Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 229515 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2550 on: March 02, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2551 on: March 02, 2017, 01:41:56 PM »
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.

I don't care who he blames, as long as sessions is gone.  I think it somewhat unlikely that he'll resign but likely that he'll have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2552 on: March 02, 2017, 02:55:05 PM »
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.

I get your argument, and there's some merit to it.  It's not possible to know what would have happened in an alternate past timeline, so we'll never be sure what the best decision to make in that scenario was.  The result of purposely dropping the atomic bombs on large civilian centers was that Japan surrendered.

I agree we will never know for sure.  Given what we saw on the islands and in Okinawa, I think its more likely than not that it saved more lives than it took.


Those arguments are the reason that drone strikes exist.  You've indicated that you think that they're acceptable in a WWII scenario . . . so I have to ask you, do you believe that current US acts of terror (drone strikes, abduction/torture) are going to result in a higher or lower long term death toll?

WW2 was a completely different war than what we face today.  We had definable enemies who needed to be defeated to end the war. 

The current conflicts are largely against non-state/non-conventional forces.  Some of those actors may need to be defeated, some could probably be left alone.

I don't think the use of the atomic bomb in ww2 is terribly relevant to the current policies you reference.

On the topic of US intervention - It depends.  Do I support all US tactics and interventions?  No.  In my opinion the atomic bomb saved lives.  I'm not sure that all US actions in the middle east will ultimately save lives.   

Blueskies123

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2553 on: March 02, 2017, 03:11:50 PM »

My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.[/quote]  I'm not sure that all US actions in the middle east will ultimately save lives.   
[/quote]

It definitely saved American, Chinese, Korean, and Philippine lives.  Every day we  demonstrated the use by using them out to sea another 5000 Americans died and a lot more Japanese, Chinese, and more from the Philippines would have died.  Say we did a demonstration out to sea and Japan mulled it over for a month; how many American and Japanese lives would have been lost.  What if they evacuated the cities and became defiant thinking we were too cowardly to actually use them.
The bomb saved lives on both sides.  One last question "What do you think would have happened if Germany or Japan developed the bomb first?"

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2554 on: March 02, 2017, 03:26:55 PM »
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.

Based on what evidence?


The population of both cities pre-blast was 450k.  Casualties estimated around 200k.   http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp 

Casualty estimates for an invasion of mainland Japan vary widely.  But everything indicates deaths in the millions. 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa


Do you believe Japan was on the verge of surrendering?  Unless Japan had surrendered, we would have continued to bomb them and eventually invaded.  In it is very likely, more than 200,000 civilians would have died in those actions. 

70 years after the fact with better information, it's easy to second guess the decision made.  Truman was faced with a populace that wanted the war done and an enemy that seemed willing to continue.

The bombs killed far more than 200K people. The initial blast killed more than that alone.

Japan had already offered to surrender. In fact they made 3 attempts in April and May of 1945 through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. The issues is Japan wanted the emperor to remain. So it would have been a conditional surrender. The US insisted on an unconditional surrender so it ignored the request. Japan even tried to negotiate through Russia. They knew the war was lost.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

One could convincingly argue the bombs were completely unnecessary had they just accepted the original surrender by Japan. How many lives could have been spared then?

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions?  Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2555 on: March 02, 2017, 03:49:57 PM »

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

I don't doubt the Japanese soldiers testimony. After all, can you imagine Japanese commanders telling the troops they were trying to surrender? That's standard military rhetoric. You don't destroy your soldiers morale. Their testimony has no bearing on what was going on behind the scenes or what would have actually happened.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 03:56:59 PM by BeginnerStache »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2556 on: March 02, 2017, 04:08:06 PM »

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 04:11:51 PM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2557 on: March 02, 2017, 04:25:56 PM »
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2558 on: March 02, 2017, 04:37:03 PM »

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2559 on: March 02, 2017, 04:37:50 PM »
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.

