The Trump foreign policy thread

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Holman »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 3:08 pm It's better than that. The official line is that he was responding to a different question.
Hours later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump was answering a different question, and that “we believe the threat still exists.”


Jeeeeeeeeasssus.
From the reporter who asked the question to Trump:



link
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Archinerd
Posts: 6837
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Shikaakwa

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Archinerd »

:roll:
As with all things Trump, the best case scenario is he is an incompetent dolt.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Well, so he said "no...no." Which is a double negative. So a yes. Just like how women say often say yes to him.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by YellowKing »

At the very least can we agree that a President who can't answer direct yes/no questions without clarification from his aides is not fit for office?

I like to think that a little piece of Sarah Manatee Sanders' soul dies every time she is forced to stand up there and justify Trump's incompetence. But that would require assuming she has a soul.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Smoove_B »

Remember that time Obama had a "rapper" come to the White House and conservatives lost their goddamn minds?
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Fitzy »

Hamlet3145 wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:50 pm So, this is a thing now:

White House says Trump to discuss allowing Russia to question US citizens
Is this even a thing the President has any power over? I mean, I suppose he could allow the Russians into the country, but given the Constitutional protections around even questioning a “suspect” I would think the American citizen’s lawyer would refuse to allow his client to speak to Russians. Even in this partisan time I can’t imagine the most conservative judge in the country forcing the interrogation and I’d think the Supreme Court would be an immediate, unanimous 9-0 fuck you to the administration that tried.

What am I missing? (I realize Trump is an idiot). Seriously, this appears blatantly unconstitutional and unless Trump replaces Sessions with Joe Arpaio the DOJ would never go along with it. It’s so ludicrous, I almost hope Trump tries it.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Isgrimnur »

I’m sure there’s no government agency that would abduct a person against their will in their home country and subject them to questioning by foreign powers.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Apollo
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Gardendale, AL

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Apollo »

hepcat wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:02 pm That article lead to this fascinating precursor. It's chock full of stuff I never realized. For example:
Putin has a weak hand and is always bluffing. Just by meeting him, you’re giving him a huge gift. The President of the United States is the most important and powerful person in the free world; in contrast, the President of Russia is practically nobody. The Russian economy is roughly equivalent to the state of New York’s. The Russian military budget is 90% less than that of the United States, on par with the U.K. or France. All of Putin’s geopolitical theatrics are him showing his weakness. At best, he’s got a pair of twos. The United States has a full house.
:shock:
Let's not forget that Putin has lots and lots of Nukes and that he seems like the kind of guy who might just use them if he had to. He may not be able to bully the UK or France, but the rest of Europe is probably very reluctant to provoke him in any way.
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13676
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by $iljanus »

So, are we at the level of the president engaging in just a wee bit of treason yet?

Invoke the 25th Amendment already.


Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Kraken »

The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63530
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Daehawk »

Anything! Ill take anything that gets him and his cronies out of there now.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by malchior »

Kraken wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
I don't think it'd be easy but continual attacks on our elections seems like it could be construed as an act of war. Now is this the best way to remove him? Not even close. A non-craven Congress could have likely booted him some time ago for emoluments violations or some ethical violation.

I think the treason cry is more of rhetorical one. In his case it is mostly short-hand to describe how he consistently is not doing a primary function of the job to wit protect the sovereignty of the United States and its citizens. That is an easy case to make.
User avatar
Vorret
Posts: 9613
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Drummondville, QC

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Vorret »

Isgrimnur wrote:
His name makes me think of a small, burrowing rodent anyway.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Holman »

Heh. I posted about this in another thread at the exact same minute.

Moving here...

Pretty major NYT reporting this morning about the degree to which Trump was thoroughly and completely briefed on Russian interference--including getting a look at classified communications intercepted not just by us but by allied intel services--even before his inauguration.
Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.

The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.
The Jan. 6, 2017, meeting, held at Trump Tower, was a prime example. He was briefed that day by John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command.

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was also there; after the formal briefing, he privately told Mr. Trump about the “Steele dossier.” That report, by a former British intelligence officer, included uncorroborated salacious stories of Mr. Trump’s activities during a visit to Moscow, which he denied.

According to nearly a dozen people who either attended the meeting with the president-elect or were later briefed on it, the four primary intelligence officials described the streams of intelligence that convinced them of Mr. Putin’s role in the election interference.

They included stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee that had been seen in Russian military intelligence networks by the British, Dutch and American intelligence services. Officers of the Russian intelligence agency formerly known as the G.R.U. had plotted with groups like WikiLeaks on how to release the email stash.

