Support NeoGAF

[Beer Monkey]

Translated: we are going to put in place sanctions for which we have no clear objective and no reasonable explanation for why they'll cause Russia to change behaviour or strategy all in order to make ourselves feel better about the fact our election infrastructure is insecure and woefully out-of-date in a manner that seriously harms our closest ally and will lead to the deaths of their citizens and the slowing of their economy when they're already internally unstable.

The thing about war is that you need allies.

Translation:. You want appeasement.

It. Doesn't. Work.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Translation:. You want appeasement.

It. Doesn't. Work.

Get a better translator. I don't want appeasement. I want policies that actually work and aren't shallow dick-swinging measures.

Here are useful things that could be done right now:

- The European Union could increase military spending and look to better integrate European national militaries
- The European Union could heavily increase infrastructure investment in Eastern European countries
- The United States could subsidise the cost of importing Canadian and American natural gas
- All Western countries could substantively increase their cybersecurity measures, particularly where it relates to national governments
- The European Union and the United States working in partnership could implement targeted sanctions that focus on the personal assets of key Russian officials
- NATO could increase military stations in Poland and the Baltic States

Here are stupid things which could be done right now:

- Wide-ranging and consequently double-edged sanctions that reduce the capability of the European Union
- Launching the nukes

Not wanting to do the stupid things is not 'appeasement', it's having an IQ greater than 4.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Not unless something has changed since the end of Monday I'm unaware of it, and even then, this is a severe enough issue for US-EU relations that I think it would be difficult to take anything off the table definitively - there's every chance it could become a hot-button political issue domestically.

Do you think a president post-Trump can repair European relations the same way Obama repaired world relations after Bush? One trade disagreement seems fairly forgivable.

- The United States could subsidise the cost of importing Canadian and American natural gas

That's a box you don't want to open.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you think a president post-Trump can repair European relations the same way Obama repaired world relations after Bush? One trade disagreement seems fairly forgivable.

I don't know. US foreign policy is almost entirely dictated by domestic politics at the moment. I think it's conceivable world relations could be repaired, but that depends on the internal electorate of the Democratic Party being receptive to the idea it has to work with partners. Using this thread as a subsample of that electorate, it doesn't seem too likely at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's a box you don't want to open.

That's fair. Not all of those suggestions are necessarily politically viable, I understand that the environmental ramifications (and US internal political ramifications of 'free oil to Europe') would make that rather difficult, and trying to get European countries to integrate their militaries has been a bit like herding cats so far. There's not really any immediately enactable and easily implementable steps to be taken (unsurprisingly, or they'd already have been done). This is something that will have to be worked on over the long-run and require a lot of careful co-operation and tact.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I think it's conceivable world relations could be repaired, but that depends on the internal electorate of the Democratic Party being receptive to the idea it has to work with partners.

It doesn't look good if Europe follows Macron and Merkel's call for self reliance. It's a double edged sword. While I like the opportunity to stop subsidizing Europe's defense, nobody likes losing leverage. All things considered though, Crab, you should be happy.

Using this thread as a subsample of that electorate, it doesn't seem too likely at the moment.

You already know this thread arrogantly browbeats.

That's fair. Not all of those suggestions are necessarily politically viable, I understand that the environmental ramifications (and US internal political ramifications of 'free oil to Europe') would make that rather difficult, and trying to get European countries to integrate their militaries has been a bit like herding cats so far. There's not really any immediately enactable and easily implementable steps to be taken (unsurprisingly, or they'd already have been done). This is something that will have to be worked on over the long-run and require a lot of careful co-operation and tact.

I was actually talking about the rest of the world. Opening the door to unfair subsidies will undo decades of free market progress and make the WTO a dead institution. Personally I think there isn't any escalation needed with Russia. Just hold the line, avoid NATO encroachment.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It doesn't look good if Europe follows Macron and Merkel's call for self reliance. It's a double edged sword. While I like the opportunity to stop subsidizing Europe's defense, nobody likes losing leverage. All things considered though, Crab, you should be happy.

