Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 106: Miner Threat

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Same goes for any rising alt-left groups.

I still have no idea what the "alt-left" is supposed to be. Socialists? Marxists? Tankies?
---

https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/878976320612569089

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Except it is not known to have even been done by the alt right anyways. So why was it said? Because it was a bad act it must be alt-right in your mind.

For an Islamophobic hate crime I am going to the alt-right as my first suspects, yes.

Same reason people say "so much for the tolerant left" when the controversial college speaker protests break out. You don't KNOW that every person getting violent is a leftist just because they're protesting Milo or Ann Coulter, but it's a fair guess!

Pretty sure most ppl just look at the protest/riot to determine what it is composed of. Not even close to the same comparison. You have not a shred of any information of who did these acts.
---

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I support the kid thing but not entirely the way it is set up now. I support a kid can stay on parents insurance til 26 only as long as continually enrolled in a higher education system. Otherwise it should be 21 - as long as unemployed.

Why necessitate that criteria? Especially with the continuing diminishment of higher education as viable.

Because you should be able to get a job and get your own health care if you are not in higher education.

But the whole point is that people should be able to get health care even if they can't afford it.

Like, what is the DRAWBACK of leaving people on the family plan until 26 if they're unemployed?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I support the kid thing but not entirely the way it is set up now. I support a kid can stay on parents insurance til 26 only as long as continually enrolled in a higher education system. Otherwise it should be 21 - as long as unemployed.

Why necessitate that criteria? Especially with the continuing diminishment of higher education as viable.

Because you should be able to get a job and get your own health care if you are not in higher education.

But the whole point is that people should be able to get health care even if they can't afford it.

Like, what is the DRAWBACK of leaving people on the family plan until 26 if they're unemployed?

Cuz u could get a job and get it for yourself. It is a handout that is unnecessary.

People who do work should not forced to pay higher rates on plans because people do not want to just get a job and support themselves without any considerable reason for it.
---

On the note of violence - I've read a couple articles recently where people who study trends in violent protests/occurrences/whatever are getting worried because left-wing inspired violence, which previously happened at a much lower rate than rate-wing inspired violence, is starting to occur in the same frequency as right-wing inspired violence.

So, in a sense, So Much For the Tolerant Left is correct. The left isn't feeling particularly tolerant at the moment. I'm sure this only means good things for the country moving forward.

DeepsPraw posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Same goes for any rising alt-left groups.

I still have no idea what the "alt-left" is supposed to be. Socialists? Marxists? Tankies?

Where's that image of 90% of the political spectrum highlighted as alt-left and the very edge of conservatism labeled as centric
---

Corrik posted...

People who do work should not forced to pay higher rates on plans because people do not want to just get a job and support themselves without any considerable reason for it.

Well here is where I, as a democratic socialist, can't agree.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

People who do work should not forced to pay higher rates on plans because people do not want to just get a job and support themselves without any considerable reason for it.

Well here is where I, as a democratic socialist, can't agree.

That is your right.
---

Corrik posted...

Pretty sure most ppl just look at the protest/riot to determine what it is composed of. Not even close to the same comparison. You have not a shred of any information of who did these acts.

It's exactly the same comparison. All I know about a protestor is that they hate that Ann Coulter is here. All I know about the Quran burners is that they hate that Muslims are here.

Progressives openly despise Ann Coulter. Ask any of them; it's true. Alt-right philosophy, by it's very definition, openly despises Muslim integration into western society.

Why is this not comparable?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/879059303033970689

This is fucking disgusting. The GOP strategy on BHCA is just to straight up lie about what it will do. This is the core of Trump's legacy: showing other politicians that you can be as brazen as you want with your lies and half of the country will still believe you.

Toomey is garbage and I'm pissed that he's still in Congress
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Pretty sure most ppl just look at the protest/riot to determine what it is composed of. Not even close to the same comparison. You have not a shred of any information of who did these acts.

It's exactly the same comparison. All I know about a protestor is that they hate that Ann Coulter is here. All I know about the Quran burners is that they hate that Muslims are here.

