• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
How could someone be so blind about Trump ? :|

The way I see it, presidency is an extrastep in his own physical evolution that led him from the vulture to the owl to finally the elephant corpse, beacause maybe he'll lost his wings and questionnable appetite.

Anyway, if he does not like his own physical, or just doesn't assume it, it's probably beacause he doesn't like a part of the culture that probably made him confuse about certains aspects of the world and himself. He's he another typical exemple of the evolution of the culture, just not a very good one.

But that's ok because he's very funny ! :\ So much ! He was telling jokes right ? :? Aouch... so funny...
 
MydriHaze said:
He's he another typical exemple of the evolution of the culture, just not a very good one.
Click to expand...

i think the word you're looking for is devolution
 
Last edited:
At least he reversed course. But yeah this will hopefully be an absolute disaster for him. I'm really hoping that a significant portion of his support base finally wakes up because of this (or any of a number of other things he's been doing).

Or how about, I don't know, Trump pulling out of the UN human rights council?? If there was ever a red flag... :|
 
Xorkoth said:
Or how about, I don't know, Trump pulling out of the UN human rights council?? If there was ever a red flag... :|
Click to expand...

That was Haley. I'm glad she did, too. The world sits back and lets atrocities happen like DPRK, Rwanda, the death camps in Germany, and sits back and puts the popcorn on and watches. No balls. The US is the only country willing to step into certain humanitarian crisis any longer, and thanks to the voter base of the US it'll likely never happen again.
 
^^ Agree CH.

Trump haters need to stop being so one-eyed. Yes, he is a buffoon who is making a mockery out of the position, and he has got to where he is by giving a nod and a wink to the racist fuckwits of the extreme right, but not everything the administration do is wrong.
 
I try to think critically about individual decisions. I often find myself agreeing with the democrats, a lot, because as a libertarian I value civil rights quite high.

Speeding up FDA decisions was another plus.

To be fair I do see how the decision to abandon the human rights council in the UN could be seen as a red flag. It's important to keep an eye on future US statements in the UN, and how they handle other situations. It's been said they left because of the humanitarian crisis at the border, which the US did not want international pressure to change.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
That was Haley. I'm glad she did, too. The world sits back and lets atrocities happen like DPRK, Rwanda, the death camps in Germany, and sits back and puts the popcorn on and watches. No balls. The US is the only country willing to step into certain humanitarian crisis any longer, and thanks to the voter base of the US it'll likely never happen again.
Click to expand...
It's seems a little unfair to blame something like the DPRK on the U.N. No decent person wants the DPRK to exist, but the current state is beneficial to other countries/groups at best and unsavory at worst. Even if you could erase all the people with power in the DPRK the reintegration of an entire country would be a huge challenge and detrimental to all the surrounding countries. You'd have at least 1 generation that would be completely unequipped to live in the modern world and a government would have to be created for them because no country is going to want to take the citizens.
 
quiet roar said:
^^ True, but what about China? Russia?
Click to expand...
Would I like the UN to get more results, absolutely. However, the UN can't do much about a sovereign nation. They can create sanctions and reprimand, but they can't use direct force. They members of the UN may send their military under the UN flag, but only if it's approved by the Security Council, however, Russia and China are permanent members of the council so it's unlikely they'd allow that. The closest the UN has come to military action is probably their current efforts in the Congo, but that is with the permission of the legal government.

Global efforts will always be hampered as long as nations have sovereignty. Even if China, Russia and the U.S. came to a unilateral agreement they couldn't stop India from doing the opposite. For the U.N. (or any global effort) to become more effective all nations would have to give up their autonomy in some form. Obviously this is pretty radical and not a particularly appealing option, but it really seems like the only option if humans wanted to stop something like say pollution. As much as I and others like to complain about our current systems (and it has tons of problems), history tells us things could be a lot worse. My real worries are that our societies are not sustainable. Believing a perfect world can exist is silly, but not working to improve society and insure it's future is crazy.

Sorry for derailing a bit, but I hope this is somewhat relevant to the discussion.
 
First to make this actually relevant I have to say I'm quite surprised by what seems to be a positive conversation with DPRK and I'll give Trump that. I'm also glad he listened to the public outcry and signed the executive order.

Captain.Heroin said:
Greater sanctions can be leveled against these bad actors.

Diplomatic pleas to the rest of the world to distance themselves from these bad actors as well. US has led the effort on this with DPRK.
Click to expand...

I agree in cases like the DPRK it's easy to see their atrocities and they don't really trade so we have nothing to lose from cutting them off. However, it's hard to sanction countries we are becoming more dependent on because of trade and outsourcing, which is probably beyond the point-of-no-return.

As for diplomatic pleas, deciding who's a "bad actor" is rarely unanimous. A country might not cooperate because of inability and how would sanctions and pleas deal with that? Going back to the pollution thing, if the major powers decided to ban natural gas and coal tomorrow they would still not be able to stop countries like Nepal from burning fuel and animal dung because Nepal has no other choice. About 1% of Nepal's energy is in the form of electricity and they have no oil, gas or coal deposits and no infrastructure to build alternative fuel sources. Sanctions would only further hurt Nepal and pleas would be useless because they have no ability to change their situation.
 
Greater sanctions against which bad actors leveled by whom? The US has abandoned diplomacy and gutted the State Department budget; military force and spending is now the priority (Mattis is stepping out on Trump though.)

No one can level sanctions against China. Full stop. Watch how successful the 'simple' US trade war with China goes, and those measures are supposedly protective (stupid) as opposed to punitive. Not happening.

As for the UN, there are five permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States. Any single one has a veto vote. Often at least one has an interest in vetoing something like sanctions or peacekeeping forces.

Sanctions against North Korea had unintended consequences. China now controls about 90% or more of the trade with North Korea. That amount of control of imports equals a great deal of control over international relations. (Nice summary and explanation of "mirror statistics": Does China account for 90% of North Korean trade, as Rex Tillerson said?).

(If this topic goes a couple of more posts I will move it, unless another mod does. It's a v interesting one and important.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top