Trump Thread

[spmetla]

I am not sure he is an effective manager. I know that the idea behind the "everybody unsure all the time, always competing with one another" model is supposed to generate high performance from people busting but to not fail and get trashed by their peers, but I have problems with that approach to management in business and suspect it doesn't work for [insert favorite synonym for excrement here] in government.

He's mentally past his prime and just doesn't understand the complexities of the job his in. I don't think him a moron but it's clear that he isn't thinking things through.
I think he's been surrounded by too many yes-men the last two decades that has made him believe his own BS about his 'gut instinct' over facts and figures.
Private business work models don't do well in government agencies. Hiring and firing aren't the same, the goals aren't supposed to be a profit (except the IRS and USPS), and saying outlandish things has real repercussions instead of just steadying stockholders or supporting 'the brand.'

We in the US have always assumed that good generals or businessmen must do well in government and most of the time that's just not true. MacNamara assumed he knew more then the generals and essentially got us into Vietnam while trying to get us out of it.
Businessmen have a much simpler goal in just making a profit or raising stock prices.

[rory_20_uk]

Most businesses most of the time undergo limited scrutiny. And most do not stand up to intense scrutiny. Be that Amazon's tax evasion, Facebook and Google's use of data or Apple's tax "approach". The one constant is that they are amoral and do whatever they can to help themselves - if massive, well resourced and profitable companies either lack the will or the want to follow all the rules it is hardly surprising that others equally do not.

So in swaggers Donnie and takes the view since he now is the government and hence much more powerful he can much more easily bully smaller entities - which now is almost everyone, break even more laws - since he writes them and is perplexed that his subordinates - which is everyone - do not act like the cowed minions at private companies who can generally be silenced quite easily and seem to think they follow some sort of set of laws which Donnie didn't agree with. Like Judge Dread, Donnie's take on it is "I AM the Law!!!"

To almost everyone else it is patently obvious that the USA has a system of checks and balances that is almost designed to create gridlock, so fearful were the founding fathers of becoming another UK / France where the sovereign power has, well, power. Not to Donald who so clearly wants to be a Dictator like all the cool countries - Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, North Korea. And three out of the four were very recently democracies, so why can't his democracy get in line and let him enjoy his latest toy?

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most businesses most of the time undergo limited scrutiny. And most do not stand up to intense scrutiny. Be that Amazon's tax evasion, Facebook and Google's use of data or Apple's tax "approach". The one constant is that they are amoral and do whatever they can to help themselves - if massive, well resourced and profitable companies either lack the will or the want to follow all the rules it is hardly surprising that others equally do not.

So in swaggers Donnie and takes the view since he now is the government and hence much more powerful he can much more easily bully smaller entities - which now is almost everyone, break even more laws - since he writes them and is perplexed that his subordinates - which is everyone - do not act like the cowed minions at private companies who can generally be silenced quite easily and seem to think they follow some sort of set of laws which Donnie didn't agree with. Like Judge Dread, Donnie's take on it is "I AM the Law!!!"

To almost everyone else it is patently obvious that the USA has a system of checks and balances that is almost designed to create gridlock, so fearful were the founding fathers of becoming another UK / France where the sovereign power has, well, power. Not to Donald who so clearly wants to be a Dictator like all the cool countries - Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, North Korea. And three out of the four were very recently democracies, so why can't his democracy get in line and let him enjoy his latest toy?

~:smoking:

I'd like to say that you are wrong, that this apparent swaggering attitude is just for show. I would like to.....

[Strike For The South]

So Trump got his doctor to lie about his health and ol Rudy just admitted on live TV that he paid Daniels.

What a time to be alive.

[drone]

As many times as I've said he's an idiot, he probably does have an above average IQ. He has two problems though: he is intellectually lazy, and both his massive ego and his inferiority complex are impairing his cognitive effectiveness. Bigly.

[rory_20_uk]

So Trump got his doctor to lie about his health and ol Rudy just admitted on live TV that he paid Daniels.

What a time to be alive.

That doctor should be struck off. Bringing the profession into disrepute. Or perhaps it is understood in the USA that private doctors are basically at the behest of those paying the bills and hence this almost expected (like Michael Jackson's lawyer wasn't instantly locked up having given something used in ICU or prior to surgery in the guy's own house).

It seems to me to be the basis of Trump's defence strategy - and is the best one he's got: he's a liar and a braggart. Anything he has communicated in any medium that was not under oath is invalid since he probably neither meant it nor thought about what he was doing - you can't prove intent since he truly never (or rarely) thinks that hard about anything apart from women under 30. So he paid off a pornstar he fucked. Or indeed many of them. So what? Big woop. Some he pays by the hour, others he gets on retainer (or "married" as we might understand it). He might well dump the current model after he finishes as President.

Did this influence the campaign? He could even mount a defence that a thrice married "ex-player" isn't going for the "family values" vote - that was Pence's job. Yes, he was trying to stop his current "wife" from finding out that whilst she was fulfilling her part of the pre-nup of having a child that was genetically proven to be his (one of his sons as the father doesn't count) he was off screwing everything else that would accept money for time with an elderly man who requires pills to pop, a suction pump as well as local injections to get the sclerotic member able to penetrate anything - like The Devil's Advocate "the more they despise you for screwing around and wanting to salvage your marriage the less they think you did it for your election bid".

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Nationalize the coal industry (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-nationalize-coal_us_5ae8d8e9e4b06748dc8d34b4)? Stop, I can only get so erect.

Deadass, if Trump were to do such a thing I would shake his hand and playfully slap his behind.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saw Jon Meacham has a book about the Soul of America coming out on Audible.

I smashed that mother fucking pre-order button.

[Strike For The South]

If anyone needs gas, I would get it today.

[edyzmedieval]

USA pulled out of the Iran deal.

[Montmorency]

Crud. And the admin sought out and authorized a private Israeli agency to gather dirt on the leading proponents of the Joppa agreement to boot.

Regardless of what narrative one buys into, what dispassionate observer could avoid concluding Putin's info warfare investments return more than a fair deal.

[Husar]

USA pulled out of the Iran deal.

Pulling out is the only prevention technique the GOP supports after all...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pulling out is the only prevention technique the GOP supports after all...

LOL

I think that's the Roman Catholic Church, which in the USA is half super conservative and half socialist in a rather odd mix. Our protestants are a bit more on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8) side.

GOP has never been more than lukewarm towards us papists.

[Montmorency]

Pulling out is the only prevention technique the GOP supports after all...


LOL

I think that's the Roman Catholic Church, which in the USA is half super conservative and half socialist in a rather odd mix. Our protestants are a bit more on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8) side.

GOP has never been more than lukewarm towards us papists.

Trump admin pushes abstinence education at home and abroad, more aggressively than ever before (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/opinion/sunday/the-new-era-of-abstinence.html)

American Protestants hate sex (for other people).

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump shows his foreign policy chops and withdraws from the JCPOA.
Despite his allies counseling against such a move Trump has decided to go it alone; forging a path to ... what?
The deal kept Iran from developing a nuclear bomb; Iran is no longer constrained by the deal.
The move is a pretty clear signal that this administration thinks that the other parties to the agreement simply don't count.
So sanctions will be imposed...will China stop buying Iranian crude to mollify the U.S.?; and what response would America reply with?
Laying the groundwork for regime change?; perhaps:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/08/the-art-of-the-regime-change/

I'm sure the international community will flock to the stars and stripes in support of a long, bloody confrontation in the Middle East

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/world-leaders-react-withdrawal-iranian-nuclear-deal-180508184130931.html

If Putin didn't have Trump, he would have needed to invent him :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

As with almost everything else he does, it could well be to be part of his bullying style to "negotiating" - first off he threatens to destroy everything and destabilise the world. Wait for people to be scared about what a mess the world would be. Then starts to row back towards a compromise which will be said to be better (whatever it is). He's a bully and identifies as a "strong man" so this is unsurprising. Perhaps it is a typical approach but generally we the populace are unaware since this goes on behind closed doors.

This appears to be the take on NAFTA / trade sanctions and now the Iran deal.

~:smoking:

[AE Bravo]

I don't believe Trump being a "strongman" is outside the conventions of American foreign policy. Lets not pretend this is something that's not typical of an American president whether its overt or not. Chalking this up to some sort of strongman syndrome that comes with the territory is a dismissal of government. He is George Bush minus the nuance.

This push comes from both his war cabinet (John Bolton et al) and his pro-Israel billionaire campaign supporters (https://lobelog.com/three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/). These are just two points in all the striking parallels you would find between this issue and the invasion of Iraq.

[Fragony]

Israel will eventually strike first, they really will. Not that I am a fan of Trump but it looks like a good idea

[Sarmatian]

From what I understand, he only threatened to pull out of those, while this is official decision.

A big difference is that big businesses profit from those trade deals, so he just needs to use fiery rhetoric to please his "base". Iran deal offers little benefit to big business while his supporters have been brainwashed to hate it.

Additionaly, I believe that a huge part of Republican party wants to keep Iran weak and unstable as possible, if and when the need (or opportunity) for full blown military invasion occurs.

[HopAlongBunny]

America's policy in the Middle East seems to be to keep any country that is not a direct client of America poor, weak and unstable.
Iran simply will not fall into line...without encouragement.

[Montmorency]

As with almost everything else he does, it could well be to be part of his bullying style to "negotiating" - first off he threatens to destroy everything and destabilise the world. Wait for people to be scared about what a mess the world would be. Then starts to row back towards a compromise which will be said to be better (whatever it is). He's a bully and identifies as a "strong man" so this is unsurprising. Perhaps it is a typical approach but generally we the populace are unaware since this goes on behind closed doors.

This appears to be the take on NAFTA / trade sanctions and now the Iran deal.

~:smoking:

The problem is, our leverage is likely much less than it was a few years ago, especially since all the other parties are satisfied with the status quo.

What it has to be then, is part of an attempt to hurt Iran with anything at hand, even if that empowers Russia and destabilizes the region further. The far-right doesn't care about an abstract nuclear breakout window, it wants a full invasion of Iran.


From what I understand, he only threatened to pull out of those, while this is official decision.

A big difference is that big businesses profit from those trade deals, so he just needs to use fiery rhetoric to please his "base". Iran deal offers little benefit to big business while his supporters have been brainwashed to hate it.

Additionaly, I believe that a huge part of Republican party wants to keep Iran weak and unstable as possible, if and when the need (or opportunity) for full blown military invasion occurs.

As with a lot of these decisions so far, there is a convenient (or inconvenient, depending on perspective) window of several months before the functional elements of the decision (i.e. sanctions) go into implementation...

[HopAlongBunny]

The "loss of leverage" is something Ronan Farrow addresses in his book War on Peace. https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106

The concentration of military to military relations at the expense of diplomatic relations removes any nuance.
Not surprisingly, the loss of expertise and relationships outside that narrow range (this is harmful to USAID spending) makes America's relations in the Middle East resemble it's relations with Latin American countries. Any strongman is a good one if he/she is on our payroll; progress to democracy (or freedom or human rights or whatever) are meaningless. Egypt is a decent example of what counts.

Farrow does not say, but I will, this shift to security above all makes the mass migration from the Middle East a rational choice.
Remove the patina of progress and flight is really the only choice for anyone looking to better their lot.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From what I understand, he only threatened to pull out of those, while this is official decision.

A big difference is that big businesses profit from those trade deals, so he just needs to use fiery rhetoric to please his "base". Iran deal offers little benefit to big business while his supporters have been brainwashed to hate it.

Additionaly, I believe that a huge part of Republican party wants to keep Iran weak and unstable as possible, if and when the need (or opportunity) for full blown military invasion occurs.

Actually, most of the GOP would like to see the theocracy tossed out and a trading culture closer to SA, Kuwait, or Morocco move to the fore. Not gonna happen though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "loss of leverage" is something Ronan Farrow addresses in his book War on Peace. https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Diplomacy-American-Influence/dp/0393652106

The concentration of military to military relations at the expense of diplomatic relations removes any nuance.
Not surprisingly, the loss of expertise and relationships outside that narrow range (this is harmful to USAID spending) makes America's relations in the Middle East resemble it's relations with Latin American countries. Any strongman is a good one if he/she is on our payroll; progress to democracy (or freedom or human rights or whatever) are meaningless. Egypt is a decent example of what counts.

Farrow does not say, but I will, this shift to security above all makes the mass migration from the Middle East a rational choice.
Remove the patina of progress and flight is really the only choice for anyone looking to better their lot.

We've had that problem for more than a century, as did most of the Euro states that held overseas terrain and spheres of influence. Stability so you can forget their local issues is too attractive, and most decision making too short term in orientation to take the more difficult path.

And as to poor, weak, and unstable....we tend to like stable but militarily weak as they make better trading partners and non-threats (course weak and stable don't cohere well so...). We also don't require them to be poor, we're in it for what we can get out of it. Doesn't necessarily have to be at their expense, though that has often been the case.

[AE Bravo]

Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

[Fragony]

Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

Not so secret they basicly admitted it after the withdrawel of US-support

[AE Bravo]

They're still going back and forth about it. As someone mentioned earlier there's still a window of several months.

[rory_20_uk]

IF China (et al) either decide to ignore the USA or the USA decides not to punish them, increasingly Iran could get everything it wants from China alone - all contracts switch from Dollars, purchase Chinese arms / goods and now all the IT equipment they could possibly need. Also a willing market for almost all of Iranian exports.

Given that the USA froze Iranian wealth for 40 years, trusting the Chinese to not be as bad might be viewed as a reasonable gamble.

I doubt the USA would attack given most disagree (apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel of course). Israel would probably attack as they have done in the past and probably with the USA's tactit approval. Whether China / Russia would give some modern and very nasty AA weaponry as a quick, cheap way of playing proxy power politics only time will tell.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

IF China (et al) either decide to ignore the USA or the USA decides not to punish them, increasingly Iran could get everything it wants from China alone - all contracts switch from Dollars, purchase Chinese arms / goods and now all the IT equipment they could possibly need. Also a willing market for almost all of Iranian exports.

Given that the USA froze Iranian wealth for 40 years, trusting the Chinese to not be as bad might be viewed as a reasonable gamble.

I doubt the USA would attack given most disagree (apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel of course). Israel would probably attack as they have done in the past and probably with the USA's tactit approval. Whether China / Russia would give some modern and very nasty AA weaponry as a quick, cheap way of playing proxy power politics only time will tell.

~:smoking:

This is what I was thinking. Iran to maintain the deal but with the other countries still playing their part. Sure, less USA involvement, but things swap to the EU, Russia, China, etc instead. America loses even more international prestige and standing till it starts being another Bully Power instead of World Police. The end of the American Hegemony will be a massive set-back for years to come and it is a shame the populace don't even understand its impact.

[Sarmatian]

Problem is that US may (try) to levy fines from companies in those countries if they continue business as usual with Iran. For instance, parts of Airbus airplanes are made in USA, thus they can not be sold to Iran if US pulls out.

Very complicated. The risk of losing access to US market is much more significant than access to Iran's market. They could make a principled stand, all together, which would certainly lead to USA backing down at least from fines, even if they remain committed to reintroducing sanctions, but the odds of EU, China and Russia forming a united front for this purpose are not that great.

Well, at least American newscasters may again look like they're receiving a blowjob while showing us video clips of missiles being fired.

[rory_20_uk]

For sure... But when the "other" is the rest of the world then perhaps the USA might loose out... and it doesn't help that the USA already appears to want a trade war with most of their allies, China, Russia and of course the other NAFTA members. Not acceding to the USA's wishes is no longer destabilising the situation since that is already underway.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Problem is that US may (try) to levy fines from companies in those countries if they continue business as usual with Iran. For instance, parts of Airbus airplanes are made in USA, thus they can not be sold to Iran if US pulls out.

Shouldn't be a problem, they sell the planes to a European country or some tax haven (shell corporation) that then sells them on to Iran.

And it would be fair, too, because Heckler and Koch sold weapons to the US Army who then delivered them to Colombia right away to circumvent the German ban on weapon sales to Colombia...
If the US do it, it's obviously the right thing to do, so we should join right in that sort of trade!
Or as Trump would say it, it's just clever!

[Fragony]

It isn'just shwll much bigger companies like Uniliever have a firm grassp, politicians are basicly lobbyists for dale

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Well, at least American newscasters may again look like they're receiving a blowjob while showing us video clips of missiles being fired.

Sadly, I have observed/thought the same thing. Especially ironic as the bulk of them are left-wing politically on a personal level and largely pacifistic 'give peace a chance' types.

[Montmorency]

Sadly, I have observed/thought the same thing. Especially ironic as the bulk of them are left-wing politically on a personal level and largely pacifistic 'give peace a chance' types.

Is any of that really accurate though?

Very few people overall are pacifists, and "left-wing" meaning left of the average Republican Congressperson has limited descriptive capacity as to political beliefs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is any of that really accurate though?

Very few people overall are pacifists, and "left-wing" meaning left of the average Republican Congressperson has limited descriptive capacity as to political beliefs.

Nope. Everything I wrote was arrant nonsense. My specialty.

[Husar]

The truth is that capitalism makes them do anything their boss wants for the money and their boss wants them to do whatever he thinks makes him/his boss the most money.
If death is a sensation then capitalism will use it relentlessly regardless of minor concerns such as morality or political beliefs. The greed that promises to fill the hole in everyone's soul will take over. Self-reflection is something people do when they need to promote themselves to make more money...

[Husar]

Shouldn't be a problem, they sell the planes to a European country or some tax haven (shell corporation) that then sells them on to Iran.