And ultimately, several human sources had confirmed Mr. Putin’s own role.
It's incredibly damning that he has kept up his pretensions of doubt and denial about all this. There has never been any doubt.

Naturally, he is going nuts about it on Twitter this morning.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Paingod »

Holman wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:19 amIt's incredibly damning that he has kept up his pretensions of doubt and denial about all this. There has never been any doubt.
He's not in love with Russia over this. He's in denial because he feels it tarnishes his personal biggest accomplishment. If he admits that the Russians helped him, then he's admitting that he's not loved and adored by all like he believes.

TRUMP SMASH ELECTION! TRUMP NOT NEED PUNY RUSSIANS! TRUMP BEST! EVERYBODY LOVE TRUMP!
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by hepcat »

My favorite Trumpism from this morning's twitter storm from manbaby:
The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction. Problem is, when you complain you just give them more publicity. But I’ll complain anyway!
"Problem is, when you touch a hot stove, it burns. But I'll touch it anyway!"

God, what an idiot.
Covfefe!
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13676
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by $iljanus »

hepcat wrote:My favorite Trumpism from this morning's twitter storm from manbaby:
The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction. Problem is, when you complain you just give them more publicity. But I’ll complain anyway!
"Problem is, when you touch a hot stove, it burns. But I'll touch it anyway!"

God, what an idiot.
"without any sources"?!? The source for much of your troubles is from your own fucking mouth.

All very entertaining under other circumstances except for the fact that you're Putin's piss boy, umm, president.
Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Jeff V »

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:08 am

God, what an idiot.
"without any sources"?!? The source for much of your troubles is from your own fucking mouth.
A completely unreliable, discredited source. So of course, any news based on what his face anus spews is fake news!
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by ImLawBoy »

Kraken wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by LordMortis »

The Fake News Media is going Crazy! They make up stories without any backup, sources or proof. Many of the stories written about me, and the good people surrounding me, are total fiction
Implication: Everything you read about me from
Big Box Super Markets are going Crazy. They sell produce that has caused E Coli. Many people have died from E Coli.
Implication: All food sold from Big Box Super Market will cause you to die from E coli.

In what universe is this narration of events telling the truth like it is?
Last edited by LordMortis on Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Captain Caveman
Posts: 11687
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Captain Caveman »

Paingod wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:42 am
Holman wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:19 amIt's incredibly damning that he has kept up his pretensions of doubt and denial about all this. There has never been any doubt.
He's not in love with Russia over this. He's in denial because he feels it tarnishes his personal biggest accomplishment. If he admits that the Russians helped him, then he's admitting that he's not loved and adored by all like he believes.

TRUMP SMASH ELECTION! TRUMP NOT NEED PUNY RUSSIANS! TRUMP BEST! EVERYBODY LOVE TRUMP!
This is wrong, or at least only a tiny piece of the puzzle. He was slovenly appeasing Putin well before the election every happened. He's been working in tandem with Russia all along. OF COURSE he knows-- and has always known-- that Russia was interfering. He supported and helped it. His relationship with Russia goes back decades... this goes much deeper than just feeling insecure about his election victory.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by El Guapo »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:40 am
Kraken wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.
I would say that says nothing to indicate that treason is only applicable to countries with which the United States is at war. The "war" is only there as saying that levying war against the United States (e.g., rebelling or joining up with foreign adversaries) is clearly treasons. Specifically, what that clause is doing is limiting the *types of acts* that can be labeled treason. That is, you can only be charged with treason if you:

(1) Wage war against the United States; OR
(2) "Adhere" to the enemies of the United States (presumably pledging loyalty to or something along those lines).

The "aid and comfort" clause is a little confusing; I guess I would read that as applying to acts (1) and (2) - basically in either waging war or adhering to enemies, you must give "aid and comfort" to the enemies. That would probably mean something like doing something material to aid them (as opposed to, say, passively supporting).

To charge someone with treason you would need to define a country or group as an "enemy" of the United States, but I see no basis in that clause for reading war as a prerequisite to the definition of an enemy.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by ImLawBoy »

I read the "Aid and Comfort" as applicable only to the "adhering" part, as in you adhere to the enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort. Otherwise, I agree with your reading and don't think War is prerequisite to the adhering element.

That's not to say I agree at this point that what Trump has done is technically treason. I do categorize Russia as an Enemy, because I think the US can have enemies that we are not at war with, and we certainly seem to have adverse interests to Russia. I'm not sure that I'd say that Trump's words with respect to Russia rise to the level of adherence/Aid & Comfort without tangible actions to match them. If words alone were sufficient to commit treason, then any protestor who spoke against the Vietnamese conflict, for example, would be potentially guilty.

