EPT"We love our Mexican friends. But our national interests come first and the friendship comes second" what a way to say "we're going to leave you to your own devices against our mutual more powerful neighbor."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6662
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
"We love our Mexican friends. But our national interests come first and the friendship comes second" what a way to say "we're going to leave you to your own devices against our mutual more powerful neighbor." | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45763 Posts
On January 27 2017 11:30 xDaunt wrote: Here is the Canadian perspective on Trump's assault on Mexico: Source. So does anyone really still doubt that Trump is doing the right thing for the US by going after Mexico so hard? I'm not seeing much to support the endless apologism of some Americans for Mexico. Trying to embarrass, threaten, and stiff-arm a bordering country solely to display power, since it's common knowledge that even if a border wall was created (regardless of who paid for it), it wouldn't significantly deter or decrease illegal immigration, which is already an issue that has been blown way out of proportion anyway? All that article says is that Canada is worried that after throwing a temper tantrum towards the southern border, Trump might throw one north towards Canada. That's not the "right thing" by any stretch of the imagination. I think the real question is- and I'm legitimately curious about it- has Trump done anything yet that's not completely idiotic or bad for this country or its people? The only thing I can think of is that he killed the TPP. I think that's it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
it discusses canada's current position on the issue. it has little bearing on the questions of whether the US should do it from both a moral and pragmatic perspective. and that you call what people are saying apologism for mexico is simply wrong; at least if you're talking abotu the bulk of the talk here in the thread. plasma -> i'd disagree on the tpp on two fronts. first, trump didn't kill the tpp, he just officially ended the plan for it. it was in practice dead in the water anyway though, as the senate would not have approved it, and that was the impression before the election as well. also, imho the tpp would in fact be good for america (very slightly). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 11:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think the real question is- and I'm legitimately curious about it- has Trump done anything yet that's not completely idiotic or bad for this country or its people? The only thing I can think of is that he killed the TPP. I think that's it. Without TPP, the US is ceding the largest market in the world to China. Could TPP be far better? Yes. But if China replaces the US in the TPP, US products will be copied and sold for a quarter of the price with no real deterrent, I can't see that being beneficial for the US. There are downsides of course, I just wanted to insert a pro TPP argument, since the discussion of it tends to be only negaitve. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On January 27 2017 11:30 xDaunt wrote: Here is the Canadian perspective on Trump's assault on Mexico: Source. So does anyone really still doubt that Trump is doing the right thing for the US by going after Mexico so hard? I'm not seeing much to support the endless apologism of some Americans for Mexico. noone here is saying that other countries will support Mexico and "defend" it or thinks that it would be hard for the US to do that. People are saying that if Trump does that and wants to do the same with multiple other countries as well it will come back hurting the US way more than it does good. I agree with your point if Trump plans to do this only with Mexico. It'll probably hurt both Mexico and the US a bunch but it's not the end of the world. But I don't think that's his plan, is it? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
It's one of those deals that is hard to back out of (because of its genuine benefit as a counterbalance to Chinese growth), but that was pushed into a corner by the fact that it didn't properly address the people who lost out from it. They have been treated like an inconvenient segment of the population that is just not worth addressing because globalism is good and "people will be compensated for losing out even though they never are." Perhaps it will be a lesson to politicians that you can't put "national interests" ahead of the interests of the electorate you actually serve and expect that it will all go down smoothly and happily. To be fair, I will link a "For" and "Against" case for reading for those who haven't really read much in a very twisted and complex matter that was deliberately obscured for reasons. For: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trans-pacific-partnership-the-politics-of-openness-and-leadership-in-the-asia-pacific/ Against: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On day 5 of Donald Trump’s administration, the president signed two immigration-related executive orders, officially moving forward on some of the key promises of his campaign: deporting undocumented immigrants, building a wall between the US and Mexico, and placing extra scrutiny on immigrants from Muslim countries. One order, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” targets “removable aliens”—or immigrants who either entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas—and the so-called “sanctuary city” that offer them protection against deportation. Among other measures, the order cuts federal funding to such cities (though the president might not have the authority to do so, according to New York attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman), and promises to quickly deport undocumented immigrants. While the order specifies that the order’s enforcement will prioritize undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes in the US (entering the country illegally or overstaying is a civic offense, not a crime, according to the US law), that’s not the only reason an immigrant could be removed from the US. The order also applies to the immigrants who, “in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.” Further the president said that the Secretary of Homeland Security will be publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants, and of the cities that refused to turn them in for deportation. The order doesn’t say whether the list would single out only undocumented immigrants, or all immigrants. To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens. This proposed list is a move reminiscent of Breitbart News, the conservative site founded by Trump senior advisor Steve Bannon, Trump’s senior strategy: infamously, Breitbart had a “black crime” section, opened as a response to Black Lives Matter. Source This will certainly not heal the division in the country, and will likely encourage far-right nativist crimes. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