I'm sorry, you're losing me here. Are you implying that this is good for Europe since it will force disengagement from the United States and consequently more self-reliance? If so, I can sympathise with that argument, but ultimately even the most self-reliant Europe is not going to be as capable as a Europe-United States partnership. I'd still like to believe we're capable of forming those bonds. That might be deluded in light of the fact even Europe can't always seem to do it (Brexit...) and that the traditional European partner party in the Democrats has gone off into the deep end, but I think it's still an ideal end-goal.

I was actually talking about the rest of the world. Opening the door to unfair subsidies will undo decades of free market progress and make the WTO a dead institution. Personally I think there isn't any escalation needed with Russia. Just hold the line, avoid NATO encroachment.

The WTO does actually have a national security exception, although I agree it might be rather difficult to persuade countries of the case seeing as how loosely the criteria is set out. However, I was thinking more indirect measures - US FDI in EU LNG/FSRU infrastructure is tacitly subsidising oil but is at face value more respectable.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I'm sorry, you're losing me here. Are you implying that this is good for Europe since it will force disengagement from the United States and consequently more self-reliance? If so, I can sympathise with that argument, but ultimately even the most self-reliant Europe is not going to be as capable as a Europe-United States partnership.

That is what I'm saying. The US has practically dictated European foreign policy since the end of WWII (for good reasons of course). To begin detaching from the US again, especially in a post American century, is a reasonable action.
I take issue with the supposition that there are even things worth accomplishing with that kind of partnership. The EU has a GDP of 16 trillion and 750 million people. How much more does it need to be capable of short of global domination?

I'd still like to believe we're capable of forming those bonds. That might be deluded in light of the fact even Europe can't always seem to do it (Brexit...) and that the traditional European partner party in the Democrats has gone off into the deep end, but I think it's still an ideal end-goal.

This is a bit hyperbolic. You're underestimating the intense political pressure here for politicians from both parties to signal disapproval in Russia and also distinguish themselves from a president under investigation for collusion in the act we're now sanctioning Russia for. I think it was a bad idea but don't write it off as insanity, not when the vote was nearly unanimous. The foreign relations committees weighed the diplomatic risks into considerations.

The WTO does actually have a national security exception, although I agree it might be rather difficult to persuade countries of the case seeing as how loosely the criteria is set out. However, I was thinking more indirect measures - US FDI in EU LNG/FSRU infrastructure is tacitly subsidising oil but is at face value more respectable.

That doesn't enrich our Midwestern barons though.

 

[pigeon]

- The United States could subsidise the cost of importing Canadian and American natural gas

We already did this by inventing fracking

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That is what I'm saying. The US has practically dictated European foreign policy since the end of WWII (for good reasons of course). To begin detaching from the US again, especially in a post American century, is a reasonable action.
I take issue with the supposition that there are even things worth accomplishing with that kind of partnership. The EU has a GDP of 16 trillion and 750 million people. How much more does it need to be capable of short of global domination?

I think there's a middle-ground here. I don't want the European Union to be reliant on the United States, and would encourage any steps to reduce dependency. Equally, there are obviously gains to be made from working together, particularly when the EU is in a relatively underdeveloped state in terms of political cohesion compared to other major global powers. I think it's possible to encourage EU internal development without simultaneously worsening ties with the United States.

This is a bit hyperbolic. You're underestimating the intense political pressure here for politicians from both parties to signal disapproval in Russia and also distinguish themselves from a president under investigation for collusion in the act we're now sanctioning Russia for. I think it was a bad idea but don't write it off as insanity, not when the vote was nearly unanimous. The foreign relations committees weighed the diplomatic risks into considerations.

I'm not underestimating it. I'm pointing out that the Democratic desire to signal to the electorate is greater than their desire to work constructively with the EU. That has serious ramifications: can the EU trust the Democrats to commit to something that would substantively increase the security of the EU and the US if it was opposed internally due to domestic mis-understanding? Trust is a game built up over repeated interactions; this can't help but undermine the ability of the EU to trust the Democrats.

