American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm less concerned with the threat of invasion from foreign countries than I am with the tightening grip of MNCs on our sovereignty.

The two problems are not interchangable, and must be solved with different approaches.

Canada's stance on both fronts as been little better than wide-eyed naivete buttressed by slogans learned in Grade 9 Social Studies classrooms.

It is astonishing the degree to which we have relinquished our hold on international power over the last 50 years. We are essentially an isolationist country with more than overt colonial reliance on our American cousins to the South.

We finished the Second World War as a widely respected economy and military power well within the second to top tier of Western countries. We are now little more than a third-rate power in the same line as Argentina, Spain, or the Netherlands.

We can blame our politicans as far back as Diefenbaker for this stunning decay, but we really just have to look at statements like pylon's above to know where this impulse came from. Canadians don't think the world's rules apply to them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

We can blame our politicans as far back as Diefenbaker for this stunning decay, but we really just have to look at statements like pylon's above to know where this impulse came from. Canadians don't think the world's rules apply to them.

I think it's more cynicism resulting from decades of ideological proxy wars, failed peacekeeping mission, and wars of corporate interest. It's pretty easy to look at all of that and ask exactly why we should have an enhanced military presence in those arenas. What interests are we protecting and how would a greater international presence actually protect sovereignty or the way of life for the average Canadian?

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Do you feel sorry for him? I don't. That's what happens when you deal with the devil. Also for such a devout Catholic, he sure doesn't mind lying through his teeth! haha.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.615cc585c88c

Trump is a petty vindictive child.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the same time in North America they could inform Canada that they need to start spending more or America would take over the aerodefense of North America and Canada wouldn't have a seat at the table.

Hey Cap, just curious. What would some tangible problems with this? And should we care about them?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Hey Cap, just curious. What would some tangible problems with this? And should we care about them?

Depends

You would have literally no say in terms of your defense policy.

Canada's foreign policy would be at the very least be strongly attached or in lockstep to American foreign policy

Canadians that joined the US Military would be able to be deployed or used anywhere that the American chain of command deems necessary.

Sovereignty would be up for negotiation.

Canada would probably lose a great deal of influence at the UN and the international level

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think it's more cynicism resulting from decades of ideological proxy wars, failed peacekeeping mission, and wars of corporate interest. It's pretty easy to look at all of that and ask exactly why we should have an enhanced military presence in those arenas. What interests are we protecting and how would a greater international presence actually protect sovereignty or the way of life for the average Canadian?

So the best way to not get involved in any of that is to have a strong, small, medium-weight military that can be deployed anywhere abroad or at home.

Militaries are never politically popular. They vacuum up money, and they have very little if any economic or political impact that make electioneering politicans, with no experience in the military, look on them favourably.

Still, as history has shown us, peacetime is always limited, and normally follows a period of sustained warfare, and the rise of a global hegemon. The Second World War is fading from our memories, and the US is declining as a global hegemon (the USA has been VERY good for world peace, actually). We don't know when or where the next break-out of violence will be, but it is important that Canada has a well-equipped, medium-sized, professional force which supplement and strengthen our coalition partners.

Jack Granatstein in "Who Killed the Canadian Military" lays out a pretty good template for Canada's military. Basically, a fully-mechanized combat brigade with at least one armoured battalion that can be deployed anywhere on the globe or in Canada.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yet NATO spending should be proportionate to the amount of world conflicts a particular nation creates via antagonizing nations over 'human rights issues' (We're totally not after control of your natural resources, totally not at all.... seriously, we're not!) in my personal opinion.

And using that math, the US should be responsible for I dunno, 3,476% of the NATO budget.

Disclaimer: I used the Casio calculator on my desk to get that figure, so it may have a margin of error of approximately +/- 0.032%.

That's a pretty jaded way of looking at things, but in many regards this is accurate. In a world where nuclear deterrent is the greatest factor in preventing aggression against European states, the United States being the saving grace for the continent is a very antiquated way of looking at things. Germany, France and Great Britain have stock piles large enough to keep the bear at bay. The other factor is not being global dicks and antagonizing other nations into attacking you. The Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Denmark, go it alone on defense and Russia hasn't sent tanks rolling across the borders or been subject to a spate of non homegrown terrorism.