Progressives openly despise Ann Coulter. Ask any of them; it's true. Alt-right philosophy, by it's very definition, openly despises Muslim integration into western society.

Why is this not comparable?

One has no shred of evidence. One does. It is not comparable. For all you know, two 13 year olds got drunk and thought it was funny to do with no political leanings.

Zero information to go off of.
---

For those asking about an "alt-left," let's break it down.

What specifically distinguishes the right from the alt-right? The focus, to an authoritarian degree, on cultural segregation. Other than that they tend to share conservative values. There is nothing new about this. There was a time when a focus on segregation WAS a core conservative value. It's more like a throwback, militant right wing.

So now take those ideas and transplant them onto the left. You're looking for people that focus, to an authoritarian degree, on cultural segregation, but other than that they would share progressive values. Have we seen groups like this before? What's "Nazi" short for again?

While I don't know of any quasi-mainstream alt-left movement, it certainly could exist.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

Rioters? Assholes.

A very wise man once said, "a riot is the language of the unheard."

Perhaps. But that doesn't justify taking it out on people who have nothing to do with what your gripe is. Fucking up a small business because a cop shot a man does.... absolutely nothing positive.



Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Except it is not known to have even been done by the alt right anyways. So why was it said? Because it was a bad act it must be alt-right in your mind.

For an Islamophobic hate crime I am going to the alt-right as my first suspects, yes.

Same reason people say "so much for the tolerant left" when the controversial college speaker protests break out. You don't KNOW that every person getting violent is a leftist just because they're protesting Milo or Ann Coulter, but it's a fair guess!

Doesn't that just make you the same as people like Ulti? Blaming the right for everything, blaming the left for everything. What's the difference?

Granted the so called "alt-right" people tend to have scumbag views in general, but then where's the line between right and alt-right?

As for hate crimes... just look at the people who benefit from people being afraid. Look at the people trying to rouse up people for a fight. Look at the people fanning the flames.

I.... guess that's the thing though. Everyone seems to be afraid these days. And someone is benefiting from it all.
---

Corrik posted...

For all you know, two 13 year olds got drunk and thought it was funny to do with no political leanings.

That's literally impossible. If you do this crime, you have political leanings, even if those leanings are trollishly nihilistic.

This whole argument is boiling down to you trying to defend the good name of the alt-right for some reason. Sure, it might not have been an alt-righter who did it, if that's what you want me to say. But whoever did it is spreading their message, willingly or not.
---

I don't understand why people say SephyG is bad but not red sox

SephyG is atleast brutally honest about who he is and what he wants

red sox just chimes in with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and "this is why you lost"

at least 80% of what sephyg posts is trolling bullshit (the "if you didn't like the reporter getting attacked for asking a question you're not a MANLY MAN" thing is a good example of this). the vast majority of the time he's just here to troll liberals, not to have a productive conversation. he kept @'ing ulti just because he wanted someone else in here who would troll liberals, even after ulti repeatedly asked him to stop. how can you take a guy like that seriously? i may often disagree with red sox, but at least he's very genuine. he puts in an honest effort to present his opinions and defend them and he's usually fairly respectful to the people he's arguing with. if i were red sox i'd be pretty insulted about you putting him in the same category as sephy, honestly.

also, sephy said i have a mental disease and red sox did not. i understand that that's a personal issue i have with sephy, though.

(but yeah, red sox should stop with the "this is why you lost" nonsense. don't disagree there.)
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

For all you know, two 13 year olds got drunk and thought it was funny to do with no political leanings.

That's literally impossible. If you do this crime, you have political leanings, even if those leanings are trollishly nihilistic.

This whole argument is boiling down to you trying to defend the good name of the alt-right for some reason. Sure, it might not have been an alt-righter who did it, if that's what you want me to say. But whoever did it is spreading their message, willingly or not.

Are you seriously taking that stance cuz it is ridiculous. It may be unlikely that is the case but it is absolutely not impossible.

And it has nothing to do with the alt-right and my feelings on it. It has everything to do with the holier than thou approach you continue to portray in regards to your political beliefs. Everything bad is supposedly the other spectrum automatically even when evidence contradicts that or there is no evidence at all to draw upon.

As DYL pointed out, Ulti's every attack is a muslim terrorist and your every bad thing is an alt right attitudes are basically the same.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Granted the so called "alt-right" people tend to have scumbag views in general, but then where's the line between right and alt-right?

I was actually typing that out and posting it right before this message!

The difference between me and someone like Ulti here is that I'm only making the leap to blame groups that OPENLY admit to the philosophies behind the crime. If there's Islamic terror, you might first assume ISIS, for example. It might turn out to be wrong, but it's their stated cause being furthered regardless.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

I don't understand why people say SephyG is bad but not red sox

SephyG is atleast brutally honest about who he is and what he wants

red sox just chimes in with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and "this is why you lost"

at least 80% of what sephyg posts is trolling bullshit (the "if you didn't like the reporter getting attacked for asking a question you're not a MANLY MAN" thing is a good example of this). the vast majority of the time he's just here to troll liberals, not to have a productive conversation. he kept @'ing ulti just because he wanted someone else in here who would troll liberals, even after ulti repeatedly asked him to stop. how can you take a guy like that seriously? i may often disagree with red sox, but at least he's very genuine. he puts in an honest effort to present his opinions and defend them and he's usually fairly respectful to the people he's arguing with. if i were red sox i'd be pretty insulted about you putting him in the same category as sephy, honestly.

also, sephy said i have a mental disease and red sox did not. i understand that that's a personal issue i have with sephy, though.

(but yeah, red sox should stop with the "this is why you lost" nonsense. don't disagree there.)

Isn't redsox a democrat?
---

I somewhat agree with that.


If that hypothetical was true then you'd have two people being dicks to someone for their personal entertainment, which is just dicks being dicks. But if they specifically thought doing this because they were Muslim was funny then that would fall under anti-Muslim.

But if they did it because they'd knew that would get the biggest reaction.... then they're assholes who are giving off a projection(Is this the right word?) of an Anti-Muslim hate crime for shits and giggles. Which introduces another problem. What's the difference between people being assholes because of what they believe... and people being assholes because "I was just trolling"?

Either way all it does is cause things to become worse and worse.
---

Corrik posted...

It has everything to do with the holier than thou approach you continue to portray in regards to your political beliefs.

I have no issue with being holier-than-thou regarding the alt-right. Guilty as charged.
---

Corrik posted...

Isn't redsox a democrat?

he supported bernie. not sure if that necessarily makes him a democrat.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Which introduces another problem. What's the difference between people being a******s because of what they believe... and people being a******s because "I was just trolling"?

There is no difference when it comes to the effect it has on the world around it.

Philosophically, it's actually really opposite I think. Believer assholes think this shit is crucial to the progress of the world towards righteousness. Troll assholes believe that literally none of it matters, so why not have fun puppetteering people who think it does?

I wonder if there is a path to society fixing the tendency towards trolling at some point? It's a natural consequence of moving towards secularist societies, which is itself a good thing in my opinion, but the nature of today's worst trolls is alarming. Maybe we need to start introducing ethical philosophy at a younger age?
---

red sox is not even close to being genuine about what he posts. He's admitted to saying weird shit just to 'make people think' multiple times. He's pretty much on the level of SephG except he posts less.
---

So you're saying the line between right and alt right is how strict they are about keeping their culture segregated from the culture of others? Am I understanding that correctly?



Jakyl25 posted...

There is no difference when it comes to the effect it has on the world around it.

Agreed. Which is a problem when more and more people seem to be intentionally saying outlandish things... just to piss off the other side. Morons on social media, internet fourms, etc fine. Whatever. Most of the people who say Hitler "did nothing wrong" are just morons trying to get a rise.

But when it's the actual people with even a sliver of power doing it? That's when it gets dangerous. It's basically a way to avoid any responsibility. Say something horrible and people go for it? Then you meant it and people who got upset are just "sensitive"! Say something horrible and people don't go for it? Hey guys, I was just joking, why are you taking things so seriously? That needs to stop.
---

Corrik posted...

