Page 89 of 91

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:28 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
sardia wrote:Aren't the budget numbers worse than printed because the middle class part of the tax cuts are temporary while the corporate/obscene rich parts are permanent.


Sort of. All income tax changes are temporary, and the corporate tax changes are permanent. Generally speaking, as rich people own a lot more stock, pro-corporation changes benefit them more. That said, income tax affects most everyone.

The income tax changes are not huge regardless. The $77k-140k range dropping from 22.5% to 22% is nice, sure, but it's probably not going to vastly change someone's station in life.

I suppose by making them temporary, they set themselves up for good PR down the road by lowering taxes on the population again.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
IIRC, they also changed how inflation is calculated for bracket creep, essentially making it that the value of the tax brackets now increase at a rate that is somewhat slower than inflation. This creates a stealth tax increase on the middle/lower income brackets.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:28 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Haven't seen any news reports of rioting anywhere yet, just the usual effigy and picture burning. If you happen to be in a middle eastern country right now, well, I don't know what advice to give.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:33 pm UTC
by orthogon
CorruptUser wrote:Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. Haven't seen any news reports of rioting anywhere yet, just the usual effigy and picture burning. If you happen to be in a middle eastern country right now, well, I don't know what advice to give.


Let's hope Jumble made/makes it back safely.

BBC News wrote:Mr Trump described the move as "a long overdue step" to advance the Middle East peace process.

What's the phrase I'm looking for ... it's not quite non sequitur...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:37 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Fractal wrongness?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:52 pm UTC
by Quercus
orthogon wrote:
BBC News wrote:Mr Trump described the move as "a long overdue step" to advance the Middle East peace process.

What's the phrase I'm looking for ... it's not quite non sequitur...

I'm going to coin the phrase "anti sequitur" for that. The twisting of reality that is behind such a statement seems to somehow go beyond a simple lie. "Gaslighting" would also be an appropriate term.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:45 am UTC
by Internetmeme
Quercus wrote:
orthogon wrote:
BBC News wrote:Mr Trump described the move as "a long overdue step" to advance the Middle East peace process.

What's the phrase I'm looking for ... it's not quite non sequitur...

I'm going to coin the phrase "anti sequitur" for that. The twisting of reality that is behind such a statement seems to somehow go beyond a simple lie. "Gaslighting" would also be an appropriate term.


The law mandating that the US embassy be moved to Jerusalem was passed with near-unanimous bipartisan support (93-5 in the Senate, with 4 out of 5 nay votes coming from Republicans, and 374-37 in the House, with 30 Nay votes from Democrats) in both houses in 1995. Because he was trying to get negotiations between Palestine and Israel happening, Bill Clinton neglected to sign it (although he didn't veto it, since it would have just been overridden anyway) and instead allowed it to automatically go into law by making no decision after 10 days. That does not mean, however, that Bill didn't support it. The Democratic Party's platform for the 1992 election explicitly stated its support for the move: "Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

A compromise was made in that Pres. Clinton would be allowed to postpone the move for six months at a time, because the bill's sponsors realized that its passage would completely bomb the peace talks. But then he kept it moving down the road. President Bush made the move a campaign promise, but never fulfilled it and continued pushing the move back. President Obama briefly included this as a promise during his 2008 campaign, but later backtracked once he arrived in office. Not one attempt was made by any of these presidents to remove the loaded gun that Congress had placed on the coffee table. There has not been a major outcry against the bill in the nearly 22 years since it passed.

Ultimately, Trump is responsible for allowing the move to happen, but the power to make this decision was given to him by previous administrations who did nothing but put the issue off because it wasn't politically convenient to tackle. And not just Republicans, who have recently been the most pro-Israel of the two parties: the fact that the issue of the American Embassy's location has even been allowed to get to this point is an exercise in bipartisan procrastination. If this issue is as important to the DNC and the media as they claim it is, then they should have perhaps spoken up at some time in the last 22 years. Like the four-year period where the DNC controlled both the Congress and the White House.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:29 am UTC
by orthogon
Internetmeme wrote:Not one attempt was made by any of these presidents to remove the loaded gun that Congress had placed on the coffee table.

