No indeed, Europe certainly needs to do much more to ensure its own security. The problem is that The Chump has signalled in advance his reluctance to support NATO. Putin could now well be tempted to call NATO's bluff in the Baltic and if nobody is prepared to defend Lithuania, then the guarantee of mutual defence that NATO promises is shown to be a sham. And then he can pick off small states or bits of them, one by one.
Please note; as an outsider you have a baseline that is to the left of the USA. So yes, Obama is to the right of you, but he is to the left of most of us. And, for a century, the USA has been moving to the left -- as has Europe, faster. Agreed. Both because of his lack of experience and because of his shooting from the hip style (which may actually be related -- he may become more coherent as he learns the job). As a general rule for me, I think it is almost always worth the risk given how dissatisfied people are with "the establishment". It would scarecly be possible for him to do worse than Clinton/Bush/Congress causing the Great Recession. It would scarcely be possible for him to do worse than the impending collapse of Social Security. With an all-Republican Congress no less. Yes, certainly there is a big difference between a liberal revolt and a conservative revolt. "Obamamaniacs" thought they were getting a liberal revolt in 2008, but they didn't. Due to his control of Congress he was able to get more liberal policis passed, but he was otherwise a typical American liberal "establishment" politician. The lack of the promised, real "Change!" is what most of his former supporters are mostly disappointed in. Trump is much more likely to do disruptive change than Obama turned-out to do.
You're welcome. I think you've hit on the narrow focus/missed point of the liberal establishment base. It's kind of a mirror of the Religious Right. Unfortunately though, both the religious and the identity politics people are powerful. And, unfortunately, it is a distraction from more practical issues. For example, too much time spent arguing about the long-settled issue of abortion. But in this election, there was a lot less of that than usual. Indeed, Hillary's failure to energize her base by playing her identity politics cards (except her weak and backfired "woman card") is probably going to be a big take-away on why she lost.
I don't know... He has said one of the first orders of buisness is to deregulate buisness, like repealing the Dodd-Frank act. If he actually does this (who knows what he will do) he may be setting us up for the next recession.
Oh wow just look at this! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Women: she actually lost a point, looks like more women went off to Stein and Johnson, than trump though. Millennials: Clearly we wanted Bernie and not many of us were willing to bite our teeth and vote Hillary Middle Class and Lower: Are hurting and are willing to burn it all down for REAL change. Rural and Subburbs: Clearly are fed up with being called white cis patriarchal oppressors. Hispanics: Oh god he actually gained there as well! Blacks: Yes that right he even gained with blacks! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-failed-to-win-over-black-hispanic-and-female-vot/
Nobody need that f.... Lithuania. Except the US for some rockets against Russia. Up to now, the EU yet pays for them. But this will not last forever.
I logged on for some level-headed commentary on this bombshell, and for the most part I'm not disappointed. I gotta say, though, that I'm surprised how many people seem to think of the Democrats' social agenda as useless identity politics. Remember that eight years ago, legalizing gay marriage was a lofty goal; pressure from the social left made it a reality. The modern phenomenon of a video camera in every pocket has brought to light some horrifying, systemic abuses of racial minorities by law enforcement; whether or not you agree with the BLM movement as a whole, you have to admit they have some legitimate grievances. And it's really surprising to hear Russ say Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, abortion is most definitely not a settled issue. There have been a flurry of cases over the last few years in which the states have been feeling out exactly how far they can go, with TRAP laws and the like, to restrict abortion access. And that's not even considering the fact that Trump implied he'll appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade outright. I definitely agree that this election revealed some major flaws in the liberal establishment, and changes need to be made. But wholesale abandonment of the social Democratic wing is a knee-jerk reaction that would leave a lot of people without a voice.
The contempt you display for the wishes of the citizens of Lithuania is exactly the reason it concerns me - and NATO. And economically it seems rather a success: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Lithuania Unlike Russia, for example.
Bizarre inversion of physical reality, one of the colorful and strange inhabitants of the Republican Fantasy Zoo that has replaced actual political life in the US. The US has been moving to the right, hard, since 1980. (That's what "welfare reform", banking deregulation, trade agreement expediation, tax cuts for the wealthy, all that stuff, was: remember?) Obama is to the right of most Americans on a long list of major right/left issues - from foreign trade to bank regulation and bailouts, from health insurance financing to military contracting, from tax policy to Social Security reform. And most Americans are not that far left on a standard analytical scale. Obama has to be solidly right to be to the right of the American center as he is. It would be ordinary and the expected course of events for his cooperation with the Republican Congress to continue and expand these Republican Party arranged disasters - making them worse. Possibly much worse - Obama's small chocks in the wheels and stopgap shims did not change the slope of the track the Reagan Train is on, or the flammability of its cargo.
As the Catholic Hispanic vote gain for Trump made clear, the evangelical and Mormon vote for Trump made clear, the Supreme Court issue breaking for Trump made clear, and the campaign emphasis on Trump's outreach to the anti-abortion crowd made clear, the issue of abortion is not settled, and probably gave Trump the margin of his electoral win. It's hidden a bit by the burn down the house take overall, but part of the house the Trump voters want to see burned is the setup of abortion as a de facto right for women.