And it would be fair, too, because Heckler and Koch sold weapons to the US Army who then delivered them to Colombia right away to circumvent the German ban on weapon sales to Colombia...
If the US do it, it's obviously the right thing to do, so we should join right in that sort of trade!
Or as Trump would say it, it's just clever!

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/93766223555/the-dubious-colombia-exports-of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:


For the past 50 years the Colombian government, guerrillas and paramilitaries have been fighting each other with seemingly no end in sight. For that very reason German companies such as Sig Sauer aren’t allowed to deliver arms there. And violations come with hard punishment: export bans, fines and prison sentences of up to five years.
[...]
But, let’s start from the beginning. In 2009 Sig Sauer’s sister company Sig Sauer Inc. in Exeter, New Hampshire won a bid from the U.S. Army worth some $300 million. Included in that contract were some 98,000 SP 2022 pistols worth around $70 million. Those weapons were ordered by the Colombian federal police. And the U.S. Sig Sauer colleagues knew it. They are, after all, the ones who shipped the guns directly to Bogotá.
[...]
In January, the German police seized several documents from a Sig Sauer building which reveal the sale of some 70 guns to Kazakhstan—another country in crisis. These were apparently also made available through a U.S. detour.

So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/09/hours-into-his-new-job-trumps-ambassador-to-germany-offends-his-hosts/?utm_term=.7a6813e8974d


German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.

I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

[HopAlongBunny]

One article that gives a good snapshot of Trump and what it means to work for the Orange Wonder:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-and-donald-trump-this-will-end-badly-and-probably-soon?ref=home

Can't decide if the play about this slice of American history will be a comedy or a horror story :book2:

[rory_20_uk]

'Twas ever thus. Post WW2 far more effort was expended on Operation Paperclip than was spent trying people for war crimes (only the losers since the Allies were spotless as angels...).

If required I am sure that arms caches can be hijacked in transit, army surplus misplaced or lost. Criminal enterprises seems to have more efficient logistical chains than most legit businesses - even with the police on their tail.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/93766223555/the-dubious-colombia-exports-of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:



So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/09/hours-into-his-new-job-trumps-ambassador-to-germany-offends-his-hosts/?utm_term=.7a6813e8974d



I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

You know, corporations have been using loopholes like this to get around industrial and export limitations since at least the Versailles Treaty, right?

But Germans know just as well, the alternative to control is... :smash:

[Husar]

You know, corporations have been using loopholes like this to get around industrial and export limitations since at least the Versailles Treaty, right?

But Germans know just as well, the alternative to control is... :smash:

I know that corporations use every loophole they can find, I was talking about the US asking/commanding us to go along with their export bans while their government helps circumvent ours. Why should we give a **** about US rules if they don't care about ours? Why even say that?

I expect corporations to try and get around rules, the more upsetting part is that a government agency of an "ally" actively helps them and then demands that we enforce their bans. It's just laughable. We should just funnel US tech into Iran instead and increase our trade surplus even further.

[Kralizec]

I don't believe Trump being a "strongman" is outside the conventions of American foreign policy. Lets not pretend this is something that's not typical of an American president whether its overt or not. Chalking this up to some sort of strongman syndrome that comes with the territory is a dismissal of government. He is George Bush minus the nuance.

This push comes from both his war cabinet (John Bolton et al) and his pro-Israel billionaire campaign supporters. These are just two points in all the striking parallels you would find between this issue and the invasion of Iraq.

I can't agree with this. I'd say that George Bush junior tried, in good faith, to be a good stateman. He lacked the skills, gathered the wrong people and failed badly.


Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

Iran is right on this one. The EU's chief diplomat said that the deal was one of facts, not one of trust. Somehow, the US has managed to violate the latter part.

As far as we know, there's extremely little evidence that Iran violated the deal as it was agreed. Republican hawks might have wanted a better deal at the time. I don't think it's likely they would have gotten one in the period between 2008 and 2016. But then again, real life executive decisions weren't their problem then.

But they're acting like it isn't their problem now. You might dislike the deal that Obama made with Iran. But Obama represented an institution at the time. The United States of America. Trump is representing it right now, yet he is unaware that he's representing anything but himself.

Most people don't think about what such a loss of credibility really means. If there's ever going to be a new trade deal with China, Europe or India, do you think the counterpary is going to settle for all parties are to apply the agreement in good faith? The USA after Trump might just find out how Iran feels about the current nuclear agreemt.

Ironically, I think that the current approach might actually work for North Korea. Kim-Jong Un can woo him, knowing that the only thing that matters is his personal relationship to this guy. He just needs to be "very honorable" in the words of the current POTUS, knowing that any successor is unlikely to walk back on promises made by his office.

[Fragony]

Trump is a bit of a one-men orchestra, but could just be doing the right thing. Who knows what good can come from a nearly strangled Iran, at least nothing bad

[HopAlongBunny]

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/93766223555/the-dubious-colombia-exports-of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:
So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/09/hours-into-his-new-job-trumps-ambassador-to-germany-offends-his-hosts/?utm_term=.7a6813e8974d
I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

Even more mind bending is that US assistance in allowing a channel for arms to Columbia was part of policy.
Keeping the military stable while civilian works went ahead (neutralizing FARC) was part and parcel of the long-term strategy...developed by diplomats.
That FARC eventually (mostly) laid down their arms and joined the political process, helps show how a nuanced approach can change the situation.

[Husar]

Even more mind bending is that US assistance in allowing a channel for arms to Columbia was part of policy.
Keeping the military stable while civilian works went ahead (neutralizing FARC) was part and parcel of the long-term strategy...developed by diplomats.
That FARC eventually (mostly) laid down their arms and joined the political process, helps show how a nuanced approach can change the situation.

*Colombia, Columbia is a town in Ohio or so. (no offense intended)

Anyway, I'm not sure whether I like the US aid in South America because it usually supports libertarian policies that benefit US corporations and turn the population into wage slaves. The FARC were a violent bunch, but so were/are plenty of the allies of the USA/Colombian government such as the AUC and sometimes the army as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/colombian-army-killed-civilians-to-fake-battlefield-success-rights-group-says/2015/06/23/5e83700e-191d-11e5-bed8-1093ee58dad0_story.html?utm_term=.af567ee34492
There are still murders of union representatives and so on: https://www.ituc-csi.org/colombia-trade-unionists-murdered

The people generally perceive the government and police as corrupt and voter turnout is quite low. There is close to no social safety net and so on. It's not a terrible country in every aspect, but to some degree it seems like just another market for US big business with a relatively large wealth gap.

[Montmorency]

On the US Violation of the Iran Deal as an Insult to Europe (http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/11/rip-the-trans-atlantic-alliance-1945-2018/)


The Iran decision has resonated among European leaders as none of Trump’s previous follies has. First, Europeans regard the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the pact is called, as the foremost proof of their capacity to act coherently and effectively. The Iran diplomacy came hard on the heels of the debacle over the Iraq War, when a divided Europe watched a U.S. president stumble into disaster. “Iran was the opposite of that,” says Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Instead of standing blinded in the headlights of American policy, Europe figured out what its own interests were.” European diplomats negotiated with the Iranians when the Bush administration refused to do so, designing a package of sanctions and incentives ultimately adopted and pushed through the U.N. Security Council by Obama.

Europe hoped to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drawing Iran out of its revolutionary shell. And it succeeded. The deal, Leonard says, was a “massive source of pride.”


Hours after Trump’s announcement, Macron, Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a joint statement reminding the world that the deal had been “unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council” and thus remained “the binding international legal framework” on Iran’s nuclear program. European Council President Donald Tusk announced that Trump’s Iran and trade policies “will meet a united European approach.”

The fur will fly if the United States goes ahead with secondary sanctions targeting European companies that continue to do business with Iran. Given the current bellicose mood in Washington, there is good reason to think that it will do so. Hours after assuming his post as U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell tweeted, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” That would be Europe’s put-up-or-shut-up moment. “We’re going to have to treat the U.S. as a hostile power,” Leonard says. “We might have to introduce countermeasures against U.S. companies.” The mind reels. No, the heart breaks.


EDIT: And a mordbidy-funny closing to another Foreign Policy article on the US withdrawal:


In short, Trump’s latest blunder shows that he’s not giving the American people the more restrained foreign policy he promised back in 2016, or correcting the various mistakes made by his predecessors (of which there were many). Instead, Trump is taking us back to the naive, unsophisticated, unilateralist, and overly militarized foreign policy of George W. Bush’s first term. The appointment of Bolton at the National Security Council, Pompeo at State, and the nomination of former torture supervisor Gina Haspel to run the CIA — it is a return not to realism but to Cheneyism. Remember how well that worked?

Otto von Bismarck once quipped that it was good to learn from one’s mistakes but better to learn from someone else’s. This latest episode shows that the United States is not really capable of learning from either. And it suggests that Winston Churchill’s apocryphal comment about the United States always doing the right thing should now be revised. Under Trump, it appears, the United States will always do the wrong thing but only after first considering — and rejecting — all the obviously superior alternatives.

[HopAlongBunny]

*Colombia, Columbia is a town in Ohio or so. (no offense intended)

The people generally perceive the government and police as corrupt and voter turnout is quite low. There is close to no social safety net and so on. It's not a terrible country in every aspect, but to some degree it seems like just another market for US big business with a relatively large wealth gap.

All true; certainly not perfect; perhaps not even good:on_shrug:
What is also true (in this case) is that FARC was undercut by (at least) some civilian development alongside military assistance.
The US never has, perhaps never will allow any development which undercuts America's (country and corporations) ability to do as it pleases and take what it wants.

[AE Bravo]

I can't agree with this. I'd say that George Bush junior tried, in good faith, to be a good stateman. He lacked the skills, gathered the wrong people and failed badly.Having some time to reflect I was actually wrong. George Bush is much worse when it comes to the substantial evidence available to us. How do we get the measure of a good 'statesman?' By personality and what our perception of their motives are or the results of their decisions? I am not of the opinion that he tried in good faith at anything pertaining to civil liberties, international norms, workplace safety regulations, police, climate change, education, frakking, drone strikes, etc. you name it. What are you basing this on?

Iran is right on this one. The EU's chief diplomat said that the deal was one of facts, not one of trust. Somehow, the US has managed to violate the latter part.
That is a really solid way to put it. He couldn't be more right.

[Montmorency]

I agree with Showtime here in that there has been no worse American foreign policy than under Bush-43. They knew what they were doing.

[spmetla]

Bush's foreign policy mistakes can really just be summed up by Iraq. All the other things he did were peanuts. The Afghan war was going to happen since after 9/11 a few cruise missiles at training camps wasn't going to suffice for the domestic need for revenge. The failure there can largely be pointed at Iraq taking troops, money, and attention away.

There were absolutely tremendous mistakes though. After 9/11 he turned down Iran's "Grand Bargain" and instead created the "Axis of Evil" http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a587314.pdf
He let China get away essentially unpunished after the Hainan Island incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
He tried to expand US influence into Russia's sphere too quickly but understandably caved when Georgia poked the bear for no reason.

His policies toward Israel during the Second Intifada and the Lebanon/Hezbollah War were to essentially ignore/support them.

For comparing the two presidencies I like to point out that we are only 1.5 years into Trumps term. At this comparable point in the Bush presidency we were fighting in only Afghanistan (Operation Anaconda had just started in March), we had the the general good will of the world, Pakistan and Iran were cooed being worried that the US might hit them in it's strife to hit back. The big scandal was the establishing of Camp X-Ray (Guantanamo) and the ongoing debate of how to treat terrorists (POWs versus criminals) as well as the American Taliban John Walker issue.
Bush in that time period hadn't damaged the reputation of NATO but instead had strengthened it by invoking Article 5 and getting our Allies involved in Afghanistan as well.
He hadn't tried to rip up NAFTA or renegotiate our trade deals unilaterally with our strongest allies.

Though I didn't like Obama because I thought him to far on the pacifist side of the pendulum the TPP was a good deal, the Iran deal was in our favor, NATO works well and we need to support them especially in regards to opposing Russian aggression.

Bush '43 was a disaster for the US foreign policy but he had a full eight years of mucking it up and it being largely centered on Iraq starting our forever war in Mesopotamia and then his de-regulation of banking/lending that led to the 2008 economic collapse.

Trump has managed to hugely damage American prestige, trustworthiness, and morals (the preference for strongmen over our allies, the 'shithole country' thing) and has done all this damage without even starting a war, yet...
I greatly fear what he will do over the remainder of his term or (help us all) a second term. I am still not optimistic about what meaningful things can come from his negotiations with Korea, I think he'll negotiate us out of the peninsula seeing as he doesn't want us defending Korea or Japan anyhow. Pulling out of the Iran deal with no violation of it by the Iranians was just stupid, it wasn't the best deal possible but it at least froze Iranian nuclear development. If we at least had our allies on board it would have been something else but the great deal maker didn't even try to make a deal with our friends to back him and instead just slapped them in the face. I think the only foreign policy thing of his I can actually agree on without caveat is the strikes on Syria after the chemical weapons use though that's if I ignore his surrounding policy toward the Syrian war.
Bush was bad but Trump has in a very short time show his potential to be a whole lot worse. Only time will tell but I've seen nothing to counter my pessimism towards Trumps "America First" policies.

[Sarmatian]

While it is probably true, in the sense that sheer number of stupid things Trump did or said outweigh what Bush did, all Trumps's mistakes (bar pulling out of Iran deal) are small scale, and they're generally tied to Trump as a person, and will be forgotten or amended as he leaves office.

Iraq was a huge mistake that the entire world is still feeling the consequences of, and will continue for some time.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump has managed to alienate America's European allies.
Now they find themselves lining up with Russia and China.
Long term, the EU sees that Trump will pass but I honestly doubt that the relationship will be unchanged.
The set continues; advantage Putin

[rory_20_uk]

Although the way Donnie has been with the USA's allies in getting them to up their military spending, I do think he does have a point that others have not really been pulling their weight. Of course the USA gains from this but so do all the other countries.

The only downside with this is that if there was this transfer of resources to the USA it would enable them to have a lot more overseas... deployments.

~:smoking:

[spmetla]

I'll concede he's managed to get them to up their spending a bit but not significantly. There is no real transfer of 'military resources' to the US because NATO still requires the US to fly it's flag to maintain its credibility. The Baltic Air space patrolling, the NATO rotational training in Romania, Ukraine, and the Baltics all require the US to maintain some contingents as well so that we have 'skin in the game' which only makes sense.
If our allies were standing up more logistical capabilities such as air refuelers, heavy lift cargo planes, naval support ships etc... that allowed the non-US NATO contingents to conduct even peace keeping operations without heavy US support behind the scenes. The UK has a carrier without planes because it retired the Harriers way too soon in anticipation of the boondoggle F-35 and not enough ships to serve as escorts for it and it's sister ship when that's complete. Germany has lots of equipment but can't seem to maintain them and keep them operational despite the extra budget.
Not to mention that the US military stills has a massive budget but still can't figure out how to use it without excessive waste and overspending ( a byproduct of the Bush years endless military budget undoing the fiscial responsibility of the 90s).


they're generally tied to Trump as a person, and will be forgotten or amended as he leaves office.
I wish that were true but he's not just saying things he's doing things too. Pulling out of the TPP was a big deal, he might have done it just to be anti-Obama but it has hugely damaged the US position in East Asia/Pacific. The Iran deal has similar effects.
Look at his tariff threats, all mostly seem to be affecting our friends instead of our competitors.

If all he did was say embarrassing things and be a figure head president that'd be one thing but he is accomplishing a lot of the terrible ideas he campaigned on. For one, any agreement a US President enters into without getting through congress will hold very little water from now on meaning that in international diplomacy a US President who's party doesn't control congress in order to push through 'deals' will not be trusted for fear that a few years latter everything can be undone.

[Beskar]

I think Trump is a fan of President Harding and that "Make America Great Again" is a rehash of the "Return to normalcy".

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump makes good on another campaign promise.
The US embassy moves to Jerusalem:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44116340

Clarity is nice. We can finally put to bed any idea that the US is (or perhaps ever was) an honest broker in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Removing that "lie we chose to live by" gives us a new lie. The Palestinians never were, therefore never will be.
"Best deal Evah!"? should we have a poll?

[rory_20_uk]

The peace prize might not be as close as some said: North Korea wants to keep nukes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44134910). But then given Jerry Adams and Barack Obama both were given it it seems the bar is rather low.

I have to say I was amazed when it was initially said they've give them up but in the absence of an initial denial I thought perhaps things have really changed that much. Now things are heading back to a more expected position where dismantling a test site that is not needed and has all but collapsed under the last blasts is one thing but accepting a pinkie promise from the USA that they'll totally not be invaded seemed pretty ridiculous. Perhaps Donald's lot might even think that a short sharp strike to take (say) a further 50 mile strip to put Seoul out of artillery range would really help strengthen future negotiations. What could possibly go wrong?

Currently the thing keeping the peace the best is that the military is stretched with wrapping up the other wars that the USA has started with gusto and should have all been over by Christmas.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Trump's strongman posturing and "peace through strength" really paying off now:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-south-korea-suspends-high-level-talks-planned-us-military-drills-kim-jong-un-moon-jae-in-a8353261.html


North Korea has announced it is suspending scheduled talks with the South due to US-South Korean military drills, which it called a “provocation”.

North Korea’s state-run Central News Agency (KCNA) said the so-called Max Thunder drills between the South Korean and US Air Force were simply a “rehearsal for [an] invasion of the North and a provocation amid warming inter-Korean ties”.

“This exercise targeting us, which is being carried out across South Korea, is a flagrant challenge to the Panmunjom Declaration and an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula,” KCNA said.