Do you disagree that casualties of invading Japan would have be in the millions?  I've seen no casualty estimate that refutes that point and many agree that it would have been necessary to invade Japan to ensure surrender. 

I concede the casualty estimates are all over the place for an invasion, but even the low side numbers far exceed the bomb's death toll.

PS - and yes the Japanese were horrible to certain populations during the war. 

« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 04:58:24 PM by Midwest »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2560 on: March 02, 2017, 05:08:28 PM »

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.

Are you familiar with the 2 organizations you quoted?  If these are the organizations, neither seems particularly credible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2561 on: March 02, 2017, 05:58:37 PM »
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.

Do you disagree that casualties of invading Japan would have be in the millions?  I've seen no casualty estimate that refutes that point and many agree that it would have been necessary to invade Japan to ensure surrender.

No idea.

Invading Japan may have brought about significant casualties.  It may have been unnecessary if negotiations had been entered.  As mentioned previously, my ability to foresee alternate timelines isn't great.

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 796
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2562 on: March 02, 2017, 06:34:23 PM »
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2563 on: March 02, 2017, 07:13:51 PM »
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.

I don't care who he blames, as long as sessions is gone.  I think it somewhat unlikely that he'll resign but likely that he'll have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
Looks like you win the cookie for "Good guess of the Day"
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2564 on: March 02, 2017, 07:34:48 PM »

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.

Are you familiar with the 2 organizations you quoted?  If these are the organizations, neither seems particularly credible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

I quoted books, commanders, research papers as well. Feel free to debunk those as you see fit. Stars and Stripes also has a great article explaining the same thing regardless of the sources you find questionable. And even references the book I posted about earlier.

I would suggest as well researching a bit about the stance of various US commanders/officials. A lot of this is covered in the book " Racing the Enemy: Truman, Stalin, and the Surrender of Japan." - Tsuyoshi Hasegawa


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2565 on: March 02, 2017, 07:43:33 PM »
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".
I dont know how to feel about that. Did previous AGs really address these issues? I seem to remember some investigations into certain police departments, but did anything meaningful come of them? I didn't see a huge improvement in this area over the last decade, so I  can't  say there is much to "walk back." Maybe someone more informed in this matter will weigh in.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 11:47:03 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Sydneystache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Location: Sydney (Westie!)
  • Aiming for RE!
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2566 on: March 02, 2017, 11:08:00 PM »
Now, Jared Kushner. Is this because they were/are looking after Trump's Russian business interests? What is good for Trump is good for America?

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2841
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2567 on: March 02, 2017, 11:44:34 PM »
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".

Sessions has said as much. He and the prez don't seem to understand that civil asset forfeiture - as practiced today - violates constitutional rights spelled out in the 4th 5th and 14th amendments. I wrote this article to 'splain -esp to my Republican family members (aka/all of my family older than me). For a while I was writing about 'issues that unite us' to bring my family back from their propaganda news feed addictions. But I'm so disheartened I've given up for a while. The stuff they believe it just hurts my heart to even engage. But ... my dad did call his rep to ask him to co-sponsor a HJR48(115th) based on this other article, so I guess I should see the progress and be happy. But then Rick Perry - murderer of Cameron Todd Willingham / doofus who couldn't recall the name of the Dept of Energy - just got appointed to head up, that's right: the Dept of Energy. It's all just too too much.

On WWII - I found this video interesting: "the fallen of WWII to put the death toll in context - it includes the effects of the nuclear bombs. I live in Europe now, and sometimes I wonder how different it would be here had WWII not happened. I know that people often refer to it as a war that was worth fighting, but I think back to the stupid origins of WW1, General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket, how the peace treaty tilled the soil for WW2, how corporations profit so handsomely from war,  and it all seems so callous and unnecessary to me. But the messaging I get from discourse in the US is that I'm some sort of naive hippie for thinking of war through this perspective, and I'm dishonoring the fallen for questioning our part in these wars. Never mind that I lost an uncle in one of the dumbest wars of all: Vietnam. I'm apparently some sort of idealistic/cynical  peace / love / happiness kind of fool, and I'll never be happy til I conform to a worldview where humans are units of production in a capitalistic machine - of which - war is a necessary tool to fight those who would take from us the profits of our own hard work. And how dare I express the opinion that patriotism is just a first step toward nationalism and they're both just excuses to hate people we don't know, and take credit for accomplishments we had no part in.

