The politics thread.

[lyb]

So about a month into Trump's presidency, does anyone think a written constitution is worth the paper it's printed on?

 

[lyb]

MAGA, baby.

 

[Rock The Boat]

If you think I'm a rabid leftie then that must put you somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. I've even been called an RWNJ on occasion.

The real Buh said the same thing regarding support for Donald Trump. I'll admit that some of the more entrenched left-wingers on the Pink'un tempted me to think the same way on occasion, but I can't quite bring myself to tolerate a politician so obviously amoral and transactional.

Pushing the 'corrupt Zelensky' Putin talking point as an argument for sitting on our hands and letting Russia roll over a disarmed Ukraine means either you're quietly in Putin's corner or you just don't understand the stakes.

Nah, you're not a rabid leftie. You're a free thinker who doesn't fit into a single category, and while i have some different opinions to you on some subjects, more power to you for your independence.

i think we have just entered a totally different world since the start of Trump 2.0 We would have seen it in 2016 but Trump got bogged down with so many distractions and changes of personnel and Covid that he didn't do as much as he planned. Firstly, let's remember Trump is not a politician. He doesn't think like a politician. He doesn't operate like a politician. He is a business man and more specifically a deal maker. He sees politics as deal making, which has some advantages as it requires negotiating skills and compromise. Since the Second World War until Trump 2.0, the world engaged in mainly moral wars, that is, we were ousting bad guys and bad regimes and replacing them with what we believed were better guys. We defeated the USSR because we believed in freedom for those who lived under communism. We went to war in the Middle East and Afghanistan because they were very bad guys who threatened world peace. Trump doesn't fight moral wars. Which is why he can stop fighting in Ukraine and give Putin what he wants, not because he is weak or because he is Putin's puppet but because he is not interested in Zelinksky's claims of nationhood. What he is interested in, is the natural resources of Ukraine and how he can exploit them for American benefit. Just as he is interested in Greenland for the natural resources to be found there. So why not make a deal with Putin and shares the spoils between the two countries.

I was gobsmacked as much as anybody when Trump dumped on Zelinsky, but now having thought about the kind of guy Trump is, and how he doesn't want America to be the world policeman, then his Ukraine stance makes sense from a business point of view. There is nothing new in Trump's strategy. It mirrors the 19th century political situation where countries didn't fight one another for moral reasons (although ending the slave trade is a marvellous exception to the rule) but fought for colonies and resources of far flung places, out of which Britain, with its navy and industrial revolution turned out to be the winner. So perhaps Trump will be the new Palmerston, picking up countries and regions that can feed into the economy of America, perhaps if not quite building an empire as he's probably only going to be around for four years, but maybe a cluster of associates, just like a company with lots of regional partners.

And to answer Fen, yes I think they want to empty Gaza, and Trump won't care if it's called Ethnic Cleansing because that's a moral position, and why would he let a moral position get in the way when the US, Israel, Saudi and other Gulf States are going to make so much money developing Gazan real estate?

 

[Rock The Boat]

So about a month into Trump's presidency, does anyone think a written constitution is worth the paper it's printed on?

Mate, what has he done that's unconstitutional?

 

[lyb]

Mate, what has he done that's unconstitutional?

Executive order to end birthright citizenship (in constitution)
Executive orders funding set by congress (violates article 1, section 8 of the constiuttion)
Generally usurping congressional powers through abuse of executive orders.

Are we headed for a constitutional crisis? Kennedy School scholars on the Trump administration and the rule of law

Faculty experts at Harvard Kennedy School see unprecedented challenge to the rule of law and to constitutional norms and consider how the courts and other institutions will respond.

www.hks.harvard.edu

 

[lyb]

Nah, you're not a rabid leftie. You're a free thinker who doesn't fit into a single category, and while i have some different opinions to you on some subjects, more power to you for your independence.

i think we have just entered a totally different world since the start of Trump 2.0 We would have seen it in 2016 but Trump got bogged down with so many distractions and changes of personnel and Covid that he didn't do as much as he planned. Firstly, let's remember Trump is not a politician. He doesn't think like a politician. He doesn't operate like a politician. He is a business man and more specifically a deal maker. He sees politics as deal making, which has some advantages as it requires negotiating skills and compromise. Since the Second World War until Trump 2.0, the world engaged in mainly moral wars, that is, we were ousting bad guys and bad regimes and replacing them with what we believed were better guys. We defeated the USSR because we believed in freedom for those who lived under communism. We went to war in the Middle East and Afghanistan because they were very bad guys who threatened world peace. Trump doesn't fight moral wars. Which is why he can stop fighting in Ukraine and give Putin what he wants, not because he is weak or because he is Putin's puppet but because he is not interested in Zelinksky's claims of nationhood. What he is interested in, is the natural resources of Ukraine and how he can exploit them for American benefit. Just as he is interested in Greenland for the natural resources to be found there. So why not make a deal with Putin and shares the spoils between the two countries.

