Will Trump be Re-elected?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Will Trump be Re-elected?

Trump is more effective than people are willing to admit [ala Scott Adams] and will be re-elected.
24
37%
Hillary will run again in 2020, and thus Trump will beat her again.
3
5%
Trump will cause the GOP to lose one or both houses of congress in the mid-term elections.
6
9%
The Dems in congress will be so insufferable, Trumps wins by a small margin despite them.
15
23%
Trump will choose not to run for re-election, since he never really wanted the job anyway.
7
11%
Trump is a disaster and will lose by a landslide.
5
8%
Trump will not only lose, but will lose to a candidate so far to the left that people will wish he'd stayed.
3
5%
Other, please elaborate.
2
3%
 
Total votes: 65
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:18 am

dualstow wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:10 am
What about those of us who are not anarchists?
Well if this is regards to Trump's Yemen decision (and other related militarist ones), then you can attack it from other angles, such as hypocrisy of him (or more-so his supporters' assertions of him being 'anti-establishment' or against the 'deep-state'), foreign policy in-general, etc.

If you want to ignore it (say, because foreign policy isn't one of your top issues), that's fine.

If you favor it, then I'd be curious to hear why.

One doesn't have to be an anarchist to see the hypocrisy/idiocy on display... or even the war-crimes. Just a human with a working mind who will chuckle at phrases like "anti-establishment" or "taking on the deep-state."

However, I highly doubt this will affect his reelection chances. Americans simply don't care about the foreign policy stuff that much. It triggers them from time to time, but usually when that's the case, it's a pro-war trigger, not anti-war.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1839
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kriegsspiel » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:32 am

Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.
To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:01 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:32 am
Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.
You don't recall correctly. Literally less than a minute of research will help you...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rikes.html
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8791
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by dualstow » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:56 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:32 am
Didn't we go over this in another thread? IIRC you were accusing Trump of war crimes because an American company sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia that they dropped on a school bus. That's not Trump committing a war crime.
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:01 am
You don't recall correctly. Literally less than a minute of research will help you...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rikes.html
I think what moda usually says is that Trump is "supporting (Saudi) genocide" in Yemen. You might be thinking of the following:
RIP Paul Volcker
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1839
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kriegsspiel » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:10 am

Nothing in that article suggests Trump has committed a war crime. Also it's from when Obama was in office (OCT 2016), not Trump. EDIT: just re-read it and saw the part about drone strikes.

BTW I found the post I was referencing here. You said war-mongering not war-criming (Scott Horton did).
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:25 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
Yemen he's helping the U.S. participate in a terrible genocide. Afghanistan. Some in Syria though it appears to have died down a bit for now. Continuing to expand the empire into Africa.

I'll also add the ridiculous retrenchment with Iran, though sanctions aren't outright war.

I'd recommend following "Scott Horton" on anti-war stuff if you want the best version of that argument. He's no lefty (claims to be an ancap but rarely focuses on economics).
LOL... bro, I go to his site, and the first headline I see is "Bear Witness To American War Crimes". It's an article about a Saudi Arabian airstrike in Yemen. How is it an American war crime? Because the Saudis use American-made bombs ::) . Give me a break. His other stuff might be ok, but didn't you think you should put his best foot forward? In fact, I didn't see anything that indicated Trump has started bombing Yemen.

A cursory search for Trump and Afghanistan turned up an Economist article saying that Trump authorized deploying 3,500 and relaxed restrictions on air support and on what we used to call Military Transition Teams, or MITTs/MIT teams, and a Brookings article that added that he's maintaining a presence there still. Although I don't think that's a good idea, it doesn't really sound like war mongering to me.

"Trump Syria" kinda tells me that he's kept up the bombing, but is only leaving 3,000 military personnel on the ground. One article said
He has ended support for anti-regime rebels. And he talks of recalling US forces assisting pro-western Kurds.