I'll place a farmer's bet on Dennis Rodman for ambassador to North Korea... any takers? Anyhow, it would have been nice to promote moderate policies to stop Trump, curb the global spread of fascism, prevent WW3 in Europe, end the Russo-Shiite massacres in Syria, grow a healthy economy based on fair trade and all that wonderful stuff. But why should left-leaning folks want all those things when they can demand far more? Imagine a utopian paradise where only white people in rich countries get punished for human rights abuses; we could continue to buy oil from our terror-sponsoring, head-chopping Saudi friends while creating plenty of spinoff jobs for our military and security services in the process. Why focus on cutting uncontrolled pollution from exporters overseas, when we could simply shut down all our industries at home and turn a blind eye to theirs? Our great great great great grandparents occasionally exploited their great great great great grandparents, so our very blood is tainted with guilt and they should get to do whatever they like with us in turn. Why cut taxes and make it easier to invest and generate profits at home, when we could instead force our wealthiest citizens to hide all their money abroad and share the love? Yeah there's a lot of nasty damage a man like Trump can do, along with all the mainstream Republican supporters who only just now realized that Lincoln's been dead for 150 years and it's finally safe for them to come out of the woodwork and be their true bigoted selves. However, it's nonetheless imperative that we stick to blind ideologies that make us feel like we're smarter and more important than anyone who doesn't agree with us 100% on everything, because, you know... Lord Balfour and shit.
Obama never had control of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Ask_What_Good_We_Do That myth is one of the strangest of the Republican Fantasy Zoo critters. How can anyone have lived through Obama's first term, paid even the slightest attention to political events in Washington, and come away believing that Obama had control of that Congress? He couldn't even get routine judicial appointments confirmed.
Why are you mixing wingnut idiocy (tax cuts for the rich to promote investments at home) and oddly unmoored combinations of conflicting political proposals that suggest misattribution of policy (pollution handling, shutting down home industry, blind eye to foreign polluters, - - who's doing what?). So are you claiming that Clinton - who ran on all that - was defeated by "left-leaning folks" ?
That doesn't explain why they voted for a continuation of Reaganomics and W/Cheney establishment politics. At least the Brexit voters voted for an actual Brexit.
Frankly, I'm shocked - but pleased - that it has remained as level-headed as it has. Irrationality is to be expected in politics and on a day like today, more than usual. I think you misunderstand what identity politics is. Yes, gay rights is a standard liberal social issue, but it isn't an identity politics issue because it can't be: there aren't enough gays for it to be a useful club to beat people with. And that's the point of identity politics: it is saying that the people on the other side aren't like you and are against you. The main groups that the democratic party typically applies this to are blacks, women and the 99%/everyonewhoisntrich. Perhaps more to the point, 8 years ago gay marriage was not a "lofty goal" and political football: Obama stated explicitly that he was against gay marriage prior to being elected. Also, I wouldn't use the word "useless". Identity politics is extremely useful and has been highly successful for manipulating people to vote the way you want. Obama played his identity cards very well, but Hillary doesn't have a "99%" card or a "black" card and her "woman" card is tainted by the fact that she has gotten ahead 1950s style; by marrying well and then standing by her womanizer man. Yes, BLM has some legitimate grievances -- just not as many as they think and the bigger grievances they should have they ignore. Oddly, Obama has done very little to try to help, which has almost certainly contributed to the problem. For example, understanding how deep the police brutality problem is is hampered by lack of quality statistics, which is something Obama was in a unique position to fix, but chose not to. In addition, he was the most uniquely qualified to deal with the other half of the equation; the contribution of black crime to police brutality. Fixing the inner city black crime culture is something worthy of doing with or without the police brutality issue and Obama made no attempt to address it. I get that a lot of people still consider it important and put a lot of effort and emotional energy into fighting it, but my point is that for all the fighting over it, RvW is still here and and not a lot has really changed. It's like trench warfare: a lot of blood gets spilled, but very little territory changes hands. And with those court cases? The answer is almost always "too far".
A lot has really changed in reality - the clinic shutdowns, the drugstore denials of prescribed pills, the various impositions on the women and the doctors, the denial of funding or insurance coverage, the increasing tolerance and even legal establishment of "religious" justification for all this, and so forth. White women with enough money could always get an abortion if they wanted one, even long before Roe v Wade, and the steady reversion to that situation continues to gain in significance. Obama was in no position to address police brutality statistics other than by rhetoric. And there is no such thing as a "black crime" contribution to police brutality. There is, however, a police brutality contribution to "black crime", starting with the police perception of crime committed by black people as "black crime".
You mean like with Trump attacking Muslims. OK, so what is the bigger grievances that BLM ignores? How could Obama uniquely fix local police departments refusing to release statistics on officer killings? So you are saying that black people only get killed because they deserve it? Sure, it's easy for a white man to ignore all the changes in abortion rights that have happened in the USA over the last twenty years.
Why do you think contempt would be a reason of concern? Contempt suggests that one is happy that one has nothing to do with those one despises, not? Would you, instead, prefer to live with those you despise in the same state, so that they have a vote in elections, and, in this way, also some power in your own country? Yes, the Russians have contempt for the Baltic nations. With some justification, like their support for various Nazis, which are now hailed in the Baltic states as freedom fighters against Soviet oppression. And the way they behave with the Russians living in these states, as second class non-citizens. In late communist time, I have supported the Baltic fight for national sovereignty too, I had a nice sticker with the three Baltic states in their national colors. But once it became clear to me how they behaved, I have thrown it away and despise them too. If the EU likes to fund the Lithuanians, fine. No problem.
Kind of, though you aren't really explaining it. You could say that Trump played the disenfranchised white people card, and any group or sub-group that was against them was an enemy. I think it would be a first for a Republican to successfully play the identity politics game, but it is a reasonable analysis. Discussed below; inner-city black culture/crime. By pushing through legislation for national reporting and harnessing federal agencies to carry the responsibility to handle it. There are other relevant aspects of policing that should be monitored/directed federally, such as mental health care, training and SOPs/ROEs. He really didn't do much of anything except stir the pot. Lol, unworthy of response, but feel free to try again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Have you read the BLM website? They do address this subject. It's just that it's more effective to petition the police for change than criminals.