Thanks, I didn't know any of that history. But it seems like maybe the gun was kind of underneath a magazine, and maybe nobody wanted to reach for it, even to unload it, in case this was misinterpreted. The trouble is that if you leave a loaded gun on the coffee table, eventually a toddler is going to wander in and find it and then someone is likely to get shot.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:01 am UTC
by eran_rathan
Given we have a toddler in the White House, I'm completely unsurprised. He's in the middle of the room waving the gun around while Congress stands there saying, "Aw, ain't he cute... Go get him another gun!"

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:38 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
orthogon wrote:
BBC News wrote:Mr Trump described the move as "a long overdue step" to advance the Middle East peace process.

What's the phrase I'm looking for ... it's not quite non sequitur...


It is actually an old, agreed upon thing that the US kept wavering and not getting around to actually doing.

So, factually, it's not wrong.

Though one can disagree with the folks who thought it was a good idea to do in the first place, I suppose. Still, it *is* the administration's job to actually carry out passed law, eventually. Personally, I don't think this'll really *help* peace in the middle east, but then...what will? It's going to remain a trouble spot either way, probably. I don't see much delta here.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:46 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
The presidents job is to execute the law. If there is a law he does not like, he has no right to ignore it or render it non-existent by bureaucratic shenanigans. Either he enforces it or submits a bill to change it. It is not his place to undercut Congress. This is not a check; this is something that needs to be checked.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem basically makes a two state solution impossible, which leads us to the conclusion that Trump things a one state solution is correct. That is a valid position to hold, although it may not be the position you hold. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:02 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Is the embassy going to be in East or west Jerusalem? Because West Jerusalem isn't actually Jerusalem, contains none of the holy sites, and most of the Arab countries are ostensibly willing to recognize that part as part of Israel since they had it pre 67.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:24 pm UTC
by Zohar
jewish_scientist wrote:Moving the embassy to Jerusalem basically makes a two state solution impossible, which leads us to the conclusion that Trump things a one state solution is correct. That is a valid position to hold, although it may not be the position you hold. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm not sure what Trump's motive is here, but I would be very surprised if it was to support what he thinks is the optimal peace solution between Israel and Palestine. I would be surprised if he even has thoughts on the matter. It seems much more likely to me that this is a diversion tactic.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:28 pm UTC
by Quercus
It doesn't seem quite so egregious a twisting now that I know the back story (it is a long overdue step, speaking purely procedurally), though the idea that it will advance the Middle East peace process still seems quite ludicrous given the broad condemnation of the move as something that makes said process more difficult.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:36 pm UTC
by orthogon
Tyndmyr wrote:
orthogon wrote:
BBC News wrote:Mr Trump described the move as "a long overdue step" to advance the Middle East peace process.

What's the phrase I'm looking for ... it's not quite non sequitur...


It is actually an old, agreed upon thing that the US kept wavering and not getting around to actually doing.

So, factually, it's not wrong.

Though one can disagree with the folks who thought it was a good idea to do in the first place, I suppose. Still, it *is* the administration's job to actually carry out passed law, eventually. Personally, I don't think this'll really *help* peace in the middle east, but then...what will? It's going to remain a trouble spot either way, probably. I don't see much delta here.