That doesn't enrich our Midwestern barons though.

Probably would, actually. The main problem with American and Canadian gas is the transport costs - with present infrastructure, regardless of the presence of American fracking, North America can't really compete with Russia, Qatar, or Iran. FSRUs can significantly lower the costs of that, which means the EU buys more American gas, which obviously profits America. It's an investment.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We already did this by inventing fracking

Irrelevant at the moment, since it's still not cheap enough to overcome the additional transport costs.

 

[SpaceCadetKeon]

So he hasn't signed that sanctions bill yet?

 

[Zolo]

So he hasn't signed that sanctions bill yet?

Nope. Expect an announcement of 'wait and see.' It has to be done by Monday though I believe.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

What happens if the president refuses to sign a veto-proof bill? Is there historical precedent?

Also why does a veto proof bill even go to the president?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

What happens if the president refuses to sign a veto-proof bill? Is there historical precedent?

Also why does a veto proof bill even go to the president?

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

So it's up to Ryan. If he kept someone around to process the veto or not. He probably did.

I wonder if Trump knows this.

 

[nature boy]

What happens if the president refuses to sign a veto-proof bill? Is there historical precedent?

Also why does a veto proof bill even go to the president?

Goes back to Congress, needs 2/3s in both chambers, becomes law <------ if he vetoes

I wonder if he's going to pocket veto (doesn't sign or veto, 10 days after becomes law)

Edit: ah refuses to sign, yes 10 days after is law.

 

[sangreal]

What happens if the president refuses to sign a veto-proof bill? Is there historical precedent?

Also why does a veto proof bill even go to the president?

It becomes law after 10 days (excluding Sunday) unless congress is in recess

The number of people willing to vote for a bill and the number of people willing to vote to override a veto are not always the same

 

[Kusagari]

I think he's just not going to sign it.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think he's just not going to sign it.

That would be a great look.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That would be a great look.

Better than a veto override less than 7 months in, that's for sure.

 

[Rvaan]

Better than a veto override less than 7 months in, that's for sure.

A veto override less than 7 months in when your party has control of the House and the Senate. That would be a very bad look for the WH.

 

[jtb]

I think he's just not going to sign it.

That would be such a Trump thing to do.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

He probably thinks he found a magic loophole other presidents were too stupid to use.

"If I just don't sign it, it'll never become law. Suckers!"

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Haven't heard the term pocket veto since high school damn.

 

[aspiegamer]

Trump might let the veto window expire and via inaction allow it to come into law. It's such a stupid, vague and uncommon procedure that I can't even remember what it's called. Pocket Veto maybe?

...Yup, it's Pocket Veto. Good catch, all. Time limit is semi-officially 10 days but that can be extended if one chamber isn't in session like it is now.

Haven't heard the term pocket veto since high school damn.

One of those things you never thought you'd hear again.

Edit: I do like the concept, though, and I see why it's necessary. "Break glass in the event that POTUS is a lazy piece of shit."

 

[Blader]

- The European Union and the United States working in partnership could implement targeted sanctions that focus on the personal assets of key Russian officials

The first round of election sanctions already did that.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The first round of election sanctions already did that.

Correct, which is why you'll find posts of mine in this thread talking about my support for them! However, I think there is almost certainly room to go further in terms of targeted sanctions at key officials, as opposed to the friendly-fire scattergun approach being taken.

 

[nature boy]

Edition #58495873 of "if Obama/Clinton did it....":

Kyle Griffin&#8207;Verified account
@kylegriffin1

Tillerson rejects $80MIL to fight Russian disinformation. One source says he was concerned it would anger Russia.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/02/tillerson-isis-russia-propaganda-241218

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Edit: I do like the concept, though, and I see why it's necessary. "Break glass in the event that POTUS is a lazy piece of shit."

It's because they didn't want the president to have the final say on if something becomes law or not. He's not supposed to have the power to completely stop legislation.

