America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

Do you think if America removed all of its laws it would be a free and fair place?

I'm wondering why you think Trump advocating for the dropping of trade barriers and tariffs equates to dropping all laws. Do you not believe in free and fair trade and thus equate it to dropping all laws?

 

[baldgye]

I'm wondering why you think Trump advocating for the dropping of trade barriers and tariffs equates to dropping all laws. Do you not believe in free and fair trade and thus equate it to dropping all laws?

I'm bored explaining things to you, so instead I'll clue you in as to why free trade =/= fair trade.

...most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources.

Via

I also want to remind you of that time you told me to google something I asked you, but I guess this is another case of, one rule for you, another rule for someone else.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm bored explaining things to you, so instead I'll clue you in as to why free trade =/= fair trade.


Via

I also want to remind you of that time you told me to google something I asked you, but I guess this is another case of, one rule for you, another rule for someone else.

You want me to google your opinion So I gather from this mishmash that you don't believe in free and fair trade. Do you have an argument to make or are you just going to post links? I still don't understand how free and fair trade = dropping all your laws. Do you have a link for that?

protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources.
Via

I take it then that you support Trump's recent round of tariffs given America's huge trade imbalances?

 

[baldgye]

You want me to google your opinion So I gather from this mishmash that you don't believe in free and fair trade. Do you have an argument to make or are you just going to post links? I still don't understand how free and fair trade = dropping all your laws. Do you have a link for that?

I take it then that you support Trump's recent round of tariffs given America's huge trade imbalances?

So in your mind, it's either free trade, or trade warfare?

 

[Joey D]

If we get the EU to drop tariffs then great and that's a win for the market. However, I don't think the means justify the end. Even if the tariffs were dropped today, the repercussions will be felt for some time.

I really don't understand bailing out farmers either. I mean I do in the sense that demographic is typically in the "Trump supporter" category, so it's all about gathering votes. But I don't want my tax dollars going to any bailout. If your company cannot survive in the market, you need to go out of business. Sell your farmland to someone if you can't stay afloat. Or you know, elect people that understand random tariffs are unconstitutional and bad for the economy.

 

[PocketZeven]

I chose the words, "constantly criticizing the press" instead of "criticizing the press" purposely. While other Presidents or those that worked close to them have been critical of the press in the past, it was either a one time thing or sporadic in nature. Obama took it to another level with his many, many, many mentions of Fox News in press conferences and interviews. The internet is a thing now and these references to his enemies in the press are readily available with a button push for all the world to see. We don't need to wait for Time to write an article about it to be reminded like we did 40 years ago. IMO he often came across as smug, condescending and arrogant to a lot of Americans while doing so with his little smirk and chuckle and it definitely played a part in Hillary's stunning and unpredictable but crushing defeat.

So to me it looks like Obama set the stage for a President to openly criticize his enemies in the press core unabated. Thing is, Obama had all the press on his side but one and now the roles are reversed and Trump has all but one against him, in the MSM at least. I'm not a fan of Trump's actions in this regard any more than I was a fan of Obama's constantly criticizing Fox, I'd rather think the Presidents were above that sort of petty nonsense. But, like Clinton helped opened the door for a President to be a serial philanderer with no political consequences, Obama opened the door to be openly critical of the press you don't like on a regular basis.

In my world criticising the press is a whole different league with accusing the press fake news and the enemy of the puclic.

You don't think free and fair trade is a worthy goal?

I'm bored explaining things to you, so instead I'll clue you in as to why free trade =/= fair trade.


Via

I also want to remind you of that time you told me to google something I asked you, but I guess this is another case of, one rule for you, another rule for someone else.

Free and fair dont go well together and would be devastating for the US economy. A lot of US businesses would go out of business.

Edit: added comment free trade.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So in your mind, it's either free trade, or trade warfare?

You began by equating dropping barriers to trade as having no laws and are bobbing and weaving and avoiding explaining how those two things are the same thing in your opinion. Your link seems to support the President's current contention that tariffs are necessary to protect the national interest because of huge trade imbalances. Your positions seem contradictory. If you don't want to answer any questions, flesh out your opinions and just respond with Wiki quotes I suppose that'll have to do.

In my world criticising the press is a whole different league with accusing the press fake news and the enemy of the puclic.

Obama inferred over and over that Fox News was "fake news" without ever using the word fake news. The biggest difference between him and Trump is that while Obama only had to face David, Trump is facing Goliath and Trump simply isn't as eloquent and politically correct with his criticisms. At the heart of the matter, both have the same criticisms of the press, one just packaged it up with more palatable wrapping.