Originally Posted by peter12

That is neither the point of the alliance or national defense.

What exactly is your point here? Are you suggesting that the United States needs bases in 30+ countries to protect the homeland? No, those bases are not there for protection of the homeland but are there to project power for economic and diplomatic purposes. This is all part of the cost of wanting to be the World Police, a role Americans relish no matter how badly they try and deny the role.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You know the simplest thing for Trump to do and probably would be a popular move would be to go completely isolationist, leave NATO completely, shut down their world wide bases and shift their defense spending to their Nuclear Armaments.

The world would be a much better place.

Basically leave Nato to its own devices, and define military alliances based on a one on one basis set on their own defined criteria.

Bilateralism is one approach to solving problems like this. Would work in a lot of regards, except that other nations would likely still engage in multilateralism to solve their problems. The biggest problem is that the United States continues to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, causing problems for member nations. How about the US just start behaving themselves and allow other nations to govern as they see fit, and stop trying to export their bastardized version of democracy?

At the same time in North America they could inform Canada that they need to start spending more or America would take over the aerodefense of North America and Canada wouldn't have a seat at the table.

And Canada can turn off the electricity to the northeastern states, the flow of oil and natural gas to the US in general, and make the trading relationship that much more frosty. The US has it pretty good in its relationship with Canada and should learn to mind their manners. Don't piss off your neighbors when you like throw a lot of wild parties and have a grow operation in your garage. When you have a relationship that works, why #### with it?

[FlameOn]

So the DOJ is now denying materials to Jason Chaffetz related to the Trump Russia investigation. He might have gotten caught up on the investigation.

The Department of Justice declined for now to provide documents to House oversight committee chairman Jason Chaffetz related to former FBI Director James Comey's communications with President Donald Trump.

Citing the hiring of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the FBI said Thursday the agency is "undertaking appropriate consultation to ensure all relevant interests implicated by your request are properly evaluated. We will update this response as soon as possible."

Chaffetz responded to FBI Thursday, saying his committee has a "Constitutionally-based prerogative to conduct investigations" and does not want to interfere with the Special Counsel's probe.

Instead, Chaffetz said, his committee work "will complement the work of the Special Counsel" and shed light on matters of "high public interest."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politi...est/index.html

[ResAlien]

I didn't read that as Chaffetz being in trouble, more that the special prosecutor took priority in line. I suppose Jason in the house being caught up in something wouldn't be too surprising either.

[dash_pinched]

Mathieu von Rohr‏@mathieuvonrohr
! Trump tells EU leaders: "The Germans are bad, very bad", will "stop" German car sales to US

Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy
Volkswagen builds cars in Tennessee, BMW builds cars in South Carolina, Mercedes builds cars in Alabama

Also, just because I find the pic below funny...

[peter12]

What exactly is your point here? Are you suggesting that the United States needs bases in 30+ countries to protect the homeland? No, those bases are not there for protection of the homeland but are there to project power for economic and diplomatic purposes. This is all part of the cost of wanting to be the World Police, a role Americans relish no matter how badly they try and deny the role.

Nothing stops a New Era rant that completely misses the point of a post.

Most NATO member nations love having the US as global policeman. If they didn't, they would spend more on national defense. Trump is right that a lot of countries are just off-setting the responsibility of military spending for both national sovereignty (Article 5 seeks to protect individual country's sovereignty), and international deployment on to the American taxpayer.

This goes back to my earlier post. If you abrogate your responsibility to protect your country at home, and your interests abroad, you essentially have taken a colonial approach to foreign affairs.

Canada is well-taken with this mentality, and with brief exception, we always have been. It is very unfortunate.

[photon]

In a closed door meeting with European leaders Thursday, President Trump ripped Germany for running a trade surplus with the U.S, calling the nation “bad, very bad” or “evil, very evil,” depending on the translation.

“Look at the millions of cars that they’re selling in the USA. Horrible. We’re gonna stop that,” Trump added according to Der Spiegel, which heard about the conversation from someone in the room. EU Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly stood up for Germany and defended the practice of free trade.

...

