Dirius
Well-known member
"Bad Diplomacy" to criticize the use of DEATH SQUADS in the so-called "War on Drugs"?!! You gotta be kidding me!
I already replied to your first comment, I think you miss-read my other post instead of my last post.
To be a feminist is to be evolved and enlightened
- Thread starter Bunraku
- Start date
I already replied to your first comment, I think you miss-read my other post instead of my last post.
david starling
Well-known member
I don't care who is President when it comes to criticism of another country for using death squads in the so-called "War on Drugs". And the reason Duterte stood out for me was the conference of world leaders recently, where only Trudeau privately criticized him, and Duterte publicly rebuked him for it. So, if it's all right for Trump to criticize Venezuela except for threatening sanctions, why not the same for Obama and the Philippines. I'm not being partisan about it.
As far as Trump being a "dictator", he has the style of a dictator, as one might expect from a C.E.O. used to having his orders followed. But, VERY fortunately, even though he's attempting to rule using Executive Orders, our checks and balances system IS working, much to my relief. At first, I wasn't sure it would, which is when I labeled him a "dictator". Now that I see it is working, he's a "would-be dictator", with plenty of enthusiastic supporters.
But again, are YOU, yourself being partisan, or issue-oriented, when you say it's all right for Trump to criticize Venezuela, as long as sanctions aren't involved, but that it wasn't all right for Obama to criticize the Philippines? What's your criteria for that? Rule of law is rule of law, and death squads are, by definition, outside the rule of law.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Knowing you'd immediately divert this away from Trump, I already did some research. Obama signed a total of about 250. Bush Jr. signed more than Obama. Trump is on track to go way past Obama's first term numbers, because most of Obama's came in near the end of his last term. F.D.R. signed the most in history, in four terms. Looks like J.F.K. had the highest rate, since he signed so many in such a short time.
My impression is that all Presidents are would-be dictators, but our checks and balances prevents it. Here: For the Record, DJT is NOT a "dictator", as I first feared he would be allowed to be. Still a total jerk, though, [IMO].
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
EXECUTIVE ORDERS SIGNEDKnowing you'd immediately divert this away from Trump, I already did some research. Obama signed a total of about 250. Bush Jr. signed more than Obama. Trump is on track to go way past Obama's first term numbers, because most of Obama's came in near the end of his last term. F.D.R. signed the most in history, in four terms. Looks like J.F.K. had the highest rate, since he signed so many in such a short time.
My impression is that all Presidents are would-be dictators, but our checks and balances prevents it. Here: For the Record, DJT is NOT a "dictator", as I first feared he was. Still a total jerk, though, [IMO].
Bill Clinton = 308
George W. Bush = 291
Barack Obama = 276
Donald Trump = 52
david starling
Well-known member
EXECUTIVE ORDERS SIGNED
Bill Clinton = 308
George W. Bush = 291
Barack Obama = 276
Donald Trump = 52
Right, except Trump's number is for less than one year, while the others are over an 8 year span. J.F.K.'s RATE of signing might be a record, given his short time in office.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
david starling
Well-known member
EXECUTIVE ORDERS SIGNED
Bill Clinton = 308
George W. Bush = 291
Barack Obama = 276
Donald Trump = 52
If Trump keeps this rate up, and were to get 8 years in office, he would easily surpass Clinton in total number of Orders signed.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Donald Trump signed 52 as of 24 October 2017
Thanks for the clarification!
david starling
Well-known member
I'm on record rescinding my very early impression that Trump would be ABLE to assume dictatorial powers, because there appeared to be nothing preventing it. Then, the checks and balances built into our governmental system started working, and I now say, "Donald Trump is NOT able to be Dictator".
Now, Oddity, are you willing to go on record concerning whether ANY world leader using "extralegal" death squads in the "War on Drugs", SHOULD be called out on it by other world leaders? Btw, according to Duterte, Trump told him privately that, in regards to drug policies, he's "doing things the right way". Same Trump who once declared that the only solution to the drug crisis was....legalization!
Oddity
Well-known member
You're asking the wrong guy, David. Way too many years in international treaties and conflict resolution.
Let's put it this way: were I on the team, and hoped for the representatives of the other country to listen to me, it is not the first thing I would bring up. Probably not even the second thing.
I get that you may not understand the why of that.
But no, I'm not in favour of vigilantism. Never have been.
Let's put it this way: were I on the team, and hoped for the representatives of the other country to listen to me, it is not the first thing I would bring up. Probably not even the second thing.
I get that you may not understand the why of that.
But no, I'm not in favour of vigilantism. Never have been.
david starling
Well-known member
I knew THAT. So, the U.S. is ignoring the death squads in order to get Duterte to listen to....what, exactly? Gotta look the other way at all kinds of atrocities to make nice, IF there's something way more important at stake. Not seeing that here. You're giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not. It could be Trump wants to build a Trump Tower in Manila, and needs Duterte's approval--that sounds most likely. Being friendly with China expedited permits for his brothel
sorry, I mean "Escort Service" Agency there. Wants to keep his factories in China secure as well. "Make China Great Again"! 
