• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DNC 2016 thread

TR1982 said:
The Russian state was very weak at that point and had no such power over the media giants that had arisen in the aftermath of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin and his young reformers conspired with the oligarchs to throw the election, so they could overcome the more immediate threat of saving the country from communist Gennady Zyuganov. Unfortunately, this had the effect of entrenching the crony capitalist state that was later taken over by Putin.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on that.
 
PhDeac said:
Not sure why that has to be explained but I hope it helps TR.
Click to expand...

And if I recall correctly everyone on this boards roundly criticized Romney's comments. "The Cold War is over, why should we be afraid of Russia" and the like. Now all these same people who thought we shouldn't be the world police in 2006 are freaking out when Trump says that Maybe the U.S., Britain, and Greece shouldn't be the only members of NATO hitting their defense budget targets.
 
TR1982 said:
And if I recall correctly everyone on this boards roundly criticized Romney's comments. "The Cold War is over, why should we be afraid of Russia" and the like. Now all these same people who thought we shouldn't be the world police in 2006 are freaking out when Trump says that Maybe the U.S., Britain, and Greece shouldn't be the only members of NATO hitting their defense budget targets.
Click to expand...

I think most people on here don't have a problem with wanting the countries to hit the prerequisite 2% defense budget of their GDP, but there's a big difference in stating that in private with the countries if he is elected POTUS and saying it out loud and in the manner that he did.

Same with the WTO comments this past weekend. It lacks foresight and shows that he doesn't understand global macroeconomics very well.
 
TR1982 said:
And if I recall correctly everyone on this boards roundly criticized Romney's comments. "The Cold War is over, why should we be afraid of Russia" and the like. Now all these same people who thought we shouldn't be the world police in 2006 are freaking out when Trump says that Maybe the U.S., Britain, and Greece shouldn't be the only members of NATO hitting their defense budget targets.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the reason people are freaking out isn't because Trump said "maybe" the US/Britain/Greece are the only ones in NATO hitting their defense budget targets, it's because Trump has made it clear what he thinks about NATO, the WTO, and other international organizations that assist in providing global stability. The criticism isn't because people think Russia is a top threat at present, it's because they believe Trump's positions (depending on which day you catch him since he's hardly consistent on anything when talking about specific policy) would permit Russia to become a top threat once again.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Thanks for the info on that.
Click to expand...

I say this because the parallels of a political/corporate establishment conspiring to stop what they view as an existential threat to their power are striking. This can have drastic effects on the governing institutions of a state down the road, especially if the populace becomes extremely disillusioned with them. Russia's institutions were much weaker to begin with and the country was in turmoil in the '90s, so the comparison certainly isn't perfect, but it's extremely troubling.

The question becomes do you preserve the legitimacy of the democratic process by allowing someone like a Zyuganov to be elected, and risk the potential troubles that will bring, or do you destroy it in the name of trying to save it. Unfortunately, for every Anatoly Chubais and Boris Nemtsov there are twenty Boris Berezovskys. The same is true in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
From what I've read, the reason people are freaking out isn't because Trump said "maybe" the US/Britain/Greece are the only ones in NATO hitting their defense budget targets, it's because Trump has made it clear what he thinks about NATO, the WTO, and other international organizations that assist in providing global stability. The criticism isn't because people think Russia is a top threat at present, it's because they believe Trump's positions (depending on which day you catch him since he's hardly consistent on anything when talking about specific policy) would permit Russia to become a top threat once again.
Click to expand...

The WTO criticism is a natural extension of his trade policies, which I disagree with. As for NATO, the problem is this institution maintains global stability at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. It isn't 1945 anymore, the Marshall Plan worked, and we aren't stopping a Soviet behemoth from gobbling up a defenseless Western Europe. More active participation from member states will actually help preserve the alliance down the road.

Besides, Trump is only giving voice to what everyone knows. If Estonia (which never should have been admitted to NATO in the first place) was infiltrated by plain clothes Russian special forces, like what happened in Ukraine, neither Obama nor Clinton would deploy U.S. forces to stop them. *That* would actually mean the end of the alliance. If we adapt it now to reflect a more realistic balance of power, there is a better chance of preserving it in the long run.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think most people on here don't have a problem with wanting the countries to hit the prerequisite 2% defense budget of their GDP, but there's a big difference in stating that in private with the countries if he is elected POTUS and saying it out loud and in the manner that he did.

Same with the WTO comments this past weekend. It lacks foresight and shows that he doesn't understand global macroeconomics very well.
Click to expand...

No, it shows that he is good at politics, and understands the current mood of the American people very well.
 
Global stability is crucial for American stability. Everything America does in the world is for our own benefit, not some altruistic need to keep small countries safe. This should be obvious.
 
TR1982 said:
The WTO criticism is a natural extension of his trade policies, which I disagree with. As for NATO, the problem is this institution maintains global stability at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. It isn't 1945 anymore, the Marshall Plan worked, and we aren't stopping a Soviet behemoth from gobbling up a defenseless Western Europe. More active participation from member states will actually help preserve the alliance down the road.

Besides, Trump is only giving voice to what everyone knows. If Estonia (which never should have been admitted to NATO in the first place) was infiltrated by plain clothes Russian special forces, like what happened in Ukraine, neither Obama nor Clinton would deploy U.S. forces to stop them. *That* would actually mean the end of the alliance. If we adapt it now to reflect a more realistic balance of power, there is a better chance of preserving it down the road.
Click to expand...

Is really does depend on whether we think it's better for the United States to have a huge military and be a safety net for all those nations if invaded, or if having an increased military presence in 25+ countries will keep peace instead of increase tensions/likelihood of a war.

I am with you on the basis that we need to stop bailing all these other nations out at the first sign of trouble, but would prefer we begin to pull back in the Middle East with our military presence before we do anything with global trade organizations. Working with the other countries instead of threatening to pull out publicly would work better in my opinion.
 
TR1982 said:
No, it shows that he is good at politics, and understands the current mood of the American people very well.
Click to expand...

What about those statements showed he is good at politics?

Also, if I yield he is "good at politics" (presumably meaning he is good at judging American sentiment) that doesn't mean he is good at understanding global macroeconomics. Most people in America have no idea what WTO or NATO even are, so I certainly don't want them to be the barometer of what we should do with those trade agreements.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Global stability is crucial for American stability. Everything America does in the world is for our own benefit, not some altruistic need to keep small countries safe. This should be obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but our alliances and defense relationships do not reflect the current global distribution of power.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Is really does depend on whether we think it's better for the United States to have a huge military and be a safety net for all those nations if invaded, or if having an increased military presence in 25+ countries will keep peace instead of increase tensions/likelihood of a war.

I am with you on the basis that we need to stop bailing all these other nations out at the first sign of trouble, but would prefer we begin to pull back in the Middle East with our military presence before we do anything with global trade organizations. Working with the other countries instead of threatening to pull out publicly would work better in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The Middle East is much more important to our security and economic interests than Estonia. And I agree we should work with other countries. But it's the classic free rider problem. They aren't going to pull their weight unless they think there is a threat that we will tell them to fuck off.
 
Last edited:
it's always so rad whenever TR1982 comes back

shit just pops off for a few days and then he's gone again
 
TR1982 said:
The WTO criticism is a natural extension of his trade policies, which I disagree with. As for NATO, the problem is this institution maintains global stability at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. It isn't 1945 anymore, the Marshall Plan worked, and we aren't stopping a Soviet behemoth from gobbling up a defenseless Western Europe. More active participation from member states will actually help preserve the alliance down the road.

Besides, Trump is only giving voice to what everyone knows. If Estonia (which never should have been admitted to NATO in the first place) was infiltrated by plain clothes Russian special forces, like what happened in Ukraine, neither Obama nor Clinton would deploy U.S. forces to stop them. *That* would actually mean the end of the alliance. If we adapt it now to reflect a more realistic balance of power, there is a better chance of preserving it in the long run.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm just pointing out that people on here (myself included) believe that Trump's policies on NATO and reneging on promises made because the 2% target wasn't hit are dangerous. That's why I don't view the statements from four years ago and today as contradictory in the least which was what I was responding to.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
What about those statements showed he is good at politics?

Also, if I yield he is "good at politics" (presumably meaning he is good at judging American sentiment) that doesn't mean he is good at understanding global macroeconomics. Most people in America have no idea what WTO or NATO even are, so I certainly don't want them to be the barometer of what we should do with those trade agreements.
Click to expand...

The issue of trade may very well win him the election. I'm not saying this is a good thing one way or another, but he clearly understands what he is doing in this regard. I find it very difficult to believe that Trump never took a microecon class at Wharton where the community benefits of free trade were demonstrated.
 
TR1982 said:
I agree with you, but our alliances and defense relationships do not reflect the current global distribution of power.
Click to expand...

The beginning of a dismantling of NATO would do great harm to global stability, that's why politicians from both the left and the right up until Trump have revered it. And even if Trump is saying some truth about the situation (debatable), the main usefulness of NATO is as a deterrent and by verbally neutering NATO publicly he's essentially neutered the effectiveness of the treaty.
 
Crazy liberal:

‏@davidfrum
Even the biggest news inside the DNC emails is about one/one-zillionth as big as Russian interference in US elections …

@davidfrum
… and utterly dwarfed by latest strong indication of Kremlin active measures to elect Donald Trump.

@davidfrum
The news - the real news - in the DNC leak is the information about which US candidate Putin favors and why. That is nuclear-grade news.

@davidfrum
Oh, and no there’s no moral equivalency between the US supporting democracy in Ukraine against Russian aggression & Russian hack of DNC
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Right, I'm just pointing out that people on here (myself included) believe that Trump's policies on NATO and reneging on promises made because the 2% target wasn't hit are dangerous. That's why I don't view the statements from four years ago and today as contradictory in the least which was what I was responding to.
Click to expand...

The danger of such comments pale in comparison to the reality of the situation. Putin knows just as much as anyone that he could have Estonia if he wanted it, he just doesn't have the political capital to pull it off right now. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending like everything is alright is just as unproductive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top