Trump’s objectives in Syria, in so far as he has a defined policy, are twofold. Firstly, to kill or catch remaining terrorists belonging to Islamic State. Secondly, to curb Iran’s influence by forcing the withdrawal of Revolutionary Guards units and Tehran-controlled Shia militias, as demanded by Israel.
Again, doesn't sound like war mongering. Drop links if you've already waded through this shit.
When looking for that one, I saw PointedStick had posted a thread that linked to this Politico article where members of the Obama administration were worrying about being accused of abetting war crimes that Saudi Arabia was committing.

Following the links from that Politico story, I see that they were referring to this memory-holed page that describes a US law:
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Section 620M “Limitation on Assistance to
Security Forces”
“(a) IN GENERAL. – No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export
Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of
State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of
human rights.
(b) EXCEPTION. –The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary
determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective steps to
bring responsible members to justice.
(c) DUTY TO INFORM. – In the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform the foreign government of
the basis for such action and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the
foreign government in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces to justice.
Which would be the applicable law, not (AFAICT) international criminal law (or UCMJ), which prosecutes war crimes.
To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:15 am

"Support" can be a misleading term. It's not "moral support." It's not selling weapons or allowing the sale of weapons. It's literal military support...

"The Americans are providing targeting intelligence and refueling Saudi warplanes involved in bombing rebel positions."

That is only the Yemen thing. Trump also expanded the war in Afghanistan...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

https://merip.org/2018/02/trumps-drone-surge/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ram ... hadow-wars


And military activity in Africa in-general...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ver-africa


Not to mention Trump's disgusting support of whatever Israel/Netanyahu does, and yeah... you've got a war-criminal.

Yes Obama was one, too. Arguably worse in some ways. Better in others. But 1) He no-longer has much power compared to the current president, and 2) I'd probably be preaching to the choir here if I point out that Obama was subservient to the "deep state."
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:26 am

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:10 am
Nothing in that article suggests Trump has committed a war crime. Also it's from when Obama was in office (OCT 2016), not Trump. EDIT: just re-read it and saw the part about drone strikes.

BTW I found the post I was referencing here. You said war-mongering not war-criming (Scott Horton did).
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:25 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:27 pm
Yemen he's helping the U.S. participate in a terrible genocide. Afghanistan. Some in Syria though it appears to have died down a bit for now. Continuing to expand the empire into Africa.

I'll also add the ridiculous retrenchment with Iran, though sanctions aren't outright war.

I'd recommend following "Scott Horton" on anti-war stuff if you want the best version of that argument. He's no lefty (claims to be an ancap but rarely focuses on economics).
LOL... bro, I go to his site, and the first headline I see is "Bear Witness To American War Crimes". It's an article about a Saudi Arabian airstrike in Yemen. How is it an American war crime? Because the Saudis use American-made bombs ::) . Give me a break. His other stuff might be ok, but didn't you think you should put his best foot forward? In fact, I didn't see anything that indicated Trump has started bombing Yemen.

A cursory search for Trump and Afghanistan turned up an Economist article saying that Trump authorized deploying 3,500 and relaxed restrictions on air support and on what we used to call Military Transition Teams, or MITTs/MIT teams, and a Brookings article that added that he's maintaining a presence there still. Although I don't think that's a good idea, it doesn't really sound like war mongering to me.

"Trump Syria" kinda tells me that he's kept up the bombing, but is only leaving 3,000 military personnel on the ground. One article said
He has ended support for anti-regime rebels. And he talks of recalling US forces assisting pro-western Kurds.

Trump’s objectives in Syria, in so far as he has a defined policy, are twofold. Firstly, to kill or catch remaining terrorists belonging to Islamic State. Secondly, to curb Iran’s influence by forcing the withdrawal of Revolutionary Guards units and Tehran-controlled Shia militias, as demanded by Israel.
Again, doesn't sound like war mongering. Drop links if you've already waded through this shit.
When looking for that one, I saw PointedStick had posted a thread that linked to this Politico article where members of the Obama administration were worrying about being accused of abetting war crimes that Saudi Arabia was committing.