Nobel coming any day now. :wall:

[Montmorency]

https://i.imgur.com/akNEWWk.jpg

[Beskar]

Trump's strongman posturing and "peace through strength" really paying off now:

Nobel coming any day now. :wall:

They are also annoyed that Trump is taking credit for bringing Kim to the table. They are also annoyed at how they have made concessions and the USA has not made any in return...

[Husar]

They are also annoyed that Trump is taking credit for bringing Kim to the table. They are also annoyed at how they have made concessions and the USA has not made any in return...

Some say the North Koreans are just trying the same strongman tactic Trump does. Walk away until the other side caves in.

On the other hand, if that is true, given the time it took to get to the table in the first place, I wonder whether the two sides attempting that tactic is going to work out....or just bring about the war-hungry hardliners....

[Fragony]

Trump's strongman posturing and "peace through strength" really paying off now:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-south-korea-suspends-high-level-talks-planned-us-military-drills-kim-jong-un-moon-jae-in-a8353261.html



Nobel coming any day now. :wall:

Not even if Trump brings peace in the universe and surroundings, they would give it to Kim

[Husar]

Not even if Trump brings peace in the universe and surroundings, they would give it to Kim

And we know it's true because it feels true.

[spmetla]

Not even if Trump brings peace in the universe and surroundings, they would give it to Kim

I imagine they'd give it [Nobel Prize] to President Moon Jae-in if anyone. He's the only one of the three parties not threatening to start a nuclear war if he doesn't get his way. Threatening "Fire and Fury" doesn't merit in my mind a Nobel even if those lines have been obscured by all sorts of nefarious leaders getting them.

As much as I hate Trump, if peace were somehow made and that tinderbox finally settled he would be more deserving a Nobel Prize than Obama was.

In other news I do find it interesting the muted reaction on Fox or Breitbart on Trump's efforts to save ZTE's chinese jobs shortly after the PRC gave the Trump Org a half billion dollars for an Indonesian project.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66
Trump Orders Help For Chinese Phone-Maker After China Approves Money For Trump Project
Trump will profit from Indonesian resort project that will get $500 million in Chinese loans in a deal sealed days before before his tweet ordering help for ZTE.

How Trump’s ZTE deal could undercut his foreign policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/16/how-trumps-zte-deal-could-undercut-his-foreign-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a3ff2fdd7e9d

The United States fined ZTE $1.19 billion last year as part of a settlement after the company illegally shipped telecom gear to Iran and North Korea. Just last month, the Commerce Department banned U.S. firms from selling components to ZTE for seven years because it allegedly broke that deal. Cut off from U.S. suppliers, the Chinese firm was on the verge of collapse. Now Trump has come to the rescue, apparently worried about the ban's impact on Chinese workers.

It's not clear what prompted Trump's decision. The Washington Post's Damian Paletta, David J. Lynch and Josh Dawsey reported this week that the president appeared to have bypassed many U.S. trade officials. Advisers who favor a hard line on Chinese trade practices appear to have been sidelined, according to reports from Axios. Some observers have also noted that the decision came after reports that Chinese government-linked enterprises will provide $500 million to a project in Indonesia that features Trump-branded developments — that is, a project that will earn the president money.

[Fragony]

And we know it's true because it feels true.

The Nobel-price commitee consists of pipesmoking beardrubbing people who should be gently escorded to their library, comfort-zone thingie

[Montmorency]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLSveRGmpIE

"Thanks for the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams"

[Gilrandir]

The guy doesn't know his wife's name:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/19/politics/melania-trump-hospital-release-kidney-procedure/index.html

[rory_20_uk]

To be fair, he's old. He's on his third women on retainer and he's working his way through a fair number of other ones on a pay-for-play basis. It's complicated.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Note: I finally remembered to do this: moving the embassy within this fiscal year averts the impending limitation on State Dept. embassy funding. Following the admin's refusal late last year to continue the waiver against moving the embassy, that was a worry of mine, that it could be drug out so long as to defund our diplomatic outposts. So nix that concern.

Also, CHECK OUT this excerpt (https://dailylit.com/read/162-notes-from-the-underground?page=7) from Dostoyevsky, Tales from the Underground; it speaks so well, in a way, to our contemporary circumstance:


Then--this is all what you say--new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then the "Palace of Crystal" will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!" That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers--such is the nature of man. And all that for the most foolish reason, which, one would think, was hardly worth mentioning: that is, that man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one's own interests, and sometimes one POSITIVELY OUGHT (that is my idea). One's own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy--is that very "most advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

Wow.

[Montmorency]

You should really read that Dostoevsky excerpt.

Speaking of Belle Epoque Europe, here I just discovered the petition (https://harpers.org/archive/2017/03/the-emigrants/) that Trump's grandfather wrote to the Prince-Regent of Bavaria.

TLDR: 'I'm a good German fellow, and now that I made my fortune in America I want to be a German citizen again. PLEASE DON'T DEPORT ME!'


From a letter written in 1905 by Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump’s grandfather, to Luitpold, prince regent of Bavaria. Trump had been ordered to leave Bavaria for failing to complete mandatory military service and to register his initial emigration to the United States twenty years earlier. Prince Luitpold rejected Trump’s request for repatriation; the family later settled in New York. Translated from the German by Austen Hinkley.


Most Serene, Most Powerful Prince Regent! Most Gracious Regent and Lord!

I was born in Kallstadt on March 14, 1869. My parents were honest, plain, pious vineyard workers. They strictly held me to everything good — to diligence and piety, to regular attendance in school and church, to absolute obedience toward the high authority.

After my confirmation, in 1882, I apprenticed to become a barber. I emigrated in 1885, in my sixteenth year. In America I carried on my business with diligence, discretion, and prudence. God’s blessing was with me, and I became rich. I obtained American citizenship in 1892. In 1902 I met my current wife. Sadly, she could not tolerate the climate in New York, and I went with my dear family back to Kallstadt.

The town was glad to have received a capable and productive citizen. My old mother was happy to see her son, her dear daughter-in-law, and her granddaughter around her; she knows now that I will take care of her in her old age.

But we were confronted all at once, as if by a lightning strike from fair skies, with the news that the High Royal State Ministry had decided that we must leave our residence in the Kingdom of Bavaria. We were paralyzed with fright; our happy family life was tarnished. My wife has been overcome by anxiety, and my lovely child has become sick.

Why should we be deported? This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree — not to mention the great material losses it would incur. I would like to become a Bavarian citizen again.

In this urgent situation I have no other recourse than to turn to our adored, noble, wise, and just sovereign lord, our exalted ruler His Royal Highness, highest of all, who has already dried so many tears, who has ruled so beneficially and justly and wisely and softly and is warmly and deeply loved, with the most humble request that the highest of all will himself in mercy deign to allow the applicant to stay in the most gracious Kingdom of Bavaria.

Your most humble and obedient,

Friedrich Trump



Joke: Trump's grandfather dodged German conscription in favor of personal enrichment. Trump dodged the Vietnam draft...


Speaking of personal enrichment, here's an article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/there-is-only-one-trump-scandal/560825/) pointing out how every Trump scandal can be reduced to the criminal corruption of himself and his circle, or the deflection of the reckoning for that corruption.

[HopAlongBunny]

You should really read that Dostoevsky excerpt.

Speaking of personal enrichment, here's an article (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/there-is-only-one-trump-scandal/560825/) pointing out how every Trump scandal can be reduced to the criminal corruption of himself and his circle, or the deflection of the reckoning for that corruption.

The Atlantic article is a nice summation what the Trump administration is all about :2thumbsup:

[Hooahguy]

So, to almost nobody's surprise, the big summit between Trump and Kim Jong-Un is off. The letter Trump wrote though is pretty funny. To quote this article (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/24/17388786/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un-letter-summit-canceled), "the letter’s tone is more wistful than hostile, reading almost like a breakup note."

I think it was obvious that this was where it was headed once Bolton talked about Libya. I also think its clear that this is what Bolton wanted from the get-go.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, to almost nobody's surprise, the big summit between Trump and Kim Jong-Un is off. The letter Trump wrote though is pretty funny. To quote this article (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/24/17388786/trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un-letter-summit-canceled), "the letter’s tone is more wistful than hostile, reading almost like a breakup note."

I think it was obvious that this was where it was headed once Bolton talked about Libya. I also think its clear that this is what Bolton wanted from the get-go.

Likely he did want this result, at least in the short term. As it was, NK's leader was "winning" simply by meeting as a equal. Any actual agreement would have been a bonus, but not necessary.

[Hooahguy]

I think Trump really wanted the meeting, because it would boost his image a lot, which he and the GOP needs desperately before November. What I think may happen is that they get together again to speak right before the election as a boost. Or at least talk about getting back together.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think Trump really wanted the meeting, because it would boost his image a lot, which he and the GOP needs desperately before November. What I think may happen is that they get together again to speak right before the election as a boost. Or at least talk about getting back together.

Agreed. My post was agreeing that Bolton did not.

[rory_20_uk]

To point out the obvious, North Korea wants to spin this out as long as humanly possible since it reduces the odds of sanctions / attacks on them. And perhaps by now they've managed to explain to Trump that this is the best he can get - statesmanlike overseas visits before important elections or whenever else he wants to buff his ego. The diplo-nerds can do the writing in the background and they have to smile, he has to ramble for a bit and then everyone agrees how much progress was made and job done.

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

Agreed. My post was agreeing that Bolton did not.

This is why I think Bolton being appointed was one of the biggest threats to peace. But we will see how things play out.

[Montmorency]

One fair point someone made about Bolton is, he can't actually want war with both Iran and North Korea simultaneously (unless he's literarily-mad). So his pronouncements shouldn't be interpreted directly but as part of a rhetorical dance between conferees; they open up on all the influential positions and attitudes within their respective administrations to shape their counterparts' imagination of possibilities...

This isn't unfamiliar to us, but it's easy to lose sight of.

So we probably don't know what Bolton's real strategy is besides that it's dangerous.



EDIT:

The Day England's Footballers Gave the Nazi Salute (https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/78nbgd/the-day-englands-footballers-gave-the-nazi-salute)

Four months before Chamberlain's now infamous declaration of peace, on 14 May 1938, the English national football team played Germany in front of 110,00 spectators at the Olympiastadion in Berlin. It was the opening game of their tour of Europe and began with a powerful political statement.

Top-ranking Nazis such as Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess and Joseph Goebbels were in attendance for the match, though Hitler himself was not present. When the German national anthem was played before the game, England's players raised their arms to give the Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute. Seven decades on – and with full knowledge of what was to unfold under the Nazi regime – it is a fairly shocking visual.

Then as now, sport and politics were inextricably linked. The English players had been instructed before the match that they should give the salute, with the order coming direct from the Foreign Office. It was later reported that the team initially refused, only for the British Ambassador to Germany, Sir Neville Henderson, to intervene. Using FA Secretary Stanley Rous (later FIFA President) as an intermediary, Henderson told the team to give the salute for the sake of Anglo-German relations.

Stanley Matthews – who was among the goal-scorers in a 6-3 England win – recalled: "All the England players were livid and totally opposed to this, myself included.
Pannonian

Hail to the NFL!

[Pannonian]

One fair point someone made about Bolton is, he can't actually want war with both Iran and North Korea simultaneously (unless he's literarily-mad).

How does one become literarily mad? Does it involve seeking innovations in concrete poetry that transcend the requirements of communication?

[HopAlongBunny]

The USA might still be the "last best hope" hard as it may be to imagine.
The stench of corruption surrounding this administration has turned the White House into that "shining turd on the Hill".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA might still be the "last best hope" hard as it may be to imagine.
The stench of corruption surrounding this administration has turned the White House into that "shining turd on the Hill".

Most administrations come to Washington and become corrupted by power and the political game. Trump's squad came to town corrupted. So the situation is totally different now than with previous administrations.

[Fragony]

Maybe they are corruptie, buy in an other way, at least they are not a part of the dynasties

,Sorry voor the bad spelling, IT is bad anyway bit IT is nog nu fault now

[Husar]

Maybe they are corruptie, buy in an other way, at least they are not a part of the dynasties

Yeah, not like Trump inherited anything of value. :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

Those who are against him are worse, Politics is also a kartel

Talking of karrtels, have the Clintons already explained therir role in the mexican cocaïne imports

[Husar]

Those who are against him are worse, Politics is also a kartel

I don't even for a second believe that Bernie Sanders is worse...

[Crandar]

So, how all these Trump-haters comment on the latest brilliant move in Donald's diplomacy, the meeting of Prince Charming with Kim?

[Husar]

So, how all these Trump-haters comment on the latest brilliant move in Donald's diplomacy, the meeting of Prince Charming with Kim?

Kim was much slimmer and a lot more beautiful than I remembered...

[Montmorency]

So, how all these Trump-haters comment on the latest brilliant move in Donald's diplomacy, the meeting of Prince Charming with Kim?

If this is asking what we personally think, I think Trump got irritated at the perception that Kim has considerable geopolitical/diplomatic leverage over the admin at the moment, and that Trump was buying into it too effusively.

I guess he wanted to convey his brand "toughness" by pulling back - well, look at the White House's statement on the matter, it's awkwardly funny:

20775

The more recent news on preparations, it's what, an agnostic image, will-he-won't-he. I'm guessing it takes place in the end because Trump wants it, but pulled this little stunt all for the sake of what he imagines is a tough image.

Hopefully he doesn't abandon the peninsula for a commemorative plaque bearing his likeness in Pyongyang. :P

The admin has been going at everybody from Syria to Canada half-drunk in the past couple of months, some sort of manic state. I can't tell if it's a concerted strategy, a distraction from domestic affairs, or Trump moving down his wishlist after purging or neutering the (((moderates))) around him.

[Strike For The South]

It all becomes clear when you realize he has no plan and is merely using planks from a platform that was never supposed to be seriously used.

[Shaka_Khan]

So, how all these Trump-haters comment on the latest brilliant move in Donald's diplomacy, the meeting of Prince Charming with Kim?
I think even Trump doesn't know what Trump himself will eventually do.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think even Trump doesn't know what Trump himself will eventually do.

I used to bemoan Obama's reactive approach to foreign policy.

The current occupant is reactive on all fronts and seemingly affected with ADD.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well that makes sense.
The best way to get along in the world is to kick all your allies in the nuts:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/hits-eu-mexico-canada-steel-aluminum-tariffs-180531134948849.html

Canada, the EU, Japan...etc. all seem content to ready appeals to the WTO and prepare retaliatory tariffs:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-steel-deadline-1.4685242

Right now it's a "paper war"; nothing has been implemented...yet. It all seems to rest on the first mover.

[Crandar]

I think even Trump doesn't know what Trump himself will eventually do.
The funny thing is that his most fanatic supporters are proud of it. They will quote a WWII general and say that unpredictability is a great tactic, because your enemy will never anticipate your next move. 3d chess and all that...

[Montmorency]

The funny thing is that his most fanatic supporters are proud of it. They will quote a WWII general and say that unpredictability is a great tactic, because your enemy will never anticipate your next move. 3d chess and all that...

Do you get exposure from Trump fans in Greece, or direct to the source?

[Crandar]

Do you get exposure from Trump fans in Greece, or direct to the source?
There aren't that many in Greece. We prefer orthodox strongmen like Putin. My experience comes from the Internet, since 2016, all three sites I frequent [Syrian Civil War, Total War gaming (I don't mean the .org) and funny images] have been polluted by die-hard white supremacists, with a desperate need to spam their dogma in the most irrelevant place. This is the only place without anyone screaming about how every white man is going to be castrated by Muslim feminists.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The funny thing is that his most fanatic supporters are proud of it. They will quote a WWII general and say that unpredictability is a great tactic, because your enemy will never anticipate your next move. 3d chess and all that...

His core supporters like it a lot. They would prefer a politician who told her/his opponent to go fuck themselves. They do not want ANYTHING that seems like 'politics as usual.' They like hardball tactics in negotiation. They want people they view as enemies treated as such. Many of them live, intellectually, in very black/white worlds.

As Monty and others have suggested before this, the Trump phenomenon is, in many ways, a product of the political 'gaming' that has characterized our system for half a century or more.


I wonder how long it will be before they realize that Trump, on any number of levels, is gaming them...

[Gilrandir]

The funny thing is that his most fanatic supporters are proud of it. They will quote a WWII general and say that unpredictability is a great tactic, because your enemy will never anticipate your next move. 3d chess and all that...

So Trump would make a superb war general? I believe there are plenty of conflicts around the world where the US takes part. Sending him to the front line would be an option. He could succeed in getting himself killed quickly.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3zvJe3Koyw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u3zEq4pOck

[Strike For The South]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trump-i-have-the-absolute-right-to-pardon-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trump-i-have-the-absolute-right-to-pardon-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

Constitutionally, I believe he does have that right. If he does it before Halloween of the year preceding the inauguration of he predecessor, that would get him impeached and removed from office. No further legal action would be possible, but that would indeed get him tossed I believe.

[HopAlongBunny]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/trump-i-have-the-absolute-right-to-pardon-myself.html

Trump thinks he can pardon himself. That might actually be the tipping point, finally, probably not though.

He might be right :on_groucho:
The problem will end up in the courts; will they halt or support the idea?; if it gets bounced to Congress they could decide "their" president [B]is[B] above the law.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-up-to-trump-it-may-be-up-to-merrick-garland

The problem with the systems we make is they are human, all too human

[Montmorency]

Constitutionally, I believe he does have that right. If he does it before Halloween of the year preceding the inauguration of he predecessor, that would get him impeached and removed from office. No further legal action would be possible, but that would indeed get him tossed I believe.

It's debatable, but that's a problem in itself. A cleverer tyrant than Trump could wield it as a loophole in attaining autocracy, and dare the rest of the government to call their bluff.