Free and fair dont go well together and would be devastating for the US economy. A lot of US businesses would go out of business.

How so? Which ones and why?

 

[baldgye]

You began by equating dropping barriers to trade as having no laws and are bobbing and weaving and avoiding explaining how those two things are the same thing in your opinion. Your link seems to support the President's current contention that tariffs are necessary to protect the national interest because of huge trade imbalances. Your positions seem contradictory. If you don't want to answer any questions, flesh out your opinions and just respond with Wiki quotes I suppose that'll have to do.

1. I began by comparing two things that, in principle are similar.
2. I then explained one of those things.
3. I then asked you a question.
It isnt a riddle. If you think me, literally linking a definition, is me agreeing with president Trump, then I’m not sure how to proceed.

You claim I hold a contradictory stance, yet fail to understand what free and fair trade is. It’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who has zero grasp of the topic being discussed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

American has another go at foreign history, usual facepalming results. It'll still be better than Braveheart though, surely?

 

[PocketZeven]

You began by equating dropping barriers to trade as having no laws and are bobbing and weaving and avoiding explaining how those two things are the same thing in your opinion. Your link seems to support the President's current contention that tariffs are necessary to protect the national interest because of huge trade imbalances. Your positions seem contradictory. If you don't want to answer any questions, flesh out your opinions and just respond with Wiki quotes I suppose that'll have to do.

Obama inferred over and over that Fox News was "fake news" without ever using the word fake news. The biggest difference between him and Trump is that while Obama only had to face David, Trump is facing Goliath and Trump simply isn't as eloquent and politically correct with his criticisms. At the heart of the matter, both have the same criticisms of the press, one just packaged it up with more palatable wrapping.

How so? Which ones and why?

As i remember other news outlets had been critical about Obama. Obama only got frustrated by personal attacks and especially the birther movement.
Inferring and literally calling the press "fake news" do carry very different weight to it. The public is watching! And calling them the enemy of the people is a one way ticket to totaliarism. And if he was just criticizing the mainstream media for being biased and dishonest at times, I wouldnt have a problem with him, but "enemy of the people" is just going too far.

Wich businesses would go out of business? Most domestic industies the US have been having trouble in recent decades. The automotiveindustry, the Luxury market, farmers (food industry), energy etc. That is what I see in first glance at the trade deficit. But I could somebody with more indepth knowledge tell me what the US greatest exports to the EU are? And which are hindered by tariffs?

And by the way, looking for free trade without tariffs and regulations will also mean the same for asia. That would mean the end of the majority manufacturing job in the US (and EU)

America does have a lead in the tech industry... but that isnt a tradeable commodity.

 

[Imari]

Obama inferred over and over that Fox News was "fake news" without ever using the word fake news. The biggest difference between him and Trump is that while Obama only had to face David, Trump is facing Goliath and Trump simply isn't as eloquent and politically correct with his criticisms. At the heart of the matter, both have the same criticisms of the press, one just packaged it up with more palatable wrapping.

What I've seen of Obama was him pointing out that some news outlets will mislead or lie for ratings. That's not exactly revolutionary thought, we all know this. That's why we mock The Daily Mail every time it tries to make out like it's a journalist. That's why we laugh at InfoWars. Because it's absolutely true, there are those organisations out there. For Obama, there were outlets that were pushing the incorrect story that he was not a US citizen.

A lot of the time Trump seems to get perilously close to claiming that all major news outlets mislead and lie, either for ratings or to undermine him or just because they're evil. He has tried to call news organisations out as misrepresenting what he's said or done when there's actual extant video or audio that proves the contrary. That's where I feel like there's kind of a difference.

Pointing out that some news outlets are untrustworthy and that viewers should be critical of what they consume is good advice. Identifying specific outlets that have lied is useful information. Trying to paint the entire mainstream media as inherently untrustworthy is destructive and comes off awfully close to information obfuscation, where any information is so clouded that it becomes a nearly impossible task to determine the truth. In such circumstances people will go with their hearts rather than their minds, which can often be kind of dangerous.

 

[Biggles]

Obama inferred over and over that Fox News was "fake news" without ever using the word fake news.

LOL. "Inferred"? Really?

US presidents have been criticized in the press, often ferociously, & often on a partisan basis, since the founding of the republic. Calling the press the "enemy of the people" - not, mind you, the enemy of himself, but of the "people", that sounds like something right out of a fascist, or communist totalitarian playbook.

 

[Danoff]

LOL. "Inferred"? Really?