As per the usual y'all inspired a bit of a rant. I'll stop now.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 11:55:12 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2841
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2568 on: March 02, 2017, 11:57:32 PM »

Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".
I dont know how to feel about that. Did previous AGs really address these issues? I seem to remember some investigations into certain police departments, but did anything meaningful come of them? I didn't see a huge improvement in this area over the last decade, so I  can't  say there is much to "walk back." Maybe someone more informed in this matter will weigh in.

Previous AG - Eric Holder - attempted to adjust the way in which the fed government set up their equitable sharing so that the feds at least reduced the incentives for police depts to loot people's stuff. The wiki says it was due to budget cuts but I remember reading it had to do with reducing incentives. In practice, the changes didn't do much to change anything.

Quote
Program limited in 2015[edit]
In January 2015 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder halted some of the equitable sharing program.[6][7] In December 2015 the Department of Justice suspended some more of equitable sharing due to budget cuts.[8] Loopholes have allowed states to continue to use federal equitable sharing.[9]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing

Edit: a quick google search gives this WaPol article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/31/holder-announces-new-limits-on-civil-asset-forfeitures. While it shows that the AG is aware of the abuses - he doesn't actually go so far as to say it should be outlawed. The current administration, otoh, doesn't even to seem to be aware of the inherent conflict of interest in CAF. They seem like children to me in their unwilingness to study issues. No - they seem like cult members, actually.

The WaPo article regarding Eric H  is behind a metered paywall, so here:

Quote
Attorney General Eric H. Holder announced new curbs Tuesday on the government’s use of civil asset forfeiture laws, saying that federal authorities will only seize bank accounts when serious illegal transactions have been documented.

The new policy amplifies an announcement in October by the Internal Revenue Service, which said its agents would use seizure authorities primarily in cases when accounts owners are clearly using the banking system for crimes.

“With this new policy, the Department of Justice is taking action to ensure that we are allocating our resources to address the most serious offenses,” Holder said in a statement. “Appropriate use of asset forfeiture law allows the Justice Department to safeguard the integrity, security and stability of our nation’s financial system while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans.”

The new limits underscore a major shift in the federal government’s use of civil asset forfeiture laws, which have allowed local, state and federal authorities to take billions from individuals over the past decade without proving that crimes have occurred.

In January, Holder barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash and other property without warrants or criminal charges, unless federal authorities were directly involved in the case.

Those changes followed a Washington Post investigation last year that found that police nationwide have seized $2.5 billion in cash from almost 62,000 people since 2001 — without warrants or indictments. The money was forfeited through Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program. Thousands of people had to fight long legal battles to get some or all of their money back.

The policy guidance issued Tuesday focuses on IRS and Justice agents who made seizures relating to cases involving alleged “structuring,” the practice of intentionally limiting the size of bank transactions to avoid taxes or to hide ill-gotten funds. It is a felony offense to structure financial transactions.

Studies have found that enforcement efforts involving the seizure of bank accounts have often swept up criminals and innocent alike — including small-business owners who sometimes make multiple cash deposits for convenience and security rather than for illegal reasons.

A study by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning civil liberties group, found that from 2005 to 2012, the IRS used federal asset forfeiture law to take almost a quarter-billion dollars in more than 2,500 cases. In one-third of the cases the group examined, there was no allegation of any other criminal activity besides the allegation that someone had made transactions of less than $10,000, allegedly to evade federal reporting requirements.

