Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

King Salman has Alzheimer's and is largely a figurehead at this point. The rest of the world may shun MBS but he can rest assured that his good friend Donald Trump will still kiss his ass because Trump loves that Riyadh dosh.

The point is more to give MBS the cold shoulder, though there isn't anybody else besides MBS that they can go to, so, it can only go so far. Whether it'll be enough to make the Saudi royal family reconsider having MBS as crown prince is another matter since that's the real threat to his power.

On the bright side, even if MBS remains in power his ambition to create a strong well-educated Saudi middle class is likely going to create the institutions which will replace him

Yeah, Xi Jinping sure looks endangered by a growing Chinese educated middle class. 
Nah, the Saudis will be fine with MBS in power as long as they get their movie theaters and Lexus SUVs.

IMHO, societies with a long history of autocracy don't automatically want to ditch autocracy just because they develop a bourgeois middle class. If anything, Western Europe was the aberration there. If the autocracy can provide them with all the creature comforts of a democracy, without any of the democratic mess, the vast majority of educated middle class people are going to be just fine with it.

Well, it's still possible for an autocracy to slowly drift over time towards democracy, which is what happened in England, though it's not really a perfectly linear thing. Still, it takes a whole bunch of things happening at the same time to actually make progress over centuries and Englands path isn't going to be perfectly replicated by anybody.

[Folly]

Sounds nice in theory, on the other hand in practice it's needlessly pornographic to select your officials from a list of liveleak users who feel compelled to listen to the sounds of someone being hacked to pieces. Leads to dangerous territory where politicians who are ordinary people are attacked for not manning up and watching the gore

There's a pretty huge gap between expecting every politician to have a blood fetish, and expecting people whose job specifically involves security to be able to endure violence when necessary.

[smjjames]

If you're going to then argue that the tapes are irrelevant and we should overlook this as a minor incident because the relationship is too important, then yeah...I think he needs to man up and listen to Khashoggi's death cries.

It's the depersonalization of evil that allows normal people to go accept it. (Not that I'd consider Bolton a "normal" person.)

Sounds nice in theory, on the other hand in practice it's needlessly pornographic to select your officials from a list of liveleak users who feel compelled to listen to the sounds of someone being hacked to pieces. Leads to dangerous territory where politicians who are ordinary people are attacked for not manning up and watching the gore

True. If the transcript was pretty detailed and convincing, I can see where he wouldn't want to listen to it. Though at least get it double checked for authenticity.

Yeah, Xi Jinping sure looks endangered by a growing Chinese educated middle class. 
Nah, the Saudis will be fine with MBS in power as long as they get their movie theaters and Lexus SUVs.

MBS does not possess the Chinese state security apparatus, while Xi Jinping does not have to deal with millions of young men whose only education is in theology and only work experience in fake government jobs. Xi Jinping has full control over every intelligence, political and military institution in his country, MBS cannot properly train his own armed forces in case they rebel. Most importantly, Xi Jinping is talented & experienced, well liked by the general populace and the civil & military branches of his government. MBS is young, inexperienced, surrounded by rival princes, clerics and officials

*EDIT
It's the difference between an absolute monarch and a presidential autocrat tbh. Not to be overlooked is how Saudi Arabia has under MBS failed in most all of its foreign policy objectives. Lost in Yemen, drove Qatar to Iran, lost Syria & Iraq, his bid to gain acceptance in the West torpedoed by Khashoggi, whilst Xi Jinping has the belt & road initiative, domestic anti-corruption crusades whilst he's winning versus the USA

Don't know about 'driving Qatar to Iran', but alienated them? Definetly.

Xi Jinping's Belt and Road initiative has gone off the rails somewhat (as you might expect of an ambitious venture), but not anywhere near what would be called a total and utter disaster.

[Madman198237]

Xi Jinping's Belt and Road initiative has gone off the rails somewhat (as you might expect of an ambitious venture), but not anywhere near what would be called a total and utter disaster.

It's ironic because if you're relying on roads you're not using railways


...I'm so sorry, I had to.

[Loud Whispers]

There's a pretty huge gap between expecting every politician to have a blood fetish, and expecting people whose job specifically involves security to be able to endure violence when necessary.

Watching a video of violence when the information it details is known is unnecessary

Don't know about 'driving Qatar to Iran', but alienated them? Definetly.

The concern is that the effort to isolate Qatar played into the hands of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s adversary in the struggle for dominance in the Middle East and the target of more sanctions by the U.S. after Trump walked away from a multilateral nuclear deal in May. It forced Qatar to rely on Iranian airspace and shipping routes. Now Qatar sees Iran as a potential partner because it is its only outlet. “Iran stands as the sole victor” from the fracturing of the Gulf, says Michael Greenwald, the former U.S. Treasury attaché to Qatar and Kuwait.

Xi Jinping's Belt and Road initiative has gone off the rails somewhat (as you might expect of an ambitious venture), but not anywhere near what would be called a total and utter disaster.