Everything bad is supposedly the other spectrum automatically even when evidence contradicts that or there is no evidence at all to draw upon.

Also I want to call this out as being incorrect.

One of the concepts I have tried to instill in this topic series is for progressives to police their own in here. If you looked through the archives, I am sure you will find enough examples of the left-leaning members of this topic speaking out when one of us crosses a line. In fact I know you will. Also, when there is ridiculous leftist news, if someone posts it, and it seems like we are hiding from it, call us out like you did me today. That's great!

Yes, we are full of leftist snark, and look down upon many conservative values, but none of us want to be liberal assholes like Bill Mahar or Kathy Griffin or Johnny Depp. If someone does, they won't get far here.

I just really wish, in return, that conservatives would do some policing of their own in here too. I do my best to try to force the issue of Seph denouncing something MWC says, or you denouncing something Ulti says, because I don't WANT the more reasonable people to be lumped in with the crazies. But if they don't speak out against them when appropriate, I have no choice but to assume that they share the same beliefs.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

He's admitted to saying weird shit just to 'make people think' multiple times.

ok, this i didn't know.

still wouldn't say this makes him similar to sephy, though. playing devil's advocate to make people think isn't entirely the same as "LET'S RUSTLE LIBERALS' JIMMIES LOL."
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So now take those ideas and transplant them onto the left. You're looking for people that focus, to an authoritarian degree, on cultural segregation, but other than that they would share progressive values. Have we seen groups like this before? What's "Nazi" short for again?

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

So you're saying the line between right and alt right is how strict they are about keeping their culture segregated from the culture of others? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. Modern mainstream conservatives (one might use the term "neoconservatives") and libertarians support immigration and integration. Alt-right members do not.
---

woodman posted...

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.

Only by today's American standards

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is authoritarianism. The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Modern mainstream conservatives (one might use the term "neoconservatives")

One might be incorrect, because "neoconservatism" refers to a specific philosophy and isn't synonymous with the more general category of "conservatism". Having right-leaning social views wouldn't make one a neoconservative, for example; it's instead defined by foreign policy attitudes.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I wonder if there is a path to society fixing the tendency towards trolling at some point? It's a natural consequence of moving towards secularist societies, which is itself a good thing in my opinion, but the nature of today's worst trolls is alarming. Maybe we need to start introducing ethical philosophy at a younger age?

Personally I believe there just needs to be greater consequence for some of the things people say. If you're in a position of power and you... let's say claim that "[Different race] are forming gangs out in the streets looking to kill all [people of your race] and that you need to buy guns to defend yourself and your family!", only for all of that to be bullshit you made up for views? You should see some severe consequence for that.


Of course that's a very, very slippery slope. I wouldn't even know how to enforce that without turning things into a dystopia.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

woodman posted...

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.

Only by today's American standards

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is authoritarianism. The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.

I'm not a political scientist, but I know that isn't necessarily true.
---

woodman posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

woodman posted...

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.

Only by today's American standards

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is authoritarianism. The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.

I'm not a political scientist, but I know that isn't necessarily true.

It is from the extent that right believes in less government and the left believes in more government.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

woodman posted...

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.

Only by today's American standards

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is authoritarianism. The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.

like have you never seen that alignment chart with the four quadrants?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.

Ah Fuck, maybe I'm the extreme right then. :P

Assuming "Burning the government to the ground and starting over again" can count as "anarchy".
---

I feel that historically, anarachy has always been much more closely associated with the left

no idea what jak is trying to say here. Actually, no, I get it. He's just wrong
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Perhaps. But that doesn't justify taking it out on people who have nothing to do with what your gripe is. Fucking up a small business because a cop shot a man does.... absolutely nothing positive.

If you condemn riots then you must condemn the conditions that lead to riots just as vigorously as you condemn the riots.

Unless you're as intellectually disingenuous as some of our friends in this topic series, that is.
---

woodman posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Modern mainstream conservatives (one might use the term "neoconservatives")

One might be incorrect, because "neoconservatism" refers to a specific philosophy and isn't synonymous with the more general category of "conservatism". Having right-leaning social views wouldn't make one a neoconservative, for example; it's instead defined by foreign policy attitudes.