In a statement, IJ lawyer Scott Bullock praised Holder’s move but said it does not go far enough because it “still leaves significant discretion to federal officials.”

“How effective the policy will be really depends on how it is applied in practice,” he said. “The ultimate solution must come from Congress to both ensure that innocent small-business owners do not have their lawfully-obtained funds taken and that these policy changes are made permanent through statute.”

Under the new policy, federal prosecutors must develop clear evidence of probable cause that a crime, other than simply structuring, has occurred. And before an account can be seized, a supervisor must approve the action.

A prosecutor may also ask a judge to issue a seizure warrant but only with the approval of a U.S. attorney or the chief of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section.

The change comes as part of an ongoing review of the federal asset forfeiture program. It “is intended to ensure that our investigative resources are appropriately and effectively allocated to address the most serious structuring offenses,” the policy directive said.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 12:04:15 AM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2569 on: March 03, 2017, 08:13:55 AM »
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.




deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2570 on: March 03, 2017, 08:30:49 AM »
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 997
  • Age: 35
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2571 on: March 03, 2017, 08:38:51 AM »
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2572 on: March 03, 2017, 08:55:37 AM »
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.

Yep. There was also a contingent that was set on trying to find peace. Their government was even replaced early in the year in an attempt to find a resolution because they were getting hammered and knew they were going to lose.

The US was experiencing just as much internal conflict behind the scenes as well.
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2543
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2573 on: March 03, 2017, 09:07:23 AM »
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.
We all of us live with inconsistencies all the time.  The people who try to bend the human world into something without inconsistencies are usually the fanatics who make everything worse.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2574 on: March 03, 2017, 09:22:55 AM »
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".

Sessions has said as much. He and the prez don't seem to understand that civil asset forfeiture - as practiced today - violates constitutional rights spelled out in the 4th 5th and 14th amendments. I wrote this article to 'splain -esp to my Republican family members (aka/all of my family older than me). For a while I was writing about 'issues that unite us' to bring my family back from their propaganda news feed addictions. But I'm so disheartened I've given up for a while. The stuff they believe it just hurts my heart to even engage. But ... my dad did call his rep to ask him to co-sponsor a HJR48(115th) based on this other article, so I guess I should see the progress and be happy. But then Rick Perry - murderer of Cameron Todd Willingham / doofus who couldn't recall the name of the Dept of Energy - just got appointed to head up, that's right: the Dept of Energy. It's all just too too much.

On WWII - I found this video interesting: "the fallen of WWII to put the death toll in context - it includes the effects of the nuclear bombs. I live in Europe now, and sometimes I wonder how different it would be here had WWII not happened. I know that people often refer to it as a war that was worth fighting, but I think back to the stupid origins of WW1, General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket, how the peace treaty tilled the soil for WW2, how corporations profit so handsomely from war,  and it all seems so callous and unnecessary to me. But the messaging I get from discourse in the US is that I'm some sort of naive hippie for thinking of war through this perspective, and I'm dishonoring the fallen for questioning our part in these wars. Never mind that I lost an uncle in one of the dumbest wars of all: Vietnam. I'm apparently some sort of idealistic/cynical  peace / love / happiness kind of fool, and I'll never be happy til I conform to a worldview where humans are units of production in a capitalistic machine - of which - war is a necessary tool to fight those who would take from us the profits of our own hard work. And how dare I express the opinion that patriotism is just a first step toward nationalism and they're both just excuses to hate people we don't know, and take credit for accomplishments we had no part in.

As per the usual y'all inspired a bit of a rant. I'll stop now.

"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2575 on: March 03, 2017, 10:26:24 AM »
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.

And the US had manufactured 4 bombs to potentially use against Japan.  Thank goodness they were not all needed.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2576 on: March 03, 2017, 10:30:19 AM »
I agree that's what happened.

That's good because I stated facts. 


I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.