Following the links from that Politico story, I see that they were referring to this memory-holed page that describes a US law:
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended: Section 620M “Limitation on Assistance to
Security Forces”
“(a) IN GENERAL. – No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export
Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of
State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of
human rights.
(b) EXCEPTION. –The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary
determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committees
on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective steps to
bring responsible members to justice.
(c) DUTY TO INFORM. – In the event that funds are withheld from any unit pursuant to
this section, the Secretary of State shall promptly inform the foreign government of
the basis for such action and shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist the
foreign government in taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of
the security forces to justice.
Which would be the applicable law, not (AFAICT) international criminal law (or UCMJ), which prosecutes war crimes.
Did you also notice that your assertion that Saudi's were simply using American-manufactured bombs was incorrect?

And yes Obama started the whole Yemen thing. You'll see no apologist garbage from me with regards to Obama. He was terrible on a handful of perma-war surveillance state issues (if you're an anti-war civil libertarian). Lock him up too. Like I said we can do multiple things at once with our sprawling justice system.

As far as the jurisdictional and legalese aspects of war-crime prosecution, I've got to dig into my sources for that. I've heard folks like Chomsky, Greenwald, Horton and a few others go into the actual various layers of legal precedent and procedural machinations of war crime prosecution, but they're not at my fingertips and it's been a while. It's also a bit difficult to suss out actual accusations of war crimes vs digging into the legal machinations of how they would/could/should be prosecuted.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by pugchief » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:35 am

moda0306 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:12 am

But that's the majority of what these "Trade Deals" have really been. They're not about trading coconuts for corn (well not completely). They're about securing foreign corporate & investor property rights insulated from public response in the communities they exist. To the degree you support this but abhor human migration across artificial borders, you're pretty much a folding chair to global capital, and shouldn't wonder why you seem to have less than your parents, or why your kids will have less than you. By "you" I mean people in general...
I'm not sure if it's just me, but trying to decipher your posts through all the metaphors and side-speak to get the context is drudgery. Anyway, I completely disagree with the bolded part. Not sure why you draw the connection/conclusion that you did, but regardless, I have way more wealth than my parents did (as do my siblings) and I fully expect that my kids will have more than me at the same age. This country offers exceptional opportunities for all of its residents who are willing to work hard and not make stupid life choices. The problem is that most people are not willing to do the work and can't avoid making poor choices. That's on them. People are their own worst enemies.

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8791
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by dualstow » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:59 am

pugchief wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:35 am
And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.
Words of wisdom.

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?
RIP Paul Volcker
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:42 pm

pugchief wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:35 am
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:12 am

But that's the majority of what these "Trade Deals" have really been. They're not about trading coconuts for corn (well not completely). They're about securing foreign corporate & investor property rights insulated from public response in the communities they exist. To the degree you support this but abhor human migration across artificial borders, you're pretty much a folding chair to global capital, and shouldn't wonder why you seem to have less than your parents, or why your kids will have less than you. By "you" I mean people in general...
I'm not sure if it's just me, but trying to decipher your posts through all the metaphors and side-speak to get the context is drudgery. Anyway, I completely disagree with the bolded part. Not sure why you draw the connection/conclusion that you did, but regardless, I have way more wealth than my parents did (as do my siblings) and I fully expect that my kids will have more than me at the same age. This country offers exceptional opportunities for all of its residents who are willing to work hard and not make stupid life choices. The problem is that most people are not willing to do the work and can't avoid making poor choices. That's on them. People are their own worst enemies.

And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.
It may not seem like it, but I'm at peace with the systems I can't control. These systems cause me personally little/no stress. In-fact, my analysis of these systems helps me come to the (perhaps incorrect but useful) conclusion that most people are balls of social proof and insecurity that have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't have to worry about their inconsistent ramblings about politics or life decisions (or investing... sort of what brought me here almost a decade ago).

And I didn't mean that EVERYONE is worse off than their parents. I just see many that are (or think they are) are completely misdiagnosing the problem. Good for you for helping produce two consecutive generations of improvement over the lot of the prior. I mean that... it probably takes focus and discipline. My point is that it takes far-more focus and discipline than it ever used to, and that this isn't an accident.