Edit: From Bunny's linked article:


St. Clair, Nixon’s lawyer, once said: “The president wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.”

:verycool:

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cl_QGh4ACc

[Hooahguy]

He might be right :on_groucho:
The problem will end up in the courts; will they halt or support the idea?; if it gets bounced to Congress they could decide "their" president [B]is[B] above the law.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-up-to-trump-it-may-be-up-to-merrick-garland

The problem with the systems we make is they are human, all too human

I doubt that case would gain much traction:


https://i.redd.it/j1k4rx5wzz111.jpg



If it did come down to the Supreme Court on whether or not a president can pardon himself, and god forbid they found in favor of Trump, the US governmental system as we know it is over.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.

[Gilrandir]

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.


4. Tar and feather him.

[Fragony]

Trump is pebably deeply sorry letting 230.000 job just appear out of nowhere, policy has nothing to do with it

[rory_20_uk]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.



Trump represents the law - he is not the law any more than a judge is. This is why there are methods to remove him in the same way there are those who represent government / healthcare / etc.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump absolutely has the power to pardon himself. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.

Trump is above the law. Trump is the law. Your recourse are as follows:

1. Vote him out.
2. Take away his money.
3. Impeach him.

If this isn't to your liking, well next time remember elections have consequences.



Voting him out is, and was, the preferred method. Impeachment was, and is, the tool in place to remove an executive who was clearly in breach of the law or who was trending toward tyranny. Taking away someone's money was NOT supposed to be a function of government. Taking his money? Courts can fine him according to established criminal guidelines if guilty and individuals may sue him for damages, but these would have to occur after his time in office is concluded.

Trump is not above the law, though the law's ability to touch him is held in abeyance during his term of office (at 1201 Eastern, 20 January 2021 [or 2025] he could be arrested if an arrest warrant has been promulgated).

Congress could impeach him on malfeasance in office as a 'misdemeanor.' I believe they would do this if he pardoned himself while in office to avoid a criminal charge for which convincing evidence had already been proffered. I think Congress would impeach ANY President who stepped outside the spirit of the Constitution so completely.

I suspect, as noted in posts above, that he could pardon himself, again, while he is in office and entitled to do so. In doing so, he could avoid conviction for any crimes he may have committed. He would also, in my opinion, trigger impeachment and removal from office.

[Montmorency]

There were plenty of Founding Fathers who leaned toward the "enlightened monarchy" camp and they left their mark in the extent of the President's powers.


You can argue for a self-pardon power if you interpret text in isolation from the rest of the document and don't take history or legal meta-principles into account, which account nevertheless judges of all ideological stripes tend to take in analysis of issues of all sorts, so neglecting them in this type of case would be prima facie goal-oriented reasoning demanding a very good explanation. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, for example, that preemptive pardons prior to the commission of a crime are forbidden, so under the positivistic approach Trump may permanently shield himself and his family/allies from federal criminal liability in a single proclamation. Such a result would allow Trump as a private citizen to defy the federal government or even personally execute the entire sitting Congress without fear of prosecution at any point in his life.

Ultimately there is that fig leaf permitting a far-right court (which we don't quite have yet) to endorse the irresponsible reading, but it would seriously damage the authority of the Court and may eventually grease comprehensive reform... For now let's keep in mind the "pragmatic" constraints on Trump that keep this line of thinking a rhetorical device, that self-pardon (as opposed to pardon by POTUS Pence, Acting President VP Pence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), or some future POTUS), whether it's tested or not, guarantees eventual state-level prosecution and conviction barring irrevocable seizure of power. Moreover, there's a very strong case that a corrupt self-pardon (there is no other kind) would in itself be a criminal offense in violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes.

But I don't think there's reason to believe either that a faction of the Framers consciously intended this opening, or that they leaned toward "enlightened monarchy" as opposed to an executive capable of effectively balancing Congress. I understand that self-pardon was never explicitly discussed in documented form during the Constitutional Conventions, whereas proper checks on executive overreach were extensively discussed, so it's up to you to dig up any Framers who took the position that reproducing the privilege of a Charles I or Louis XIV was desirable in a time when even that of a George III was rejected. To reiterate, there is a difference between "energetic executive" and "royal prerogative", especially in the context of the null-executive Articles of Confederation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Guys, when I say take away his money I am referring to Congress controlling the budget. Defunding his departments is a retaliatory action Congress can perform.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump represents the law - he is not the law any more than a judge is. This is why there are methods to remove him in the same way there are those who represent government / healthcare / etc.

~:smoking:The only means of removing him are political, not criminal. If he commits a crime, he can pardon himself. Impeachment is a political tool, to use it doesn't make his actions in violation of the law, it makes his actions in violation of political taste. Every president over the last 200 years has broken the law as they see fit. We don't call Lincoln a criminal for suspending habeus corpus without congressional approval.

[a completely inoffensive name]

4. Tar and feather him.Impeachment was put in place in the constitution to prevent that resort from being used.

[Gilrandir]

Impeachment was put in place in the constitution to prevent that resort from being used.

Not that spectacular, though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can argue for a self-pardon power if you interpret text in isolation from the rest of the document and don't take history or legal meta-principles into account, which account nevertheless judges of all ideological stripes tend to take in analysis of issues of all sorts, so neglecting them in this type of case would be prima facie goal-oriented reasoning demanding a very good explanation. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution, for example, that preemptive pardons prior to the commission of a crime are forbidden, so under the positivistic approach Trump may permanently shield himself and his family/allies from federal criminal liability in a single proclamation. Such a result would allow Trump as a private citizen to defy the federal government or even personally execute the entire sitting Congress without fear of prosecution at any point in his life.

Ultimately there is that fig leaf permitting a far-right court (which we don't quite have yet) to endorse the irresponsible reading, but it would seriously damage the authority of the Court and may eventually grease comprehensive reform... For now let's keep in mind the "pragmatic" constraints on Trump that keep this line of thinking a rhetorical device, that self-pardon (as opposed to pardon by POTUS Pence, Acting President VP Pence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), or some future POTUS), whether it's tested or not, guarantees eventual state-level prosecution and conviction barring irrevocable seizure of power. Moreover, there's a very strong case that a corrupt self-pardon (there is no other kind) would in itself be a criminal offense in violation of Obstruction of Justice statutes.

But I don't think there's reason to believe either that a faction of the Framers consciously intended this opening, or that they leaned toward "enlightened monarchy" as opposed to an executive capable of effectively balancing Congress. I understand that self-pardon was never explicitly discussed in documented form during the Constitutional Conventions, whereas proper checks on executive overreach were extensively discussed, so it's up to you to dig up any Framers who took the position that reproducing the privilege of a Charles I or Louis XIV was desirable in a time when even that of a George III was rejected. To reiterate, there is a difference between "energetic executive" and "royal prerogative", especially in the context of the null-executive Articles of Confederation.

I will see if I can type a bigger response before I hop on board a plane today. But I will just say that the approach I am taking in this convo is precisely the positivistic outcome you describe. If there is no other qualifier other than "except cases of impeachment" then that is what it says, and it is a mistake of the Constitutional Convention to not anticipate this. We patch it up with historical arguments on intent and practicality but the loophole is still there.

This is what I am getting at here Monty. The spirit of the law only matters when all parties respect the law. I have said this before and I guess it is not sticking. When you have an authoritarian moving to undermine institutional norms not written down, your only restrictions on him are what is explicitly written, everything else is a moving goalpost. Before criticizing all my other bullcrap I decided to type, tell me if I am wrong on this point.

As far as quotes, I will need to dig up Madison but I am pretty sure Hamilton advocated for a lifelong executive to replicate the privilages of the English system. Others maybe Morris wanted to scrap the impeachment clause and leave the president unaccountable to Congress, but that may have been for other reasons than inspiration from English law.

[Strike For The South]

Glad The Eagles aren't dignifying him with a response. I think the people who still support him are mostly unreachable, but this kind of tantrums could be the thing that does it.

Re: The pardon.

No court in America would ever say that the president could pardon himself, it simply would not happen. A hypo supreme court ruling would be 8-1 or 7-2. A president whom can pardon themselves flies directly in the face of this cumbersome, check filled system we designed.

[Montmorency]

The only means of removing him are political, not criminal. If he commits a crime, he can pardon himself. Impeachment is a political tool, to use it doesn't make his actions in violation of the law, it makes his actions in violation of political taste. Every president over the last 200 years has broken the law as they see fit. We don't call Lincoln a criminal for suspending habeus corpus without congressional approval.

It's not so clear that the Suspension Clause (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205/--lincoln-s-suspension-of-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus?rgn=main;view=fulltext) should be considered the sole purview of Congress (including by your own logic above!), but either way you are missing the key distinction between official uses of power and corrupt abuses of power. No one arrests a Congressman for jaywalking (maybe if black), but even absolute immunity has a limited scope of application to the explicit duties of the office; federal officers and elected officials can and have been tried and jailed for all sorts of crimes, including crimes of official conduct.

The theory that public officials cannot commit crimes is plainly wrong. It's not just wrong, it's laughable.

Again, if the Founders did not consider that the Pardon clause could empower a President to immunize any individual from federal prosecution FOR LIFE, it is not because they failed to perceive a loophole, but because it would have been absurd to interpret the clause in such a way. Indeed we're only talking about this stuff now because in the past no one would have seriously thought this way.


I will see if I can type a bigger response before I hop on board a plane today. But I will just say that the approach I am taking in this convo is precisely the positivistic outcome you describe. If there is no other qualifier other than "except cases of impeachment" then that is what it says, and it is a mistake of the Constitutional Convention to not anticipate this. We patch it up with historical arguments on intent and practicality but the loophole is still there.

This is what I am getting at here Monty. The spirit of the law only matters when all parties respect the law. I have said this before and I guess it is not sticking. When you have an authoritarian moving to undermine institutional norms not written down, your only restrictions on him are what is explicitly written, everything else is a moving goalpost. Before criticizing all my other bullcrap I decided to type, tell me if I am wrong on this point.

As far as quotes, I will need to dig up Madison but I am pretty sure Hamilton advocated for a lifelong executive to replicate the privilages of the English system. Others maybe Morris wanted to scrap the impeachment clause and leave the president unaccountable to Congress, but that may have been for other reasons than inspiration from English law.

Except our legal system does not depend only on "what is written", because what is written in excerpt exists in the context of all the rest that is written and unwritten in law.

The only people in the judiciary who interpret law this way do so selectively and with political motivation.

Pick out any Supreme Court decision, and let's examine it; I bet with you that under your lens of analysis the decision and reasoning would be incomprehensible, because admitting so much context both legal and historical.

Madison was pretty pro-state and anti-Federalist, no? Hamilton was aware of the Glorious Revolution, as would have been all of the Founders. I'm sure there's more, but the bulk of my knowledge on what he said about the executive are Federalist Papers 67-77, which is basically just the executive we have codified in our Constitution - far weaker than the contemporary elaborated Presidency. Hamilton AFAIK specifically did not advocate for a lifelong presidency, though he raised the possibility alongside lifelong appointment of senators, but was a strong opponent of term limits. Which leaves the matter up to the public will.

Nixon took the strong stance that he was as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, but only for 4 years at a time, and not subject to any court but the court of impeachment. Find me a Hamilton document, or anyone's writing, that advances anything as close to this strong view of executive power in the early days of the Republic, other than a tiny movement that literally called for George Washington to declare himself King and did not to my knowledge include any of the 'important' Founders.


I'll repeat James Madison on Presidents and pardons:


“There is one security in this case [a misuse of the pardon power by the president] to which gentlemen may not have adverted: if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty; they can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended fill he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.”

Note, crucially, that in my searches I cannot determine whether Obstruction of Justice or analogous offenses existed in common or criminal law in the 18th century. Did they even exist prior to WW2? That's around where I start finding the phrase "obstruction of justice" used concretely rather than rhetorically.



By the way:

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE, we're ONE STATE away (and probably a Congressional re-authorization...) from passing the Equal Rights Amendment (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/31/17414630/equal-rights-amendment-metoo-illinois) to the Constitution!

If it's the Puerto Ricans in Florida or the socialists in Virginia that accomplish this for us, I'm gonna be so jelled.

[Montmorency]

Forget about pardons for a moment


Nationalize the coal industry (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-nationalize-coal_us_5ae8d8e9e4b06748dc8d34b4)? Stop, I can only get so erect.

Deadass, if Trump were to do such a thing I would shake his hand and playfully slap his behind.

Trump is actually taking the first steps (https://www.scribd.com/document/380740746/DOE-Coal-Nuke-Subsidy-Plan-1) towards nationalization.

This could seriously happen.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/01/donald-trump-rick-perry-coal-plants-617112
https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-energy-department-to-prop-up-unprofitable-coal-plants-national-security.html
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-trumps-soviet-style-coal-directive-would-upend-power-markets/524906/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-is-paving-the-way-for-an-imperial-socialist-presidency.html


DO IT

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not saying that all public officials have unlimited immunity. Just the president does. My reference to Madison was about the notes he took at the Constitutional convention I would also think he wanted as far from a strong executive as possible.

To reiterate, my point of view is that the correct view of law which you describe applies when all parties respect the law. Presidents have ignored SCOTUS before. Trump is at the same level of popularity as Carter and HW Bush was this far into their first term.

This battle will increasingly shift from the realm of law to the realm of public opinion as his authoritarian tendencies become emboldened or he fears for his survival from persecution. Only overt violations of written law will convince an otherwise apathetic public of the true nature of where this game is leading us.

[Montmorency]

Not saying that all public officials have unlimited immunity. Just the president does. My reference to Madison was about the notes he took at the Constitutional convention I would also think he wanted as far from a strong executive as possible.

The President does, as do Congresspersons and Senators, as do federal judges...

But it falls in a specific scope: performance of official duties.

You can't just commit any crime you like and get away with it by dint of your office.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The President does, as do Congresspersons and Senators, as do federal judges...

But it falls in a specific scope: performance of official duties.

You can't just commit any crime you like and get away with it by dint of your office.

Correct. Immunity is derived from the Article 1 Section 6. It provides immunity from arrest during legislative sessions or travel to/therefrom EXCEPT in cases of Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace. It also holds that a legislator cannot be questioned regarding comments/statements made on the debating floor except by colleagues also at that venue. This has been extended to all federal judges and elected executives, but it applies only during their term of office. In particular, Article 2 Section 4 goes on to talk about impeachment of the President or Vice President and other government officials for Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Bottom line. Immunity exists and is pretty broadly applicable WHILE IN OFFICE, but you cannot use that immunity to rob banks, kill people, or urinate on your neighbors. Upon removal from office by impeachment (or being between sessions in the case of Congress) you are no longer immune and they can arrest you as normal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I think the culture of the USA is still too oriented on the rule of law to have things break down. It has been bent in the past, and likely will again, but has not broken.

[Husar]

I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I think I got your point and it wasn't bad at all.
A law is only worth something if enough people enforce it.
Some say the second amendment clearly says "well-regulated militia" and other say it doesn't matter. The others clearly get to enforce their version of the law at the moment even if we assume it is not the one that was intended. In the same way certain other legal interpretations can be useless if a sufficient portion of the country just decides to ignore them and has the power to do so.

[Montmorency]

Correct. Immunity is derived from the Article 1 Section 6. It provides immunity from arrest during legislative sessions or travel to/therefrom EXCEPT in cases of Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace. It also holds that a legislator cannot be questioned regarding comments/statements made on the debating floor except by colleagues also at that venue. This has been extended to all federal judges and elected executives, but it applies only during their term of office. In particular, Article 2 Section 4 goes on to talk about impeachment of the President or Vice President and other government officials for Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Bottom line. Immunity exists and is pretty broadly applicable WHILE IN OFFICE, but you cannot use that immunity to rob banks, kill people, or urinate on your neighbors. Upon removal from office by impeachment (or being between sessions in the case of Congress) you are no longer immune and they can arrest you as normal.

As I will point out below, no form of immunity (except as argued for the chief executive since the 1970s) confers immunity from arrest and trial. It is only immunity from liability under specific conditions.

An interesting tidbit to embarrass positivists: Absolute immunity doctrine for POTUS (which has been in reference to court injunction or tort and not to criminal prosecution prior to Nixon) is half a fabrication from the recognition of executive privilege pervasive in all judicial-executive interactions and half a historical holdover of far more sweeping crown and sovereign immunity for the English monarch and their agents.

Beyond U.S. Constitution art. I, § 6


[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

state and local legislators, judges, and prosecutors have been conferred absolute immunity by multiple Supreme Court affirmations without basis in any particular statute or the Constitution, but usually in "common-law and historical" considerations following 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (1871), a due-process and civil damages law that "says nothing about absolute immunity for anyone". And as I pointed out, immunity only extends to the designated tasks of the office (judicial, legislative, prosecutorial...), but not to simply any other function or action taken under color of holding the office, including administrative. Because "t is important to constantly remember that absolute immunity is something that goes with the task, not with the office", executive officials can even receive absolute immunity when acting in judicial context, e.g. serving as a witness. It turns out judges have really liked to stake out absolute immunity as far as possible despite the lack of explicit statutory justification. Hell, the ruling in [I]Baraka v. McGreevey (2007) even found that a governor could secure legislative immunity in budgetary decisions. How many "el-oh-el"s is that? It is not true in any case (except arguably for the President due to nothing more than the importance of the office) that conference of absolute immunity protects an office holder from any prosecution for the duration of their holding the office. All of this applies at least as much to civil liability as to criminal, by the way. Even the President can be held civilly liable, either for conduct prior to taking office (Jones vs. Clinton), or even for conduct during tenure of office (Nixon vs. Fitzgerald) as long as one separates the conduct of the POTUS and the conduct of the man or woman occupying the office of POTUS.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10082/Section-1983-Absolute-Qualified-Immunities.html
https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1262&context=lawreview
https://nahmodlaw.com/2009/10/29/a-section-1983-primer-1-history-purposes-and-scope/#more-250
https://nahmodlaw.com/2013/02/20/a-section-1983-primer-8-absolute-legislative-immunity/
https://nahmodlaw.com/2013/03/14/a-section-1983-primer-9-absolute-judicial-immunity/
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/45-presidential-immunity-from-judical-direction.html
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=ilsajournal/
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/after-40-years-is-it-time-to-reconsider-absolute-immunity-for-prosecutors
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-presidents-absolute-immunity-be-trumped

And of course of course, you don't even have our judicial branch without Marbury vs. Madison, a decision of unmatched potency despite not really deciding anything about the case at hand.

https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/marbury-story.pdf

The point of this is not to argue that absolute immunity does not exist (whether it should exist is a separate discussion), but to point out that under a positivist rationale absolute immunity could not exist other than as specified for legislative action under the Constitution, and to emphasize that our entire legal framework could not exist if we abandoned context, common-law, history, and determinations of public interest, and limited ourselves only to the text at-hand.

