American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

I read it differently.  The divorce from European values isn't referring to socialism, and is barely referring to wokeism (but along with immigration they sure are useful to win an election).

US view since WW2:

It must be a policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.

US view under Trump (and the article argues, after Trump):

"If [Nato countries] don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them.

Trump thinks we've been taken for a ride, paying for EU security that they themselves should have been covering.  I'll give him this.  At the World Economic Forum in Davos, 2013, Merkel said that Europe had only 7% of the global population and produced only 25% of the global GDP, but that it accounted for almost 50% of global social expenditure.  They were able to do that in no small part because they could skimp on their military.  What I won't give him is praising Putin.  Putin tosses critics out of windows or puts polonium in their tea.  He jails people who dare to run against him.  He owns the courts and the media, and has systematically eliminated dissent.  I don't want to live in Russia.  Nor can I accept him threatening to take Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, or Gaza.  Threatening allies, praising dictators, and ignoring the rule of law aren't just European values he's pivoting from...they are American values as well and he's going to learn that lesson in the midterms.

Darrell

P.S. Trump is greatly expanding the power of the presidency to enact his agenda, and for those cheering him on...don't ever claim you are for small government again.  He hasn't defied a court order yet, and I hope he never does.  Once that rubicon is crossed we're basically Venezuela or Turkey.

[darrelljs]

Remind me not share articles discussing major shifts in the world order, since they are apparently "fluff" .

Darrell

[T-hawk]

I read it differently.  The divorce from European values isn't referring to socialism, and is barely referring to wokeism (but along with immigration they sure are useful to win an election).

It wasn't the point of the article, but that's how it came from the US electorate. Trump wasn't elected for his positions regarding Europe, it was for repudiating the socialist and wokeist nonsense of the Democrats. The Europe divorce is baggage that's coming along with Trump. The article is trying to frame that as a central concern when it really wasn't, and that's part of why it comes across as weakly written.

P.S. Trump is greatly expanding the power of the presidency to enact his agenda, and for those cheering him on...don't ever claim you are for small government again.  He hasn't defied a court order yet, and I hope he never does.  Once that rubicon is crossed we're basically Venezuela or Turkey.

I'll agree here that this is a concern. But I'll give some counterpoints.

Even for all the fury around Jan 6th and the Georgia court case, ultimately Trump did leave office lawfully and peacefully then. And given that that held up once, any entity that would be involved in getting him out of office if necessary would have that much stronger a leg to stand on to do it again.

And as for expanding the power of the presidency... this is whataboutism, but Trump is just following what the Obama and Biden administrations did in that area. Biden outright knowingly issued orders, regarding Covid vaccine mandates and handouts for canceling student loans (financial appropriations must originate in Congress), that were outright unconstitutional from day one and were shrugged off with a "we're doing it anyway" attitude. I'll agree that we need to roll power away from the presidency back towards Congress and the courts, but both parties need to do it.

As for annexing Greenland or Canada or Panama... none of that is really going to happen. Remember Trump's history as a deal-maker and negotiator. This is what you do. You throw some big crazy idea on the table, even if completely outlandish, and see where the thought goes and if anything might stick or come from it. No we're not annexing Greenland by force or even buying it. But if the posturing gets Denmark to agree to some more favorable deal regarding fish exports or whatever, then that's still some kind of win. Same for the "nuke a hurricane" thing when that happened, that was not any kind of serious proposal, just a thought balloon wondering if military-grade weapons might be able to do anything in such a situation, and when the answer was no, then it all passed by with no consequence.

Of course, the perpetual media outrage machine reports all his words verbatim to make him sound like a maniac. Because they know the idiots will lap it up, either because they don't know any better to think past the words, or because they like letting themselves get outraged because getting outraged is fun.

Finally, just some amusing but also true thoughts: someone pointed out that no Republican would ever take Canada as a state, because it'd be 54 guaranteed-liberal electoral votes. And if Trump tries to run for a third term, then the Democrats will run Obama and he'd win that matchup easily.

[Mjmd]

Trump won because hate is a powerful weapon in regards to the "other" (trans people and immigrants in this case). Also, people don't like inflation regardless of its complexity.

Even if "taking over x country" is part of the negotiating tactic its a bad one. Trump sees everything individually transactional and yes he pushes hard on those individual deals. But words matter. Canadians aren't going to stop boycotting US goods if we suddenly make nice. Right now the US has over half the arms export market, but if we aren't predictable and overly use that leverage we will lose it. When most presidents say "NATO you are underspending on defense" what they really meant was "please buy some more American stuff and we will be good". But if you are threatening to invade NATO countries suddenly its risky to buy things from the US. Again, short term probably doesn't matter. But you can see in Europes arms build up plans a lot of them are focusing more on buying European, whereas previously they bought a lot of American. Next time we need "x" thing Europe will also see it as transactional.

Edit: btw I always love the argument "well Trump left office eventually AFTER the coup was stopped"........