Foreign policy attitudes such as being welcoming towards immigration. You're right in a broader sense, but the split between neoconservatives and alt-right is predicated on their differing beliefs towards globalism (in the real sense, not the Vlado sense).
---

On what an alt-left would look like...well, the alt-right lines up with politicians backed by Putin, and reads websites with similar headlines to Russia Today, so we can look at similar politicians on the left.

Like, you know, Jill Stein:
https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_22/1955941/170405-putin-flynn-dinner-jhc-1700_9121372097e5ea9e24a31d275df4466c.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg

And the leader of the Calexit campaign:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/politics/calexit-leader-russia/index.html

Not those two necessarily, but the die hard supporters they have.

(Also, arguably, the die-hard Bernie supporters who voted Trump just to try and burn the country to the ground so that Bernie could get elected next time).
---

Peace___Frog posted...

If you condemn riots then you must condemn the conditions that lead to riots just as vigorously as you condemn the riots.

I always condemn [local sports team] winning and/or losing the championship.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Ah Fuck, maybe I'm the extreme right then. :P

Assuming "Burning the government to the ground and starting over again" can count as "anarchy".

depends on what you mean by "starting over again." if it's "having anything that resembles government" then no.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

Perhaps. But that doesn't justify taking it out on people who have nothing to do with what your gripe is. Fucking up a small business because a cop shot a man does.... absolutely nothing positive.

If you condemn riots then you must condemn the conditions that lead to riots just as vigorously as you condemn the riots.

Unless you're as intellectually disingenuous as some of our friends in this topic series, that is.

A cop shooting a man attacking him and trying to steal his gun is not grounds to riot.
---

FFDragon posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

If you condemn riots then you must condemn the conditions that lead to riots just as vigorously as you condemn the riots.

I always condemn [local sports team] winning and/or losing the championship.

Ok i laughed
---

DeepsPraw posted...

I feel that historically, anarachy has always been much more closely associated with the left

no idea what jak is trying to say here. Actually, no, I get it. He's just wrong

Yeah, I'm speaking philosophically but practical examples are sure a lot more complex.

What I'm getting at is what Corrik said. What does it mean to be "left?" It means you want more government. What does it mean to be "right?" It means you want less government.

The fact that those basic principles don't apply in reality is why we have so many other subcategories of political ideology. It also gets mixed up a lot with what KIND of government you want more/less of, to complicate things even farther.

I stand by my claim that actual German Nazis would be "alt-left" by today's standards. They want a socialist economy that's ethnically pure by force. Alt-right style is a capitalist economy that's ethnically pure by force.

The funny thing is, as foolmo will so readily tell you, that if you want both a capitalist marketplace and for the participants in that marketplace to be determined by force, you don't ACTUALLY want a capitalist marketplace.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

If you condemn riots then you must condemn the conditions that lead to riots just as vigorously as you condemn the riots.

Unless you're as intellectually disingenuous as some of our friends in this topic series, that is.

I feel that glosses over the point that innocent people are often in the crossfire of riots.

IF what caused the riot is actually awful then yes I'd condemn it. I suppose my concern is what makes a riot "understandable" rather than whatever or not one is justified(I don't consider any riot to be just).


And I'm far from a saint. I understand that people get angry for a reason, and I understand the idea of vengeance. Let's say someone hurt your child(hypothetical or otherwise). You decide to beat them within an inch of their life for it. Is that assault? Yes. Is that wrong? Yes. Do I understand why you did it? Absolutely.


But let's say someone hurts your child and you hurt the child of that person in response. You dragged an innocent person into things, which is unacceptable.

Rioting inevitably drags people involved into things. Where as protest can be far more focused on the people responsible. Granted you'll more than likely have to inconvenience people who aren't involved....
---

Jakyl25 posted...

woodman posted...

Despite the name, Nazism is a far right movement, you know, being fascist and all.

Only by today's American standards

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is authoritarianism. The logical extreme of rightist(?) philosophy is anarchy.

