Agreed it's a huge problem; Mexico's in a really tough spot living right next door to what might be the largest demand for an illegal good the world has ever seen. I doubt the United States could fund the cartels better if they tried.
Or wholesale decriminalization. Ask Washington, Oregon, and Colorado how that's affected their overall crime rates; especially when related to violent drug offenses.
I agree. Removing the need for a black market on drugs would essentially make the cartels powerless. But as it stands right now, weed remains nationally illegal because it might make black men rape white women. Good luck getting the rest of it decriminalized.
Honestly I do not know enough about the nominee to form an opinion just yet, but I don't believe it will upset the current balance of the Supreme Court until one of the liberal leaning justices dies. But to your point of it's water under the bridge, just don't do it again. I want to ask you - how do you suggest the Democrats ensure that? Obama was fully within his right to appoint a Supreme Court justice and the Republican congress blatantly refused to do their job. When Hilary was projected to win, they stated that they will fight every single thing she would do along party lines and will do everything in their power to make things as difficult for her as possible. Now that the Republicans won, it seems like they have developed a case of amnesia and want the Democrats to behave like adults, instead of being obstructionist for the sake of obstruction - which was what they were doing. Look I get it, it is politics. Every side needs to rile up their base to get reelected. But I do find it insulting when the hypocrisy is so blatant and they expect the Democrats to roll over and play nice now. While they were never going to do so if the shoe was on the other foot.
It's also competition for alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies who want people getting high off of their stash. But, you know - Moral outrage! RabbleRabbleRabbleRabble
Can anyone give me a non-impeachable rationale for Trump's apparent love affair with Putin and Russia? What does Russia offer us that the EU, China, and/or Mexico do not?
For point 1, Russian nationalism is not American nationalism, and in a heavily nationalist paradigm it would seem that Russia would be our biggest rival if anything. For point 2, China is far stronger than Russia is, and has a far greater ability to challenge us than Russia does, and yet Trump seems to have no problem deliberately poking them in the eye.
My thoery? Trump doesn't like Putin, he's simply scared shitless of him. Putin is the AntiChrist: a stone-cold KGB murderer with dead eyes and no morals. Trump is s fat, sheltered, spoiled little rich boy and simply nothing else. He's not "tough", he's not "cool", he's cries whenever a mean tweet crosses his path like a sissy girl. I think he's straight-up intimidated like a scared little kid, so he relentlessly kisses his ass to avoid showing his true colours.
So Mr. Trump is a bit of the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt? Instead of "speak softly but carry a big stick" President Trump prefers "Speak loudly, obnoxious and carry a tired, beat up, worn down stick" Seriously, our military really needs a decade of rest, rebuild and retrain.
I think over the long term economic power is the heart of military power. It's why the United States was able to overwhelm Japan in WWII despite heavy early losses, it's why the Soviets couldn't keep up with US military spending. I think China will have a much easier time converting their growing economic power into military projection than the Russians will have maintaining their military on a the back of a comparatively small petro-state.
I'm still having a hard time with the Trump-Putin dynamic the press and posters here imply. At one point during the last administration, great effort was made to discuss the 'reset' in terms of US-Russian relations. If Conservatives were upset about that then than shame on them. If Trump is engaged in diplomacy with a nuclear-armed foreign nation with whom relations aren't great, where is the harm in that? Do you want peace or do you want war? That same story goes for China; if Trump is poking them then he better have a plan because China can seriously gouge us economically. Do they need to be more aggressive with China than has been done in the past? Sure, there are major issues with trade with China - to include human(worker) rights, wages, currency valuation, etc but these should be things that can be negotiated or otherwise worked out to avoid war.
The navy as it stand in Russia right now is not in very good shape. I think it will cost Russia more to get their military into shape than they can really afford to spend. In my opinion, that makes them even more dangerous over the next five years than long term as if they are going to do something in Europe, they need to do it now as they will not be able to do it in seven years. I also think President Trump is just arrogant enough to think the United States can stop Russia.
It's more that Russia is the country least useful to us, and most aggressive toward our friends and allies, and yet it's the one country he handles with kid gloves while he's busy telling everyone else from our trading partners to our allies to go fuck themselves. It doesn't add up.
I honestly dont blame Trump for having a callous attitude toward NATO*, many Americans feel that way. The US shares such a disproportionate amount of responsibility that it builds political resentment on both sides. Its not that Europe isnt willing, they just never bothered to develop the capability. Look at at the Libya operation a few years ago. NATO troops (sans US) could not put together an operation without running low on munitions, barely functioning aircraft, and reluctant member states (except for maybe France and GB), unwilling to even participate after they voted for the operation. And this was against a nation with relatively ancient technology. Plus, people like to claim the Iraq war was for oil? NATO allowed the heavy influence of BP, Total SA, and Shell into the Libyan operation, which is never really discussed for some reason. The criticisms of Iraq dont even come close to it. Back to NATO though. The EU has never seriously considered galvanizing a military force in Europe under the banner of NATO, which was entire point in the first place. They look to America to bear the brunt of the responsibility, and send along a few expeditionary forces to say "Hey Im helping!" Now Europeans are waking up and realizing that Russia might actually be threat and again, they look to America to back them up and supplement their defenses. We are an entire continent away and I doubt the American people, even generations later, have the stomach for yet another war in Europe. That doesnt mean that the US doesnt have a vested interest in a peaceful Europe, but the point of NATO was a collective pact, that for all intents and purposes, has not been upheld by all parties. Why do you think Americans are apathetic when we yank the chain economically or pass legislation that Europeans dont like? And if we went to war with China in 20 years, could we count on Europe to do anything? The partnership has not been on equal terms, ever. NATO engagements are aligned with US interests because we force their hand. And as an aside, its very easy for Europe to be smug about their social welfare programs when they have the biggest kid on the block spending trillions defending them. *Canada doesnt count in this, they share a much larger piece of the than the rest of Europe combined (almost).
Agree with much of this, but I also think the big problem here is that Trump totally lacks nuance or deftness. The idea that Europe needs to contribute more is not something novel to Trump; Obama had the same idea and was making progress on it. Trump's statements on NATO have not only likely gained us nothing we couldn't have gained in easier ways, it probably cost us more in undermining the treaty than any potential gain could possibly offset.
He's likely preparing for a run at CA Governor or Senator, but it's good to finally see an official who gets what they're really up against: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article129921589.html
Mexico is denying the account of the story. "The AP report said the Mexican government denies the account, but a Mexican journalist in Washington, D.C., Dolia Estevez, reported a similar story with a tweet that read: “URGENT: Trump was humiliating with EPN and hinted troops, sources tell a journalist in Washington.” As of Wednesday afternoon no other outlet had independently verified the report."