[darrelljs]

I read it differently.  The divorce from European values isn't referring to socialism, and is barely referring to wokeism (but along with immigration they sure are useful to win an election).

It wasn't the point of the article, but that's how it came from the US electorate.  Trump wasn't elected for his positions regarding Europe, it was for repudiating the socialist and wokeist nonsense of the Democrats.  The Europe divorce is baggage that's coming along with Trump.  The article is trying to frame that as a central concern when it really wasn't, and that's part of why it comes across as weakly written.

P.S. Trump is greatly expanding the power of the presidency to enact his agenda, and for those cheering him on...don't ever claim you are for small government again.  He hasn't defied a court order yet, and I hope he never does.  Once that rubicon is crossed we're basically Venezuela or Turkey.

I'll agree here that this is a concern.  But I'll give some counterpoints.

Even for all the fury around Jan 6th and the Georgia court case, ultimately Trump did leave office lawfully and peacefully then.  And given that that held up once, any entity that would be involved in getting him out of office if necessary would have that much stronger a leg to stand on to do it again.

And as for expanding the power of the presidency... this is whataboutism, but Trump is just following what the Obama and Biden administrations did in that area.  Biden outright knowingly issued orders, regarding Covid vaccine mandates and handouts for canceling student loans (financial appropriations must originate in Congress), that were outright unconstitutional from day one and were shrugged off with a "we're doing it anyway" attitude.  I'll agree that we need to roll power away from the presidency back towards Congress and the courts, but both parties need to do it.

As for annexing Greenland or Canada or Panama... none of that is really going to happen.  Remember Trump's history as a deal-maker and negotiator.  This is what you do.  You throw some big crazy idea on the table, even if completely outlandish, and see where the thought goes and if anything might stick or come from it.  No we're not annexing Greenland by force or even buying it.  But if the posturing gets Denmark to agree to some more favorable deal regarding fish exports or whatever, then that's still some kind of win.  Same for the "nuke a hurricane" thing when that happened, that was not any kind of serious proposal, just a thought balloon wondering if military-grade weapons might be able to do anything in such a situation, and when the answer was no, then it all passed by with no consequence.

Of course, the perpetual media outrage machine reports all his words verbatim to make him sound like a maniac.  Because they know the idiots will lap it up, either because they don't know any better to think past the words, or because they like letting themselves get outraged because getting outraged is fun.

Finally, just some amusing but also true thoughts: someone pointed out that no Republican would ever take Canada as a state, because it'd be 54 guaranteed-liberal electoral votes.  And if Trump tries to run for a third term, then the Democrats will run Obama and he'd win that matchup easily.

I won't respond point by point but just say in general everything you said makes sense.  And I hope you are right that he won't break the law.

Darrell

[greenline]

P.S. Trump is greatly expanding the power of the presidency to enact his agenda, and for those cheering him on...don't ever claim you are for small government again.  He hasn't defied a court order yet, and I hope he never does.  Once that rubicon is crossed we're basically Venezuela or Turkey.

That entirely depends on how you define "small government." Some people mean this to mean minimal power concentrated in one man. Part of the original American national myth is that kings are really bad, because King George III was really bad and smelly and no parliament or congress could ever be as bad as he was. This myth has already degraded significantly because America already had a king like figure, FDR, who is praised in history textbooks as the best four term el presidante for life who threatened to pack the courts to get his way on everything. Rejecting supreme executive authority means rejecting FDR and everything he did, and modern day Congress is not willing to do that. They haven't denounced him or attempted to undo his bevy of reforms. Biden, like many Democratic candidates before him, ran on being 'the next FDR'. So it is reasonable to expect that people will stop thinking that the idea of the government ruled by one man is inherently evil, or that a government ruled by a parliament, congress, or senate is inherently good.

Another way of defining "small government" might be fiscally small. This would mean deleting Social Security and Medicare.

Yet another way of defining the term would be, minimal day to day impacts from the government in the life of the average citizen. The government has a lot of laws and regulations. More tend to get added each year, and it is rarely the case that they are removed. So there are ever more ways the government can fine you, arrest you, or otherwise impede you from living your life. Trump's attacks on the civil service and the press are aimed to make the government far less intrusive in the lives of citizens. So even if the government is becoming more aggressive at attacking the civil service and the press and DC district courts and "government watchdog organizations", the end result is that the government will be less involved in your life. One could call this paleoconservatism rather than pure libertarianism, and a bunch of Trump voters are getting exactly what they wanted with these changes.

[darrelljs]

P.S. Trump is greatly expanding the power of the presidency to enact his agenda, and for those cheering him on...don't ever claim you are for small government again.  He hasn't defied a court order yet, and I hope he never does.  Once that rubicon is crossed we're basically Venezuela or Turkey.

That entirely depends on how you define "small government."

Fair.  I was thinking of it in the "don't tread on me" Tea Party sense.

Darrell