Now, Trump may have committed some actions that would rise to the level of adherence, but I'll let Bill Mueller sort that out. There's an argument to be made, I guess, that Trump's position gives his words more weight than a mere protestor, and thus could rise to the level of treason. Maybe some "light" treason.

(That was a long way to go for that reference.)
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by El Guapo »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:18 pm I read the "Aid and Comfort" as applicable only to the "adhering" part, as in you adhere to the enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort. Otherwise, I agree with your reading and don't think War is prerequisite to the adhering element.

That's not to say I agree at this point that what Trump has done is technically treason. I do categorize Russia as an Enemy, because I think the US can have enemies that we are not at war with, and we certainly seem to have adverse interests to Russia. I'm not sure that I'd say that Trump's words with respect to Russia rise to the level of adherence/Aid & Comfort without tangible actions to match them. If words alone were sufficient to commit treason, then any protestor who spoke against the Vietnamese conflict, for example, would be potentially guilty.

Now, Trump may have committed some actions that would rise to the level of adherence, but I'll let Bill Mueller sort that out. There's an argument to be made, I guess, that Trump's position gives his words more weight than a mere protestor, and thus could rise to the level of treason. Maybe some "light" treason.

(That was a long way to go for that reference.)
I suppose that if one is going to the point of actually participating in war against the United States, you are by definition also giving aid to enemies of the United States, so where that clause applies may be moot to some degree.

In any event, I 100% agree that nothing in the press conference constitutes treason, and people are throwing that around regarding the press conference too loosely. The press conference does provide a dramatization of the fact that something is deeply fucked about the relationship between Trump and the Russian government, and provides further indication that Trump may well have engaged in some light treason. For example, aiding and abetting a cyberattack against the United States to interfere in its presidential election is at the very least getting into treasonous territory.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by hepcat »

With Trump, there's very little that he does that can be called premeditated. The man is far too stupid to make long term plans of any type. He just opens his mouth, says the first thing his addled brain thinks of, then goes into damage control after he realizes he said something like "All Japanese people are hereby outlawed in the western hemisphere. Also, pants are now a punishable action!"
Covfefe!
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Kraken »

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:59 am
ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:40 am
Kraken wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:54 am The T word is being thrown around a lot, and certainly Trump's a traitor in the colloquial sense that he is betraying his country on an epic scale. However, the Constitution is clear that treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. It would take some legal gymnastics to define Russia as such. There are legitimate reasons for impeachment, but treason isn't one.
US Constitution wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Constitution is decidedly unclear on whether treason only applies to enemies with whom we are at war. The "or" is key here, because you could argue that the US has "Enemies" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that we are not at open war with. In such a case "adhering" to them or "giving them Aid and Comfort" would constitute treason. In fact, that might be a more logical reading, as it seems dubious that the founders intended to give someone a pass on giving aid and comfort to a hostile country right up until a formal declaration of war.
I would say that says nothing to indicate that treason is only applicable to countries with which the United States is at war. The "war" is only there as saying that levying war against the United States (e.g., rebelling or joining up with foreign adversaries) is clearly treasons. Specifically, what that clause is doing is limiting the *types of acts* that can be labeled treason. That is, you can only be charged with treason if you:

(1) Wage war against the United States; OR
(2) "Adhere" to the enemies of the United States (presumably pledging loyalty to or something along those lines).

The "aid and comfort" clause is a little confusing; I guess I would read that as applying to acts (1) and (2) - basically in either waging war or adhering to enemies, you must give "aid and comfort" to the enemies. That would probably mean something like doing something material to aid them (as opposed to, say, passively supporting).

To charge someone with treason you would need to define a country or group as an "enemy" of the United States, but I see no basis in that clause for reading war as a prerequisite to the definition of an enemy.
It seems to be a bit of a gray area.
According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group.
That definition just shifts the vagueness from "enemy" to "hostilities." At least half of the world has hostile intent, but "hostilities" is generally understood to mean warfare. The US has foes, it has adversaries, it has competitors, it has rivals. Russia is all of these. But they don't rise to the status of enemies without armed conflict. Yes, attacking our elections is a hostile act, but we are not engaged in hostilities. If Russia were an actual bona fide enemy, they would not be ferrying our astronauts to the ISS.

Now, NK is an enemy because we are technically still at war with them. You might have a legal case for treason there if he were to cross the line into "aid and comfort" (which doesn't encompass inept diplomacy, IMO).