I was gobsmacked as much as anybody when Trump dumped on Zelinsky, but now having thought about the kind of guy Trump is, and how he doesn't want America to be the world policeman, then his Ukraine stance makes sense from a business point of view. There is nothing new in Trump's strategy. It mirrors the 19th century political situation where countries didn't fight one another for moral reasons (although ending the slave trade is a marvellous exception to the rule) but fought for colonies and resources of far flung places, out of which Britain, with its navy and industrial revolution turned out to be the winner. So perhaps Trump will be the new Palmerston, picking up countries and regions that can feed into the economy of America, perhaps if not quite building an empire as he's probably only going to be around for four years, but maybe a cluster of associates, just like a company with lots of regional partners.

And to answer Fen, yes I think they want to empty Gaza, and Trump won't care if it's called Ethnic Cleansing because that's a moral position, and why would he let a moral position get in the way when the US, Israel, Saudi and other Gulf States are going to make so much money developing Gazan real estate?

Really thought-provoking post. Pragmatically, all of it makes sense and from my own disgruntlement with the status quo, I can see the reasons why people hope something good may come of it. The problem is that most tyrannies have come about in democracies because people believed something good would come out of just sweeping aside everything that went before.

What is alarming is the extent to which lies are becoming a norm. Not just fibs, but real glaring untruths.

A global leader addressing the world saying a country that was invaded with no military provocation 'started the war'. And Trump wasn't even answering a question when he said that; he volunteered that assertionl.

The problem is that even with a transactional approach, if you make a contract, there has to be belief in reasonable best efforts to uphold that contract.

I saw a funny meme the other day regarding the Budapest memorandum, arguing that as the US did sign the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing that it, along with the UK and Russia would honour its territoritorial sovereignty and not seek to coerce it economically, since Russia has breached it regarding territorial sovereignty, and the US has breached it in terms of territorial sovereignty and also economic coercion, Ukraine should be compensated to the turne of the value of the nuclear Arsenal it gave up plus interest, which I'm confident is far higher than the 70 billion dollars the US has put into weapons for Ukraine since 2014.

If there was a court of law powerful enough to make that judgement, I've no doubt Ukraine would be the winner. In reality though, there isn't. All we can say is that the US and Russia have engaged in an incredible breach of trust.

Once you've accepted that breaches of trust of that scale, and personally I think breaches of trust don't get bigger than betraying the terms under which someone gives up nuclear weapons, you've then got a problem as to what extent any agreement with the US or Russia achieved through diplomacy can be trusted to be in good faith.

Look at the way the US is dealing with Canada. Trump made a new Trade agreement to the US' benefit with Canada in his last Presidency. Now, only about five years later, he's now saying the US is 'being screwed' by Canada simply because Canada sells more to the US than the US sells to Canada. His position now is that this justifies economic warfare on Canada unless Canada consents to be annexed by the USA. Apart from the obvious insanity of the position, what is the point of agreements with the US if they're demonstrably prepared to demand to change the terms in their favour at whim?

Then you have to bear in mind that the UK itself is totally beholden to the US. Our nuclear deterrent is US technology. Our aircraft carriers are literally incapable of flying any advanced fighter other than the American F-35. Most of our defence industry has gone. We produce no fighter jets, we barely produce ships. We're fucked in this new world order that Trump has delivered.

 

[Rock The Boat]

Executive order to end birthright citizenship (in constitution)
Executive orders funding set by congress (violates article 1, section 8 of the constiuttion)
Generally usurping congressional powers through abuse of executive orders.

Are we headed for a constitutional crisis? Kennedy School scholars on the Trump administration and the rule of law

Faculty experts at Harvard Kennedy School see unprecedented challenge to the rule of law and to constitutional norms and consider how the courts and other institutions will respond.

www.hks.harvard.edu

OK But I think any executive order can be challenged, as part of the constitution.

 

[Rock The Boat]

Really thought-provoking post. Pragmatically, all of it makes sense and from my own disgruntlement with the status quo, I can see the reasons why people hope something good may come of it. The problem is that most tyrannies have come about in democracies because people believed something good would come out of just sweeping aside everything that went before.

What is alarming is the extent to which lies are becoming a norm. Not just fibs, but real glaring untruths.

A global leader addressing the world saying a country that was invaded with no military provocation 'started the war'. And Trump wasn't even answering a question when he said that; he volunteered that assertionl.

The problem is that even with a transactional approach, if you make a contract, there has to be belief in reasonable best efforts to uphold that contract.