US presidents have been criticized in the press, often ferociously, & often on a partisan basis, since the founding of the republic. Calling the press the "enemy of the people" - not, mind you, the enemy of himself, but of the "people", that sounds like something right out of a fascist, or communist totalitarian playbook.

I agree and it should be a serious concern for anyone who values human rights, the US constitutional protections of those rights, limited government, and freedom in general. In other words, the usual battle cry of the very demographic that supported Trump in the first place.

I do not understand why one side of the aisle regards the 2nd amendment so highly and is willing to ignore the 1st other than perhaps sheer complacency.

 

[DDastardly00]

The national news Media is dishonest now days. It's getting harder to find honest news, and everything we do read is ratings-driven with some sort of spin added. They are one small step removed from the National Enquirer. That statement applies to pretty much every major network and affiliate. Local news outfits (which unfortunately most are owned by these major networks) are a tad bit more honest for the most part. Industry consolidation has contributed to the narrowing of honest sources, just about everything is owned by Time Warner (CNN), Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC)and the News Corporation (fox).

 

[baldgye]

The national news Media is dishonest now days. It's getting harder to find honest news, and everything we do read is ratings-driven with some sort of spin added. They are one small step removed from the National Enquirer. That statement applies to pretty much every major network and affiliate. Local news outfits (which unfortunately most are owned by these major networks) are a tad bit more honest for the most part.

reject the evidence of your eyes and ears

 

[PocketZeven]

I agree and it should be a serious concern for anyone who values human rights, the US constitutional protections of those rights, limited government, and freedom in general. In other words, the usual battle cry of the very demographic that supported Trump in the first place.

I do not understand why one side of the aisle regards the 2nd amendment so highly and is willing to ignore the 1st other than perhaps sheer complacency.

That just isnt factually true... Unless perhaps you get your news from Facebook and/or social media...Also you need to differentiate news with (opiniated) talkshows. The problem is there too many real deliberate "fake news" websites, that try to resemble mainstream media, which discredited the image a lot. For example those robot-voiced youtube newschannels, websites like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites etc.

The actual mainstream media can be somewhat biased and are prone to mistakes once in a while.... But in general try to be factual and do their due diligence.

 

[Biggles]

I agree and it should be a serious concern for anyone who values human rights, the US constitutional protections of those rights, limited government, and freedom in general. In other words, the usual battle cry of the very demographic that supported Trump in the first place.

I do not understand why one side of the aisle regards the 2nd amendment so highly and is willing to ignore the 1st other than perhaps sheer complacency.

I don't think it's complacency. A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated. Additionally, there seems to be a strain of anti-neo con isolationism combined weirdly with a traditional Republican militaristic, aggressive foreign policy stance.

Trump has, somehow, managed to co-opt a big chunk of the mainstream Republican party, but I can't imagine he's impressing many in the libertarian wing of the Republican party, let alone actual libertarians (other than the schizophrenic Dotini). I think there's still a distinct possibility that Trump will collapse the GOP & lead to it splintering into different factions.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think it's complacency. A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated. Additionally, there seems to be a strain of anti-neo con isolationism combined weirdly with a traditional Republican militaristic, aggressive foreign policy stance.

Trump has, somehow, managed to co-opt a big chunk of the mainstream Republican party, but I can't imagine he's impressing many in the libertarian wing of the Republican party, let alone actual libertarians (other than the schizophrenic Dotini). I think there's still a distinct possibility that Trump will collapse the GOP & lead to it splintering into different factions.

That would be a giant step to a real democracy! But very unlikely. The 2 party system has been imbedded in the US culture far too long. But if that ever happens, I am sure the Democratic party will split into factions as well. Which will bring democrats and republicans together and a large "centre" party will arise.

 

[Dotini]

Snippet of Ross Douthat's opinion in the NY Times:

Wandering and arguing at FreedomFest offered grist for both understandings of how libertarianism relates, or doesn’t, to Trumpism. Plenty of attendees were fiercely #NeverTrump and regarded him as an enemy of their ideals. But there were also plenty of people, like one of my sparring partners, former Libertarian Party V.P. nominee Wayne Allyn Root, ready to defend Trump with a true believer’s gusto.

You can see this same division among libertarian’s political champions in Washington, D.C. The Michigan Congressman Justin Amash has been a frequent thorn in Trump’s side, and he reacted to the Helsinki business with a tweetstorm criticizing Trump’s servile attitude toward Putin as something that even foreign policy doves should find disturbing.

While that was happening, though, Rand Paul was taking a very different tack in the Senate — running interference for our Putin-besotted president, and defending his weird Russia diplomacy as the best alternative to war.

