US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6691

On January 30 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:

There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that this is a temporary arrangement until Trump gets his people in place. The alternative is that Trump is reorganizing the executive bureaucracy to facilitate a preferred type of governance. Regardless, I think that there's far too much significance being attributed to this change at this time.

On January 28 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:

Here's the point that so many of you miss: every country has the right to pursue its own best interests. America is no different than anyone else in this regard. The US is neither a charity nor a global buffet line. Mexico has unequivocally abused our good will. A debt is owed, and the US has the ability to make them pay for it. Any rational actor pursuing his best interests would do what Trump is doing. Your useless moralizing has no place here.

On January 30 2017 04:05 IgnE wrote:


Thoughts like this seem extremely ominous to me. The WW1 generation has died off, one hundred years after the extremely costly lessons of what can happen in a world dominated by petty self-interest. It seems quite possible that we are entering a very dangerous era more akin to the turn of the 20th century than the properly fascistic middle 20th.

Inequality is at levels not seen since the late Gilded Age. Capital is hitting the limits of its inherent contradictions in its search for ways to reproduce itself. Is this not a renewal of imperialism in the postmodern age?

"Mexico will pay for the wall."

Border tensions growing over some insignificant islands and in Eastern Europe.

A loss of faith in an ever-growing pie and so a return to pseudomercantilist trade policies.

The real danger is that no one believes anymore in war between the great powers, even if it's abstractly acknowledged at the intellectual level.

On January 30 2017 04:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Of course not, but we're not kicking everyone out, but rather preventing new immigrants for a 90 or 120 day period from select countries while the government decides how to proceed.

I think bring frozen from your assets for 3-4 months by far isn't ideal, but I can't think of a different way to do it outside of giving these people a longer heads up.

On January 30 2017 03:47 Nevuk wrote:
Joint statement by Mccain and Graham :

On January 30 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:

There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that this is a temporary arrangement until Trump gets his people in place. The alternative is that Trump is reorganizing the executive bureaucracy to facilitate a preferred type of governance. Regardless, I think that there's far too much significance being attributed to this change at this time.

On January 30 2017 04:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I mean, the sensible way to do it is the way government almost always pursues action which is to build in implementation times and do some grandfathering. It is painfully clear Trump does not agree that this is the proper way for government to work, however.

On January 30 2017 04:27 ChristianS wrote:

Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine if Kwark were here he'd argue that imperialism never went away, and that the pseudomercantilism we see now actually undermines economic imperialism. We've got this sweet gig where you can work a minimum wage job at $10/hr, and with that wage, be able to buy hundreds of man-hours of cheap Chinese goods because they're paid like $0.13 an hour. Now a bunch of Trumpists are shouting that they want those $0.13 an hour jobs, because for some reason they think that over here that wage will be well above minimum wage, without any downsides like their dollar not going nearly as far.

On January 30 2017 04:05 IgnE wrote:


Thoughts like this seem extremely ominous to me. The WW1 generation has died off, one hundred years after the extremely costly lessons of what can happen in a world dominated by petty self-interest. It seems quite possible that we are entering a very dangerous era more akin to the turn of the 20th century than the properly fascistic middle 20th.

Inequality is at levels not seen since the late Gilded Age. Capital is hitting the limits of its inherent contradictions in its search for ways to reproduce itself. Is this not a renewal of imperialism in the postmodern age?

"Mexico will pay for the wall."

Border tensions growing over some insignificant islands and in Eastern Europe.

A loss of faith in an ever-growing pie and so a return to pseudomercantilist trade policies.

The real danger is that no one believes anymore in war between the great powers, even if it's abstractly acknowledged at the intellectual level.

On January 30 2017 03:47 Nevuk wrote:
Joint statement by Mccain and Graham :

On January 30 2017 04:05 IgnE wrote:


Thoughts like this seem extremely ominous to me. The WW1 generation has died off, one hundred years after the extremely costly lessons of what can happen in a world dominated by petty self-interest. It seems quite possible that we are entering a very dangerous era more akin to the turn of the 20th century than the properly fascistic middle 20th.

Inequality is at levels not seen since the late Gilded Age. Capital is hitting the limits of its inherent contradictions in its search for ways to reproduce itself. Is this not a renewal of imperialism in the postmodern age?