If he does try to pocket veto this, he's likely going to have a big ordeal. The Democrats aren't going to just sit around and let him get by on a technicality, I don't even think the Republicans will.

I'm not really sure which side the bill started on. If it started in the senate, they're still going to be in session, so he has no argument at all that the pocket veto worked. If it started in the House, it's up to Paul Ryan to set up someone to handle the veto while they're no longer in session, and every speaker does that for every recess, so it would have had to be planned ahead of time that this would kill the bill. And it would still likely be a huge ordeal.

Also TIL what a pocket veto is, thanks to Wikipedia. I had heard the term before in AP Politics back in high school, but who remembers minor powers the president never uses that you learned about 10 years ago.

 

[kess]

At least Pruitt isn't this fucking smarmy

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-bison-logging.html

 

[Deleted member 1159]

A pocket veto is still a veto. If he tries that shit, all that needs to be done is make a bunch of noise about it and get the bill passed again and rub it in his face. The way they're currently lying about still waiting to receive the legislation is telling, but it won't work.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Edition #58495873 of "if Obama/Clinton did it....":



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/02/tillerson-isis-russia-propaganda-241218

So what happens here? Will people just keep requesting the money and he will keep not doing anything? Does he have the authority to reject something that's already been approved?

 

[Wilsongt]

The vote passed the Senate 98-2.

Democrats?

They have no power.

Democrats have the power to obstruct according to the GOP!

Tom Cotton.................

President Trump is introducing new legislation today with Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and David Perdue, R-Ga., aimed at cutting legal immigration into the United States, a White House official confirmed.

The effort, following his campaign pledge to reform the country’s immigration system, expands on a bill introduced by the senators in February to cut the number of legal immigrants into the U.S. by 50 percent over 10 years. That bill, which has stalled for months in the Senate, would eliminate diversity lottery visas and limit the number of refugees offered permanent residency in the country every year.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews....gal-immigration-legislation/story?id=48985055

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The Democrats haven't even had the chance to filibuster anything but the SC nominee lol. Oh and that one time they threatened to do it for the budget and Ryan folded instantly.

There's been so little legislation, the Democrats haven't even had opportunities to obstruct.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Democrats have the power to obstruct according to the GOP!

They do to some extent, but not nearly as much as Republicans are trying to blame them. It's kind of Republicans fault if you use some twisted logic. The GOP punished Blue Dogs by replacing them after the ACA passed, and the people who replaced them were the Tea Party folks, who now won't help the GOP pass anything because they are far too Conservative for the majority of the GOP. With Blue Dogs still in place the GOP had hopes of getting some stuff done, but they will never be able to pass legislation that appeases the everyone from Moderate Republicans to Tea Party Republicans.

Cutting the number of legal immigrants is an impressively horrible idea.

 

[kess]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-01-10-43-06

Mattis and Kelly also agreed in the earliest weeks of Trump's presidency that one of them should remain in the United States at all times to keep tabs on the orders rapidly emerging from the White House, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the administration's internal dynamics.

So... what happens when Kelly gets fired?

 

[Wilsongt]

They do to some extent, but not nearly as much as Republicans are trying to blame them. It's kind of Republicans fault if you use some twisted logic. The GOP punished Blue Dogs by replacing them after the ACA passed, and the people who replaced them were the Tea Party folks, who now won't help the GOP pass anything because they are far too Conservative for the majority of the GOP. With Blue Dogs still in place the GOP had hopes of getting some stuff done, but they will never be able to pass legislation that appeases the everyone from Moderate Republicans to Tea Party Republicans.

Cutting the number of legal immigrants is an impressively horrible idea.

It's Cotton. The only good idea he ever had was growing his beard.

 

[Barzul]

LOL Trump is trying to impress Kelly. Wonder how long this lasts.

https://www.axios.com/john-kelly-closes-the-oval-office-door-2468238343.html

The door to the Oval Office used to be wide open, with favored officials drifting in and out — even in the middle of meetings — to kibitz with Trump.

