You know it is pretty bad when Germans are calling out the American president on it.
https://i.imgur.com/Rs5NLuY.jpg
Printable View
You know it is pretty bad when Germans are calling out the American president on it.
https://i.imgur.com/Rs5NLuY.jpg
This description reminds me a lot of Trump:
Bombastic, tactless, lets loyal goons run everything, ignores advice and is generally not nearly as competent as he thinks to the point of being incompetent for the job. Maybe the US aren't Germany in 1937 but Germany around 1900... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Acceding to the throne in 1888, he dismissed the Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, in 1890 and launched Germany on a bellicose "New Course" in foreign affairs that culminated in his support for Austria-Hungary in the crisis of July 1914 that led in a matter of days to the First World War. Bombastic and impetuous, he sometimes made tactless pronouncements on sensitive topics without consulting his ministers, culminating in a disastrous Daily Telegraph interview in 1908 that cost him most of his influence.[1] His leading generals, Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, dictated policy during the First World War with little regard for the civilian government. An ineffective war-time leader, he lost the support of the army, abdicated in November 1918, and fled to exile in the Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhel...German_Emperor
The Great War Week 157Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Invent your Trump scenario.Quote:
The Kaiser, for the first time since the turn of the century, now met representatives of all German political parties, except for the independent Socialists. In a sort of a stunning turn-about from his recent thoughts about Belgian independence after the
war, he made a speech arguing for a second Punic War against Britain during which all of Europe, under Germany's leadership, would destroy British world domination.
This one might work, too (from Wiki):
or this one:Quote:
One of Wilhelm's diplomatic blunders sparked the Moroccan Crisis of 1905, when he made a spectacular visit to Tangier, in Morocco. His presence was seen as an assertion of German interests in Morocco, in opposition to those of France. In his speech, he even made remarks in favour of Moroccan independence, and this led to friction with France, which had expanding colonial interests in Morocco, and to the Algeciras Conference, which served largely to further isolate Germany in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_AffairQuote:
The Daily Telegraph is a London newspaper. On 28 October 1908 it published an interview with the Kaiser. It included wild statements and diplomatically damaging remarks, the most infamous of which was
You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?
This page also has some linked full speeches: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/...?image_id=2178
Come one, there is so much Trump in there. :laugh4:Quote:
Moreover, the poor impression left by the German troops’ late arrival was made worse by the Kaiser’s ill-conceived farewell address (depicted here), in which he commanded them, in the spirit of the Huns, to be merciless in battle. Kaiser Wilhelm II’s public relations blunders, particularly in the field of international relations, were legendary. He was known for bombastic cant and grandstanding – although his words were often more threatening and aggressive than his actions.
Granted, Wihlelm II. uses more complicated words, but you have to consider that 100 years have passed since then and Twitter hadn't been invented yet.
Godwin Strikes! (or does he...)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-...-way-to-say-it
Everything I have read about Wilhelm suggests to me that he and Trump had an equivalent grasp and penchant for subtle diplomacy.
Kaiser Wilhelm II even had his own Russia scandal with the Treaty of Björkö.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...%C3%B6rk%C3%B6
He and the Tsar signed a mutual defense pact without the knowledge of either of their respective foreign ministers and said treaty was subsequently ignored due to prior treaties negating it.
Quote:
Although Tsar Nicholas had signed the treaty, it was not ratified by his government because of the pre-existing Franco-Russian Alliance. The Russian prime minister Sergey Witte and foreign minister Vladimir Lambsdorff, neither present at the signing, nor consulted beforehand, insisted that the treaty should never come into effect unless it was approved and signed by France. Lambsdorff told the Tsar that it was "inadmissible to promise at the same time the same thing to two governments whose interests were mutually antagonistic".[3] The Tsar gave in to their pressure, much to the consternation of the Kaiser, who reproached his cousin: "We joined hands and signed before God, who heard our vows!... What is signed, is signed! and God is our testator!".[4] Wilhelm's chancellor, Count von Bülow, however, also refused to sign the treaty because the Kaiser had added an amendment to the draft (against the advice of the Foreign Office) which limited the treaty to Europe.[5]
So Trump has the savvy to out-negotiate someone of Tsar Nicholas' skills....as a long-time fan of Tuchman's Guns of August, I cannot say I am much comforted.