Amash’s approach is intellectually admirable; Paul’s is probably more in tune with what a lot of self-described libertarian voters currently want. Which leaves libertarianism in much the same difficult position as other forms of conservatism under Trump.

His ascent has a lot to teach ideological purists about the political limits of their theories, the need to temper dogma with more contingent wisdom. But learning those lessons without surrendering to Trumpian whims requires a discipline that even Ayn Rand’s supermen might struggle to maintain. And libertarians, alas, are as fallen as the rest of us.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/sunday/libertarians-in-the-age-of-trump.html

 

[DDastardly00]

I don't think it's complacency. A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated. Additionally, there seems to be a strain of anti-neo con isolationism combined weirdly with a traditional Republican militaristic, aggressive foreign policy stance.

Trump has, somehow, managed to co-opt a big chunk of the mainstream Republican party, but I can't imagine he's impressing many in the libertarian wing of the Republican party, let alone actual libertarians (other than the schizophrenic Dotini). I think there's still a distinct possibility that Trump will collapse the GOP & lead to it splintering into different factions.

Fringe elements exist in both parties but I would hesitate to call either significant. I think the silent majority rules all while the focus tends to be on the loudest voices in the room.

---

Came across this the other day from fivethirtyeight.com and this is really why Hillary lost. Quote unquote "Undecided voters" (this would imply independent voters, not raving lunatics from the fringe) voted overwhelmingly for Trump. I would imagine that this includes the disenfranchised Bernie supporters as well.

Trump won voters who decided in the last week of the campaign by a 59-30 margin in Wisconsin, 55-38 in Florida, 54-37 in Pennsylvania and 50-39 in Michigan, according to exit polls, which was enough to flip the outcome of those four states and their 75 combined electoral votes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/

 

[PocketZeven]

Fringe elements exist in both parties but I would hesitate to call either significant. I think the silent majority rules all while the focus tends to be on the loudest voices in the room.

---

Came across this the other day from fivethirtyeight.com and this is really why Hillary lost. Quote unquote "Undecided voters" (this would imply independent voters, not raving lunatics from the fringe) voted overwhelmingly for Trump. I would imagine that this includes the disenfranchised Bernie supporters as well.

I dont understand why the electoral college, germandaring still exist in modern USA.

 

[TexRex]

I dont understand why the electoral college, germandaring still exist in modern USA.

Even though I feel as though I've been screwed by it twice in recent history, I get the electoral college.

Gerrymandering (for either side's benefit) on the other hand...

 

[DDastardly00]

I dont understand why the electoral college, germandaring still exist in modern USA.

I've seen the arguments for and against the electoral college that have come up since the election and I mostly agree with this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.b9273e6402b3

 

[PocketZeven]

Even though I feel as though I've been screwed by it twice in recent history, I get the electoral college.

Gerrymandering (for either side's benefit) on the other hand...

That's it. You cant argue the popular vote (if done correctly). I have read a lot about the electoral college.... but still it doesnt make any sense for it to exist.

 

[Biggles]

Fringe elements exist in both parties but I would hesitate to call either significant. I think the silent majority rules all while the focus tends to be on the loudest voices in the room.
.

I'm not talking about fringe elements, I'm talking about the bedrock support & the bedrock attitudes that continue to stand behind Trump.

Came across this the other day from fivethirtyeight.com and this is really why Hillary lost. Quote unquote "Undecided voters" (this would imply independent voters, not raving lunatics from the fringe) voted overwhelmingly for Trump. I would imagine that this includes the disenfranchised Bernie supporters as well.

No, of course raving lunatics did not swing the election Trump's way. I think Hillary lost because (in no particular order):

1) She was a woman
2) She was a Clinton with a lifetime's baggage in political life
3) She wasn't a very strong campaigner & lacked personal appeal
4) The Democrats made strategic errors in approaching the electoral college
5) Bernie supporters were disillusioned by the DNC stacking the deck against Bernie
6) The smears & innuendo against Hillary & the Clintons were unending & culminated in the Comey Emails fiasco days before the election. I think this last was the final straw that may have swung undecided voters to move to Trump & may have decided the election.

BUT how many of those "independent voters" would vote for Trump now?

His ascent has a lot to teach ideological purists about the political limits of their theories, the need to temper dogma with more contingent wisdom. But learning those lessons without surrendering to Trumpian whims requires a discipline that even Ayn Rand’s supermen might struggle to maintain. And libertarians, alas, are as fallen as the rest of us.

That's what I've been trying to point out to some people ... for years.