Rawiri
Well-known member
I knew THAT. So, the U.S. is ignoring the death squads in order to get Duterte to listen to....what, exactly? Gotta look the other way at all kinds of atrocities to make nice, IF there's something way more important at stake. Not seeing that here. You're giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not. It could be Trump wants to build a Trump Tower in Manila, and needs Duterte's approval--that sounds most likely. Being friendly with China expedited permits for his brothel
It's a fairly important place to the US military wise to try and "keep China in check."
david starling
Well-known member
Uh, you're not equating Duterte's death squad drug policies with Antifa, are you? Because "vigilantism" is such a nebulous, all inclusive term. I will say, that if Antifa claimed allegiance to Trump, the uproar from the Democrats and the media would be deafening! Especially if they wore brown shirts.
Just Say NO to Death Squads! Makes these weird, anti-freespeech laws look pretty harmless in comparison. At least they're Laws, as misguided and insidious as they are.
david starling
Well-known member
I prefer a friendly relationship with China as well. I was just tweaking Trump about his failure to divest. ALL his foreign policy decisions are under suspicion because of that. He's got his mind on his money, and his money on his mind. Everything else is secondary for him.
david starling
Well-known member
The Executive Orders ability makes EVERY POTUS a potential dictator. The reason I was concerned about Trump, was that what prevents a "Dictator-in-Chief" is, that each such Order is supposed to be sent to Congress for examination. It goes into effect right away, then, it's up to the Legislative Branch to cancel or modify it, IF there are enough votes to do that. If the courts decide it's Unconstitutional, they can block it immediately. With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and a Republican-leaning Supreme Court, it looked like Trump had a blank check. Turns out, he's got a lot more opposition than it first appeared.
It now occurs to me that J.F.K. actually DID have dictatorial power, until he overreached, by planning to change the Federal Reserve system, end the War in Vietnam, and curtail the activities of the C.I.A. I mean, DUDE, what we're you THINKING?! He was President, not Superman! Even if he were Superman, they would have taken him out with some Kryptonite bullets.
It now occurs to me that J.F.K. actually DID have dictatorial power, until he overreached, by planning to change the Federal Reserve system, end the War in Vietnam, and curtail the activities of the C.I.A. I mean, DUDE, what we're you THINKING?! He was President, not Superman! Even if he were Superman, they would have taken him out with some Kryptonite bullets.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
When a president casts judgement on another democratic nation, he or she is by definition trying to promote a change by means of public shaming on moral grounds. He is also demeaning the administration of said country.
You are, as usual, putting words into my mouth. It isn't correct for either Trump or Obama to criticise fellow presidents of allied countries, but criticism usually goes hand in hand with doing something about it, like calling for sanctions, otherwise the person who makes the criticism would seem to just do empty threads, and makes him/her look bad. It also makes it hipocritical if you criticise one nation, but keep silent about similar issues in other nations.
Rule of law works as long as there is a functional goverment that is respected. If you happen to live in a nation where the court system is corrupted and impaired, the law enforcement (police/national guard) is ineffective and crime is rampant in the streets, then there isn't much to look foward regarding the rule of law. This is why I said earlier that your hollywoodean perception of the world doesn't have much room in real politics. Take Mexico as an example, do you think a citizen can take a drug dealer to court for damages to property? of course not, the citizen would be killed and the courts wouldn't even bother with the case out of fear. This is because the law system in Mexico has completely collapsed.
You are comparing the Phillippines with the U.S. disregarding the huge practical diferences in both nations, with rampant corruption higher in volume than the U.S.. For example, the communist party actually holds an illegal special militarised wing that acts on its own independant of actual goverment (and this predates Duterte), and has been breaking the law for decades using its own militia. Do you think a citizen of phillippines can take "the people's army" to court? No, the rule of law doesn't work there.
So yeah, I don't aprove of death squads either. But I'm not so dumb as to think the country should be analised with a 1st world perspective.
david starling
Well-known member
At least we agree on that last point.
Setting standards for the behavior of ALL countries, such as calling for a ban on the use of chemical weapons, "disappearing" people, and death squads, is just that--setting standards, saying something is just plain WRONG, nothing personal. Even if nothing positive can be done about it, it still should be said by Free World nations [IMO]. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Since I believe a carefully thought out end to the "War on Drugs" is a priority, and you believe that to be a wrong course of action, we'll just have to disagree on that as well.
Thanks for your consistent, well-considered reply!
Dirius
Well-known member
But here is the contradiction with that statement: you imply that a few nations should impose their own rulings and views on another nation, based according to their moral views.
I mean, you promote exactly what you seem to oppose: for one entity to impose control on the other. And you justify this based on your perception of how bad it is.
Dirius
Well-known member
I have no problem with countries legislating the use of drugs and allowing for a legal trade. I don't believe however that every society is in condition to succesfully do so.
Some countries have legalised drugs to a succesfull degree, but most of those countries were highly efficient democracies to begin with, with a low crime rate and low instances of goverment corruption, and a general custom of respecting the law by most of its citizens. The case Oddity made for legalising drugs in Canada comes as a perfect example, and I would agree with him that Canada is a prime candidate to attempt drug legislation given that it is a highly efficient country with a rather respectful society, and legalising drugs (at least some of them) would perhaps improve some of the problems they may have.
But when it comes to inefficient goverments with high levels of corruption, such as most of South America, parts of Asia or Africa, I would certainly be against drug legislation, given you would only be giving more power to those that have benefitted from the drug trade for years. I also have some views regarding imposing restrictions to the availabiliy of certain drugs, and also the implications of certain habits in society, but most of these can be debated in an ordained fashion. Also in most of these countries, large drug cartel conglomerates exist, which should be utterly destroyed.
Last edited: