Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2018/07/16/day-543/
Day 543: A disaster for our country.
1/ Trump rejected the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, saying he doesn't "see any reason why" Russia would have interfered, and that Putin "was extremely strong and powerful" in denying it during their summit in Helsinki. Trump's refusal to condemn Moscow clashed with the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies, and comes days after the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence agents for hacking the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in an attempt to help Trump. Putin confirmed the he wanted Trump to win the election. Prior to the summit, Trump blamed "U.S. foolishness and stupidity" for poor Russian relations. The Russian foreign ministry responded to Trump's tweet with: "We agree." (New York Times / Washington Post / Reuters / Politico)
Paul Ryan: "Russia is not our ally" and the U.S. must be "focused on holding Russia accountable." (The Guardian)
Trump said he never thought of asking Putin to extradite the 12 Russian intelligence agents charged with hacking Democratic emails. Instead, he blamed blaming Democrats for "bad defenses" for getting hacked during the 2016 campaign. (Washington Post)
Shortly before the summit with Putin began, Trump removed a senior official who is hawkish on Russia and supportive of NATO from his National Security Council. The circumstances surrounding retired Army Col. Richard Hooker's departure from the NSC on June 29 remain in dispute. It's not clear whether he was fired or whether his term was simply over. (Daily Beast)
Hannity will interview Trump following his summit with Putin. and their discussion will air Monday night of Fox News. Trump will also sit down with Tucker Carlson, which will air on his show Tuesday night. (The Hill / Fox News)
2/ GOP senators called the Trump-Putin press conference "bizarre," "flat-out wrong," "shameful" and a "missed opportunity" to not hold Russia accountable for 2016 election meddling. Jeff Flake tweeted: "I never thought I would see the day when our American President would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression." Lindsey Graham tweeted that Trump's response "will be seen by Russia as a sign of weakness and create far more problems than it solves." Ben Sasse added that "The United States is not to blame […] When the President plays these moral equivalence games, he gives Putin a propaganda win he desperately needs." (CNN / ABC News)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-putin-helsinki/h_d61b8af608731b87487ada127469f57e
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer called Trump's comments "thoughtless, dangerous, and weak." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, called on Americans to "vote out the sell-outs" in the GOP and asserting that "the Russians have something on the president." (Associated Press / Reuters / The Hill)
Former U.S. intelligence chiefs condemned Trump's comments during his news conference with Putin. Former C.I.A. Director John Brennan called Trump's performance "nothing short of treasonous." (CNN)
3/ Trump called Robert Mueller's probe "ridiculous" and "a disaster for our country" during his press conference with Putin. "Getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing," Trump said. "I think the world wants to see us get along." Prior to meeting with Putin, Trump called Mueller's probe is a "rigged witch hunt." On Friday, Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said "the warning lights are blinking red again" from cyberattacks by Russia and other nations" and that "the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack." White House National Security Adviser John Bolton added that he finds it "hard to believe" Putin didn't know about top Russian intelligence officials' efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. (NBC News / New York Times / ABC News)
Mueller has charged 32 people, including 26 Russians, since his May 2017 appointment. It's unlikely that 25 of the Russians will be arrested or indicted anytime soon. (Washington Post)
Maryland's voter registration system runs on software owned by a Russian-financed firm. There is no evidence there has been any breach or fraud in voter registration or voting, but state officials are concerned about the Russian connection to sensitive systems. (WBAL)
4/ Trump: "I think the European Union is a foe." Days before his meeting with Putin, Trump capped off a contentious NATO summit in the U.K. by naming the European Union when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now." Speaking at his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Trump added: "Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe." (CBS News / CNN)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/15/politics/donald-trump-european-union-foe/index.html
Trump fist-bumped Recep Erdogan and said he "does things the right way." The Turkish president is a strongman, purging his critics while consolidating power. (CBS News / Vice News)
5/ A federal judge temporarily halted deportations of families who were recently reunited after they being separated by the Trump administration. The ACLU asked that deportations be stalled for at least a week after the families were reunified, to allow time to ensure no family was being improperly deported. (The Guardian / Washington Post)
Notables.
Rep. Trey Gowdy ruled out the possibility of impeaching Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, citing a lack of support for his ouster. "Impeach him for what?" Gowdy said. "I'm not convinced there is a movement," he added. (The Hill / Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/gowdy-rosenstein-impeachment-722237
China filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization over Trump's plan for tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. China says the tariffs are illegal attempts at protectionism. (USA Today / NPR)
Trump told his top diplomats to initiate direct talks with the Taliban in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the ongoing 17-year war in Afghanistan. The Taliban has long said that they will only discuss peace with the U.S. government, but the U.S. has, until now, mostly insisted that the Afghan government take part in the negotiations. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-direct-negotiations.html
Jared Kushner's family firm emptied or sold more than 250 rent-stabilized apartments over the last three years as Kushner Cos. converted one of its buildings into luxury condominiums. The sales from those apartments inside one of the Kushner Cos.' largest residential buildings in New York totaled more than $55 million, an average of $1.2 million per apartment. (Associated Press)
https://apnews.com/00b4e72ad95d4580ad3cb258b2c3444d
The FCC has "serious concerns" about Sinclair Broadcast Group's acquisition of Tribune Media. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the $3.9 billion deal, which would consolidate nearly three-quarters of U.S. households, will now go through administrative process viewed as a deal-killer. (Politico)
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/fcc-sends-sinclair-mega-deal-to-likely-doom-722423
In the six months following the passage of Trump's Tax Cut and Jobs Act, worker pay has fallen while businesses have spent roughly $700 billion to repurchase their own stock. When accounting for inflation, the reduction in worker pay is even steeper. The drop has affected 80 percent of industries and two-thirds of metro areas. (CBS Money Watch)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-wages-drop-while-companies-spend-billions-to-boost-stocks/
Trump's 2020 reelection campaign has spent nearly $1.2 million on legal fees this year, including $340,000 in the last three months. (Buzz Feed News)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tariniparti/trump-campaign-spending-legal-fees-july
Trump has already raised more than $88 million for his re-election campaign over the last year and a half. The sum gives him a substantial head start when compared to prospective Democratic challengers in the 2020 election. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/trump-fundraising-campaign.html
The Wanderer
tl;dr: Americans hate Congress but tend to love their individual Congressmen.
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.
Asgore Adopts Noelle
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Hold up!
... So Trump is going to talk to a Terrorist Organization now to peruse 'peace'?!
... Screw Trump. Screw him so hard right now. And also screw all those Republicans who blasted Obama for trying to get Bergdahl home, too.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Jul 16th 2018 at 6:20:26 AM
I wonder if trump's money advantage in the race will really matter.
We will have to negotiate with them sooner of later if we want to end this war.
Disasturbator
You dont negotiate with terrorists,or so the saying goes
New theme music also a box
I don't think the Taliban are any less repressive and theocratic then they've ever been, this is a move I would be highly skeptical of in a competent and reasonable administration. With Trump I have no faith that anything beneficial will come from this.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 16th 2018 at 6:40:30 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
A procrastination in of itself
When you’re the government of the country that needs to be stabilised there’s plenty of reason to negotiate with terrorists, but this isn’t a domestic insurgency, it’s an insurgency is a country where the US is meant to be playing a support role.
The Afghan government just lost all credibility with the Taliban thanks to Trump.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
"We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a Dead Horse Trope for a reason. It's stupid jingoistic nonsense. There are SO many reasons to do so. Believe it or not, Tom Cruise's character in Tropic Thunder is not a good source of national policy.
But as stated above, it's not something I'd trust this administration to do.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Deranged X-Mas Figure
I wouldn't trust this administration to so much as clean the toilet.
My issues are also with the current administration, but the idea itself is not wrong. We are not going to beat the Taliban decisively, or else we would have done so already. Which leaves us either with the option to negotiate with them, or hope that we can wear them down. Which is not very likely either, considering that most countries are getting fet up with the war.
Of course negotiating with the Taliban is very risky, and I suspect that Trump would sign any agreement that would give him a face-saving excuse to withdraw, and then allow the Taliban to take over. But since such negotiations would probably take quite some time, there is always the hope that - in case he does not get reelected - his successor will get to decide over the final deal.
Edited by Zarastro on Jul 16th 2018 at 1:45:05 PM
A procrastination in of itself
Thing is the US shouldn’t be the one negotiating, the US is planning to leave, the people who will remain in the country with the Taliban (AKA the Afghan government) are the ones who should be negotiating.
Any settlement has to be a political agreement, the US is not the political leader of Afghanistan, that’s the Afghan government. The US is there to shoot things and train people, not make deals for the Afghan people, they have to do that on their on.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Disasturbator
> Believe it or not, Tom Cruise's character in Tropic Thunder is not a good source of national policy.
I believe it because I don't take advise from fictional characters or movies,"Not negotiating with terrorists" has been around for awhile now,and probably stems from efforts by Governments not to appear like they're giving in the terrorists demands or legitimising whatever their causes or believes are ,and I agree there are times when talking to these groups is necessary for stability such as the examples above or when lives are actually at stake in a hostage situation
I suspect publicly it's something Governments declare so they appear strong and unyielding,while privately they do communicate with these groups,it surprised me to learn how much contact they often have,but it depends on the group really and Government in charge
Edited by Ultimatum on Jul 16th 2018 at 12:00:10 PM
New theme music also a box
Leaving would be the worst thing we could do at this point, we need to make it clear we're in Afghanistan for the long haul. Frankly it's our only real option if we're interested in the stability of the country and region.
Deranged X-Mas Figure
HA!
Edited by kkhohoho on Jul 16th 2018 at 7:19:31 AM
Doctor Who — Long Way Around: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13536044/1/Doctor-Who-Long-Way-Around
Agreed. Thankfully the conflict doesn't have much focus so that should be viable, still the risk of some outsider getting elected and stupidly withdrawing all of our troops is not impossible.
We are interested in that, even if only for practical reasons and not moral ones. A destabilized Middle East helps nobody.
Negotiating with the Taliban isn't something Trump came up with. Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, has been flying around the idea of ending the war by allowing the Taliban to operate as a legitimate political party. It's nothing out of the blue, they did the same with FARC in Colombia (though that might get backpetaled on under Colombia's new president).
The Taliban are in an odd place negotiations wise. They were a country but they were always a country who had a government not recognized as a legitimate one. Not negotiating with terrorists is a good policy overall to discourage people doing terrorist acts for concessions.
However, the Taliban aren't going away any time soon and have consistently held territory.
Treating them as a terrorist organization is never going to bring peace to Afghanistan and negotiating with people you don't like is sort of the point of diplomacy—and I say that knowing they're awful people.
But this is turning into the Forever War.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 16th 2018 at 5:53:29 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Deranged X-Mas Figure
Maybe we used to be interested, but I don't think Trump really gives a shit.
For what it is worth, there have been several reports recently that India considers sending soldiers to Afghanistan to help the government and combat Pakistan's influence in form of the Taliban there. It would not hurt if other countries become involved (who oppose the Taliban of course), thereby demonstrating the Taliban that their long-term chances of full victory is far from assured, even if Nato one day retreats.
The thing about negotiating with the Taliban is....what's the alternative?
Is our strategy really, "Try to kill all of them?"
Usually, wars end with surrender or coming to terms.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Uh... Charles, the Taliban was a government that held control of Afghanistan the country. It was not, itself, a country. It's now a terrorist organization and the US offering to "negotiate" with it is... rather presumptive and kind of disrespectful to the current Afghani government. We're not the ones who have to live with these guys as our neighbors. Anything done without the government of Afghanistan is going to be bad. (An offer to facilitate or be involved is the more diplomatic way to phrase that kind of thing, I think.)
I'm all for India chipping in. Even if it's opportunistic, multilateral efforts at peace and stability tend to be more productive than unilateral ones.
Sweden has mobilized its troops some time ago. That's because Sweden might not be a NATO country, but it is in a defence alliance with the other Scandinavian countries, most notable Finnland, which is also not in NATO, but had to put up with Russia trying to meddle in their affairs, trying to install a Russian population within their borders (in order to gain influence within the country and maybe move the border like they did in the Ukraine) and constantly "accidentally" ending up in Finnish air space. Sweden has good reasons to be worried, because Finnland is not THAT big of a puffer and a close ally.
On a different note, the Hugh Grand Speech from Love Actually has been trending on Twitter in the UK in reaction to the Trump visit.