I don't know the answer.  I know that's what happened, and now we live with that history.  I never said that bombing Japan was the right thing.  War is terrible and the bombing was terrible.  I see no point go get into the what ifs, because your assumption that I think the  Japan bombings were OK is wrong.


KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2577 on: March 03, 2017, 11:35:18 AM »
"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

War is awful and should be avoided as much as possible.  If the citizens will not agree to fight, it's hard to have a war.

You cannot buy love or peace with money.  It's never, ever that easy.  Bite the hand that feeds you?  Doesn't that happen all the time?


Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2578 on: March 03, 2017, 11:59:41 AM »
"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

War is awful and should be avoided as much as possible.  If the citizens will not agree to fight, it's hard to have a war.

You cannot buy love or peace with money.  It's never, ever that easy.  Bite the hand that feeds you?  Doesn't that happen all the time?

War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5419
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2579 on: March 03, 2017, 12:03:09 PM »
War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.

Isn't that impossible by definition?

You're advocating using force to ensure that nobody gets their way by using force? 

Ghandi would be appalled.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2580 on: March 03, 2017, 12:09:36 PM »
War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.

Isn't that impossible by definition?

You're advocating using force to ensure that nobody gets their way by using force? 

Ghandi would be appalled.

TL:DR - stand up for yourself but don't be a dick.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2581 on: March 03, 2017, 01:53:36 PM »
I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

I was hoping that when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 we were going to have a "peace dividend".  During the political campaign Clinton said military spending would be diverted toward improving the country and paying down the federal deficit.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5419
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2582 on: March 03, 2017, 02:05:18 PM »
Clinton said military spending would be diverted toward improving the country and paying down the federal deficit.

And he delivered on both of those promises, but I think it had more to do with the soaring (peaceful) economy than with his reductions in military spending.

George W, by contrast, did the exact opposite.  He cut taxes on the wealthy, which hurt the budget, and he started massive new war spending, which hurt the budget.  Unsurprisingly these were both bad for the economy, which hurt the budget.

But hey, republicans are all about fiscal responsibility right?

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 796
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2583 on: March 03, 2017, 03:05:02 PM »
Everyone's fiscally responsible with their own money. Other people's, not so much.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2584 on: March 03, 2017, 04:39:06 PM »
TL:DR - stand up for yourself but don't be a dick.

Yeah, that seems like the reasonable way to go.  It's why running torture facilities, kidnapping people, denying people due process, and executing civilians bothers me so much.  That's not standing up for yourself, it's being a dick.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2585 on: March 03, 2017, 11:28:13 PM »
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2586 on: March 04, 2017, 01:32:12 AM »
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.

For the sake of argument, that's only true from the point of view regarding our morals and beliefs. ISIS believes what they're doing is good and right and true.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2587 on: March 04, 2017, 11:10:26 AM »
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.

For the sake of argument, that's only true from the point of view regarding our morals and beliefs. ISIS believes what they're doing is good and right and true.

So as long as a group believes what they're doing is good, it's okay? Again, that that kind of moral equivalency is just ridiculous. Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:

1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

@lost_in_the_endless_aisle said it very well:  "... the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors" makes all the difference. Using force (including dropping bombs -- oh my!) to defend against such vicious brutality is completely legitimate and different from being a hostile aggressor who is trying to subjugate an entire section of humanity. Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor is just beyond the fringe of most people's belief systems. Perhaps we should give ISIS a stern talking-to instead? Maybe that would have worked with Japan too after they bombed Pearl Harbor intentionally to draw us into the war.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5419
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2588 on: March 04, 2017, 11:23:51 AM »
Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor

This line of argument would carry more weight if they had invaded our country, instead of us invading theirs.

It's a pretty twisted sort of logic that can claim to be the virtuous defender of freedoms while simultaneously invading and occupying an enemy state. 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2543
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2589 on: March 04, 2017, 11:41:06 AM »
Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor

This line of argument would carry more weight if they had invaded our country, instead of us invading theirs.