It sounds like the "wavering" was done for a good reason. Presidents passim (including a younger version of Trump) had many opportunities to either enforce it or change it, and they didn't. It's not "long overdue" in the way repainting a fence or fixing the roof might be long overdue, i.e. you know you need to do it but can't face the hassle and expense. It's not as though the limiting factor was that none of the Israeli removal companies had availability or they needed to sort through some stuff in the attic before they could move the embassy. This took almost zero effort to carry out, and the reason for not doing it was that it wasn't wise to do it. Essentially it seems to have been a fudge, which I don't mean pejoratively: fudges are often crucial to peace processes, because they allow both sides to save face. The Good Friday Agreement over Northern Ireland is basically a large, fragile, extremely carefully constructed fudge that worked really well for almost 20 years. (That fragility is being threatened now because of Brexit, which ought to have been reason enough on its own for any voter who remembered the Troubles).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:59 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
Zohar wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Moving the embassy to Jerusalem basically makes a two state solution impossible, which leads us to the conclusion that Trump things a one state solution is correct. That is a valid position to hold, although it may not be the position you hold. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'm not sure what Trump's motive is here, but I would be very surprised if it was to support what he thinks is the optimal peace solution between Israel and Palestine. I would be surprised if he even has thoughts on the matter. It seems much more likely to me that this is a diversion tactic.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was one of his campaign promises. I suppose that you could argue that doing this move at this exact moment is a diversion, but then I would question what it is a diversion for. This is a move in the international stage, so he would want to use it during an international scandal. I can thing of nothing on that scope has had such a big impact that he needs to play his trump card.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:24 am UTC
by Sheikh al-Majaneen
I'm confused too. You don't do something like this unless you have something to gain from it, but as far as I can tell he's sticking our hands in a beehive without honey.

I mean, the senators and representatives who passed it twenty years ago probably got money from AIPAC or something, but...why follow through with it today? Who actually gains?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:33 am UTC
by ObsessoMom
Jerusalem only matters to certain American Christians because it figures so prominently in the End Times scenarios in the Book of Revelation.

That's how so many Evangelical Christians can manage to be eagerly "pro-Israel" about things like this, yet anti-Semitic about other things. They don't really care about the Jews. They're just in favor of anything that they think will hasten the end of the world and Jesus' Second Coming. (You needn't bother worrying about all the world's problems if you expect to be Raptured away from the whole mess soon.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:28 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I'm confused too. You don't do something like this unless you have something to gain from it, but as far as I can tell he's sticking our hands in a beehive without honey.

I mean, the senators and representatives who passed it twenty years ago probably got money from AIPAC or something, but...why follow through with it today? Who actually gains?
People seriously over-think Trump.

Someone told him it was a good idea. Someone reminded him it was a campaign promise. Someone told him it would "something something benefit America". Someone told him it would make evangelicals happy. Heck, someone probably just reminded him this would hurt Palestine, and then told him that Palestinians are those "brown Muslims who hate America".

I am perpetually shocked at how many people try to ascribe some clever or reasonable plan to Trump's actions. It's like playing chess against a chimpanzee: There's no strategy here; the only real cleverness is that someone managed to teach an ape how to move the pieces instead of shitting all over the board.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:32 pm UTC
by Dark567
I'd also like to point out this was already passed in Congress in 1995 in an overwhelming majority and every President(Clinton, GWB, Obama) has said since they will do this and just ended up kicking the can to avoid the political fallout. I don't think it is a smart move, but America has more or less been verbally and legislatively saying it will do this for 2+ decades.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... lem-embas/

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:13 pm UTC
by freezeblade
However it was not acted upon, because each president has known that the action would have negative impacts on the middle east peace talks, specifically in angering Palestine. Now, we can have a discussion about how those talks are stalled and not going anywhere (although we should probably have that in another thread), but taking this action without formally removing yourself from peace talks looks an awful lot like taking sides and pissing off the Palestinians (along with most of the middle east).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:30 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
jewish_scientist wrote:Moving the embassy to Jerusalem was one of his campaign promises. I suppose that you could argue that doing this move at this exact moment is a diversion, but then I would question what it is a diversion for. This is a move in the international stage, so he would want to use it during an international scandal. I can thing of nothing on that scope has had such a big impact that he needs to play his trump card.


Agreed. I don't think it makes sense as a diversion. What's he diverting attention from?

It seems like a move designed to get backing from the law and order types, as well as pro-israel types, of which the right has rather a lot. And, as it was promised before, it seems more like just...actually delivering on an issue important to his voters. 'tis to be expected that his opposition disagrees with it(they're more invested in two state solutions), but it's not really a strange move in any way, and describing it as a diversion makes far less sense.