This is also, of course, how courts can routinely act in favor of cops despite a mere "qualified" immunity for executive officers and agents, so flexibility and discretion has downsides. It is nevertheless the underpinning of law and process in our country.



I must not be expressing myself clearly since I understand the point you are both making and I agree with you both. but I am trying to express a concern I may have, probably unfounded, about the applicability of said law under certain terms and conditions. I just wanted to make a hysterical point about the fragility of rule of law in an unstable society.

This is why I shouldn't really be posting anymote.

I thought you were echoing the Trump admin's position that 'if the President does it, it's not illegal.' Beyond that, claiming that law in this country is written, interpreted, and applied positivistically is objectively incorrect.

Sorry for making you feel bad. I'm awfully good at that. :(


I think the culture of the USA is still too oriented on the rule of law to have things break down. It has been bent in the past, and likely will again, but has not broken.

It doesn't obviate the ideal fully, but we should be reminded that the US has never had a strict culture of "law and order", rather one of expedience and two tracks for the powerful and the weak. We're better than most, but :better" has a very limited virtue.

(Also, technically having any citizen protected by any form of official immunity at any time means we cannot possibly be "equal under the law", even formally. )


I think I got your point and it wasn't bad at all.
A law is only worth something if enough people enforce it.
Some say the second amendment clearly says "well-regulated militia" and other say it doesn't matter. The others clearly get to enforce their version of the law at the moment even if we assume it is not the one that was intended. In the same way certain other legal interpretations can be useless if a sufficient portion of the country just decides to ignore them and has the power to do so.

The one illegal thing (contempt of court?) Lincoln may have done re: suspending the privilege* of the writ of habeas corpus was ignoring Judge Taney in ex parte Merryman, except, like with Andrew Jackson and Worcester vs. Georgia, the court did not actually direct or enjoin any government action, so :shrug:

The judicial branch has often taken pains to avoid stepping on the shoes of the other branches when it comes to injunctions.


*Historical tangent, but the Constitution specifies that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended, it seems. What this means is that unlawful arrest or detention is still unlawful under the suspension, you just don't have the privilege to pursue damages or recourse. Once the suspension has been lifted and the privilege rehabilitated, in theory one can pursue the issue in court. I can't find the article now, but one analysis found that the vast majority of arrests under Lincoln's policy were lawful, even if arguably the policy itself was an overreaction and not especially helpful towards maintenance of national security.


EDIT: I should have thought of this, but technically one of the worst aspects of Bush-era extradition policies and the Guantanamo Bay prison was that it involved a much more serious erosion of the habeas corpus right than under Lincoln, not least because it was not constrained by any specified exigent justification or limited in time and space. AFAIK we haven't recuperated habeas corpus so far in the Forever War. The Japanese-American internment during WW2 also involved the suspension of habeas corpus privilege; the American experience with habeas corpus thus fits into the familiar pattern of iterative escalation of security measures.

[Husar]

The one illegal thing (contempt of court?) Lincoln may have done re: suspending the privilege* of the writ of habeas corpus was ignoring Judge Taney in ex parte Merryman, except, like with Andrew Jackson and Worcester vs. Georgia, the court did not actually direct or enjoin any government action, so :shrug:

The judicial branch has often taken pains to avoid stepping on the shoes of the other branches when it comes to injunctions.

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-latest-news-erdogan-istanbul-judges-removed-from-duty-failed-government-overthrow-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

[Montmorency]

I don't know why you bring up courts in reply to my post.
Courts can be changed: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-latest-news-erdogan-istanbul-judges-removed-from-duty-failed-government-overthrow-a7140661.html

They only have power if the executive actually enforces their decisions. And failing that, the people in general.
The point was that with sufficient support in the populace and the executive, the rule of the law can be broken and Trump is moving somewhat in this direction by trying to discredit every institution that tries to block him.

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

[Husar]

That's what I was touching on in my response to your portion - executive power overriding subtle judicial arguments, and courts actively deferring to the executive in order to avoid a situation in which the executive have to choose between following onerous court orders, or explicitly rejecting them.

Sorry for rambling.

What rambling? If I misread your post, it's your duty to point that out. How else would I learn? :sweatdrop:

In your example you seem to say Lincoln acted against a court order, but the court wasn't exactly interested in ordering him to do or not do anything anyway. Then you say the courts generally try not to interfere with the executive.

So, do you agree that it is possible that noone would stop Trump from ignoring the law and potentially the constitution?
It's not just about the courts, imagine a democratic congress were to impeach him, but his crazy cabinet would back him and order the police/military not to remove him. Would that result in a coup/civil war or endless debates until his term was over anyway? And what if he'd then declare a state of emergency and postponed the elections? Would all the California hippies pick up their AR-15s and march on Washington?

These are hypotheticals of course, but I'm not entirely sure how disinterested courts figure into this other than that they might make it even easier for him.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump spreads BS like a manure spreader.
It seems this trait has "trickled down" to the FCC:

https://wonkette.com/634875/trump-fcc-breaks-internet-blames-it-on-dog

"We've were hacked!"
"We have no proof, but, I mean obviously we need to stop public comment on net-neutrality cause...you know"

Making America Great

https://gizmodo.com/senior-us-official-claimed-the-fcc-got-hacked-after-sec-1797593781

[Gilrandir]

Surely the USA are a more stable country than Turkey, but that's probably what the Romans thought, too. AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW? ;)

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

[Husar]

There was no Turkey back then. So your supposition is wrong.

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

[Gilrandir]

I think you misunderstand. I linked to an article about Erdogan to show what Trump could potentially do, but wanted to make sure people know that I don't think the US situation is exactly like the Turkish one. The last part was just a joke about the Romans probably having thought that their empire was more stable than it was, too.

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

[Montmorency]

Guys, let's take jurisprudential stuff to the other thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152917-Backroom-Errata?p=2053778416&viewfull=1#post2053778416).

Anyone have any comments on Trump gearing up for some top-down command in energy markets?

And I don't want to be this fellow,

20804

but here's an excellent argument (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/02/22/trump-save-steal-nationalize-industry-000643) for why "if Trump really wants to save American steel, he'd nationalize it": it's a national security asset, it's relatively tiny against the scale of the economy, it concentrates a small number of skilled workers, it's been utterly outcompeted in international (and domestic) markets by the rest of the world even with govt subsidies, it's been operating on annual net loss for almost a decade, it could be bought out for cheap (compensated eminent domain?), and the desired level of strategic production and skill retention could be maintained more efficiently under national control than with scattershot efforts to keep a failed private industry solvent...

[Husar]

I think you have failed to detect irony. For the first time.

Can't even see it now. :shrug:
But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

[Gilrandir]

Can't even see it now. :shrug:
But late at night and early in the morning I'm less than perfect indeed.

Perhaps it wasn't irony in the strict sense. Rather trolling.

[HopAlongBunny]

G7 summit ends in confusion and mixed messaging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660

Trump slags Trudeau once carefully out of any danger of a face-to-face; on trade the appearance is of a G6 with the USA going it own way; the communique will not be unanimous, again the USA will be the dissenting party.
The SCO meanwhile seems to just ticking along nicely...

[Gilrandir]

G7 summit ends in confusion and mixed messaging:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660

Trump slags Trudeau once carefully out of any danger of a face-to-face; on trade the appearance is of a G6 with the USA going it own way; the communique will not be unanimous, again the USA will be the dissenting party.
The SCO meanwhile seems to just ticking along nicely...


20822
"Belay that talk, John Silver," he said. "This crew has tipped you the black spot in full council, as in dooty bound; just you turn it over, as in dooty bound, and see what's wrote there. Then you can talk."

[Montmorency]

Great photo, very artistic. Check out Japanese Scaramucci hanging in the back.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/60012441/AP_18160750063030.0.jpg

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/gettyimages-820386468.jpg

(Here is the scene (https://twitter.com/fabreinbold/status/1005835908938194944) from 5 more angles.)

As expected, the photo is highly exploitable as a meme. Here are some entries:


20826

20827

20828

20829

20830

[HopAlongBunny]

It was a big summit. A beautiful summit. Many things were said.
And that is about the level of detail Trump got from Kim:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/here-is-why-donald-trump-looks-like-kims-bitch

As the article notes, unlike the Iran agreement with specific verifiable goals and an end to enrichment, this agreement contains none of that.
I suspect Trump and Kim linked pinkies and both promised to be very very good...

[Viking]

Relevant correct use of memes:

https://i.imgur.com/25w1HmS.jpg


. (https://twitter.com/ritholtz/status/1006606058071224320)

[Pannonian]

20829


I can't remember the original's name. Does anyone know?

[Montmorency]

Full joint statement out of Singapore:


Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.


Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-up negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

(Signed)

DONALD J. TRUMP

President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN

Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

June 12, 2018

Sentosa Island

Singapore

Elsewhere, as noted in HABunny's article, Trump remarked that he would give Kim the benefit of the doubt by canceling all US-Korea war exercises until further notice. The US and ROK militaries announced that they had not received any orders to that effect and that they expected the exercise planned for August to proceed. Meanwhile, China (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-knew-about-trump-stopping-korea-military-drills-before-us-military-2018-6)immediately leapt on the statement with satisfaction.

So, here's a Nork-style propaganda video the Trump administration put out about the summit. Watch this shit. Watch the whole shit. Husar


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A838gS8nwas


You can read elsewhere about Trump's unusually-incoherent remarks to the press following the meetings, but here's a disturbingly-lucid short clip (https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1006473156868091904) in which he says regarding Kim's integrity:


He'll do it, I really believe that, otherwise I wouldn't be doing this.
[...]
Honestly, I think he's gonna do these things. I may be wrong. I mean, I may stand before you in six months and say, Hey, I was wrong. I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find a - I'll find some kind of an excuse.

Maximum trolling gif
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/43a4ceaf69090a4cf5085aca1a09df4c/tenor.gif?itemid=7189438)

So, let's sum up: The US uses inflamed rhetoric to propel a crisis, then unilaterally concedes a face-to-face meeting between Kim and POTUS (who praises "talented" Kim and the loving relationship between him and his people), concedes on military exercises (previously held as transparent, lawful, and not subject to terroristic blackmail), offers to concede on sanctions, concedes on security guarantees to the North Korean regime, all for....

............

a reaffirmation from Kim that he very much wants to see American troops and nuclear armaments (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/11/putting-u-s-nukes-back-in-south-korea-is-a-terrible-idea/) off the Korean peninsula.


*heavy sigh*

[Montmorency]

Found this on a forum with Viking's 'thirsty boyfriend' meme.

https://i.imgur.com/WUPzglg.jpg

IMO this is worse, since the events of 1938-9 were arguably a delaying tactic between great powers, whereas this is... good optics in the mind of Trump's base?

[Gilrandir]

Relevant correct use of memes:

https://i.imgur.com/25w1HmS.jpg


. (https://twitter.com/ritholtz/status/1006606058071224320)

No wonder they like each other so much. Two dictators, you know. Birds of a feather...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/10/a-fox-news-host-has-accidentally-referred-to-the-highly-anticipated-summit-between-president-donald-trump-and-north-korean-leader-kim-jong-un-as-a-meeting-of-two-dictators

[HopAlongBunny]

This piece sums up my whole take on Trump;
Every part of his Presidency is play-acting to gratify his ego; other considerations only exist to the extent that they turn the spotlight on Trump:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/11/the-trump-kim-summit-is-wrestlemania-for-pundits/

The comparison to the "drama and spectacle" of professional wrestling is certainly on point

[HopAlongBunny]

Concessions touted by Kim that do not appear in the Joint Statement:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619464740/north-koreas-media-touts-trump-concessions-you-won-t-find-in-the-joint-statement

Hmmm, Trump does tend to say a lot of things when performing w/o a script:on_gmegap:
Have to see how this plays out :)


https://youtu.be/5MGBEbo1gmA

[Husar]

I'm also on the waiting list. I've said before that I'm not sure about what Kim wants. People focus on him murdering family members, but we don't know much about the kind of people these family members were and why exactly they were executed. IIRC his uncle was a major figure in the army, so hardly a saint.

I'm going to lean way out the window now, but there is the saying that evil triumphs when good people do nothing and maybe, just maybe, sometimes good people need to murder very bad people to prevent even more bloodshed in the future. If you disagree, then please jail the entire US Army and especially the guys who shot Osama bin Laden.

Obviously I'm just guessing that Kim may not be all that bad after all, but he can also be both good and bad, or the most lenient leader North Korea has to offer without mass-murdering almost everyone there and starting "fresh".

Remember this, it's not like he can just "go good" from one day to another in the regime his fathers set up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

[Montmorency]

Can't we assume that the first and highest priority of any dictator is self-preservation? Or is Kim the protagonist of a shounen anime?

[Husar]

Can't we assume that the first and highest priority of any dictator is self-preservation? Or is Kim the protagonist of a shounen anime?

That's my point exactly, I see quite a few people who seem to think he should have opposed his entire military and the established elite of his country on day one and declared a democracy. I don't think he would have survived that...
While I may not believe that he wants a democracy, it also doesn't mean that he wants the country to stay exactly the way it is as many people seem to assume. We probably don't even know whether he likes to murder people or does it for pure self-preservation.

The point being that maybe he isn't quite the mad dictator at heart, but has to play him because his only other option so far was a body bag... :shrug:

Or to go even further, maybe the factor that made North Korea come to the table was not just other presidents, but also their new leader. I'm aware I'm just theorizing, but there were some rumors for a while about him wanting reforms in several areas and to open up the country more.

[Montmorency]

There's no need to personalize this. Of course Kim wants to develop his country. So did his father, and so would almost anyone else in his position. It would make his reign more secure, at least for a while. The one thing preventing this is international sanctions.

[Gilrandir]

I'm going to lean way out the window now, but there is the saying that evil triumphs TRUMPS when good people do nothing and maybe, just maybe, sometimes good people need to murder very bad people to prevent even more bloodshed in the future.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/03/donald-trump-formally-nominated-nobel-peace-prize-tireless-work/
Did you mean that?

[Husar]

There's no need to personalize this. Of course Kim wants to develop his country. So did his father, and so would almost anyone else in his position. It would make his reign more secure, at least for a while. The one thing preventing this is international sanctions.

Then why does the country ban citizens from using the internet even if they can? They're actively hunting people with internet-capable mobile phones from China. Doesn't sound like a "wants to develop the country" and neither does the whole narrative that anyone from outside is an enemy. It would be weird if his father wanted the country to open up but actually sealed it off from the outside in practice. I don't think it's just the sanctions. The point of sealing off was likely to get full control over the information that circulates inside. It seems possible that KJU wants to change that to some extent, very slowly.
And why not personalize this? Dictators aren't one-dimensional people, or are they?

Gilrandir, no, not really.

[Montmorency]

Then why does the country ban citizens from using the internet even if they can? They're actively hunting people with internet-capable mobile phones from China. Doesn't sound like a "wants to develop the country" and neither does the whole narrative that anyone from outside is an enemy. It would be weird if his father wanted the country to open up but actually sealed it off from the outside in practice. I don't think it's just the sanctions. The point of sealing off was likely to get full control over the information that circulates inside. It seems possible that KJU wants to change that to some extent, very slowly.
And why not personalize this? Dictators aren't one-dimensional people, or are they?

Gilrandir, no, not really.

Yes, it isn't surprising that the government would prefer to control media access. So do Russia and China (!!!! (https://www.google.com/search?q=xinjiang+surveillance+state&rlz=1C1ASUC_enUS624US624&oq=xinjiang+surveillance+state&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57.3790j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)). The job is just narrower and simpler for now in North Korea. If North Korea can't open on its own terms, then the regime can't guarantee its own continued existence; they're not interested in experiencing 19th-century style economic "diplomacy".Would be pretty silly to abandon this small advantage and subsidize Internet and media access while violence and starvation are rampant, like if Gorbachev had declared in 1985 that each SSR could be as autonomous as they wished.

But ROK and Western media have become pervasive (https://globalnews.ca/news/3776420/north-korea-foreign-media-propaganda/)in North Korea for years. The government is well aware of the phenomenon, and permits the privileged, wealthy and powerful to 'indulge' with relatively few restrictions (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/how_the_internet_works_in_north_korea.html), whereas commoners with USBs or DVDs will be arbitrarily cracked down on to inspire terror. Remember, dictators don't make people clap for a long time (simply) because they like to be applauded, it's one of many interlocking mechanisms of control. One of the most effective means of control is to condition people into imposing self-control.