"Mexico will pay for the wall."

Border tensions growing over some insignificant islands and in Eastern Europe.

A loss of faith in an ever-growing pie and so a return to pseudomercantilist trade policies.

The real danger is that no one believes anymore in war between the great powers, even if it's abstractly acknowledged at the intellectual level.

On January 30 2017 04:40 IgnE wrote:


That's a semantic discussion about what "imperialism" is and is not. Even the pleonastic phrase "economic imperialism" doesn't help much, since all imperialism is in some sense economic. I guess what I was gesturing towards is the evolution from a US-led IMF/WorldBank/dollar hegemony which had a certain spirit of cooperation towards this antagonistic return of trade warfare and an open admission that the US will no longer just be primus inter pares but primus tout court.

The criticism of economic policy during the "pax americana" from (some of) the left, I think, has always been not that we should be less "cooperative" but rather that we did not go far enough.

On January 30 2017 04:50 ChristianS wrote:

I don't think I disagree on any particular point. xDaunt has been talking quite explicitly about how the US should not act in humanity's best interest, but aggressively pursue zero sum or even negative sum gains for Americans. Much of the world would have said we were doing that already, but there's certainly a big difference if (as seems very likely) we stop trying to convince everyone we're just trying to make the world a better place.

On January 30 2017 05:09 Simberto wrote:


And it's not even that the US is pursuing egoistic gains at the cost of others. While that would be kind of dickish, it would at least be something one could understand.

The US is pursuing ridiculously pointless things, and trying to bully others into paying for their bullshit. See mexican wall.

And that is just really sad. While i don't condone it, i can understand exploiting others for your own gain from a position of strength. But exploiting others for pointless crap that doesn't even benefit you in any way is just very short-sighted and counterproductive.

The only thing you achieve by doing that stuff is driving everyone away. Having allies is usually beneficial, and if you get rid of them, at least try to gain something for that. Driving all your allies away for nothing seems not like something that is in americas best interest.

Only a day after casting airports around the US into confusion and hours after his first defeat in federal court, Donald Trump and his advisers flew into a defense of his vague and chaotically enforced ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus appeared to concede to the courts by saying the ban would no longer apply to green-card holders. Within minutes, he contradicted himself.

On Sunday morning, meanwhile, attorneys told reporters “rogue” border patrol agents were still detaining people or trying to deport them at airports around the US, and Trump burst on to Twitter to insist only draconian measures could protect the US from outside tumult.

“Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW,” the president wrote. “Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!”

Later, he added: “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”

Trump did not acknowledge the decisions by federal judges on Saturday night, which halted deportations for people who had arrived with valid visas, including already approved refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries that he singled out with an executive order on Friday.

That order suspended the US refugee program for 120 days, ended the Syrian refugee program indefinitely and halted travel from seven countries – cutting off legal residents from their families and jobs and throwing travel authorities into confusion.

Instead, Trump denigrated the New York Times, writing: “Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!”

In extraordinary scenes around the US, scores of people were detained on arrival at airports, even though they were pre-approved or legal residents. Hundreds gathered to protest in solidarity with the travelers, and attorneys rushed to help detainees and file suits against the government.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Priebus said 325,000 travelers had entered the US on Saturday and 109 were detained.

“Most of those people were moved out,” he said. “We’ve got a couple dozen more that remain and I would suspect that as long as they’re not awful people that they will move through before another half a day today.”

In an abrupt, apparent change from the White House’s original policy, Priebus said the order would no longer affect green-card holders. But he also suggested that “other countries” may be added to the travel ban.

On January 30 2017 05:31 ZeromuS wrote:


These people aren't new immigrants. They already have their green cards, they just happen to not be in the borders when a piece of paper was signed.

I think being frozen from your assets for 3-4 months with no legal representation is inherently unjust.

You are basically accepting that the US is selling out its fundamental legal and constitutional bedrock because of xenophobia.

This is more than preventing new immigrants. If that was the case close borders to every single person in the world who doesnt have a valid visa/green card/citizenship.

If you think the ideology behind this ban isn't a ban on muslims, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Rudy Guliani admitted to it on National American television.