By the way, speaking of pardons:
They say Trump outruns satire, but with his recent actions and previous reported deliberations we can imagine a world in which the first thing the President does as he wakes up every morning or goes to bed every night is to pardon himself, his family, and his administration - each time anew.
Boom. Make a skit out of it. Throw in a rally scene with supporters groveling at his feet as he places his hands onto them in benediction, cleansing them of all (Federal) sins.
The Race Card
Legislated act of socio/political dominance or categories necessary to understanding.
It did (and does) allow for "carve outs" to that "All men are created equal" stuff. Can anything that convenient be a fabrication?
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...095046840.html
The hat and shirt of the guy in the picture match perfectly. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Looks like Trump lied about something, shocking, I know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95hrT1N0Dc
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/u...ater.html?_r=0
This is just wonderful... :rolleyes:Quote:
“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
Too bad we can't just write Trump off yet.
Polling, approval, election results...etc.; it's all pretty complicated.
Much will probably rely on what issue(s) bubble to the top come election time.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...proval-rating/
Lies From the White House!
For we are shocked :laugh4:
The silver haired angel; perhaps the next President; is in deep.
Is the stain to deep for a wash and a rinse? You decide!:
https://wonkette.com/622484/what-the...ke-another-fib
Poor mikey; he knows it all but ya dance wit de one who brung ya...
https://youtu.be/CRyN9wQ1taY
The Death of Daca
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41165513
Trump gets to soft peddle this move. The six-month hiatus puts the onus on Congress: If you like it and want to keep it, pass the necessary laws; Trump covers himself with a fig-leaf for now, Congress will have the tough job.
PS. so much for building a trust relationship with the undocumented community:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-tru...o-weaponize-it
Trump's relationship with that community was never going to be good. Trump wants the laws on immigration enforced more or less and they don't and would prefer amnesty/unrestricted immigration. Not a lot of 'love' there.
Following the era of national quotas, Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch in setting immigration security policy and priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The immigration laws have not gone unenforced. Otherwise we would have to believe that no laws with potential of violation or circumvention or qualification have been enforced in history - in which case we won't plausibly be starting now.
Congress has deferred damn near everything except for pork spending to the Presidency. In practice, the President is expected to set out the budget, establish policies on 9/10 issues, and serve as the "image" of America to the world. I even recall Congress granting Dubya the power to wage war more or less as he saw fit without bothering to do much more then send them a note. I more or less think they forswore their own oaths of office on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.
Fair enough, but legislation from Congress can only set parameters for the executive on this issue, unless you figure there should be a special Congressional committee with direct oversight over minutiae. Yet what policy or enforcement can there be - what would it look like - that would "discourage" unauthorized residency either in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends? It seems like historically out of our hands once we let down the gates to Fortress Amerika - and I'm not in favor of the country bending to refortify itself against the world.Quote:
I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.
I think sooner or later border security calculations will have to be considered against the backdrop of negotiations toward a Schengen-type treaty for North America.
Enforcement on businesses that use illegals. They are undercutting legal workers and they are dodging employment taxes. Enforce that and the problem sorts itself out. Thing is, both parties have interests that don't want to see that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Correct focus. If there is a market, legal or otherwise, it will be filled. We need to be draconian with companies exploiting illegals and flouting our laws. We also need a more realistic number of work permits etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
As I think about it, there are several problems with this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Past the geographic dispersion of unauthorized residents they are fairly diversified throughout the labor force. Most of these are all manner of unskilled positions, but hundreds of thousands do skilled or white-collar work. Enforcement mechanism would presumably be onerously extensive to have much effect.
The majority of the aliens are thought to have been residents of the US for at least 10 years, with almost all having spent years in the country. To the extent that there is a crackdown on 'johns', adaptation on both ends may encourage a large proportion of the unauthorized residents to remain. Some may leave the workforce entirely and pool resources with working family or community members, especially those with citizenship/legal residence or other authorization to work; those who end up like this act as an economic drain.
Economic consequences to either the departure or the jobless residence of aliens will be severe. For non-capital intensive work, likely you see employers simply downsizing, exiting their sector/industry, or quitting altogether. As aggregate demand decreases and jobs are eliminated, putative compensatory upward pressure on citizen labor's wages will not materialize. In the good cases we should expect offshoring/outsourcing, or accelerated automation, rather than replacement with legal labor. In the worst cases, unskilled labor will no longer be buoyed by a wage/conditions floor in the form of a separate labor class, and will see their own wages and standards decline as employers tighten their belts by passing increased costs on to legal labor.
Let me clarify that I meant my previous post with respect to discouraging new crossings or new attempts to cross; I don't consider mass reductions (direct or induced) of the pre-existing unauthorized population to be a viable option. SF or drone, can you think of policy that would discourage new crossings or new attempts to cross in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends?
The handicap is, as always, no mass killings at the border, and no indirect dis-incentivization through denial of public services to pre-existing aliens ("it is not sufficient justification that a law saves money").
Offer illegals amnesty for reporting exploitative business practices such as under cutting minimum wage and other standards. Bring in laws tackling modern slavery with harsh disincentives for businesses to consider doing them. Those measures would quickly find the system correcting itself rather quickly.
A Schengen type treaty might be done with Canada but not Mexico which is treated largely like Turkey. We like more free-trade with them but free movement of peoples would be seen as opening the flood gates to the 'barbarians.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I personally support a stronger visa and border enforcement, I support a fence, not a wall. I also support seasonal guest worker permits but those would need to be tied to visa controls.
As for all the people illegally residing in the US, I support a very generous amnesty program with path toward citizenship. There are no shortage of illegal aliens that have been upright citizens minus their initial infraction, some of which own land and legitimate businesses and have paid taxes as such.
As for everyone sneaking 'after the lock' I'd continue deportations and have the laws very stringent then.
As for the people that say the US has always welcomed immigrants its true but until the 1960s that applied pretty much only to Europeans. All others were strongly discouraged, asians especially. Immigration is good for the economy but it should be tied to the needs of the economy. Allowing too much immigration when unemployment is already too high means wages stay depressed, crime and blackmarkets thrive(in general not just because of immigrants) , and immigrants that are stuck on the bottom rung of society without a way up will generally not integrate creating insular communities outside of civic society.
One nice thing about democracy is it does hold up a mirror.
Like it or not Trump is a reflection of America at this time; fear envy hate and desire its all there; and its even in Orange!
Germany has to be incredibly boring, undecided, conservative and way too slow on everything then. :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Oh wait, you could actually say it's true. :wall:
I do not like any sort of informer rewards system....though I must say this has much more of an element of justice to it than most such suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
WoooHoooo!
A better climate deal for America! Trump is on it!
In what has become a familiar refrain: Nice idea...just who is going to develop this policy? who is going to shop it around the other signatories to the original deal? who has the authority to make it happen?
With staffing/funding cut at State and almost every dep't involved with climate, it appears that this initiative(?) may never rise beyong being a pipe dream
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...-climate-deal/
In other news
Trump issues Travel Ban 3.0:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...te-travel-ban/
Some justifications for this are not disclosed; national security and all that:on_ooh:; it includes states without a Muslim majority (N.Korea for example) and looks like its headed straight to court
It is certainly going to court. It is being labeled a muslim ban with obfuscation. It will be tied up in court for months before implementation if it is implemented at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
American will be among the leaders in combatting global warming regardless of our political leadership. Most US citizens believe warming to be real and think that efforts to combat it are worthwhile. Even most of the nay-sayers have little grief with reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing air pollution. The result is a market that is encouraging the development of more 'green' technologies. Link
I was just looking for the Graham-Cassidy bill out of curiosity when I found this one under related bills:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...bill/1150/text
Looks like some Republicans are worried about the continuity of the president's orangeness. :clown:Quote:
Tanning Tax Repeal Act of 2017
Better deals are popping up everywhere!
Despite little evidence but much innuendo, Trump wishes to cancel the Iran deal for non-compliance.
So without evidence, without consultation and pretty much without a clue, Trump is making mouth sounds about ditching the deal:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/...ter-iran-deal/
Rest assured, this will be handled by the best people :rolleyes: