[subego]

I'm having trouble discounting the argument the world just took a big step towards the post-Napoleonic model of international affairs.

[Waragainstsleep]

Which step exactly are you talking about?

[subego]

The one where the end result of the G7 is sniping.

[subego]

Driving a wedge between the U.S. and Germany has been Russia's (mostly) consistent goal for 70 years.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Driving a wedge between the U.S. and Germany has been Russia's (mostly) consistent goal for 70 years.

Perhaps, but this was Trump's doing, not Russia's. I can't stress how strong Merkel's statement is, even at the height of the opposition to Bush's invasion in Iraq, it was always understood it was an argument among friends where one tried to keep the other from making a monumental mistake.

[subego]

I'm in agreement on the gravity of the situation.

Russia wants this, and has been trying to make it happen, so who's doing it is isn't a simple question.

This doesn't let Trump off the hook for anything. He's responsible for our foreign policy.

[subego]

I mean, shit... this is partially Hillary's doing for sucking so bad she couldn't beat this moron.

But again, that doesn't let Trump off the hook.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I mean, shit... this is partially Hillary's doing for sucking so bad she couldn't beat this moron.

No, I strongly disagree: picking Trump as GOP Presidential candidate has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton nor the fact that he wasn't only voted into office by ~40 % of the voting public nor the fact that 80 % of Republicans still support him now despite Trump upending many pillars of conservatism (such as free trade, NATO and the alliance with Western Europe).

In fact, we all know for sure that Clinton is much closer to pre-Trump GOP foreign politics than Trump is.

[subego]

If the fact the GOP picked him or continues to support him is relevant, which I think it is, that speaks to my point. The claim "this is Trump's doing" is an oversimplification.

However, none of this would be happening had Hillary won, and I blame her for her role in not winning, which was significant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If the fact the GOP picked him or continues to support him is relevant, which I think it is, that speaks to my point. The claim "this is Trump's doing" is an oversimplification.

How is that an oversimplification? Trump is President and, at least when foreign policy is concerned, it is his right and responsibility to set the tone. Who besides Trump has responsibility for this?

Originally Posted by subego 

However, none of this would be happening had Hillary won, and I blame her for her role in not winning, which was significant.

Hillary Clinton is not responsible for Trump's disastrous policies, she has in fact warned us that this would happen. In the end, it is the voters who put Trump in power, voters who decided it was better to cast their vote for a wholly unqualified, extremely flawed outsider rather than a qualified, flawed insider.

Keep in mind that with regards to foreign policy, Trump is moving in the direction that he said he would in the campaign. Not as far, mind you, but he is broadly doing what his core base expected him to do: being critical of the EU and NATO, of free trade and “putting America first”.

[subego]

I stated precisely what Hillary is responsible for: not winning.

As for Trump, the foreign policy he controls isn't exactly what the Russians want by accident.

[andi*pandi]

In other news, Abraham Lincoln was guilty of not surviving a gunshot wound. Sure, Booth pulled the trigger, and sure, Booth led a conspiracy in planning it, but come on, Lincoln should have been able to overcome that. Loser.

[Waragainstsleep]

So this is further evidence that Trump is Putin's puppet yes?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In other news, Abraham Lincoln was guilty of not surviving a gunshot wound. Sure, Booth pulled the trigger, and sure, Booth led a conspiracy in planning it, but come on, Lincoln should have been able to overcome that. Loser.

Wat?

Hillary almost won.

Lincoln almost survived?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So this is further evidence that Trump is Putin's puppet yes?

It's certainly not inconsistent with that theory.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As for Trump, the foreign policy he controls isn't exactly what the Russians want by accident.

So it isn't Trump who is responsible for his foreign policies, but Putin?!?

And your fixation on Clinton is weird, you can blame her for a lot of things, but for not winning she carries responsibility for Trump? That's ridiculous. She has lost, and she has retired from political life.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's certainly not inconsistent with that theory.

I've come around to the useful idiot/wildcard theory. Putin did't think he'd get elected, but now that he is, he's reaping the rewards of having such an unpredictable idiot in power. Theoretically, it could backfire, but in the meantime, the collateral damage is quite beneficial.

[reader50]

I'm hoping something useful will come from this administration. Not anything they'll intend of course. The executive has accumulated too much power in recent decades. Having a dangerous and unpredictable person in the White House may force Congress and the courts to challenge and reduce past executive power grabs.

Now that would be useful. And the current office holder doesn't have to accomplish anything to pull it off. He just has to try enough weird policies. Frequent entertaining tweets help.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm hoping something useful will come from this administration. Not anything they'll intend of course. The executive has accumulated too much power in recent decades. Having a dangerous and unpredictable person in the White House may force Congress and the courts to challenge and reduce past executive power grabs.