Most of us can plainly see that Trump's a traitor, but I won't agree that he's a firing-squad eligible Traitor, nor do I expect to see anyone in a position of authority make that argument. At least not based on what we know so far.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by ImLawBoy »

Kraken wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:26 pm
According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States;

(3) the term "person" means

(A) any natural person;

(B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and

(C) any organization, association, or group.
That definition is specific to that Chapter 39 (Spoils of War), and would not apply to interpretation of the Treason clause of the Constitution (see here.

Regardless, the point stands that the Constitution is not clear that Treason requires war.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by ImLawBoy »

hepcat wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:23 pm Also, pants are now a punishable action!
Finally! A Trump policy hepcat can proudly support.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by hepcat »

Friggin' Freudian slips.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Fitzy »

ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:33 pm
hepcat wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:23 pm Also, pants are now a punishable action!
Finally! A Trump policy hepcat can proudly support.
It’s apparently why he plays Conan.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by LordMortis »

What sucks is that is the right call. OtOH, the GOP needed to step to stop that meeting. Fixing the problem they created by abusing (and setting precedent to further abuse) the scope of the power is the right way. They're going to be right most the time when they don't abuse their powers to fix the messes they are creating by being wrong virtually every other time. Which is just example after example after example of why they need to go.
User avatar
Fitzy
Posts: 2030
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Fitzy »

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:26 pm
What sucks is that is the right call. OtOH, the GOP needed to step to stop that meeting. Fixing the problem they created by abusing (and setting precedent to further abuse) the scope of the power is the right way. They're going to be right most the time when they don't abuse their powers to fix the messes they are creating by being wrong virtually every other time. Which is just example after example after example of why they need to go.
Is it an abuse of power? From the House maybe, but what if the Senate, that has jurisdication over treaties, asked? I know it’s not a treaty, but Trump is implying at least that some deals were discussed. In addition, Congress is supposed to have oversight of the executive branch. Shouldn’t that include knowing what the President did or did not do in official US business? In discussions with his advisors, sure it makes sense to deny Congress. But I’ve not seen any persuasive argument that the Executive branch should be able to withold anything official from the Congress. However, my reading is limited. :D

I do think that part of the mess we are in comes from the strengthening of the executive branch at the expense of Congress.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by LordMortis »

Fitzy wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:39 pm Is it an abuse of power? From the House maybe, but what if the Senate, that has jurisdication over treaties, asked? I know it’s not a treaty, but Trump is implying at least that some deals were discussed. In addition, Congress is supposed to have oversight of the executive branch. Shouldn’t that include knowing what the President did or did not do in official US business? In discussions with his advisors, sure it makes sense to deny Congress. But I’ve not seen any persuasive argument that the Executive branch should be able to withold anything official from the Congress. However, my reading is limited. :D

I do think that part of the mess we are in comes from the strengthening of the executive branch at the expense of Congress.
I'm probably not clear.

1) President taking a private meeting with Putin to discuss both laws and how laws will be enforced is an abuse of power.
2) Congress letting him do it, were shucking their responsibilities.
3) Congress arbitrarily wanting to question the translator after allowing the president to take a private meeting would be an abuse of their power.

The nation of laws thing is to tossed out the window for the first two
We bring it back for the third, but only as a sort of bureaucratic response to protect the first two problems.

Three stands on its own as being the right thing. You make up the rules as you go. But in consistently McConnell fashion, the rules only apply when they are there to protect treachery and perversion of the right thing. It's fucked up.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Defiant »

Is it possible our intelligence services listened in on this? I mean, I would imagine spying on someone like Putin would be within their purview. Even if, normally, you would think they could get information about a meeting where the US was one half of the negotiations without resorting to espionage.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Defiant wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:24 am Even if, normally, you would think they could get information about a meeting where the US was one half of the negotiations without resorting to espionage.
That would require cooperation from the US half.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Holman »

Saw it pointed out that Trump carries on other diplomatic meetings (China, Canada, France, etc.) normally, with aides and cabinet members in the room.

Only the meetings with top Russians are private, and there have been four or five that we know of since the inauguration.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
Toe
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:51 am
Location: A small world west of wonder

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Toe »

Defiant wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:24 am Is it possible our intelligence services listened in on this? I mean, I would imagine spying on someone like Putin would be within their purview. Even if, normally, you would think they could get information about a meeting where the US was one half of the negotiations without resorting to espionage.
If Trump was carrying his cell phone, sure it possible, heh.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: The Trump foreign policy thread

Post by Holman »

The Hill: Putin declines Trump's spontaneous invitation to visit him in D.C.

Look, *somebody* has to prevent another Helsinki fiasco just before the election, right?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
Post Reply