Actually, the logical extreme of rightist philosophy is fascism.

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is... um... now this one I'm not sure about. Communism?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

depends on what you mean by "starting over again." if it's "having anything that resembles government" then no.

Then no then. My idea(idealistic as it is) would be to essentially remove the government entirely, then start over from the bottom up. Making sure only people who are fit for the job and will actually help the common people over their rich friends get in.

It's a nice dream.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

The logical extreme of leftist philosophy is... um... now this one I'm not sure about. Communism?

In the authoritarian sense, yes, that is what I believe it would be.

Government forcefully pushing every facet of the economy and social concepts towards a pure equality, and what "equality" is is determined solely by said government.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

depends on what you mean by "starting over again." if it's "having anything that resembles government" then no.

Then no then. My idea(idealistic as it is) would be to essentially remove the government entirely, then start over from the bottom up. Making sure only people who are fit for the job and will actually help the common people over their rich friends get in.

It's a nice dream.

Mr. Washington Goes To...Washington
---

I'm just going to excerpt Andrew Sullivan (who, I remind you, is an actual conservative) at length this week:

I was mulling, as one does, over this presidency, and something crystallized in my head that I had not quite grasped before. Its policies are best described as simply perverse. The new Senate health-care bill is just the latest shining example. As Peter Suderman explains, it certainly isn’t based on any serious conservative ideas about reforming health care; it has no vision of how it wants health care to be organized; the loss of health care for the working poor will be most intense in Republican districts; and, just as important, a huge amount of it is simply kicked into the future — and could easily be forestalled or nullified by future Congresses and presidents. For good measure, by ending many of the taxes in the bill that make it work, and by removing the individual mandate, it risks sending the insurance markets into a deeper crisis.

So what on earth is the point? For Trump, it seems to me, the whole point is to have a “win.” He doesn’t give a shit about what the bill actually contains. He’ll just lie about it afterward and assume his cult followers will believe him. For Ryan, it’s just a way to make a future tax cut for the superrich more budget-friendly, while pushing the political costs of shredding Medicaid onto some future sucker.

And then you think about those tax cuts Ryan wants so badly. We are told that these cuts will spark so much growth they will pay for themselves — and more. And yet if there is one thing we really do know by now, it is that this strategy has spectacularly failed and failed again to work. Reagan’s tax cuts left the U.S. with an unprecedented peacetime deficit; George W. Bush inherited a small surplus and, after his tax cuts didn’t spur higher growth, handed Obama a Treasury close to bankrupt. In Kansas, the exact same strategy has incurred so much debt that a supermajority of the legislature, led by Republicans, have junked it. To pursue it a third time on a national scale is the definition of madness.

We are also living in an era of extreme inequality. Any responsible politician would be trying to find a way to ameliorate this, if for no other reason than it is deeply dangerous for the stability of our society and the health of our democracy. And yet the policy of the Republicans is to further increase such inequality to levels beyond even the robber-baron era. Again, the only word for this is … perverse.

Ditto, for that matter, the idea that coal is the future of energy, and that climate change is a hoax. There was absolutely no point in withdrawing from the nonbinding Paris Accord — which is why Trump is now lying by claiming, as he did last Wednesday night, that it was binding. It was an utterly pointless way to isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world, and cede leadership to China.

Elsewhere in foreign policy, we have just begun a deepening of the war in Afghanistan, the longest in American history, with no strategy in place. We’ve also junked the very careful limits that Obama put on the war against ISIS, leading to increasingly dangerous conflict with the Russians. And we now have a broader Middle East policy that has needlessly junked the core gain of the Obama years. The opening to Iran gave the U.S. far more leverage in the region, balancing out our previous Sunni commitments with a Shiite counterweight. Now Trump has fully committed the United States to one side of an intra-Muslim divide, while trashing Qatar, which houses the most important military base in the entire region. Again: perverse.

The only theme I can infer is this: Whatever Obama did, Trump will try to undo. The perversity is the flip side of spite.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/andrew-sullivan-the-perverse-presidency-of-donald-trump.html
---