 

[Danoff]

Snippet of Ross Douthat's opinion in the NY Times:

Wandering and arguing at FreedomFest offered grist for both understandings of how libertarianism relates, or doesn’t, to Trumpism. Plenty of attendees were fiercely #NeverTrump and regarded him as an enemy of their ideals. But there were also plenty of people, like one of my sparring partners, former Libertarian Party V.P. nominee Wayne Allyn Root, ready to defend Trump with a true believer’s gusto.

You can see this same division among libertarian’s political champions in Washington, D.C. The Michigan Congressman Justin Amash has been a frequent thorn in Trump’s side, and he reacted to the Helsinki business with a tweetstorm criticizing Trump’s servile attitude toward Putin as something that even foreign policy doves should find disturbing.

While that was happening, though, Rand Paul was taking a very different tack in the Senate — running interference for our Putin-besotted president, and defending his weird Russia diplomacy as the best alternative to war.

Amash’s approach is intellectually admirable; Paul’s is probably more in tune with what a lot of self-described libertarian voters currently want. Which leaves libertarianism in much the same difficult position as other forms of conservatism under Trump.

His ascent has a lot to teach ideological purists about the political limits of their theories, the need to temper dogma with more contingent wisdom. But learning those lessons without surrendering to Trumpian whims requires a discipline that even Ayn Rand’s supermen might struggle to maintain. And libertarians, alas, are as fallen as the rest of us.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/opinion/sunday/libertarians-in-the-age-of-trump.html

The article ignored what I saw most often among people who voted for trump - buy-in to the false dilemma. "I have to vote for Trump because Hillary is worse". That's basically what I heard non-stop. When pressed, most of those people would say that they didn't like Trump, they were really voting against Hillary. Hillary supporters often said that same thing. Of course it's impossible to vote against someone in the US, and attempting to do so is basically a waste of your vote. Your vote is information. You send a signal with it - what you support. That signal is not lost just because you voted for the loser. The signal is however lost when you vote for someone that doesn't actually represent you, and that's what happened in 2016... millions upon millions of people wasted their votes on Hillary and Trump.

2016 was the year of "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

 

[Chrunch Houston]

A significant part Trump's base demographic isn't freedom loving, limited government, human rights advocates - they're "America First", nationalist, pro-gun (certainly), xenophobic, racisty, anti-free trade, economically insecure & under-educated.

Wow, those people sound deplorable.

 

[Joey D]

The article ignored what I saw most often among people who voted for trump - buy-in to the false dilemma. "I have to vote for Trump because Hillary is worse". That's basically what I heard non-stop. When pressed, most of those people would say that they didn't like Trump, they were really voting against Hillary. Hillary supporters often said that same thing. Of course it's impossible to vote against someone in the US, and attempting to do so is basically a waste of your vote. Your vote is information. You send a signal with it - what you support. That signal is not lost just because you voted for the loser. The signal is however lost when you vote for someone that doesn't actually represent you, and that's what happened in 2016... millions upon millions of people wasted their votes on Hillary and Trump.

2016 was the year of "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

Now, if only there was some third party option that people could vote for that represented them...

 

[TexRex]

Now, if only there was some third party option that people could vote for that represented them...

Or fourth for that matter.

 

[DDastardly00]

Wow, those people sound deplorable.

Off base, no point in arguing with an unfounded, stereotyping opinion. How many actual conservatives do you think Biggles really knows. Wait, don't answer that, pointless. The fact remains that Democrats are the party of slavery. They started the Klan, they wrote Jim crow laws in the 1880's that lasted through the 1960's. Southern Democrats fought against the Civil rights act in the 1964 while Northern Democrats supported it. Did you know that more Republicans voted in support for the Bill than Democrats? Same thing with the Voter Rights Acts of 1965. And then there is Margaret Sanger, another Democrat and founder of planned parenthood (and hero to Hillary), Sanger’s Negro Project had a main goal of reducing the black population, yeah, that doesn't sound racist at all.

There are many more examples of blatantly racist Progressive Democrats. Did you know FDR called Mussolini an "admirable Gentleman"? He even sent members overseas to study fascists programs because he felt the New Deal wasn't advanced enough (will someone please tell that fact to the Antifa?). Even JFK praised Hitler at one point, called him the "stuff of Legends" in his diary. he also thought the anger against Hitler would eventually die down and that he would be considered a great leader in the end. If any dissenters want to fact check everything I just said, go for it because it's all true. The fact of the matter is there are racists in both parties, not just one, but the irony is that historically speaking, the Democrats have been far worse.