Sometimes a simple play is all that's required to explain something. Trump simply doesn't care about the downside(media hubbub, possible negative attention), so it's a play that's very easy for him.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:37 pm UTC
by HES
Tyndmyr wrote:Trump simply doesn't care about the downside(media hubbub, possible negative attention)

...security threat to embassy staff and their families

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:39 pm UTC
by orthogon
Tyndmyr wrote:And, as it was promised before, it seems more like just...actually delivering on an issue important to his voters.

I guess most of his other promises have been thwarted or diluted by other organs of state. This is probably the one thing he can deliver in its entirety, because of its status of already having been approved and requiring regular presidential intervention in order not to happen. Whether it's a good idea or not is beside the point for Trump.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:52 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
HES wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Trump simply doesn't care about the downside(media hubbub, possible negative attention)

...security threat to embassy staff and their families


Possibly. That said, in a political sense, that probably doesn't hinder Trump greatly.

An advantage of a distinctly pro-Israel policy such as the Republicans often prefer, is that using force to promote that doesn't really conflict with Israel's policy. There's little political cost to taking an overtly physical response to embassy security.

Opinions may vary as to if that policy is a good idea for other reasons, but eh, don't wanna make this whole thread about Israel v Palestine.

orthogon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And, as it was promised before, it seems more like just...actually delivering on an issue important to his voters.

I guess most of his other promises have been thwarted or diluted by other organs of state. This is probably the one thing he can deliver in its entirety, because of its status of already having been approved and requiring regular presidential intervention in order not to happen. Whether it's a good idea or not is beside the point for Trump.

[url]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... umpometer/[/url]

Seems to be making decent progress. He's got about a page of "kept"s, albeit a lot more "in the works", including this one. That's pretty normal, though. Most presidents make some progress on a lot of promises, but don't really get as far as they hoped pre-presidency on many things.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:20 pm UTC
by cphite
freezeblade wrote:However it was not acted upon, because each president has known that the action would have negative impacts on the middle east peace talks, specifically in angering Palestine.


Each and every president from Bill Clinton onward has known what the negative impacts would be, and yet each and every one of them went out of their way to promise to enact it, should they be elected. Then, once they were actually in office, each of them decided not to enact it. But not one of them - nor any Congress since the bill was passed - has ever moved to repeal the law to prevent it from being enacted, or modify it, nor made any attempt or even suggestion that it was something that ought not be enacted, eventually.

So, while on the one hand it's valid to question the wisdom of Trump actually doing this, and doing it now; it's completely disingenuous for anyone who knows the history of this bill to pretend that this is somehow a mark against Trump individually. There were plenty of opportunities over the past 22 years for both parties to prevent this from happening, and it wouldn't even have been politically difficult for them to do so. Instead, both parties gave it lip service; not only implying that it ought to eventually be done but actually promising to do it themselves.

Now, we can have a discussion about how those talks are stalled and not going anywhere (although we should probably have that in another thread), but taking this action without formally removing yourself from peace talks looks an awful lot like taking sides and pissing off the Palestinians (along with most of the middle east).


Does anyone seriously believe anymore that the Palestinians, or at least the people who have power to negotiate on their behalf, are even remotely interested in peace? Or that they would even accept a peaceful agreement, or honor such an agreement.

Every few years we go through this charade, and every single time when it looks like a peaceful solutions is even possible, it goes completely off the rails. This has been going on for decades now. So, much like the pretense around Trump recognizing Jerusalem; the suggestion that Trump has somehow "derailed" the peace is completely disingenuous given the history of the conflict. Granted, what Trump just did isn't even remotely helpful to the process - but there is frankly so reason for any serious person to believe that it actually affected the outcome. Maybe it's just me showing my age, but after seeing this same thing play out over and over again for thirty f'king years, I'm more than a little skeptical that there was anything there, really, for Trump to derail.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:30 pm UTC
by Sableagle
cphite wrote:Does anyone seriously believe anymore that the Palestinians, or at least the people who have power to negotiate on their behalf, are even remotely interested in peace? Or that they would even accept a peaceful agreement, or honor such an agreement.

