All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JCAll]

My husband and I were talking about Trump's new social media platform, about what he should call it. We settled on Trumpet since he's always blowing his own horn.

Oh, that sounds like a fun game. I'll go with Qwitter, because he's a quitter.

[OopsIdiditagain]

EU imposes further sanctions over serious violations of human rights around the world. China, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, and Eritrea.

[PwrdOn]

EU imposes further sanctions over serious violations of human rights around the world. China, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, and Eritrea.

I'm sure this time the sanctions will be effective, and not just cause resentment and harm the people that you are supposedly trying to help, like every other round of sanctions ever.

[Mister Mets]

But somehow it is the latest defense of obvious white nationalism that you've chosen as a hill to die on.

Which, on brand for a modern Republican, at least.

It seems that you view statements as proxies for larger questions rather than caring about the specifics, if questioning whether a congressman was trying to normalize lynching as part of a larger white nationalist plot is seen as a defense of white nationalism.

You've made some pretty strong statements, suggesting that my views are so radical as to merit seeking psychiatric help.

There seem to be three possibilities. The first is that I've expressed opinions that are both objectionable, and held by an extreme minority, which are generally required for an opinion to be described as radical. And here I'd like to know as specifically as possible: When have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable and held by a small percentage of Americans? If you believe that the entire Republican party has become radical, the follow-up question is: Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable, and was recently held by a small percentage of Americans? In this case, the comment should be quoted in full, with the radical part in bold, so there is no ambiguity or confusion.

The second possibility is that you misread me, and made some nasty comments by mistake. If this were the case, a decent person would have admit the error and apologized.

The final possibility is that you've lost the ability to differentiate between opinions you disagree with, seeing everything as equally objectionable and radical.

We literally just had an insurrection at the capital where they wanted to lynch politicians and erected gallows, but surely no one's rhetoric is contributing to the normalizing of lynching of one's enemies.

Like I said before: this isn't normalization. It's already normalized *as rhetoric*.

Since you seem to be reading both of our posts, to the best of your understanding, am I describing WBE's posts correctly? I'm meant to take him literally, right?

[The Cool Thatguy]

I'm sure this time the sanctions will be effective, and not just cause resentment and harm the people that you are supposedly trying to help, like every other round of sanctions ever.

So just ignore the human right abuses?

[Bruce Wayne]

Sure worked with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Oh wait...

[OopsIdiditagain]

Sure worked for Russia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Oh wait...

Only really worked with South Africa.

[PwrdOn]

So just ignore the human right abuses?

How exactly do sanctions advance the cause of human rights? Even the stated is to make life for people in these countries even more miserable, driving them to the point of overthrowing their government and replacing it with a more Western friendly regime. In practice though, this almost never actually works because all of the suffering that people have to endure just plays right into the governments' hands and usually strengthens public support for them. As much as people might oppose their leaders, very few have any desire to run back into the arms of their former colonial masters, and especially the way that Western governments cynically abuse the language of human rights to advance their geopolitical interests just breeds even more resentment.

Only really worked with South Africa.

That of course being one of the few instances that the US actually pushed back against imposing sanctions and only gave in after the public pressure became too great to ignore. Gee, I wonder why THAT was....

[Bruce Wayne]

Only really worked with South Africa.

Sanctions brought Iranians to the bargaining table and it slowed the North Korean nuclear program. As tools for foreign policy, they work when they are crippling as seen in the case of Iran. The opposite idea of integrating these countries into the current world order seems to foster much worse outcomes. If you don't want these countries to export their problems outside their borders like what Eritrea is currently doing, trying to cripple these countries economically is probably the way to go.

[PwrdOn]

Sanctions brought Iranians to the bargaining table and it slowed the North Korean nuclear program. As tools for foreign policy, they work when they are crippling as seen in the case of Iran. The opposite idea of integrating these countries into the current world order seems to foster much worse outcomes.

Yeah and then we withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions even though the Iranians were in full compliance, and now there is no chance of getting them to renegotiate now. Likewise the North Koreans seem to be undeterred and just conducted a weapons test today, and given that they are largely disconnected from global trading networks anyway there's not really much that any further sanctions can do.

If you don't want these countries to export their problems outside their borders like what Eritrea is currently doing, trying to cripple these countries economically is probably the way to go.

Trying to cripple countries economically creates refugee problems as people try to flee to neighboring countries, and also disrupts the economies of their trading partners creating further instability and unrest. And really, when you think about a country exporting problems beyond its borders, Eritrea is the first name you can think of?

[Tami]

Oh, that sounds like a fun game. I'll go with Qwitter, because he's a quitter.

I like yours better.

[Godzilla2099]

Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims

Is this an admission of guilt? What this twisted lady did was no better than yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

I can't believe she's not being prosecuted

[Wildling]

Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims

Is this an admission of guilt? What this twisted lady did was no better than yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

I can't believe she's not being prosecuted

It's the "There Are Suckers for Tucker" Carlson defense.

Election fraud pushers play to an audience of Republican morons. And being a moron, according to Jeanine Pirro, is actually a badge of honor in order for them to own the libs.

[numberthirty]

Did I see that right, Kristi Noem vetoed the anti-trans bill?

From the little bit that I caught, that would be a pretty "Rose Colored Glasses..." view of what happened.

She actually went into her plans on Tucker Carlson.

The obvious downside there is that one would actually have to listen to Tucker Carlson while waiting for her to lay her plans out.

[Bruce Wayne]

Yeah and then we withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions even though the Iranians were in full compliance, and now there is no chance of getting them to renegotiate now.
Likewise the North Koreans seem to be undeterred and just conducted a weapons test today, and given that they are largely disconnected from global trading networks

1) That's not true. The liberal faction in Iran wants the nuclear deal for their own reasons. And they currently control the public face of the government.
2) Not true. We know Pakistan helped supply them with nuclear technology so the idea they are disconnected from the global economy is false as is they need access to hard currency to maintain the regime. Isolating them prevents further proliferation of nuclear weapons and gives them much less access to resources to invest in their nuclear program. The fact they haven't gotten very far with the ICBM program shows it's working. The other option would be to let them grow and become a threat to South Korea and Japan, which is again not an option.

Trying to cripple countries economically creates refugee problems as people try to flee to neighboring countries, and also disrupts the economies of their trading partners creating further instability and unrest.
And really, when you think about a country exporting problems beyond its borders, Eritrea is the first name you can think of?

1) Again that's totally not true and totally misunderstands what refugees are or even the commonly accepted definition of them (https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/what-is-a-refugee.html). Refugee problems are from internal and external conflicts (such as the proliferation of extremist Islamist groups in MENA/Africa or unchecked gangs in Central America) where the refugees have no choice but to leave because of the security situation due to fear of persecution. The fall of the Soviet Union or North Korea's Arduous March shows that your argument is bogus.
2) Because that's one of the countries under EU sanctions for the human rights violations being committed in Ethiopia. Trying to stop them from exporting their problems seems to be a pretty good reason for sanctions.