It's a pretty twisted sort of logic that can claim to be the virtuous defender of freedoms while simultaneously invading and occupying an enemy state.
Israel seems to have managed it for the last 40 years.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2590 on: March 04, 2017, 12:16:23 PM »
Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:
1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

If you don't like comparing to WWII, can we compare the modern ISIS phenomenon with modern day US actions then?

Let's take a look at what the United States believes is good and right and true today:
1. Torturing and killing (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610) people suspected of being terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
2. Supporting child rapists and helping them to maintain power in Afghanistan (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0).
3. Sexually assaulting (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay) innocent (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550) people after kidnapping them from their countries.
4. Banning people from entering the country because of their religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307).
5. Execution of civilians without any form of due process or culpability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes)
6. The highest military commander in the country voicing support for murder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/).


ISIS is responsible for some really horrible stuff.  But the thing is, they exist because of the US invasion of Iraq.  Actions have consequences . . . and I'm not seeing any real interest by Americans to correct or stop the truly terrible things that are being done under the stars and stripes around the world today.  This just sets up more problems (like the current ISIS one) in the future for the rest of the world.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2591 on: March 04, 2017, 01:28:10 PM »
The Trump Presidency has made me finally accept that the Clinton years are dead and gone and will never return again. With that in mind, I am going to have to live in a Dog Eat Dog world, because that's what Trump's supporters want, so I am going to completely devour every "dog" in sight. Sounds harsh, I guess, but that's simply how life is going to be in the USA for the foreseeable future. Disappointing, but c'est la vie. Wish things could be different.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Location: Southern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2592 on: March 04, 2017, 02:28:30 PM »
WRT ISIS and the USA, to compare them seams like a useless exercise. What is the point in saying the USA is as bad as ISIS? What is trying to be proven? They are not comparable, each "side" has acted in ways that are on their own merits terrible. WRT to torture and our own misdeeds, we have courts, legislators, the American people, and journalists ready to pounce and make it right. The USA is a country that fosters this. THAT says something. We strive to be a better nation. Not perfect, but can anyone truly say the world would be a better place without the US?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2593 on: March 04, 2017, 02:31:05 PM »
Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:
1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

If you don't like comparing to WWII, can we compare the modern ISIS phenomenon with modern day US actions then?

Let's take a look at what the United States believes is good and right and true today:
1. Torturing and killing (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610) people suspected of being terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
2. Supporting child rapists and helping them to maintain power in Afghanistan (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0).
3. Sexually assaulting (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay) innocent (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550) people after kidnapping them from their countries.
4. Banning people from entering the country because of their religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307).
5. Execution of civilians without any form of due process or culpability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes)
6. The highest military commander in the country voicing support for murder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/).


ISIS is responsible for some really horrible stuff.  But the thing is, they exist because of the US invasion of Iraq.  Actions have consequences . . . and I'm not seeing any real interest by Americans to correct or stop the truly terrible things that are being done under the stars and stripes around the world today.  This just sets up more problems (like the current ISIS one) in the future for the rest of the world.
This. It's actually very similar what ISIS believes they are doing to what the US believed it was doing; stopping an agressive government from expanding vastly outside of its commonly accepted borders.

I will disagree on #4 - I can't imagine that a country stoppjng people from see enteringit is worth fighting a war over, or a good excuse for acts of violence. The others are more clearly despicable acts; securing borders through non violent means hardly rises to the level of torture  and murder of innocents, even if it is not ideal.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2594 on: March 04, 2017, 08:41:22 PM »
I understand to some extent how and why ISIS rationalizes terrorist attacks. I also agree the US has not made perfect geopolitical maneuvers over the last 20 years and that adhering to a realist foreign policy stance does sweep aside the occasional liberal democratic ideal. While arguably those considerations close the moral gap between ISIS and the US by an atomic distance, the reality is the remaining difference is about as big of a chasm as exists in the modern world.