Now, the door is closed. Gen. John Kelly, the new White House chief of staff, has taken control in dramatic fashion, and is already imposing unmistakable signs of order after just a few days on the job:

Even POTUS appears to be trying to impress his four-star handler, picking up his game by acting sharper in meetings and even rattling off stats.

Meetings, which under Reince Priebus were meandering, are shorter and stick to their scheduled topic. Reince was a wallflower; Kelly moderates and is clearly in charge.

Everyone — even uber-aides Jared and Ivanka, and economic adviser Gary Cohn — is being deferential to Kelly.

Be smart: The most consequential workplace in America has been one of the most dysfunctional. General Kelly took an instantly assertive tack, and some of the overt shenanigans stopped overnight.

But the ultimate boss has no plans to really change. (Yesterday he tweeted: "Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people). Only way for me to get the truth out!") And the new internal order will remain only as long as he plays along.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

"See everyone he's fixed! Nothing to worry about! It took less than 24 hours!"

 

[Barzul]

Democrats have the power to obstruct according to the GOP!

Tom Cotton.................



https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews....gal-immigration-legislation/story?id=48985055

Scary because I'm an immigrant. How much support will this see in the Senate? Surely it will get filibustered right? I really hate my senator.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

He's gonna get lonely with the door closed.

Honestly though, if this actually lasts (it won't), then good.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Apparently any bipartisan deal made in the Senate on healthcare is DOA in the House, according to a Ryan spokeswoman.

They really want to fail in this about as badly as anyone could ever fail at something...

 

[Wilsongt]

Apparently any bipartisan deal made in the Senate on healthcare is DOA in the House, according to a Ryan spokeswoman.

They really want to fail in this about as badly as anyone could ever fail at something...

House members were not elected to help people in 2010. They were elected to get back at the black man in office. Then the census happened and their seats became safe.

Those people in the House aren't going to do shit because they believe they were elected to stop healthcare from being anything good related to Obama.

 

[OmniOne]

He's gonna get lonely with the door closed.

Honestly though, if this actually lasts (it won't), then good.

I think this will probably cause even more Twitter outbursts.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Honestly though, if this actually lasts (it won't), then good.

I'm way past the point of wishing he succeeds. There will be no pivot. He's not gonna change. He's got terrible judgment and the US / the world will need years to recover from a full Trump presidency.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Apparently any bipartisan deal made in the Senate on healthcare is DOA in the House, according to a Ryan spokeswoman.

They really want to fail in this about as badly as anyone could ever fail at something...

So this is interesting because the only way to read this is that Ryan himself would block such a bill. If a bipartisan bill hit the House floor with most or all of the Dems (and Pelosi would be whipping like crazy), you'd likely get the handful of Republicans you'd need to pass it.

Ryan would kill it himself.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So this is interesting because the only way to read this is that Ryan himself would block such a bill. If a bipartisan bill hit the House floor with most or all of the Dems (and Pelosi would be whipping like crazy), you'd likely get the handful of Republicans you'd need to pass it.

Ryan would kill it himself.

This was her exact statement (via CNN)

House Speaker Paul Ryan's spokeswoman made it clear that the bipartisan health care proposals were not moving anytime soon in the House.

"While the speaker appreciates members coming together to promote ideas, he remains focused on repealing and replacing Obamacare," AshLee Strong said.

So if it all comes crashing down, it's Ryan's fault. Like 100% his fault and he will be blamed by everyone for it. How stupid can you be

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

So this is interesting because the only way to read this is that Ryan himself would block such a bill. If a bipartisan bill hit the House floor with most or all of the Dems (and Pelosi would be whipping like crazy), you'd likely get the handful of Republicans you'd need to pass it.

Ryan would kill it himself.

House leader can just kill a bill himself?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

House leader can just kill a bill himself?

There's nothing requiring him to ever put it up for a vote

 

[OmniOne]

House leader can just kill a bill himself?

Yes.

However, 218 House reps can overrule the speaker and force a bill to the floor. Won't ever happen though.