In the meeting Cohn reportedly spoke about striking separate trade deals with Germany and Belgium, which wouldn’t be possible since EU nations negotiating trade deals as a group. This is a point Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel had to make to Trump nearly a dozen times when they met last month.

“The EU side was terrified about the lack of awareness,” Der Spiegel reports.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-very-bad.html

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by photon

In a closed door meeting with European leaders Thursday, President Trump ripped Germany for running a trade surplus with the U.S, calling the nation “bad, very bad” or “evil, very evil,” depending on the translation.

“Look at the millions of cars that they’re selling in the USA. Horrible. We’re gonna stop that,” Trump added according to Der Spiegel, which heard about the conversation from someone in the room. EU Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly stood up for Germany and defended the practice of free trade.

...

In the meeting Cohn reportedly spoke about striking separate trade deals with Germany and Belgium, which wouldn’t be possible since EU nations negotiating trade deals as a group. This is a point Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel had to make to Trump nearly a dozen times when they met last month.

“The EU side was terrified about the lack of awareness,” Der Spiegel reports.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-very-bad.html

And as an FYI, Mercedes, BMW, and VW all have plants in the U.S., so nice work protecting jobs there.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Nothing stops a New Era rant that completely misses the point of a post.

Your post made no sensical point, as usual, hence the request for more detail. You completely ignored the fact that the United States has massive military installations to project their power and agenda on the world as they see fit, at the expense of other nations. Having those installations should come with a deep discount in what countries have to spend on defense. You know, you're staying in my home, pissing off my neighbors from which I have to deal with the outcomes, so maybe you should show some consideration and not hand me a bill for the pizza and beer you ordered for a block party you initiated?

Most NATO member nations love having the US as global policeman. If they didn't, they would spend more on national defense. Trump is right that a lot of countries are just off-setting the responsibility of military spending for both national sovereignty (Article 5 seeks to protect individual country's sovereignty), and international deployment on to the American taxpayer.

Wait, what? Since when does military spending equate to acceptance of the US being the world police? Also, why should any of the NATO nations over spend when enemy states have not been spending? The United States is in an arms race with itself and trying to drag its NATO members along for the ride! Why get involved when there is no reason?

This goes back to my earlier post. If you abrogate your responsibility to protect your country at home, and your interests abroad, you essentially have taken a colonial approach to foreign affairs.

Are you trying to suggest that if a nation does not spend to the level the United States says it should, it is abrogating it's defense responsibility? What if that country just doesn't piss in anyone's pool and instead plays nice with the other children? What if they just keep up with the Joneses in their neighborhood?

Canada is well-taken with this mentality, and with brief exception, we always have been. It is very unfortunate.

It's unfortunate that Canada is a peace loving nation and doesn't believe in spending unnecessarily on weapons of war? Very unfortunate indeed.

If Canada is going to increasing spending they should only do so in ways that the Canadian economy benefits, and not from buying questionable platforms from the Americans. Make Canada Great Again and buy Canadian First.

[burn_this_city]

BMW is the largest exporter of cars from the US, all the X models are built there.

http://www.industryweek.com/trade/bm...s-auto-exports

Trump has gotta be the stupidest person to ever reside in the White House.

[burn_this_city]

Kushner the rumored high level member under investigation by the FBI. Perhaps he ends up in jail like his father.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle35120176/

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And as an FYI, Mercedes, BMW, and VW all have plants in the U.S., so nice work protecting jobs there.

Just because President Comacho says that he's going to make people stop buying German cars does not make it so. The 1% will continue to buy what they want, especially since the tax cuts they are about to get will pay for any potential tariff the Great Pumpkin can throw on the vehicles. In fact, the amount the average top 1%er will be getting back will pay for an S550 and an E350, so it's all good.

[JackJack]

Trump has gotta be the stupidest person to ever reside in the White House.

The stupidest "billionaire" ever known to mankind.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Kushner the rumored high level member under investigation by the FBI. Perhaps he ends up in jail like his father.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle35120176/

It's easier to count the members of the Trump administration that aren't under investigation.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump may or may not be stupid, what he's most definitely is the king of being more petty than Tom. He's simply jealous Obama got a rock legend reception in Germany, while he got protests in Brussels. He will always be looking up at Obama, and it'll always piss him off.