Secondly, while ISIS did emerge in the power vacuum left behind due to the US invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring in Syria, many of the ideological foundations of ISIS have existed in the Wahhabist school of Islamic thought for quite some time. The US did not invent this anti-rational, violent, immoral system of beliefs and the US invasion is merely a post hoc justification (and a useful source for recruiting propaganda) for committing atrocities both domestic and foreign for this group. ISIS or those clinging to its ideological dregs were not allies of the neo-Ba'athist governments of Iraq and Syria and were presumably not unhappy to see those more moderate administrations crumble. And of course, terrorist acts in Iraq only increased the duration that it was necessary for the US to have a military presence there (not to mention how sectarian and dysfunctional post-Saddam Iraq is).

This is the one thing Bannon might be right about in a limited sense: the basis of ISIS's violence is more in the long-term untenability of extremist Islamic Wahhabism in the face of liberal, progressive, Western influence, and the extremists know this. There is some truth to the clash of civilizations view in this matter, whether we like it or not. I'm not buying simplistic morality tales about how one country should not be occupying the other; the real world has a lot more color than that and the picture it paints is relatively good for the US and liberal western democracy and rather bad for ISIS and associated ideologies.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2841
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2595 on: March 04, 2017, 11:11:19 PM »
The Trump Presidency has made me finally accept that the Clinton years are dead and gone and will never return again. With that in mind, I am going to have to live in a Dog Eat Dog world, because that's what Trump's supporters want, so I am going to completely devour every "dog" in sight. Sounds harsh, I guess, but that's simply how life is going to be in the USA for the foreseeable future. Disappointing, but c'est la vie. Wish things could be different.

This is the view I'm coming around to accepting too. This world view denies our shared humanity, but it is becoming the reality. You get what you wish for, huh? Anyway, what am I going to do? Keep upsetting my mom by posting truthful well-thought out posts on facebook that point out where we're headed and what's gone wrong? The alt-(insert big $ sponsor) media has people believing that the world is a scary scary place and that everyone who needs a little assistance is a money grubbing welfare queen. Once those ideas are in peoples heads, it's very hard to argue against them.

What Guitar Stv wrote - I agree. I liked Obama - and he didn't start the war in Iraq - but some of the policies he continued and / or turned a blind eye to are exactly the kinds of things people hate us for. Of course I realize it's a big job - and when congress does nothing but obstruct every effort you make, it's easy to lean toward expediency vs right action.
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9131
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2596 on: March 05, 2017, 07:49:02 AM »
WRT ISIS and the USA, to compare them seams like a useless exercise. What is the point in saying the USA is as bad as ISIS? What is trying to be proven? They are not comparable, each "side" has acted in ways that are on their own merits terrible. WRT to torture and our own misdeeds, we have courts, legislators, the American people, and journalists ready to pounce and make it right. The USA is a country that fosters this. THAT says something. We strive to be a better nation. Not perfect, but can anyone truly say the world would be a better place without the US?

The point of discussing ongoing acts of terror by the United States is to generate enough interest and understanding of what is being done in the name of the American people that they take it seriously.  The government and military of the US work for the people.  If the behaviour of these organizations becomes unpopular enough, then the people can force a change.  Stopping the US from regularly implementing immoral policy would be beneficial to the whole world.  ISIS is a terrible group of people, I desperately want the US to have moral high ground.

It has been more than a decade and a half since the US started kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting, and holding hundreds of innocent people without trial.  Zero people in the military have been held accountable.  At this point I'd be shocked to ever see anyone in the military ever held accountable for their crimes.  The plethora of journalists and news stories about these crimes han't prevented many Americans (including quite a few on these forums) from remaining unaware of what's happening.  Obviously the things you're claiming are fostered in the US, aren't working as well as you claim.