And the country was not sealed off; remember the Axis of Evil? Here's an overview of EU sanctions (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/history-north-korea/) over time, which in recent years have escalated to include total investment bans. It was indeed sealed in, except to China and Russia. (I think in one of the articles linked in the thread, it was mentioned that 90% of DPRK trade is with China; we all know by now of the North Korean labor camps in Siberia.) And surprisingly, certain EU governments and organizations (https://news.vice.com/article/cash-for-kim-how-north-koreans-are-working-themselves-to-death-in-europe).

[Husar]

And the country was not sealed off; remember the Axis of Evil? Here's an overview of EU sanctions (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/history-north-korea/) over time, which in recent years have escalated to include total investment bans. It was indeed sealed in, except to China and Russia.

So how many North Korean tourists are currently officially vacationing in China and Russia?

[Montmorency]

So how many North Korean tourists are currently officially vacationing in China and Russia?

The elites, perhaps.

What's your point? As you know, neoliberal "opening" refers to capitalized direct investment and technology transfer, not "helping people live better lives"; citizens of opening countries only mattter in terms of human capital and market relations. And North Korea doesn't exactly prioritize the leisure and health of its citizens (https://www.nknews.org/2015/01/how-do-north-koreans-spend-days-off/).


Every worker gets 15 days of vacation per year. The government has a list of destinations they recommend. But, unless it’s a highly attractive resort or summerhouse, they don’t make a trip to go there. Most people spend their holidays at home. Sometimes people would visit their hometown or go on a trip, but this costs a lot of money and only people who can afford it do that. Students are the people who have the most fun on holidays. They gather together to share food and dance together afterwards.

At least the Soviet Union had sponsored trips and Black Sea beaches.

They have acoustic guitars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCq-bddzX5w) in North Korea though. I wonder if they play Deep Purple (https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-05-19/how-rock-and-roll-brought-soviet-union-down)?

[Husar]

The elites, perhaps.

What's your point? As you know, neoliberal "opening" refers to capitalized direct investment and technology transfer, not "helping people live better lives"; citizens of opening countries only mattter in terms of human capital and market relations. And North Korea doesn't exactly prioritize the leisure and health of its citizens (https://www.nknews.org/2015/01/how-do-north-koreans-spend-days-off/).

The point is that any opening is a step in the right direction, even if it is less than one would hope for.
And that I like to play devil's advocate when I see everyone come to the same reflexive conclusion about something without even considering potential alternatives. And that maybe "he's a madman, so duh!" is not a sufficiently complex explanation for me in every case. And when has this ever led to a solution anyway? We need more 4D chess. :shrug: :sweatdrop:

[rory_20_uk]

Dialogue is a move in the right direction - whoever started it. Even if that is the guy who criticised others for doing the same thing, tore up one agreement that had been signed and saluted an enemy general.

In the "spheres of influence" where there's China, Japan, South Korea and currently the USA along with North Korea there is no clear shared outcome so I don't see things being solved any time soon.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The point is that any opening is a step in the right direction, even if it is less than one would hope for.
And that I like to play devil's advocate when I see everyone come to the same reflexive conclusion about something without even considering potential alternatives. And that maybe "he's a madman, so duh!" is not a sufficiently complex explanation for me in every case. And when has this ever led to a solution anyway? We need more 4D chess. :shrug: :sweatdrop:

Was it necessary and relevant though? To my recall no one in the Backroom has discussed these issues from the premise that Kim is a madman. I'm pretty sure I and others have explicitly rejected this narrative.

[Husar]

Was it necessary and relevant though? To my recall no one in the Backroom has discussed these issues from the premise that Kim is a madman. I'm pretty sure I and others have explicitly rejected this narrative.

Maybe I've misread something or got distracted by the media coverage and comments I've seen. :shrug:

[Montmorency]

Do you have any comments on Trump's plans to quasi-, and perhaps wholly, nationalize the coal industry (https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+coal+nationalization&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivw_r9m9TbAhUyvlkKHbTzB5IQpwUIHw&biw=1920&bih=974) to guarantee cash flow to his billionaire coal baron buddies?

(See also previous posts with keywords: coal, nationalization)

[Gilrandir]

He is ready to recognize Crimea as a part of Russia:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-claims-crimea-is-part-of-russia-since-people-speak-russian-g7-summit-2018-6

[rory_20_uk]

It's not the stupidest thing he's ever said - there is a good chance that in a "fair" vote the would vote to be Russian... but of course democracies draw the line when the People might want something that leads to succession.

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

A good article on the importance of language.
It notes that the media is complicit in this with a beautiful example around the issue of immigration.
The media talks about Trump as "tough" on immigration; the story should have been that Trump is profoundly ignorant of how the system works.

The president never gets called on lies, evasions and incomprehensible utterances:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-wants-to-be-called-tough.html

[Strike For The South]

So I am sure yall have heard what is going on at the border and it simply bears repeating that there is nothing that compels any law enforcement agency to separate families. Nor do they even have to hold them for some kind of processing.

I have said this before but I will keep banging this drum. These people want (or at least tolerate) illegal immigration in so far as it is good for profit margins. Any real goal of curbing illegal immigration would begin with the agriculture and service industries. The goal here is not to maximizes deportations. The goal here is to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust so that these peoples labor can be extracted for pennies of what it is worth. The end game is an underclass with no say in the country in which they live.

These detention centers are an affront to human decency. In a presidency marked by awfulness, this is by the most awful.

[Montmorency]

Boots and lickers.

https://i.imgur.com/jJZ5cj6.gif


So I am sure yall have heard what is going on at the border and it simply bears repeating that there is nothing that compels any law enforcement agency to separate families. Nor do they even have to hold them for some kind of processing.

I have said this before but I will keep banging this drum. These people want (or at least tolerate) illegal immigration in so far as it is good for profit margins. Any real goal of curbing illegal immigration would begin with the agriculture and service industries. The goal here is not to maximizes deportations. The goal here is to create an atmosphere of fear and distrust so that these peoples labor can be extracted for pennies of what it is worth. The end game is an underclass with no say in the country in which they live.

These detention centers are an affront to human decency. In a presidency marked by awfulness, this is by the most awful.

Dude asserts: The American republic is undergoing a classic fascist collapse. Authoritarianism is a cancer and we're relying on herbal supplements and juice cleanses.

https://eand.co/

In unrelated news, the following was spotted at an internment camp for "unaccompanied minors".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfnWRI3UEAEcCQf.jpg


Edit: "Collapse porn". This thread is collapse porn. :daisy: it, we're all just tourists here.

[drone]

These detention centers are an affront to human decency. In a presidency marked by awfulness, this is by the most awful.

Just wait until the "tent cities" sprout up. Maybe the cheeto in chief will put Arpiao in charge.

My grandfather worked in Texas for the Border Patrol, I'm glad he isn't alive to see what is currently going on...

[Don Corleone]

Sorry I've been away and haven't been on more. Hope to remedy that...

This is Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions, to a lesser extent, John Kelly. They managed to convince Trump that the Dems would cave on all immigration issues and give him an omnibus immigration reform bill within weeks. I don't think they actually believe that, but I believe that is how they sold it to Trump. They are looking for a catalyst event to galvanize sides to drive the issue to open conflict. Stephen Miller has stated as much, on the record, on multiple occassions (though all prior to the Inauguration).

I saw an amazing thing happening in Trumpland... The Blaze posted an article about how Franklin Graham is opposed to this tactic. You know, the evangelical pope, heir to Billy Graham, who said that Trump banging pornstars was perfectly in accord with Jesus's teachings.... Well, Franklin Graham stated he is opposed to this enforcement tactic... and the Comments section was vicious...they turned on him on a dime and calling for physical violence against him. Ditto for Laura Bush.

Something is very, very wrong. Family separation is NOT an immigration issue. That can and SHOULD be discussed with vigorous debate. Family separation is a tactic designed to inflict pain, on the immigrants and on the American public at large. It is abhorent, immoral and against international law. I cannot believe I am saying this, but Ted Cruz seems to be our last, best hope for our collective humanity.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Love him or hate him for it, Cruz's efforts would be largely based on a set of principles that he has elucidated before. He would not be, as our current President is, reactive and a-principled. I know, that is a neologism at best. I simply believe that Trump has little or nothing in the way of principles to guide him.

Don C, I disagree that the tactic being used by separating families is designed to inflict pain on "the American public at large." It is simple intimidation that strikes right at the heart of potential illegals/and legitimate refugees whose cultures enshrine 'la famiglia' above almost anything else. Families will refuse to attempt entry if they fear separation, thus driving down the numbers. I agree that the tactic is abhorrent.


Strike, you have reminded us once again of the source of the illegal immigrant problem. If a market remains for cheap labor by illegals, then people who are economically disadvantaged will supply that labor. Unless changes are made to curb the "market," someone will provide for that need. Our success in the 'war on drugs' would have made that obvious I should have thought.


I am probably being foolish.

[Don Corleone]

Seamus, my old friend, well met.

I respectfully disagree. Stephen Miller, the brains behind these efforts, is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He is rare in the current administration in that he understands how to play the "long-game". Such an individual would know better than most that:

1) the uproar would be tremendous and the polarization effect would be devastating to the American body politic
2) it would be ineffective as a deterrent, at least for several months (inside sources say the White House estimates border crossings and family separations to continue to ramp through the summer into the middle Fall).
3) It would however be highly effective as a wedge issue.

This is not about slowing immigration into this country. As you and Strike have highlighted, there are far more effective tools available for that.

This is about reshaping loyalties and national identity. If you can make a people green-light this, you can make them do anything. Stephen Miller knew how the numbers would shape up, and how long he could keep the outrage going. Interersting that it will just be starting to tail at the next election, no? But wait, if he knew it would galvaninze 35% of the population to do anything, and he knew that it would equally galvanize 65% of the country to do anything to stop him... what do you suppose his moves in October likely to be?

I know this is extreme language, but we are living in Berlin in 1933 right now. I strongly recommend "In the Garden of the Beasts (https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=ad-backfill-amzn-no-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=030740885X)" by Erik Larson.

I know I sound like an alarmist... but put this critical piece into context... If you were at the big kids table in the White House, even if you knew Trump himself had no ties to Russia (highly unlikely), it is irrefutable that the Russians did interfere directly and repeatedly in the 2016 elections and continue to do so. Why wouldn't you take some steps to preserve your electoral integrity (actually, the White House has actively blocked efforts at the state level for the past 15 months)? Especially when your candidate brayed for 6 straight weeks "that the fix was in"? Why? Because you know full well that there will be no mid-term election... that you will use the Russian influence to suspend elections "until such time as their integrity can be assured". Isn't that how all strongmen do it?

In order to get your people to stomach that, you need your motivated minority to have a wedge issue. You need an other to after. It's not Jews. It's "those filthy Latinos, all of whom are in drug gangs, even the children". And here we find ourselves. We're not playing politics anymore, and we haven't been for some time.

[Gilrandir]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44527672

Donald Vader or Darth Trump?

[Husar]

Just because it's still funny:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBFKs-bQWzc

:creep:

[Montmorency]

I know this is extreme language, but we are living in Berlin in 1933 right now. I strongly recommend "In the Garden of the Beasts (https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=ad-backfill-amzn-no-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=030740885X)" by Erik Larson.

I know I sound like an alarmist... but put this critical piece into context... If you were at the big kids table in the White House, even if you knew Trump himself had no ties to Russia (highly unlikely), it is irrefutable that the Russians did interfere directly and repeatedly in the 2016 elections and continue to do so. Why wouldn't you take some steps to preserve your electoral integrity (actually, the White House has actively blocked efforts at the state level for the past 15 months)? Especially when your candidate brayed for 6 straight weeks "that the fix was in"? Why? Because you know full well that there will be no mid-term election... that you will use the Russian influence to suspend elections "until such time as their integrity can be assured". Isn't that how all strongmen do it?

In order to get your people to stomach that, you need your motivated minority to have a wedge issue. You need an other to after. It's not Jews. It's "those filthy Latinos, all of whom are in drug gangs, even the children". And here we find ourselves. We're not playing politics anymore, and we haven't been for some time.

Welcome back Don.

Dude over here, whose blog is pretty consistent that I linked above, develops the case that we are now one government action or policy away from full authoritarianism. He argues that (https://eand.co/why-were-one-step-away-from-the-abyss-4ef01d70937b) (bolded as original, size change to my salience):


So. Let us now think one step ahead. Let’s imagine, simply, that the head of state in this country, or its Congress, decides to do something much worse even than put kids in camps. By passing a bill, or an executive order, or both. We don’t even need to ask the obvious question — why would they stop at camps for kids?

Go ahead, pick something. Pick anything. Let the dark corners of your imagination run wild for a moment. Intern citizens. Strip people en masse of citizenship. Put residents and citizens in camps. Gulags. Enslave the prisoners in them. Put people in ghettoes, based on their ethnic status. Exterminate them.

Does this sound like fabulism to you? Please think again. Who is going to stop it? The Congress will not lift a finger — that much it has already clearly signaled, hasn’t it? The head of state appears to have no moral limits whatsoever — all this is very clearly within not just his legal capabilities, but more importantly, within the bounds of his moral imagination. It is something he is capable of as a human being. The media, at least a solid half of it, would probably cheer such things, and deny they are happening — just as it does right now for camps.

So. I want you to see the point. And I hope that it makes your blood run cold — because it does mine.

The worst abuses and acts imaginable in human history can happen overnight now. They have been licensed institutionally — there is not a single check or balance, not one, left to stop them. They can become a reality now with a single simple signing of a pen to paper. Do you see what I mean by: we are one step away from the abyss?

Do you still think that I overstate it? The world cannot stop it, can it? The UN can’t. The World Bank can’t. No international institution, no foreign power, no body of any kind whatsoever in the entirety of the world, in fact, can stop any of the preceding, should this country’s government decide that is what it wants to do. And who would intercede anyways? China? Russia? LOL — this is the stuff of their dreams, to see their great adversary self-destructing.

Now. Maybe you object. “But there will be legal challenges! The courts will stop them!!” You are right — but only in the way that proves you wrong. Sure, there’ll be legal challenges. Many and furious. But so what? They will not really stop any of the above. They may claim some sort of victory, after a time, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Those facing the thugs will still be hurt, traumatized, abused, for life — if they have lives left. The courts cannot prevent atrocity — they can only do justice for it after it is too late. History, Nuremberg, tells us that much.



So in the end there are only two safety nets left in society that can stop the plunge into the abyss. The first is the people. The American people are brave and noble and kind. But they are also traumatized and wounded and broken, by the depredations of predatory capitalism. If it means losing their livelihoods, being blacklisted, being jailed themselves, never working again — will they march? Will they surround the camps? Perhaps you see the problem. Maybe some will — but enough? This safety net is an unsure one to have to rely on.

The second safety net left in society that can prevent a plunge into the abyss is the military. Now we find ourselves in the realm of truly broken societies. Will the generals say to their armies: “enough is enough. We will not permit this”? I don’t know. You don’t know. No one can really say. So this safety net may be there, but it may not be, too. There is an even chance, I’d say.

And that leaves us right where I began. We are one step away from the abyss. Just one. A tiny nudge. A single action. That is all it would take. A law passed by Congress. An executive order. Any kind of atrocity is well within the realm of very real political and social possibility now.

Just one. It could happen overnight. It could happen in the blink of an eye. It could happen tomorrow, the day after that, or even today. No, this wasn’t possible a decade ago — when a more sensible Congress and President and party reigned. But together, they mean that we are one step away from the abyss. From real darkness and horror. From becoming all that we once condemned as despised as ignoble, false, unworthy, and immoral.



The author uses much of his blog to argue that the sentiment "It couldn't happen here" represents a moral and intellectual failure on the part of the one holding it. "It is already happening here."


Addendum: There is one, ultimate safety net we can think of, of course: the civil disobedience of the federal agents tasked with carrying out whatever atrocity. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of confidence in our enforcers...

[Husar]

On that note the Space Force is an incredibly stupid steps because once he begins to weaponize space, so will others. And if it doesn't end up with a big field of space debris that will prevent all space flight for a long time, who knows what kind of terrible WMDs countries will place up there that could obliterate humanity in addition to the nukes we already have...
Space used to be the one somewhat neural zone where countries even cooperate on space stations, now he's turning it into another arms race... :wall:

And this: http://www.dw.com/en/us-withdraws-from-un-human-rights-council/a-44301296


The Trump administration has yet again pulled the United States out of a major global organization — this time the UN Human Rights Council. The move comes a day after the UNHCR criticized Trump's immigration policies.

Obviously Human Rights do not concern Trump, as if it wasn't obvious enough by the way he talks about dictators who constantly violate them..."funny" in that context, that Haley claimed the council wouldn't really care about Human Rights.

[Montmorency]

BTW, for those who don't know Stephen Miller is the grandson of Jewish immigrants, and the most outspoken 'card-carrying' fascist in the entire Trump admin.

Stephen Miller’s Family Is Furious Over Family Separation Policy (https://forward.com/fast-forward/403382/stephen-millers-family-is-furious-over-his-immigrant-family-separation/)

He probably likes to think of himself as a cross of Himmler and Goebbels.

When his parents were telling him about the Holocaust as a kid, he must have been the type of person to think to himself, 'I want to be a Nazi when I grow up.'


Meanwhile, ICE and ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) have no system for keeping track of the relationship between adults and the children taken from them (since before the present policy they would be released on own recognizance), so adults are getting deported while their kids are still in the camps and there is neither capacity nor interest to reunite them.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-government-has-no-plan-for-reuniting-the-immigrant-families-it-is-tearing-apart

Boy, camps full of unidentified, irrepatriable minors: sounds like a problem in search of a solution. Some type of 'long-term', enduring solution. Just sayin'.


Also meanwhile (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-administration-launches-denaturalization-effort-to-strip-citizenship-from-those-suspected-of-irregularities.html), the Trump admin is hiring dozens of lawyers to review immigration cases to find instances where it may be appropriate to strip naturalized citizens of citizenship. They are embarking on this obviously extremely urgent project now because there are potentially "a few thousand" cases in need of review. In post-war America, this process has typically been reserved for people who lied about being Nazis or war criminals on their paperwork.

But don't worry: the admin promises not to act on the basis of technicalities. What a relief!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who will stop him?

This is the beginning of something scary.
Unless American society rejects its agreement to the current government power structure, then this may be something that continues to snowball.

[Husar]

Unless American society rejects its agreement to the current government power structure, then this may be something that continues to snowball.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

:shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

:shrug:

Hence my pessimistic statements a week or two ago...

A man is above the law when there is no one able (or willing) to hold him accountable.

[Montmorency]

Perhaps a third ultimately approve (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/separating-families-at-the-border-is-really-unpopular/), or half of Republicans.

"Law and order"

Obama orders that all potential thought-criminals preemptively surrender their firearms to federal agents under penalty of immediate incarceration.
Freedom-loving patriots: "Welp, it's the law." ???????

If I believed in evil, that's what I would call it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps a third ultimately approve (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/separating-families-at-the-border-is-really-unpopular/), or half of Republicans.

"Law and order"

Obama orders that all potential thought-criminals preemptively surrender their firearms to federal agents under penalty of immediate incarceration.
Freedom-loving patriots: "Welp, it's the law." ???????

If I believed in evil, that's what I would call it.

That will increase as talk radio and Fox News continue to feed the base with the piss-poor explanation of "It's the law, Obama did it and if he didn't he should have according to the law."

[Montmorency]

We should talk (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/deporters-in-chief-the-trump-obama-partnership-on.html) about Obama, though. And Clinton.

It's to my shame, you know, how a few years ago I almost proudly related on this forum to the skeptical that 'Obama is like, the harshest deporter EVAR! So there!'

Tough on crime. Tough on immigration. These are the dividends of Democrats playing to independents and Republicans. Intensify the bad things in government but along the lines of something less bad than the opposition wants - and isn't that really all Democratic policy has been, "technically superior" to Republican alternatives? - and how can you not end up helping license the worst?

We need a clean break with the past.

[Gilrandir]

On that note the Space Force is an incredibly stupid steps because once he begins to weaponize space, so will others.

So have others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces


The Russian Space Forces (Russian: Космические войска России, tr. Kosmicheskie Voyska Rossii) are a branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces, that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and protection for Russia. Having been reestablished following the 1 August 2015 merger between the Russian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces after a 2011 dissolving of the branch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don C (and I was happy to see you back here. I hope the women in your life are flourishing as well):

I don't see enough parallels between present day USA and the Weimar to think what you fear is likely. I take your point about Miller though. It is wise to remember that a President is not a unitary figure and that others act in his/her name and even attempt to pull strings to get their way through the POTUS. I will have to think on that a bit.

I wish I could say that the current President has the moral fiber to decry any steps in a dictatorial direction. I simply don't see much moral fiber in him at all. I don't think the USA addled enough to allow it, but sadly I don't think he would mind it.


I voted for the wife in 2016. May have to vote for a Dem in 2020 to leverage Florida harder. I wish they'd run a true fiscal conservative democrat who didn't believe government was the answer to everything. It'd make my lever pull easier.

[Husar]

So have others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces


The Russian Space Forces (Russian: Космические войска России, tr. Kosmicheskie Voyska Rossii) are a branch of the Russian Aerospace Forces, that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and protection for Russia. Having been reestablished following the 1 August 2015 merger between the Russian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces after a 2011 dissolving of the branch.

That sounds different to me, they're not militarizing space by sending soldiers there. Trump talks about a military space branch and then about sending people to the Moon and Mars, which seems to hint at literally claiming space with the military before others do, in part to prevent them from going there and claiming things. That's quite different from just having plans to defend against a laser satellite, ICBMs or whatever.

[Montmorency]

I don't think the USA addled enough to allow it, but sadly I don't think he would mind it.

Even if you don't consider all this the minimum bar for ethnic cleansing, don't you think there's some precarity in our moment? My recent argument with ACIN was one of legality, history, and philosophy, but right now we're all referring to our concrete reality.

Here's the bottom line no matter what scenario we can offer you, and I don't see how you can disagree in abstract:
1. Trump is not bound, in morals or character or even dim causal inference, by normal human restraints as to what he can unleash on the country or world.
2. There is no reliable institutional restraint that can prevent or remediate any decision of the administration if it applies the ultimate overrude of pure action.

And adding to (1), after this year's purges of inner circle the admin beyond Trump is fully stocked only with committed and vicious fascists. The articles, especially Ben Wittes', around New Year's on how American institutions have proved resilient against and restraining of the government's agenda have been made a mockery of by Year 2018. ('Gravity? That precipice sure seems like a safe spot for that boulder!')


May have to vote for a Dem in 2020 to leverage Florida harder. I wish they'd run a true fiscal conservative democrat who didn't believe government was the answer to everything.

Again I don't understand, Seamus. Every Democratic president or presidential candidate since before you were old enough to vote has been a deficit hawk. Whereas the mainstream - the dominant - Republican dogma in the same period has been, with perhaps only the exception of George H.w. Bush (often closer to pre-Goldwater Republicans than to Reagan (i.e. Milton-Friedmanized) Republicans), tax cuts + deficit spending = starve the beast.

Do you deny any of this?

[Husar]

And adding to (1), after this year's purges of inner circle the admin beyond Trump is fully stocked only with committed and vicious fascists. The articles, especially Ben Wittes', around New Year's on how American institutions have proved resilient against and restraining of the government's agenda have been made a mockery of by Year 2018. ('Gravity? That precipice sure seems like a safe spot for that boulder!')

Just adding to this:

20838

[Strike For The South]

There was a point in time where I thought the long game, 4d chess narrative had some merit to it. I no longer think this is the case. Trump was an outsider candidate who had to surround himself with outsiders in the GOP tent. He has essentially ousted the traditional GOP people and has doubled down on pandering to his nativist base (cue him hugging the flag yesterday). I don't think there is really much more to it than that.

I think these people have power and are simply willing to inflict pain. Their bumbling implementation of these policies is proof of that. I don't think Miller is particularly smart or capable. I think Miller has simply seized the levers of power. I would caution against conflating this and some type of long term plan.

Of course this does not make anything they are doing any better or not horrible. It does however underwrite the need for direct action. A congress that could get it's shit together could put a clamp on these mouth breathers in pretty short order. The executive branch doesn't have a plan or a legal basis for what they do (See all the travel ban).

The northern triangle is a disaster and this is a refugee crisis. It is a moral imperative to help these people.

Cruzs bill is only there so Beto does not outflank him on this issue. This is extremely unpopular in Texas and the kind of thing that could cause Cruz to lose his seat. Call me cynical.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Again I don't understand, Seamus. Every Democratic president or presidential candidate since before you were old enough to vote has been a deficit hawk. Whereas the mainstream - the dominant - Republican dogma in the same period has been, with perhaps only the exception of George H.w. Bush (often closer to pre-Goldwater Republicans than to Reagan (i.e. Milton-Friedmanized) Republicans), tax cuts + deficit spending = starve the beast.

Do you deny any of this?

I think virtually every Presidential candidate from either of the majors and most of the parties throughout my lifetime have all CLAIMED to be a deficit hawk. Mainstream GOP conservatives have always hawked the line you note about "starving the beast." It works partially, but in the face of endless deficit growth without any end state, it doesn't tame that beast very well. They peddle the line that growth will conquer all...and then fail to curb the spending thus rendering the added growth moot vis-à-vis the deficit. The Dems vary between crusaders who want to push us into a full on social democracy that makes everyone equal (Sanders end) and the practical politicians (Bill Clinton) who are more interested in the power itself than in the accomplishment.

The last one who seemed like he might actually try to change the budget process and really change the game was Perot in 1992. Sadly, he was something of a fruit-bat on other issues.


The GOP has always been closer to my preferred 'government at the lowest level practicable' approach...but all too often in words only.

[Montmorency]

There was a point in time where I thought the long game, 4d chess narrative had some merit to it. I no longer think this is the case. Trump was an outsider candidate who had to surround himself with outsiders in the GOP tent. He has essentially ousted the traditional GOP people and has doubled down on pandering to his nativist base (cue him hugging the flag yesterday). I don't think there is really much more to it than that.

I think these people have power and are simply willing to inflict pain. Their bumbling implementation of these policies is proof of that. I don't think Miller is particularly smart or capable. I think Miller has simply seized the levers of power. I would caution against conflating this and some type of long term plan.

Of course this does not make anything they are doing any better or not horrible. It does however underwrite the need for direct action. A congress that could get it's shit together could put a clamp on these mouth breathers in pretty short order. The executive branch doesn't have a plan or a legal basis for what they do (See all the travel ban).

I agree, but I should lay some distinctions.

1. Trump does not have principles, but he does have instincts.
2. Bannon, Miller, and others in and out of the admin evidently do have some sort of "plan", or better put, an agenda. Even something as simple as a series of broad steps or sequence of policy or social outcomes. To say they have an agenda is certainly not to say that they are geniuses or masterminds, or that everything has been charted beforehand.


The northern triangle is a disaster and this is a refugee crisis. It is a moral imperative to help these people.

Every economic and social reform we envision for Latin America depends on the decline of cartel violence as a prerequisite. We set three policy areas that have empowered and continue to empower cartels:

1. War on Drugs
2. Firearms proliferation
3. Restrictive immigration and border control policy.

What are the three pillars of cartel revenue and activity?

1. Drug trafficking
2. Arms trafficking
3. People trafficking

Our policies are what created the Central American refugee crisis, what plunged some of the safest and coziest countries on the planet into the most violent warzones within just one decade.

We owe reform to ourselves, to the people of the Americas, and to the World.


Cruzs bill is only there so Beto does not outflank him on this issue. This is extremely unpopular in Texas and the kind of thing that could cause Cruz to lose his seat. Call me cynical.

Cruz' proposal is so narrowly and marginally preferable to both the status quo and Trump's extension of it, he should switch parties.


The GOP has always been closer to my preferred 'government at the lowest level practicable' approach...but all too often in words only.

So shouldn't you be one of those "vote Republican local, vote Democratic national" types?

[Husar]

Just when it looked like Trump may have acted due to public pressure, it turns out to be a pretty bad bandaid:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-executive-order-only-protects-against-family-separation-for-20-days/

[Gilrandir]

That sounds different to me, they're not militarizing space by sending soldiers there. Trump talks about a military space branch and then about sending people to the Moon and Mars, which seems to hint at literally claiming space with the military before others do, in part to prevent them from going there and claiming things. That's quite different from just having plans to defend against a laser satellite, ICBMs or whatever.

That might sound different but for the nature of the person who is responsible for carrying out the "defense plan". Do you honestly believe Russia would limit itself to defense? Or, to make it more general, do you honestly believe Russia would do what it says?

[AE Bravo]

At least they had the decency to pull out of the UNHRC...

[rory_20_uk]

Just when it looked like Trump may have acted due to public pressure, it turns out to be a pretty bad bandaid:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-executive-order-only-protects-against-family-separation-for-20-days/

He is applying the same methods to this as he has done with all other negotiations - create an impossible situation so the other side will compromise and do what he wants.

He wants money for his wall and all right now. He appears to think that this will force Congress to give him what he wants and everyone will blame Congress for the whole situation. That appears to be extremely wishful thinking.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Just when it looked like Trump may have acted due to public pressure, it turns out to be a pretty bad bandaid:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-executive-order-only-protects-against-family-separation-for-20-days/

20 days because of legal ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores) from the 90s.

Obama pioneered the use of "family detention centers (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opinion/mr-obamas-dubious-detention-centers.html)", a form of civil detention, to keep families detained together. In the past, and in the majority of cases under Obama, families were still released on recognizance and tracked, but Obama did pave the way for Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy.

And both Obama and Trump have tried to subvert Flores before. Trump now even seems to be petitioning for it to be weakened, to allow longer-term internment.

So in effect, we're exchanging (some of the) child concentration camps for formalized immigrant concentration camps.

[Husar]

20 days because of legal ruling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores) from the 90s.

Obama pioneered the use of "family detention centers (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opinion/mr-obamas-dubious-detention-centers.html)", a form of civil detention, to keep families detained together. In the past, and in the majority of cases under Obama, families were still released on recognizance and tracked, but Obama did pave the way for Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy.

And both Obama and Trump have tried to subvert Flores before. Trump now even seems to be petitioning for it to be weakened, to allow longer-term internment.

So in effect, we're exchanging (some of the) child concentration camps for formalized immigrant concentration camps.

I know, it's just that detaining them together is still a little less evil than detaining them separated. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Although it says they will have to release the children after 20 days. What happens to them then?


However, at the 20-day mark, under the Flores consent decree, the department will have to release the children from custody.

Lone children roaming the desert? :dizzy2:

[Montmorency]

NOTE: I stupidly linked the wrong Flores settlement above without checking the page. Here's the right one, Reno v. Flores (1993/1997).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._Flores


I know, it's just that detaining them together is still a little less evil than detaining them separated. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Just keep in mind, that's genuinely the logic of escalation. If I kidnap you and keep you chained up and starved for a week, but on the 8th day I give you a warm bowl of porridge, imagine how grateful you will be to me for having fed you.


What happens to them then?

Back to the child camps, unless and until the admin gets a superseding legislation or court decision. Then it's, well, not technically forever (unconstitutional), but in practice possibly probably indefinitely. If it's detention pending administration of criminal process like the Republican proposals, then given the case backlog, priorities, inadequate staffing, and the bad record the system has with giving low-status people speedy trials, it really is indefinite.

Be aware that Flores requires child detainees be kept in the "least restrictive" possible environment...

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration

[Fragony]

At least they had the decency to pull out of the UNHRC...

Don't really know if you are being sarcastic or not, can go both ways. But considering the human rights of some of the UNHRC members it's a all a bit of a farce no?

OT: At the child seperation, that is too harsh yes, but human-traders are as creative as they are relentless, how can the USA know that it are really their children. Things that are defendable can be made to sound worse than they really are. Some people are absolutily ruthless, and human-trade is probably the most cynical of them all

[Husar]

Just keep in mind, that's genuinely the logic of escalation. If I kidnap you and keep you chained up and starved for a week, but on the 8th day I give you a warm bowl of porridge, imagine how grateful you will be to me for having fed you.

More grateful than if I never receive anything until I die of starvation. That doesn't mean however, that my gratefulness meter would be in the positive...


Back to the child camps, unless and until the admin gets a superseding legislation or court decision. Then it's, well, not technically forever (unconstitutional), but in practice possibly probably indefinitely. If it's detention pending administration of criminal process like the Republican proposals, then given the case backlog, priorities, inadequate staffing, and the bad record the system has with giving low-status people speedy trials, it really is indefinite.

Be aware that Flores requires child detainees be kept in the "least restrictive" possible environment...

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration

But aren't child camps just another form of detention? If I understand it correctly, the ruling says they can be held for up to 20 days and then they have to be released from detention. Putting them into a different detention is not a release, or is it? Does it count as some form of child care center? And in that case, wouldn't putting them there actually be required by the law since placing them in detention (with their parents) would be against the law? :dizzy2:

[Husar]

Apparently the treatment is also quite bad in these "centers", and has been for a while, even under Obama as I understand:

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/6/21/lawsuit_claims_detained_migrant_children_have


Shocking reports have revealed that immigrant children were subdued and incapacitated with powerful psychiatric drugs at a detention center in South Texas. Legal filings show that children held at Shiloh Treatment Center in southern Houston have been “forcibly injected with medications that make them dizzy, listless, obese and even incapacitated,” according to reports by Reveal. Meanwhile, according to another Reveal investigation, taxpayers have paid more than $1.5 billion over the past four years to companies operating immigration youth facilities despite facing accusations of rampant sexual and physical abuse.

So the claims of "we're detaining them, but we treat them so well!" could also be false.

[Fragony]

Has been known for years, happens here as well tranquilisers and all that

USA has an ugly dillema, they could be aiding human traffickers if they don't seperate the children from those they have no idea are actually their parents, they could just as well be trafickers and organ harvisters

[Montmorency]

More grateful than if I never receive anything until I die of starvation. That doesn't mean however, that my gratefulness meter would be in the positive...



But aren't child camps just another form of detention? If I understand it correctly, the ruling says they can be held for up to 20 days and then they have to be released from detention. Putting them into a different detention is not a release, or is it? Does it count as some form of child care center? And in that case, wouldn't putting them there actually be required by the law since placing them in detention (with their parents) would be against the law? :dizzy2:

God-cosplayer giveth, God-cosplayer taketh away.

You have to look at this bureaucratically.

First of all, the court standard is an ideal. After 20 days, it's not like the court sends officers to extract the kids and deliver them to Never Never Land. And the government isn't automatically punished AFAIK for any given violation. What it does, is theoretically create an opening for the conduct to be challenged in court by a victim with standing - which could itself take many weeks or months to resolve. This is how our system works more generally too, the relationship between the judicial process and subsequent action.

Then, consider that if, deliberately or otherwise, the government does not know who next-of-kin are, or is aggressive about putting and keeping those on trial - you can't just release children to roam around the country backroads alone. And it doesn't even appear that Mexico and other countries are cooperative or being cooperated with such that kids could be quickly released to their national custody. So they have to be placed with selected families somewhere in the US.