As to whether "this country" delivers exceptional opportunities to "all" of its residents, I'd probably have a bone to pick with you around the edges of that statement, but if it's so awesome, I see no reason to b!tch and moan about libruls all the live-long-day as so many here do (talk about not accepting something you can't control). If it has flaws or serious structural issues, let's examine them honestly (and structurally, not b!tching about individual failures).

We'd probably disagree on the individualist vs structural nature of the problems some Americans face. I think when you cut away a lot of the bullsh!t, it comes down to the fact that a high-school education and modest (not amazing) work ethic with few connections was far, far more likely to leave you financially secure in 1970 than it is today. And it's mostly the fault of class-unconscious masses that abandoned unions and embraced (if tacitly) trade deals that were designed to supplant their bargaining power as workers. Then when they aren't as wealthy as they thought they should have been they want to blame brown people and taxes. The first part about wages is something I'd consider a pretty undeniable fact. Whether it's important or not is probably a value proposition and we may or may not disagree. What caused/causes it is a matter of an unprovable cause/effect relationship that probably has some basis in fact, but we'll only be able to lend evidence towards it and never really know for sure.

I hope that last paragraph helps break down my thoughts more clearly. Less drudgery and all that.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2925
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by pugchief » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:00 pm

I can't speak for others here, but I have no problem with Conservatives or Liberals, my qualm is with Leftists which are the ever growing wing of the Democratic Party. And you sure can do something about that: vote the nutjobs out.

I have always been a centrist. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But the conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative and the social fabric here has moved so far left, there is nowhere to hide. I tend to lean a little more to the right these days only because they seem to be a bit less crazy.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8177
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:11 pm

dualstow wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:59 am
pugchief wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:35 am
And you would save yourself a whole bunch of stress if you just accept the fact that corporate interests and the elites are not going away no matter who you vote for, so just be at peace with what you can not change, and try and use the system (legally) to your best benefit while simulaneously giving back to society what is important to you.
Words of wisdom.

Moda, just to satisfy my curiosity: are there any world leaders whom you think did a good job overall? Separately, any U.S. Presidents?
If we are defining a "good job" as (for example) "advancing the interests of the whole of your population," then yeah probably, but they usually did so while also being war-criminals and having some massive flaws. The easiest ones to name would probably have to be American as I'm simply more familiar. I think Teddy Roosevelt is one. Probably the single best, though I'd sing a different tune if he'd have been president during WWI, as he was pretty disgustingly pro-war/Imperialism.

If you ignore the Indian population, it's hard to argue that the (genocidal criminals) James K. Polk and Andrew Jackson were both similar in their willingness to execute (pardon the pun) an expansive vision of America that was extremely beneficial to the settler colonial class they represented.

There are many nationalist leaders that, through their actions, proved to be somewhat useful to the interests of their selected population. I can't speak with much certainty, but a lot of left-leaning economic nationalists in the face of gangster Imperialism seemed pretty impressive, like Mohammad Mossadegh and Jacobo Arbenz, though I'm certain they had pockets of corruption and resorted to means I don't find particularly palatable.

The architects of the state of Israel for example (Ben Gurion (spelling?), Begin, forgetting a few) had an unbreakable vision and it's hard to say that they didn't do a "good job" of executing it for those they cared about, though their means were pretty manipulative and disgusting IMO. Which sort of highlights the "zero-sum" nature of some "good jobs" out there.

Overall though I take the Dan Carlin approach to this, where to become "great" you probably have to do terrible things at various times. And I tend to be too anarcho-curious to want to waste too much energy fawning praise upon folks who committed terrible acts to help their group. I simply don't desire someone to kill to do a "good job" for me. I actually find that to be a pretty immature instinct. However to the degree that some "leader" is a steward of my/our interests in some way, I'd want him to use non-violent negotiating power in good faith to that interest.

But I'm still learning/growing on these "men of history" types. They're fascinating, to say the least, so I try to look at it all with a certain moral numbness. Once you find yourself so fascinated you're rooting for Genghis Khan by accident, you tend to want to separate "greatness" from other positive traits. :)
Post Reply