a new referendum and go out again. The results won't change and Russia has paid. Move on

[Aerion Brightflame]

And you don't think a stronger, more independant Russia would tip the US-Russia balance in Russia's favour? Or destroying some of the US's biggest trading partners and closest historical allies won't further weaken the US whilst making Russia better? The US and the EU are allies, I would love for you to remember that. One becoming weaker makes the other weaker.

 

And because I cannot be more emphatic here;

The results here, are frankly irrelevant to me. Crimea could be independant, they could not be independant, they could be part of Russia, whatever it is. The point is that Russia overstepped, and it has to be punished as a result. You have to tell them that they cannot infringe upon the sovriegnity of the border nations without allowing for extentisive amounts of due process. Russia is absolutely in the wrong there, and you have to enforce this idea upon them because otherwise there is the issue they will keep doing so.

 

You are talking about giving them Crimea now; about completely disregarding the sovreignity of the Ukraine, and just handing them a terratory that the US has no right to give. And then removing the financial sanctations that are meant to make them not considering doing such again. You are always talking about projecting strength; Why let Russia up now? Why not let them keep eating the f***ing dirt till they come grovelling, and give the US/EU whatever the hell it wants in exchange for the sanctions being lifted? Why be soft on them now when you've been calling out the super soft treatment that Obama's adminstration gave other nations?

 

I am not going to move on from this argument, because I am talking about Russia respecting the democratic process. As in the process itself, not the damn result. I know that because the US isn't involved, you don't really care about this point, but I also know the second it was reversed, and say China annexed Hawaii before any kind of referendum or such could occur about the issue, you'd be up in arms, and saying how China needs to back down and learn it's place for daring for violate the sovriegnity of the US. I know you are US first, but being US first doesn't mean you can ignore this sort of s*** just because the US might have some potential level of gain in it.

 

That's ignoring how I'm kinda sick of Europe being a battleground, and I don't want to see expansionist Russia risk doing so again. Part of doing that is by ensuring that every nation sticks to the f***ing rules and respects sovriengity. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It'll tilt the EU-Russian balance in Russia's favor. And I'm perfectly happy to see Russia eat away at the EU Tom

 

They've suffered a financial penalty for their actions. If you put Crimea back in Ukraine, they'll just sign a new referendum and go out again. The results won't change and Russia has paid. Move on

It seems like you are ignoring the issues with what went on because you liked the end result. Ends don't justify means.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wait I think I missed/misunderstood some things. Winter, why is it you want Russia to take over other countries?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait I think I missed/misunderstood some things. Winter, why is it you want Russia to take over other countries?

Mainly because I think the damage of Merkel's vision for Europe is already spreading to America. 

 

I think a unified Europe (which would have a near US sized economy) is good for the US. 

 

That aside, the EU is far too lax on Islam and refugees, Putin is one of the last defenders of a western vision that I support

It seems like you are ignoring the issues with what went on because you liked the end result. Ends don't justify means.

I'm not sure what you're gonna suggest. A redo? The end result is gonna be the same clearly, and Russia has paid a financial price for their belligerence. Crimea does not want anything to do with Ukraine, that was true then and now.  

[Dad]

And if this dude really uses Fiorina's dumbass for anything, I'm gonna regret my God damn vote.  You want her on intelligence?  She's just as dumb as a doornail.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And if this dude really uses Fiorina's dumbass for anything, I'm gonna regret my God damn vote.  You want her on intelligence?  She's just as dumb as a doornail.

Thought she was running for VA senate?

 

It's news if she's getting that role over the slew of more qualified individual. I'd personally like to see Rudy there.

 

Anyway link to her being in? It sounds a lot like the Palin getting Interior crap (which she didn't)