This is the saddest thing I've seen all day, and I watched an ASPCA commercial earlier. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the tpp doesn't require the u.s. to give up much of anything. our tariffs and barriers are already pretty low. tariff reduction on the u.s. side is limited to a few protected industries like tobacco. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-US-Tariff-Elimination-Schedule.pdf trumpkins deleted the tpp link used by the previous article i linked but they didn't delete the actual tariff schedule lul. if you look at the u.s. tariffs given up it's mostly in agriculture and whatnot heavily lobbied for places. a more informative overview, 2.4. The United States maintains one of the world's most open trade regimes, with the current U.S. simple average tariff at 3.5% on a bound basis under the WTO. When FTAs, GSP, and other tariff preferences are taken into account, the U.S. trade-weighted average tariff is 1.5% on an applied basis. By comparison, simple average tariffs in our top five trading partners range from 4.2% to 9.6% and trade-weighted average tariffs range from 2.1% to 5.0%. In 2015, 50% of MFN imports and nearly 70% of all U.S. imports (including under preference programs) entered the United States duty free. U.S. service markets are open to foreign providers and U.S. regulatory processes are transparent, accessible, and open to public input. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/g350_e.pdf it's mostly pacific ring places giving up their own protection in order to counteract chinese influence in the region. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45763 Posts
On January 27 2017 11:37 zlefin wrote: plasma -> i'd disagree on the tpp on two fronts. first, trump didn't kill the tpp, he just officially ended the plan for it. it was in practice dead in the water anyway though, as the senate would not have approved it, and that was the impression before the election as well. also, imho the tpp would in fact be good for america (very slightly). On January 27 2017 11:45 mustaju wrote: Without TPP, the US is ceding the largest market in the world to China. Could TPP be far better? Yes. But if China replaces the US in the TPP, US products will be copied and sold for a quarter of the price with no real deterrent, I can't see that being beneficial for the US. There are downsides of course, I just wanted to insert a pro TPP argument, since the discussion of it tends to be only negaitve. Those are definitely fair counterpoints. I think there were a few other good points that were theorycrafted as well: "The pact aimed to deepen economic ties between these nations, slashing tariffs and fostering trade to boost growth. Members had also hoped to foster a closer relationship on economic policies and regulation." http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715 "According to research by the Peterson Institute, the deal would have increased U.S. exports by $123 billion. Using back-of-the-envelope math, Obama's White House had estimated an increase of 650,000 jobs." http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/why-trump-killed-tpp-why-it-matters-you-n710781 I'm not sure if everything would have worked out this well in practice, but certainly there are both pros and cons to the TPP! So, just to reword my original question and clarify it: Is there anything Trump has said or signed or done so far that's actually going to be a clear net-positive for America? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 27 2017 12:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: as i said earlier, higher avocado prices Those are definitely fair counterpoints. I think there were a few other good points that were theorycrafted as well: "The pact aimed to deepen economic ties between these nations, slashing tariffs and fostering trade to boost growth. Members had also hoped to foster a closer relationship on economic policies and regulation." http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715 "According to research by the Peterson Institute, the deal would have increased U.S. exports by $123 billion. Using back-of-the-envelope math, Obama's White House had estimated an increase of 650,000 jobs." http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/why-trump-killed-tpp-why-it-matters-you-n710781 I'm not sure if everything would have worked out this well in practice, but certainly there are both pros and cons to the TPP! So, just to reword my original question and clarify it: Is there anything Trump has said or signed or done so far that's actually going to be a clear net-positive for America? | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 12:18 oneofthem wrote: as i said earlier, higher avocado prices You are marketing it wrong. It's "Deluxe quality Guacamole material". The higher price signifies quality. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'm also concerned by your use of the term "vassal state" in describing canada. plas -> dunno, haven't looked at a list of everything he's done so far. can't think of anything definite offhand, but I'd have to do a full review, and there might well be something inj there. in general, unobjectionable and widely supported actions tend to get far less press coverage, because noone cares ot read about them. so something good might have happened and not been heard of. just like the bipartisan work on dealing with the opioid problem got little attention. | ||
|
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 27 2017 12:26 zlefin wrote: legal -> I've read quite a bit on the tpp, and that's an interesting article oyu add; however I find your claims about the electorate being ignored to be unfounded, and your concerns about the arbitration courts and other such things unfounded; it looks more like a diatribe put forth without an actual serious thoughtful understanding of the issues. I'm also concerned by your use of the term "vassal state" in describing canada. plas -> dunno, haven't looked at a list of everything he's done so far. can't think of anything definite offhand, but I'd have to do a full review, and there might well be something inj there. in general, unobjectionable and widely supported actions tend to get far less press coverage, because noone cares ot read about them. so something good might have happened and not been heard of. just like the bipartisan work on dealing with the opioid problem got little attention. Here's a list of executive actions at least. And a list from politico dated 25-th of January. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 27 2017 12:24 mustaju wrote: You are marketing it wrong. It's "Deluxe quality Guacamole material". The higher price signifies quality. You're complicating it--it's called alternative discounts. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 27 2017 12:49 plasmidghost wrote: Here is everything Trump promised to do in the first 100 days, needless to say, he's doing exactly what he's promised, which is respectable in some way, I guess https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf The freeze didn't exempt public health workers from what I could tell in the order. Second thing on the bloody list and it's broken. | ||
| ||