Every few years we go through this charade, and every single time when it looks like a peaceful solutions is even possible, it goes completely off the rails. This has been going on for decades now.


Does anyone seriously believe any more that the Israelis, or at least the people who have power to negotiate on their behalf, are even remotely interested in peace, or that they would even accept or honour a peaceful agreement?

Every few years we go through this charade, and every single time when it looks like a peaceful solution may be possible, it goes completely off the rails. This has been going on for decades now.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:20 pm UTC
by Zohar
Yeah, I'm gonna call "bullshit" on the claim Netanyahu is interested in peace. All he wants is to remain in power, and he believes the best way to do so is to instill fear in people, so peace would be counter to his goals. Netanyahu is like a smarter, more capable version of Trump.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:44 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Oh boy oh boy!

It's an Israel/Palestine discussion!

These have never gone off the deep end, ever, in a million years!

.....

I'm going to pre-emptively ask that we pretend to keep it civil because... sadly... it's now relevant to this thread?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:53 pm UTC
by cphite
Zohar wrote:Yeah, I'm gonna call "bullshit" on the claim Netanyahu is interested in peace. All he wants is to remain in power, and he believes the best way to do so is to instill fear in people, so peace would be counter to his goals.


Fair enough. Neither side has really shown any interest in a realistic solution.

My point was simply that it's kinda weak to blame this latest Trump buffoonery for derailing the process. The process hasn't really been on the rails for a long time now...

Netanyahu is like a smarter, more capable version of Trump.


Yer gonna have to be more specific... that could describe almost anyone :D

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:57 pm UTC
by Sheikh al-Majaneen
ObsessoMom wrote:Jerusalem only matters to certain American Christians because it figures so prominently in the End Times scenarios in the Book of Revelation.

That's how so many Evangelical Christians can manage to be eagerly "pro-Israel" about things like this, yet anti-Semitic about other things. They don't really care about the Jews. They're just in favor of anything that they think will hasten the end of the world and Jesus' Second Coming. (You needn't bother worrying about all the world's problems if you expect to be Raptured away from the whole mess soon.)

I do remember the people who, back during the Bush presidency, argued that we should accelerate the destruction of the environment because it would hasten the end of days. I like to think nobody seriously thinks this anymore...instead of claiming an active part they just deny it's really happening.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I'm confused too. You don't do something like this unless you have something to gain from it, but as far as I can tell he's sticking our hands in a beehive without honey.

I mean, the senators and representatives who passed it twenty years ago probably got money from AIPAC or something, but...why follow through with it today? Who actually gains?
People seriously over-think Trump.

Someone told him it was a good idea. Someone reminded him it was a campaign promise. Someone told him it would "something something benefit America". Someone told him it would make evangelicals happy. Heck, someone probably just reminded him this would hurt Palestine, and then told him that Palestinians are those "brown Muslims who hate America".

I am perpetually shocked at how many people try to ascribe some clever or reasonable plan to Trump's actions. It's like playing chess against a chimpanzee: There's no strategy here; the only real cleverness is that someone managed to teach an ape how to move the pieces instead of shitting all over the board.


No, I agree. All the cui bono stuff I wrote would apply to somebody who actually thought about consequences and the bigger picture. Someone like Obama, Clinton, or even Bush II. It seems to be beyond this guy.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:06 pm UTC
by Zohar
cphite wrote:My point was simply that it's kinda weak to blame this latest Trump buffoonery for derailing the process. The process hasn't really been on the rails for a long time now...

Well it certainly doesn't help, and his actions have directly led to violence between the two sides.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:13 pm UTC
by Prefanity
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:Jerusalem only matters to certain American Christians because it figures so prominently in the End Times scenarios in the Book of Revelation.

That's how so many Evangelical Christians can manage to be eagerly "pro-Israel" about things like this, yet anti-Semitic about other things. They don't really care about the Jews. They're just in favor of anything that they think will hasten the end of the world and Jesus' Second Coming. (You needn't bother worrying about all the world's problems if you expect to be Raptured away from the whole mess soon.)