Looking at Congress, I see no chance of that happening. Partisanship seems to be a higher priority than keeping the President in check.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So it isn't Trump who is responsible for his foreign policies, but Putin?!?

And your fixation on Clinton is weird, you can blame her for a lot of things, but for not winning she carries responsibility for Trump? That's ridiculous. She has lost, and she has retired from political life.

I'm still mad at her for losing. She's an adult. She can handle it.

Trump is responsible for U.S. foreign policy, which doesn't operate in a vacuum.

I don't understand the insistence of demanding responsibility be binary.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I'm hoping something useful will come from this administration. Not anything they'll intend of course. The executive has accumulated too much power in recent decades. Having a dangerous and unpredictable person in the White House may force Congress and the courts to challenge and reduce past executive power grabs.

Is there form for such a reduction in executive power?

Its difficult to imagine that a Republican dominated House and Senate will be the ones to make it happen. It'll be the Democratic reaction to this administration that makes those changes if they happen.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Looking at Congress, I see no chance of that happening. Partisanship seems to be a higher priority than keeping the President in check.

It doesn't matter who's in charge of congress. If the branches were opposing parties all it does expedite a possible impeachment.

The conclusion I came to a while back as to why congress will likely not reassert its power is because doing so would create accountability. It's why Obama couldn't get an AUMF to fight ISIS authorized (Iraq war vote shows blame is shared) and it's why the GOP doesn't see it as a priority now that Trump is in office (They cool with him).

Another example is the Saudi arms deal. Rand Paul is sponsoring a bill disapproving of it, but it's symbolic. He'd get less support if it had consequences.

The ACA kind of demonstrates the electoral issue perfectly: Democratic congressmen got murdered on it, but Obama got re-elected.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It doesn't matter who's in charge of congress. If the branches were opposing parties all it does expedite a possible impeachment.

Yes, I understand, but it is a design flaw of the American system: the Founding Fathers rejected the idea of political parties, and thought that creating a competition between branches is enough. This competition only works in practice if the Presidency and Congress are from different parties.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The conclusion I came to a while back as to why congress will likely not reassert its power is because doing so would create accountability. It's why Obama couldn't get an AUMF to fight ISIS authorized (Iraq war vote shows blame is shared) and it's why the GOP doesn't see it as a priority now that Trump is in office (They cool with him).

Unfortunately, I think you have a point here.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Another example is the Saudi arms deal. Rand Paul is sponsoring a bill disapproving of it, but it's symbolic. He'd get less support if it had consequences.

This hedging of bets is just ugh.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, I understand, but it is a design flaw of the American system: the Founding Fathers rejected the idea of political parties, and thought that creating a competition between branches is enough. This competition only works in practice if the Presidency and Congress are from different parties.

You're preaching to the choir that the system design is flawed.

Actually its kind of disconcerting that the flaws in the two party system hasn't gotten more discussion since this election. To recap: The democratic runner-up was not a democrat and the republican nominee was someone who most people thought was a democrat most of his life. I think I've argued that these are signs of political realignment, but because of the system degrading into a rigid two parties, it slows political evolution by forcing outsiders into those constructs to win elections rather than allowing them to compete with their own. (i.e., my theory of electoral regulatory capture)

Point two: No one likes coalition governments, but you need not look further than current stumbles in the House to see we are already living in one: Freedom Caucus clearly functions independent of the GOP. It keeps asserting itself on larger issues where republicans have to whip to get a majority vote even though they're up like 20+ seats (HFC is like 30).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Point two: No one likes coalition governments, but you need not look further than current stumbles in the House to see we are already living in one: Freedom Caucus clearly functions independent of the GOP. It keeps asserting itself on larger issues where republicans have to whip to get a majority vote even though they're up like 20+ seats (HFC is like 30).

If you live in a country that has more than two parties, coalition governments are the norm, and people like coalition governments. Usually the small partners are able to inject new topics into politics, which increases turnover and allows voters to weight different topics in different elections. That works far more transparently than different wings of the party duking it out internally.

[The Final Dakar]

Sorry, that was assumptive. I guess my point of reference is when I was younger the democrats were pointed as flawed partly because of their coalition-like nature. The funny thing is, the make-up hasn't changed much, but the differences have mostly faded. Partly, I think, because the different factions better accept each and partly because the GOP has shifted so much towards the white male club.

I would say a coalition type government appears to better represent the people at the cost of making governing harder.

[subego]

This is where I get to throw down with my favorite pet theory.

After WWII, America was justifiably in a good mood for kicking Axis ass.

While we were riding our high, television became the dominant model for distribution of information.

With this model, aided by the aforementioned bonhomie, non-partisan journalism was profitable and sustainable.

That lasted until the internet gathered enough steam, which unfortunately happened right around the hyper-polarizing aftermath of 9/11.


The world we grew up in, the one we've used to build up our notions of what works and what doesn't, was a complete anomaly.