I saw a funny meme the other day regarding the Budapest memorandum, arguing that as the US did sign the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing that it, along with the UK and Russia would honour its territoritorial sovereignty and not seek to coerce it economically, since Russia has breached it regarding territorial sovereignty, and the US has breached it in terms of territorial sovereignty and also economic coercion, Ukraine should be compensated to the turne of the value of the nuclear Arsenal it gave up plus interest, which I'm confident is far higher than the 70 billion dollars the US has put into weapons for Ukraine since 2014.

If there was a court of law powerful enough to make that judgement, I've no doubt Ukraine would be the winner. In reality though, there isn't. All we can say is that the US and Russia have engaged in an incredible breach of trust.

Once you've accepted that breaches of trust of that scale, and personally I think breaches of trust don't get bigger than betraying the terms under which someone gives up nuclear weapons, you've then got a problem as to what extent any agreement with the US or Russia achieved through diplomacy can be trusted to be in good faith.

Look at the way the US is dealing with Canada. Trump made a new Trade agreement to the US' benefit with Canada in his last Presidency. Now, only about five years later, he's now saying the US is 'being screwed' by Canada simply because Canada sells more to the US than the US sells to Canada. His position now is that this justifies economic warfare on Canada unless Canada consents to be annexed by the USA. Apart from the obvious insanity of the position, what is the point of agreements with the US if they're demonstrably prepared to demand to change the terms in their favour at whim?

Then you have to bear in mind that the UK itself is totally beholden to the US. Our nuclear deterrent is US technology. Our aircraft carriers are literally incapable of flying any advanced fighter other than the American F-35. Most of our defence industry has gone. We produce no fighter jets, we barely produce ships. We're fucked in this new world order that Trump has delivered.

Lyb, have you seen the video of the Trump-Zelensky press conference? Astonishing scenes of real anger there!

 

[Rock The Boat]

Well once again I was totally baffled by Trump's demeanour towards Starmer. I thought with the Chagos Islands business and the threat to Diego Garcia, plus the 100 Labour staffers who went to campaign for Democrats, plus the threats to American social media companies over free speech, I thought these talks would be 'frosty' at best. But no, Trump acted like he and Starmer were best buddies and nothing to see here.

Just didn't expect that at all. The only reason I can come up with is that Trump wants something and he is playing the long game in order to get it. Trump sees the uK government is in trouble and it is going to get a whole lot worse before it starts to get better, if it ever does, so Trump is biding his time and waiting for Starmer to turn to his new best buddy for help. So what could Trump possibly want from the UK? I can think of two things, one of which is quite outrageous but fits in with Trump behaviour. The staightforward thing might be a trade deal that is mightily in favour of US interests, that is letting in all kind of products that don't meet current UK standards. The more outrageous ad perhaps far-fetched possibility is he wants the Falkand Islands. Trump has shown he wants new territory, especially those that are resource rich. Labour is anti oil and gas so unlikely to exploit the deposits. He could also cut a deal with Argentina President Milei to keep the Argentinians happy. Who knows??

 

[lyb]

Lyb, have you seen the video of the Trump-Zelensky press conference? Astonishing scenes of real anger there!

Right from the minute Trump called Zelensky a dictator and claimed that Ukraine started the war, it was obvious that Trump fully intends to sell Ukraine down the river.

What we saw was Vance asserting dishonest claims that Zelensky had to argue with. The whole objective of Trump and Vance was to seek to railroad Zelensky, and then attack him for being rude if he dared challenge it. Their aim was to try and create pretext for ditching Ukraine, but it looks like an awful lot of Americans aren't buying it.

Trump is blatantly bought and paid for by Russia.

 

[lyb]

OK But I think any executive order can be challenged, as part of the constitution.

This is the reason Trump created a flood of executive orders on day one: To overload the legal system trying to review them. It's the legal equivalent of DDOS attack trying to crash the courts so he can do what he likes unimpeded.

 

[Fen Canary]

Lyb, have you seen the video of the Trump-Zelensky press conference? Astonishing scenes of real anger there!

I don’t believe it was real anger. I think it was choreographed on the part of the Americans.
If they don’t want to arm the Ukrainians then thats up to them (we’ll ignore them signing a treaty promising to help them for now),but be open about it.
If you want to stop sending them arms then say so, and be honest about the fact the decision you’ve made will essentially throw 40 million Ukrainians under the yoke of the Kremlin. To put on a show like they did to then try and pin the blame of their decision onto Zelensky is cowardice of the highest order, and in my view morally repugnant.

 

[morty]

I don’t believe it was real anger. I think it was choreographed on the part of the Americans.
If they don’t want to arm the Ukrainians then thats up to them (we’ll ignore them signing a treaty promising to help them for now),but be open about it.
If you want to stop sending them arms then say so, and be honest about the fact the decision you’ve made will essentially throw 40 million Ukrainians under the yoke of the Kremlin. To put on a show like they did to then try and pin the blame of their decision onto Zelensky is cowardice of the highest order, and in my view morally repugnant.

Personally I am on the side of ending a war that no one can win, that feeds thousands of young men into the meat grinder.

All too easy for armchair generals to opine on things that don't really affect them.

 

[morty]

I don’t believe it was real anger. I think it was choreographed on the part of the Americans.
If they don’t want to arm the Ukrainians then thats up to them (we’ll ignore them signing a treaty promising to help them for now),but be open about it.
If you want to stop sending them arms then say so, and be honest about the fact the decision you’ve made will essentially throw 40 million Ukrainians under the yoke of the Kremlin. To put on a show like they did to then try and pin the blame of their decision onto Zelensky is cowardice of the highest order, and in my view morally repugnant.

Have you watched the full 50 minute video? Or just the juicy bits? It was undignified on everyone's part, but the first 40 minutes were Trump telling Zelensky that he was focused on peace, and Zelensky responded by strongly pushing back on a ceasefire with Russia and demanded that Putin pay for the entire war. When Vance pointed out the difference between the Biden administrations, and Trump's approach to this Zelensky got the arse.

So he has come to the White House for more war money and / or a mineral deal, acted like a spoiled child, and left empty handed.

Not clever. This has put him, and Ukraine, in a very difficult position now. Does he apologise and come back to the table, or demand more money from European leaders to keep this going? Polls in Ukraine show the majority of the public want peace. He really would have been better working with Trump, rather than now working against him. He has some big thinking to do now to decide what to do next.

"You don't have the cards right now"
"I'm not playing cards"
"Oh you're playing cards. you're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with world war three."

 

[gerryinromania]

Respect, roars the big , rich orange bully, with 34 convictions, to the little man, that has the audacity to be wearing his work clothes, WITHOUT A NECK TIE at a meeting. The poor little man is trying to save his country from being taken apart and placed into history, by two respecting/? leaders and their bullies, perhaps just a little bit of respect should go his way, even though, shock and horror, he doesn't wear a neck tie.

 

[lyb]

Have you watched the full 50 minute video? Or just the juicy bits? It was undignified on everyone's part, but the first 40 minutes were Trump telling Zelensky that he was focused on peace, and Zelensky responded by strongly pushing back on a ceasefire with Russia and demanded that Putin pay for the entire war. When Vance pointed out the difference between the Biden administrations, and Trump's approach to this Zelensky got the arse.

So he has come to the White House for more war money and / or a mineral deal, acted like a spoiled child, and left empty handed.

Not clever. This has put him, and Ukraine, in a very difficult position now. Does he apologise and come back to the table, or demand more money from European leaders to keep this going? Polls in Ukraine show the majority of the public want peace. He really would have been better working with Trump, rather than now working against him. He has some big thinking to do now to decide what to do next.

"You don't have the cards right now"
"I'm not playing cards"
"Oh you're playing cards. you're gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with world war three."

Numerous false premises here.

The war is winnable. The reason Ukraine hasn’t won yet is because Ukraine has been repeatedly deprived of weapons at key points when it could have pushed on.

Russia does not hold all the cards. Another year of war and Russias economy will collapse.

And you don’t publicly humiliate an ally like that unless you’re actively seeking to undermine them. Trump and Vance deliberately sabotaged going on with a minerals deal as a pretext to walk away. It’s unprecedented for an event like that to have the VP sitting in like that. He was there to articulate the Russian position less obviously because Trump doesn’t have the subtlety.

Do the Ukrainian public want peace? Of course. What sort of moron wants to be bombed all the time? Ask them the question whether they want peace on the basis of Russia keeping the land it has won and Ukraine getting zero security assurances and I doubt the answer would be so positive.

Trump and Vance are consistently negotiating for Russia’s interests and against Ukraine’s.

A pair of crooks and shills in it together.

 

[morty]

No. The war is not winnable.

 

[morty]

Respect, roars the big , rich orange bully, with 34 convictions, to the little man, that has the audacity to be wearing his work clothes, WITHOUT A NECK TIE at a meeting. The poor little man is trying to save his country from being taken apart and placed into history, by two respecting/? leaders and their bullies, perhaps just a little bit of respect should go his way, even though, shock and horror, he doesn't wear a neck tie.

That was a reporter that said that, not Trump?

 

[morty]

He's back pedalling desperately now as he realises he has massively shot himself in the foot...

https://x.com/TheGriftReport/status/1895646043733418002

 

[lyb]

No. The war is not winnable.

Yes it is. And even if it wasn’t, Russian economic collapse would be desirable given the malevolence of its leader.