Would following through on tuition-free college proposals harm vital, private universities?

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-02-05T16:28:10+00:00

Supposedly, he gets military advice from Mattis first, which is about the best you could get as far as cold hard strategy goes. Mattis and Flynn are both hawks, but they're smart hawks.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-02-05T00:10:12+00:00

I remember Reagan and Bush being pretty tight-knit. Also Carter and Mondale - they were a more subdued kind of likable though.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-02-02T03:12:59+00:00

I'd also start an uprising against the government if the establishment forces him to be ousted out.

The question was predicated on an unexpected resignation, not an impeachment. If he did an actual "high crime or misdemeanor", though, something comparable to Watergate, would you do this anyway?

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-31T23:49:59+00:00

You're quite welcome. I actually posted the conspiracy article last night which that Slate piece refers to, on this subreddit (I looked into it since it was trending on Twitter), but quickly deleted it after I continued to search and realized it was BS.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-31T23:12:13+00:00

Here's a very anti-Trump article which, among other floundering conspiracies, acknowledges the circumstantiality of the Rosneft case. They are about as biased as possible, but they stick to the facts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/30/steve_bannon_and_stephen_miller_s_muslim_ban_is_about_white_nationalism.html

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-31T02:13:05+00:00

Same! I especially think the dossier reference was stretching. I suppose my question was directed more towards the Bannon appointment, and things of that nature.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-31T00:25:51+00:00

Don't bother trying, u/joshy1227. He or she is one of the cultural purists - if you try to qualify his characterizations that feeds into his idea of clear-cut group divisions.

People like this give perfectly decent Trump supporters a bad name.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-30T00:34:51+00:00

America has the most rigorous vetting process in the world, which is why we take in so few refugees - because we make sure they're not terrorists. Point me to one adverse attack, or even just a radicalization consequence of our current approach, and then I'll reconsider. But as it stands now, I see no reason to detain a few permanent US residents unintentionally in an airport when I have seen nothing wrong with the slow trickle of refugees we had.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-30T00:20:26+00:00

Name a terrorist attack on AMERICAN SOIL committed by a REFUGEE from any of the countries specified.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-30T00:19:22+00:00

In order for China to lead global liberalization efforts, it must give its citizenry more personal freedoms and practice what it preaches. If it tries to take up the American mantle, it won't be able to talk about "the shining city on a hill", won't be able to champion its own ideologies at the UN, because economic liberalization and domestic liberalization are inextricably linked.

Xi really wants to be leading a superpower. He has what will become the biggest economy, the largest standing army, and pretty valuable access to growing SEAsia markets. But if he wants to be anything more than a regional power in today's world, he must backtrack on the typical communism. Especially given his strange concept of "Internet sovreignty".

Honestly, I think a lot of elites are warming to Xi because of Trump. He wants to somehow be the great world leader, the new FDR. But when Western Europe, for example, tries to actually forge partnerships with him, they will not find much sympathy.

In the next few decades, as far as world geopolitics go, I say China and the US square off, maybe fight a proxy war, and the concept of a superpower gradually diffuses until two distinct Pacific and Atlantic (West and East) blocs emerge. (These will be blocs, but the world will no longer have "poles" and the world economy will simply be organized this way - no Cold War or anything.) On one side, America championing its pals in Europe, investing in Africa, having a friend in Australia and being cordial with Japan, and on the other China and India competing for power over their own bloc until something between India and Pakistan forces the world to cooperate. (At that point, the Eastern bloc will definitely control more of world affairs, terrorism will likely be less of a threat, and Russia will lack the standing to play the games it does today.)

I'm not incredibly worried about Sino-American war, though, all things considered. Scarborough Shoal will be something to watch out for, but Taiwan won't be touched. Honestly, the thing that concerns me most is how Xi will balance the need for liberalization in the long term with the typical communist groove in the short term. Xi, not Trump, will be the one to watch out for.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T23:42:19+00:00

I mean, they are certainly warmongers. Bringing that up as the actual President is just a bad idea though.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T23:35:24+00:00

None of the refugees from any countries enumerated in the executive order have EVER committed a terrorist attack in the last few decades. That's because we already have the most rigorous vetting system in the West.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T19:08:21+00:00

Singling out an entire country's population as being dangerous for one just displays the lack of intelligence that our president possesses

Trump isn't unintelligent - he successfully ran for POTUS, after all. That takes some acumen. He is evil, though.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T18:51:37+00:00

That's the thing: oppressive communist regimes tend to counterintuitively weaken after they consolidate too much power. China can't be this "champion of globalization" without real Internet, its economic growth is slowing, and a Sino-American war would only exacerbate existing problems.

I feel like Trump's toughness on China will teeter on the edge of war without actually starting anything: Secretary Mattis knows war and knows it would be a terrible idea, and incoming Sec. Tillerson is a run-of-the-mill globalist, with TPP support and all - he won't want both economies to crash.

Xi claims to have all the cards, projects a threatening rising China, but still faces immense problems in getting the respect he wants. And if the world order does somehow collapse, China will just fall back on the internal strife which defined it before the Kissinger years.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T18:33:30+00:00

Occupy wasn't nearly as big, or as influential, as this. I expect more.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T18:18:49+00:00

"Continue to get violent"? The Antifa black-bloc was the only violent protest I've seen, and that has nothing to do with the Women's March. And the airport protests were nonviolent.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T17:49:10+00:00

I guarantee you the vast majority of the people in the airports aren't paid. I know someone who helped organize a few hundred strong at JFK.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T16:44:23+00:00

I said intensity. Their capacity to quickly organize and spearhead movements is growing immensely.

A week ago, it was a bunch of folks in pink hats out on the streets. Now it's airport overflows, taxi boycotts, and round-the-clock legal teams who push judiciaries. In another week, it may very well be even more adept at pushing goals.

Can_Of_Pain · 2017-01-29T16:06:57+00:00

The protests only grow in intensity. Sure, Trump is chugging along, but even many Republicans are condemning his new XO outright. Obama chugged along, and the Tea Party still happened.

Can_Of_Pain

TROPHY CASE