They've lost Malaysia, but gained just about everyone else from Pakistan to Sri Lanka and they're probably going to get Myanmar this year. Where has it gone off the rails? USA & Russia have failed to stop them, only India can be the saviour of Asia now

[Culise]

It's the difference between an absolute monarch and a presidential autocrat tbh. Not to be overlooked is how Saudi Arabia has under MBS failed in most all of its foreign policy objectives. Lost in Yemen, drove Qatar to Iran, lost Syria & Iraq, his bid to gain acceptance in the West torpedoed by Khashoggi, whilst Xi Jinping has the belt & road initiative, domestic anti-corruption crusades whilst he's winning versus the USA

You underestimate their ability to try to spin this sort of stuff.  They didn't "lose/bog down in Yemen," they're still "cutting enemy supply lines (international food aid/MSF buildings), attacking potential insurgents (school buses), and securing key cities (troops still contesting Hudaydah)."  They didn't "drive Qatar to Iran," they "excised a traitorous ally insidiously spreading fake news with their state-controlled media."  They didn't "lose Syria and Iraq," they "supported ongoing militant efforts to destabilize Iran's staunchest ally and the ubiquitous threat of Shi'a militias."  They didn't get torpedoed by Kashoggi, they...uh...who is this Kashoggi person?  We know no Kashoggi.  Pay no attention to the large black garbage bags behind the embassy.

Jokes about spin doctoring aside, I do agree that Mohammad bin Salman has nowhere near the political capital of Xi.  In addition to his failures, he's starting from a lower point.  The ulama of Saudi Arabia are far more fractious than the Communist Party of China, largely because the Saudi monarchy does not have the same leverage over them that the senior party members have over the Communist Party. 

[smjjames]

@LW: Partly getting slowed down in Europe and running into the same problems any project of this magnitude would run into I guess.

Anyhow, the popular vote margin difference graph at the bottom of that article really shows how Democrats crashed in terms of vote output. Needless to say, Clinton was just not a good candidate and lots of Democrats didn't show up. Let that be a lession to the Democrats going forward.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's almost as if proudly standing for your total lack of convicted principles and material ideology doesn't motivate people.

Clinton was the human incarnation of that "Why are you booing me, I'm right" meme.

[RedKing]

It's almost as if proudly standing for your total lack of convicted principles and material ideology doesn't motivate people.

Clinton was the human incarnation of that "Why are you booing me, I'm right" meme.

Speaking of Democrats having a penchant for trying bad ideas repeatedly, John Kerry is floating the idea of a 2020 run. 

[Folly]

Article

I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

Well, I feel reassured.

[smjjames]

It's almost as if proudly standing for your total lack of convicted principles and material ideology doesn't motivate people.

Clinton was the human incarnation of that "Why are you booing me, I'm right" meme.

Speaking of Democrats having a penchant for trying bad ideas repeatedly, John Kerry is floating the idea of a 2020 run. 

AFAIK, it's only him that's pushing himself to run. It seems like everybody and their <pick a close relative> wants to run or is exploring something. Hell, we just had an essentially random political nobody (a state legislator from West Virginia, forget the name which sounds Spanish, but he doesn't look hispanic. edit: Ojeda I think? Could very well have hispanic descent though.)  decide to up and run after losing a run for higher office this past midterms.

We can expect more unexpected or shooting star or dark horse/black swan/whatever metaphor/allegory/saying candidates to start coming out of the woodwork in what seems like is going to be at least as crowded a race as it was for the Republicans in 2016.

[Arcvasti]

We can expect more unexpected or shooting star or dark horse/black swan/whatever metaphor/allegory/saying candidates to start coming out of the woodwork in what seems like is going to be at least as crowded a race as it was for the Republicans in 2016.

I favour "Shooting Horse Termite" candidates.

[nenjin]

It's almost as if proudly standing for your total lack of convicted principles and material ideology doesn't motivate people.

Clinton was the human incarnation of that "Why are you booing me, I'm right" meme.

Speaking of Democrats having a penchant for trying bad ideas repeatedly, John Kerry is floating the idea of a 2020 run. 

Wheels are just turning here but....

It could be a real shit show where there is no good answer for Dems.

What if many Dems independently decide to run, and it looks like what the Republicans did, and we end up with a clusterfuck with some possibly dusty memes thrown in for good measure. If Kerry, why not Gore? Why not Hilary again? Hell why not Bernie again. If people convince themselves another 4 years of Trump is a ticket to hell in a hand basket for America, that can be motivation enough.

And if Dems go the other route, and really seriously manage the field to produce the best possible candidate to win against Trump...isn't that the kind of collusion and groupthink that led them to Hilary and froze out Bernie, and alienated a lot of Dems?

Dems need a real leader that can pull everyone back together, inspire Dems again and has enough of a backbone not to cave under Trump's particular kind of pressure.

[hector13]

Michael Avennati said he’d run.

Seems unlikely given his recent domestic violence arrest, but hey, Trump got elected on the back of rampant misogyny and racism. Who knows, maybe it’s what the electorate want?

[SalmonGod]

Dems need a real leader that can pull everyone back together, inspire Dems again and has enough of a backbone not to cave under Trump's particular kind of pressure.

I don't see it happening... there's too much of an ideological split between the centrist and progressive voters. 

First, neoliberalism is irreconcilable.  For all the old guard calls themselves pragmatic, centrist, etc and tries to distance themselves from being perceived as driven by ideology, that is an ideology they will take to their graves.  And so long as that's the case, they will not win over progressive voters, except out of critical desperation to avoid the worst possible evils.

Second, the centrist old guard needs to drop its habit of treating politics as a game with win conditions separated from actual political goals.  You can't have one of the most recognized names in the group saying "We need to adopt the right's stances on immigration in order to win elections" as the right is setting up camps and threatening mass slaughter.  That will only work for someone who does not actually care about anything but the tribal aspect of seeing that chair labeled D.  For the progressive wing, and anyone who actually cares about their platforms, if nothing you care about is being earnestly represented in the end, then you didn't win the election.

This is not a rift that can be simply tolerated for the sake of pragmatic alliance, as with the religious right/libertarian/alt-right alliance.  There's not enough alignment of desired outcomes, and often direct contradiction.  Whichever path the Democratic party chooses, they're going to struggle.