The US is generally a pretty good country, filled with many people who are trying to do things to better the world.  The US is also a powerful country.  History has shown dozens of times where that power has been abused, and currently it is being abused.  There will always be extremism in the world, but let's not create conditions for it to flourish.  It's unrealistic to expect a country to be perfect . . . but perfection has nothing to do with kidnapping, torture, sexual assault, and murder.  It has nothing to do with invading a country based on lies, and then running away from that country when rebuilding becomes difficult.  If you aren't admitting to and fixing your mistakes, I don't believe that you can claim to be striving to be a better nation.  Nobody is being held accountable right now, and that means nothing in the US approach to things will get fixed.  That's why we need to shine a spotlight on these mistakes as often and brightly as possible.

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 796
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2597 on: March 05, 2017, 10:38:41 AM »
Also, the majority of poor Trump supporters welcoming a dog-eat-dog world will be the ones eaten. They think right now that they're on top for once, but that is an illusion. This is all just accelerating my desire to accumulate wealth, accumulate defensive weaponry, retire early and bounce.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7298
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2598 on: March 05, 2017, 06:14:09 PM »
Also, the majority of poor Trump supporters welcoming a dog-eat-dog world will be the ones eaten. They think right now that they're on top for once, but that is an illusion. This is all just accelerating my desire to accumulate wealth, accumulate defensive weaponry, retire early and bounce.

It's called Republican Exceptionalism.  It's a known fact that republicans are more successful, better looking, and exceptionally virile.

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #2599 on: March 06, 2017, 05:57:58 AM »
Looking at the docket and future bills - there are some truly scary ones in there.  Most are still in committee, but, any of these would be signed by Trump, except maybe the last one.  He will not want to sign a bill that gives him less power, so that one is an unknown  Based on this administration I'm just not sure whether I want it to pass.  Not in any order of importance and not including the multiple bills to repeal the ACA since those are well known.   

H.R. 861: To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
One sentence long and cosponsored by Republican members of Congress from fossil fuel-producing states. Currently awaiting action in the subcommittee on environment.

2. H.R. 610: Tax dollars for private schools
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced this bill in January, which would redistribute funding earmarked for public schools in the form of vouchers for parents to send children to private schools. There is no protection for special needs kids, AP programs, disabled kids, etc.  Awaiting action in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

3. H.R. 899: To terminate the Department of Education
Introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), would cause the U.S. Department of Education to terminate by the end of 2018. Currently in committee.

4. H.J.R. 69: To repeal a rule protecting wildlife
Introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), this repeals a rule that prohibits “non-subsistence” hunting in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.  Wildlife in ANWR are already under stress from rising temps.  Without action on climate change, scientists predict we could lose wild polar bears by 2100.  Two-thirds could be gone by 2050, this bill would hasten their demise. 

5.  H.R. 172: To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment
This one is sponsored by Rep Walter Jones (R-NC).  He confuses me, sometimes he actually votes logically and then he does something crazy like propose this bill. 

6. H.R. 1031: To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). 

7. H.R. 198 & H.R. 631 & H.R. 451: Permanently Repeal the Estate Tax Act of 2017
HR 198 is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), HR 451 by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH) and HR 631 by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD).  One of these is probably a done deal. 

8.  H.R. 354: To defund Planned Parenthood
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) introduced this bill which would prevent any federal grants from going to Planned Parenthood for a year unless they swore to not perform abortions. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood resources go toward abortions and ZERO federal dollars.  The vast majority of funding is used to help low-income women get STD tests, contraceptive care, and breast cancer screenings.  In committee.

9. H.R. 785: National Right-to-Work legislation
Again, the lovely Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is looking out for the country.  In committee.

10.  H.R. 147: To criminalize abortion
Sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) the bill would prosecute pregnant women seeking abortions, along with abortion providers, by making abortion a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Currently awaiting action in the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

11.  S. 21: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017
The REINS Act passed the House already and is in the Senate.  Sponsored by Rand Paul (R-Ky).  It requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.  While I think this would be a good thing for the Trump Administration, if it had been in effect under the Obama Administration, regulations that were passed including food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances would never have passed.