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
Most definitely-China buying our surplus has been the only thing keeping the industry from collapsing, and they have been steadily reducing consumption anyway; China has just about put a moratorium on coal burning facility construction, and have at least a couple of plants that have been abandoned part way through. The bottom is going to fall out sooner than later, and the slog to replace our own supply was going to be painful regardless. With the way this regime is shaping up, the two options are a precipitous freefall or abandoning their fiscal policy to prop up the industry through subsidies.
edited 6th May '17 9:01:59 PM by ViperMagnum357
![]()
,
That's more or less why the B.C. Premier wants to ban the exports. Not a fan of coal, to put it lightly. The only reason she didn't raise more of a fuss about this in the past was because of the USA's former decent trade relationship with Canada.
edited 6th May '17 10:59:08 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedPremier of BC is strange, she's in general a right-winger to the hilt, but (possibly because of the people she needs votes from) she's also quite the environmentalist.
A North American trade war (US vs Canada, Mexico and whoever else is unfortunate to draw Trump's ire) wouldn't be unprecedented, but it will be unpleasant for everyone. Hopefully Trump doesn't spell the end of the North American alliance though, I like living under the NORAD umbrella.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
if nothing else, it's good to see enviromentalism transcend ideological lines. We only have on planet after all.
And speaking of that? Does anyone know anything else about the Ant-parks caucus?
And remember that National monuments review. Here's the public comment site?
edited 7th May '17 7:55:06 AM by megaeliz
Nonsense. The planet is so very obviously better dead than red.
For more on Foreign Policy, Captain might have called it with the administration adopting (a half-baked variant of) realpolitik (assuming the state department still does anything...):
Rex Tillerson Doesn't Understand America
It was a speech given in the style of an executive delivering a pep talk to anxious employees, a substantial number of whom suspect the boss intends to declare them redundant. That is, of course, the actual situation. The diplomats and civil servants politely applauding were listening to a leader who, as far as we know, did not fight a proposed 29 percent cut to his Department’s budget, plus layoffs of key personnel. He did not speak from notes or behind a podium, presumably in order to be more relatable, as they say, even as he laid out the principles of American foreign policy.
Tillerson explained “America First” this way. It applies to “national security and economic prosperity, and that doesn’t mean it comes at the expense of others.” This defies common sense. Surely, if we’re first, someone else is second, third, and finally last. Tillerson made it clear that he believes in American freedoms for the United States, and acknowledged that they have some role in shaping American policies, but then walked that notion back in his most disturbing sentence: “We really have to understand, in each country or region of the world that we’re dealing with, what are our national security interests, what are our economic prosperity interests, and then as we can advocate and advance our values, we should” (emphasis added).
If this is seriously meant, American officials should declare their support for free elections, the rule of law, or rights for women abroad only if that would not thereby jeopardize national security and economic interests, however slight. And since there are always some kind of security and economic interests in play, America cannot and should not stand for much in the world beyond a kind of national selfishness, less intense perhaps but essentially no different than that of China or Russia.
Perhaps this was just sloppiness, although one would have wished the nation’s senior diplomat should know the importance of precise speech in a statement that is posted for all to see on the State Department’s website. Which is why effective secretaries of state make major proclamations with care, in writing, and with due regard for their wider audience.
Tillerson’s idea that in foreign policy American interests and American values are two separate things, the first mandatory, the second optional, reflects a misunderstanding of our past (not uncommon in this administration) and of the essence of our national character.
You could cut down the forest or dry up the river and the country would be infinitely the poorer for it, but it would still be the United States of America. If Americans jettison the Bill of Rights and the ideas enshrined in it, they become a different country altogether.
Nor is it correct to suggest, as Tillerson did, that the choice is between insisting that other nations have to adopt the full suite of American principles of government and behavior and pursuing American interests. One can accept that Egypt will not adopt New England town meetings, but still persistently call out corruption; one can work with Recep Tayyip Erdogan while making clear American abhorrence of what he has done to freedom of the press in a country drifting into Islamist authoritarianism. Indeed, the case of Turkey helps illustrate why the United States should press—prudently but persistently—for open and law-abiding societies. They make infinitely better allies in the long run than thugs sitting on powder kegs.
Tillerson continued his remarks with a tour d’horizon, a description of America’s position around the world. He spoke primarily about North Korea, China, Russia, and ISIS. He barely mentioned our relationships with the liberal democracies who form the bedrock of America’s alliances save to complain about European NATO members not paying their fair share. The main question is whom we can make deals with, and whom we cannot. He referred to Saudi Arabia; he omitted Great Britain, Germany, and France, whose soldiers have fought and died alongside ours in Afghanistan.
It was an intellectually shallow performance... This superficiality matters too: In the absence of historical perspective and understanding, foreign policy degenerates into crisis management; in the absence of values-informed and in some cases values-driven policy it can easily slip into short-sighted tactical accommodations, the equivalent of playing chess one move at a time, which is a good way to get mated.
"Tillerson made it clear that he believes in American freedoms for the United States, and acknowledged that they have some role in shaping American policies, but then walked that notion back in his most disturbing sentence: “We really have to understand, in each country or region of the world that we’re dealing with, what are our national security interests, what are our economic prosperity interests, and then as we can advocate and advance our values, we should” (emphasis added)."
Of course, that's been our de-facto policy for decades, generations. A large faction of our country basically reserves American freedom, rights, and principles only for other Americans. That's how we could support all those dictators for all those years. That's why we oppose Iran but not Saudi Arabia, and so on.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart."American officials should declare their support for free elections, the rule of law, or rights for women abroad only if that would not thereby jeopardize national security and economic interests, however slight. And since there are always some kind of security and economic interests in play"
not surprisng at all, after seen the reaction of some people after the dead soldier parent, it show me that for some, those things a privilege that american can revoke at any time whatever they wanted.
And again more conection to my goverment seen clearly trump administration is slipping into presentism, the idea that only what matter NOW is important.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"![]()
Maybe posting the actual song might help.
Basically, it's about how, whenever there's some big political snafu or supposed foreign crisis going on, our default solution is often to just send the marines, while also doing our best to rig a given political situation to our favor. Hope that helps.
edited 7th May '17 11:50:28 AM by kkhohoho
Not really, no. I just like Tom Lehrer. Nothing wrong with that.

It's a producer, and the tariff might get them more business.
Edit.
edited 6th May '17 8:19:02 PM by TheRoguePenguin