I do remember the people who, back during the Bush presidency, argued that we should accelerate the destruction of the environment because it would hasten the end of days. I like to think nobody seriously thinks this anymore...instead of claiming an active part they just deny it's really happening.


Coal rollers still seem somewhat invested in destroying the environment, but I doubt many of them are religious.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:20 pm UTC
by cphite
Zohar wrote:
cphite wrote:My point was simply that it's kinda weak to blame this latest Trump buffoonery for derailing the process. The process hasn't really been on the rails for a long time now...

Well it certainly doesn't help, and his actions have directly led to violence between the two sides.


True. It doesn't help; nor would it have helped at any point in the 22 years since it's been on the table. It's a dumb move, both for the extremely predictable violent reactions it evoked, and because it gains absolutely nothing in return.

But on the other hand, at the end of the day, it's really not as big a thing as some are making it out to be. The way the news was playing it up this morning, we were right on the verge of finally sealing the deal on peace and love and free puppies for everyone, until Trump did this thing.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:24 pm UTC
by Zamfir
No, I agree. All the cui bono stuff I wrote would apply to somebody who actually thought about consequences and the bigger picture. Someone like Obama, Clinton, or even Bush II. It seems to be beyond this guy.

It's not that I like Trump, or this decision, but it seems straightforward enough why Trump might do this, and whose favour he hopes to gain.

- American voters. It's popular, that's why the decision never got reversed.
- Several large donors to the republican party, whose continued generosity will in turn gain Trump the favour of other republican politicians
- The Israeli government, who in turn might do Trump some favours towards other middle-eastern allies of the US.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:37 pm UTC
by Mutex
cphite wrote:But on the other hand, at the end of the day, it's really not as big a thing as some are making it out to be. The way the news was playing it up this morning, we were right on the verge of finally sealing the deal on peace and love and free puppies for everyone, until Trump did this thing.

The two sides weren't killing each other. We'll see if that aspect continues.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:03 pm UTC
by Zohar
cphite wrote:But on the other hand, at the end of the day, it's really not as big a thing as some are making it out to be.

People are firing rockets at each other and killing each other because this idiot wanted to look a bit more popular.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:17 pm UTC
by Mutex
*looks at watch*

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:52 am UTC
by morriswalters
Moderation incoming hopefully?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:37 am UTC
by Sableagle
They assume that this will all blow over because US allies such as the rulers of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt will be satisfied with pro-forma protests, and the Palestinians are too weak to do anything except demonstrate ineffectively.

The US and Israel could be miscalculating: when I lived in Jerusalem I came to believe that many dramatic events in Israel, such as shootings and bombings, often had less effect than the outside world expected. But anything involving Jerusalem itself, and above all its Muslim holy sites, had a much bigger impact than anybody had imagined.

The immediate consequence of Trump’s action is that the US becomes weaker because it has carried out another initiative of which the rest of the world disapproves.

Isis and al-Qaeda have been defeated in their efforts to change regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. If they are going to survive and get support in the Muslim world, they will need to find a new enemy. Battered they may be, but they have far more activists and resources than bin Laden at the time of 9/11. The declaration on Jerusalem throws al-Qaeda-type movements a lifeline, just as they are facing complete defeat.

The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital will make it easier for Tehran to call for all Muslims, Shia and Sunni, to stand together in defence of the Palestinians and the holy sites. It will make it more difficult, though not impossible, for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies to act with the US, move closer to Israel and portray Iran as the greatest threat in the region.

Israel already treated Jerusalem as its capital, and the so-called peace process with the Palestinians has been a sham for years. The US can no longer pretend to be an even-handed mediator, but then it never was one in the first place.


As for the peace process "coming off the rails," well ...

Image

I do see one possible positive development here: by spotlighting himself so much, Trump has made this bullshit his own. If everyone can start focusing on Bush, Blair, Addams, Clinton, Trump, Netanyahu, Abbas, Lieberman, Khomeini, Cameron, May, Major, Obama and suchlike names, maybe there'll be a little less hatred for "all the people of" any country.