Add it up, and my prediction under Flores is:

1. For 20 days, full resort package for adult and child at government-sponsored Family Fun Kamp.
(It used to be, then, that after 20 days the families would be released with tracking. Not confirming it with sources, but IIRC fathers were heavily biased against here; mother-child was treated as a standard unit.)
2. Cases can't be resolved because there are thousands of them, so vacation is extended for extra fun times.
(So far, this will definitely happen because it already has and must given the operation of the government.)
3. Going out on a limb, I wonder if the admin, given it's publicly-stated desire to create a deterrent effect - by using children to punish adults, etc. - might not devise an argument to ""temporarily"" transfer long-detained children to all-child Survival Camps
4. They might also do this if they intensify their bizarre practice (so far only known in a few cases) of deporting the adult, but, uh, 'hanging on' to the child and keeping them in the US for distribution in the foster care system.
4.a. Many thousands of kids added to the foster system would probably overwhelm it, creating a massive backlog that again causes a situation where children will be held indefinitely. This also has the side effect of screwing a subclass of citizen children, who will have a much longer wait to be placed in a foster family after having been removed from their biological/original families for reasons of abuse, neglect, death or disability of caretaker... but those kids are almost always from poor and/or minority families, so call it a bonus.
5. Why stop at people detained at the border? Why not move on to raiding established unauthorized communities - over 10 million people in the US - and placing them in camps essentially forever until they can be 'processed'?

But everything after (2) is just my speculation on how they could make the process as nightmarish as possible. The bureaucratic default is just to keep all the captured immigrants in consolidated camps and leave 'em to rot in a slow-walked and underequipped apparatus.


EDIT: Of course if Flores is watered down or superseded, the only protections remaining may be the basic constitutional ones esp. according to 5th and 6th Amendments and habeas corpus - which the government will definitely violate with impunity.


Has been known for years, happens here as well tranquilisers and all that

USA has an ugly dillema, they could be aiding human traffickers if they don't seperate the children from those they have no idea are actually their parents, they could just as well be trafickers and organ harvisters

There is no dilemma in arbitrarily separating adults and children. This is totalitarian logic, a pure pretext, and it is exactly the backup used by Hitler and Stalin and every kind of mass murderer, that the target population is somehow contaminated and any hypothetical number of "bad elements" justifies its eradication.

Stop to think about what you are saying. If one believes there is a chance of trafficking, one should assign social workers and trained personnel to evaluate each case, erring on the side of non-separation. Your suggestion is even less wise than shutting down an airport and shipping the thousands of people therein to black sites on the possibility that one of them could be, or eventually could be, a terrorist bomber.

[Montmorency]

Further notes:


1. We've been referring to criminal process because under Trump's zero-tolerance policy, everyone crossing the border at unauthorized points is potentially being subjected to charges of misdemeanor illegal entry (usually treated as a civil infraction before), but somehow this should conflict with international and domestic law on asylum seekers given that by law it is not illegal for an asylum seeker to cross the border anywhere. I suppose it comes down again to bureaucratic tricks, and refusing to process asylum claims properly. As we know, in the last few months even asylum seekers at designated crossings were being separated from their children. It's indisputable that the objective of this government is mass internment of a whole class of people, even at great expense and great harm. At some point I wonder if "deterrence" will become a secondary motivation to the inertia of internment.

2. As far as Constitutional rights: If I'm reading this correctly, the SCOTUS (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/jennings-v-rodriguez/555224/) decided a few months ago (indirectly, by avoiding the issue of constitutionality) that detained aliens of any category in effect do not have a constitutional or statutory right to due process or bail. This Supreme Court might seriously rule, if the government fed it the right cases or appeals, that aliens "apprehended at the border" can be detained literally forever. If the government can obtain this result (or Congress passes a bad law lol), the situation will get much worse than it is now. Think Guantanamo Bay x 1000. Then, think Abu Ghraib x 10. Pretty soon, we'll be blowing way past the Japanese-American camps...

3. The government (Jeff Sessions (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-asylum/thousands-of-u-s-asylum-claims-in-doubt-after-sessions-decision-idUSKBN1J82RZ)) has just raised the bar significantly for the asylum process, so many more people can be quickly rejected, or even facially dismissed on "credible fear" before they are even allowed to make their cases.

4. Here (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/trumps-new-executive-order-on-immigration-is-not-a-reversal) is a pretty good synopsis of what the standard standard detention/asylum process was up to the point of hearing the cases:


First, let’s talk about how border enforcement has operated since the Obama years. Since the so-called “migrant surge” in 2014, these were the possible things that might happen to you if you were apprehended at or near the border without papers.


1. Unaccompanied minors from “non-contiguous countries” would be screened by the Department of Health and Human Services for possible trafficking, and placed in formal immigration court proceedings. At this point they would be placed into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, who would usually find a relative or other sponsor inside the U.S. to release them to, pending their court date.

2. Unaccompanied minors from Mexico (and, uh, I guess theoretically Canada) would be screened by Border Patrol for trafficking and possible asylum claims. If CBP didn’t think they had a claim, they could be summarily deported.

3. Adults would be immediately deported without a hearing under a process known as “expedited removal.” If they had a child with them, the child would be deported with them. HOWEVER, they might manage to halt or pause this deportation process if they stated they were afraid to return to their country. At this point, one of several things might happen:

a. Border Patrol might pressure them to sign their own deportation order anyway. It’s pretty well-known that this occurred on a regular basis. People who survive to the later phrase of the asylum determination process have often had to be adamant about their claim.

b. Border Patrol might release them (with their child, if they had one) into the U.S. with a notice to appear in court on a particular day. Speaking from my own observation, this seems to have been done with some frequency for dads crossing alone with kids, because there weren’t facilities equipped to detain dads and kids together. There was some reluctance—partly logistical, perhaps partly moral—to split kids from their only parent, when there was reason to believe they were asylum-seekers. (That said, lots of dads were separated from their kids; it just depended what Border Patrol officer you got that day.)

c. Border Patrol might send the adult into immigration detention. If they were an adult without a child, they could be sent to any number of the many immigration prisons scattered along the border and interior of the U.S. If they had a child, however, things got more complicated.

i. Dads and other non-parent relatives would be split from kids, with the kids going to ORR custody and the adult going to an adult detention facility.

ii. Moms and kids would be sent together to so-called “family detention centers,” where they would be kept in custody preparatory to a “credible fear interview.”


Now, group 3(c)(ii) on my list, asylum-seeking moms with kids, is the one that primarily interests us here. The practice of releasing people into the country from the border with notices to appear in court—what Trump has derisively called “catch and release”—has always been a totally discretionary policy on the part of the government, and all the Trump administration had to do was tell Border Patrol to stop doing it. But things were more complicated when it came to moms with kids.

Per a 1997 legal consent decree, the Flores Settlement, issued by a federal judge, the government is forbidden from keeping children in more restrictive custody than absolutely necessary. Specifically, if a child is placed in a detention center, the government must decide within 20 days whether they are going to deport the child or release them from detention. This provision was intended to prevent the government from keeping kids locked up for long stretches of time, which is known to be dangerous for their mental and emotional well-being. In 2016, the federal judge responsible for monitoring the government’s compliance with the decree, Judge Dolly Gee, issued a follow-up ruling stating that when children are detained alongside their parent, their parent must be released with them, if their cases are linked.

So, basically, if a mom passes her credible fear interview—which she does by demonstrating to an asylum officer that she has a “significant possibility” of being able to win an asylum case in a full hearing before a judge—she and her child are both legally required to be released into the country. (Usually, moms are released with GPS ankle monitors so that the government can track their movements and come after them if they try to flee.) If she fails her credible fear interview, she and her child would be deported immediately, unless the child has an independent claim that they opt to pursue separate from their mother’s.

I want to stress that this form of family detention, and the interview process that accompanies it, is profoundly cruel. It is a hostile and traumatizing process for the women and children who pass through it. Under a moral immigration regime, it would be done away with entirely. The only reason it has half-functioned up until now is because some lawyers devised a highly resource- and labor-intensive system for providing legal representation to detained mothers. Before that, women were rushed through the process and rapidly deported, despite having good asylum claims.

That said, the Trump administration has hated having to comply even with this minimally protective process, because the moms and kids who do pass their interviews are released at the end. And the overwhelming majority of them—in the 90 percent range, up until quite recently—do pass their interviews. (I can confirm, having seen hundreds of these cases, that this high success rate is not because asylum officers are lenient, but because the actual facts of the cases are pretty goddamn upsetting.) It’s the one form of “catch and release” that the administration—supposedly—can’t do away with by fiat, because the Flores Settlement blocks them from detaining children and their mothers for more than 20 days, and asylum-seekers can’t just be summarily deported until they’ve at least been granted an interview.

This left the Trump administration with two options to avoid releasing moms and kids:

1. Separate the moms from their kids and detain them separately; under this plan, kids would get released to sponsors or youth shelters, per Flores, but their moms could be kept in detention as long as the government wished, or

2. Get rid of the Flores Settlement so that the moms and kids could be detained together indefinitely.

With this executive order, Trump is apparently abandoning option 1 in favor of option 2, proposing to detain whole families together for the duration of their immigration proceedings. (Incidentally, the executive order authorizing this detention doesn’t distinguish at all between families who present themselves at ports of entry to ask for asylum and families who cross the border “illegally” to ask for asylum, so the administration is evidently done pretending this was a distinction that ever mattered to them.)

[Fragony]

God-cosplayer giveth, God-cosplayer taketh away.

You have to look at this bureaucratically.

First of all, the court standard is an ideal. After 20 days, it's not like the court sends officers to extract the kids and deliver them to Never Never Land. And the government isn't automatically punished AFAIK for any given violation. What it does, is theoretically create an opening for the conduct to be challenged in court by a victim with standing - which could itself take many weeks or months to resolve. This is how our system works more generally too, the relationship between the judicial process and subsequent action.

Then, consider that if, deliberately or otherwise, the government does not know who next-of-kin are, or is aggressive about putting and keeping those on trial - you can't just release children to roam around the country backroads alone. And it doesn't even appear that Mexico and other countries are cooperative or being cooperated with such that kids could be quickly released to their national custody. So they have to be placed with selected families somewhere in the US.

Add it up, and my prediction under Flores is:

1. For 20 days, full resort package for adult and child at government-sponsored Family Fun Kamp.
(It used to be, then, that after 20 days the families would be released with tracking. Not confirming it with sources, but IIRC fathers were heavily biased against here; mother-child was treated as a standard unit.)
2. Cases can't be resolved because there are thousands of them, so vacation is extended for extra fun times.
(So far, this will definitely happen because it already has and must given the operation of the government.)
3. Going out on a limb, I wonder if the admin, given it's publicly-stated desire to create a deterrent effect - by using children to punish adults, etc. - might not devise an argument to ""temporarily"" transfer long-detained children to all-child Survival Camps
4. They might also do this if they intensify their bizarre practice (so far only known in a few cases) of deporting the adult, but, uh, 'hanging on' to the child and keeping them in the US for distribution in the foster care system.
4.a. Many thousands of kids added to the foster system would probably overwhelm it, creating a massive backlog that again causes a situation where children will be held indefinitely. This also has the side effect of screwing a subclass of citizen children, who will have a much longer wait to be placed in a foster family after having been removed from their biological/original families for reasons of abuse, neglect, death or disability of caretaker... but those kids are almost always from poor and/or minority families, so call it a bonus.
5. Why stop at people detained at the border? Why not move on to raiding established unauthorized communities - over 10 million people in the US - and placing them in camps essentially forever until they can be 'processed'?

But everything after (2) is just my speculation on how they could make the process as nightmarish as possible. The bureaucratic default is just to keep all the captured immigrants in consolidated camps and leave 'em to rot in a slow-walked and underequipped apparatus.


EDIT: Of course if Flores is watered down or superseded, the only protections remaining may be the basic constitutional ones esp. according to 5th and 6th Amendments and habeas corpus - which the government will definitely violate with impunity.



There is no dilemma in arbitrarily separating adults and children. This is totalitarian logic, a pure pretext, and it is exactly the backup used by Hitler and Stalin and every kind of mass murderer, that the target population is somehow contaminated and any hypothetical number of "bad elements" justifies its eradication.

Stop to think about what you are saying. If one believes there is a chance of trafficking, one should assign social workers and trained personnel to evaluate each case, erring on the side of non-separation. Your suggestion is even less wise than shutting down an airport and shipping the thousands of people therein to black sites on the possibility that one of them could be, or eventually could be, a terrorist bomber.

I understand what I am saying, and what's wrong with it. It wouldn't surprise me if it aren't evil people asking for this though, if it is only a deterrant it's atrocious but there might be more to it.

No need to shut down airports by the way, too late they are already here

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know, it's just that detaining them together is still a little less evil than detaining them separated. Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Although it says they will have to release the children after 20 days. What happens to them then?

Lone children roaming the desert? :dizzy2:

I think they keep them longer then, if I recall the reports, unless they can be released TO someone. Not sure if this is working well.

[Fragony]

I think they keep them longer then, if I recall the reports, unless they can be released TO someone. Not sure if this is working well.

Who would that someone be, and who is watching them after them when they are released to 'someone'. As harsh as this all may sounds, there are so many possibilities for truly cynical people. I reckon that parents prefer to be with their children in the not so bad Mexico rather than be seperated from them. As atrocious as it all may sound at first glance it's defendable if you look at what is possible, I just hope it's for the right reasons

[Husar]

Who would that someone be, and who is watching them after them when they are released to 'someone'. As harsh as this all may sounds, there are so many possibilities for truly cynical people. I reckon that parents prefer to be with their children in the not so bad Mexico rather than be seperated from them. As atrocious as it all may sound at first glance it's defendable if you look at what is possible, I just hope it's for the right reasons

So in your world, all the people who do cynical things all day are harmless and all the people who do relatively harmless things all day are the cynical ones we have to watch? You're basically driving towards a cliff telling the driver to go faster because the earth could open up behind the car and swallow it, you never know, it could happen any time. :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

So in your world, all the people who do cynical things all day are harmless and all the people who do relatively harmless things all day are the cynical ones we have to watch? You're basically driving towards a cliff telling the driver to go faster because the earth could open up behind the car and swallow it, you never know, it could happen any time. :dizzy2:

So you say that *&()*&(*⁽⁽(⁽%%*%((

Reminds me of an interview posyed earlier here

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who would that someone be, and who is watching them after them when they are released to 'someone'. As harsh as this all may sounds, there are so many possibilities for truly cynical people. I reckon that parents prefer to be with their children in the not so bad Mexico rather than be seperated from them. As atrocious as it all may sound at first glance it's defendable if you look at what is possible, I just hope it's for the right reasons

The separation of minors from parents while processing refugees/attempted immigrants has been occurring, at a low level, since at least the middle of the Clinton administration.


We already HAD folks walking up to the border with kids, being separated from them, and then having those kids picked up by relatives in the States....and the adults on both ends were merely transporting the kids for sex-work. They passed laws during Bush 43 to try to curtail this, and now those guidelines are, in some cases, adding confusion to the proper treatment of such persons now.


USA border/immigration/refugee/illegals practices and procedures are a patchwork quilt of band-aids with no comprehensive efforts to rationalize or resolve the whole thing. In part, sadly, that is because the current chaos serves some political and economic interests to a number of different "players" on both sides of the border.

[HopAlongBunny]

Donald Trump
Opiate of the masses?:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/23/622692550/analysis-finds-geographic-overlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016

So is opioid use and Trump support a symptom or a cause

[Husar]

Donald Trump
Opiate of the masses?:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/23/622692550/analysis-finds-geographic-overlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016

So is opioid use and Trump support a symptom or a cause

They're both symptoms of the same cause.

The neoliberal capitalist system and the inability or unwillingness of the democrats to do anything about it while they focus on minority issues (identity politics).
I'm not saying socialism is the only answer, because some of these unemployed opioid former coal miners still believe that full on capitalism will bring them the american dream from coal miner to millionaire or have archaic views about manhood being derived from the amount of coal dust or exhaust gasses a man can swallow before dropping dead. :shrug:
Sanders could still have won though since he also promised radical change and to look out for the small man.

edit: should read the full article before replying, it's actually mentioned. :sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

believe that full on capitalism will bring them the american dream from coal miner to millionaire

Building off the comparisons to pre-modern aristocracy, I have a new catch-phrase brewing for the trope of poor-to-rich socioeconomic mobility:

Nobility mobility is debility

Comments and suggestions?

[Gilrandir]

Building off the comparisons to pre-modern aristocracy, I have a new catch-phrase brewing for the trope of poor-to-rich socioeconomic mobility:

Nobility mobility is debility

Comments and suggestions?

I suggest

She sells sea shells on the sea shore.

[rory_20_uk]

We don't know that.

Obama had zero executive experience before he became President but relatively few people seemed worried about that.

People just don't like Trump.

Obama was a lawyer for a long time before he was President, and by all accounts continued to act like one - very detailed focused, generally cautious and slow to act.
Trump is a... "personality" of little substance. And by all accounts he is continuing to act like one - views life as a reflection of TV, decisions should be decisive and made quickly; ratings = "winning" and detail = loosers.

Some genuinely prefer the second way of behaviour. They think government is too slow, are xenophobic and are anxious about how their life is not improving and blame this on everyone that is not them.

Obama did many things that were wrong - but he did it in a "normal" manner so most things happened behind the scenes or at the very least in a lawful way. Trump prefers to do things as gestures with little interest in whether things are lawful since no one will follow the boooooring case through the courts - least of all his supporters.

There are many things structurally wrong with the political system in the USA - many because things haven't been altered in over 100 years when the country was much more rural; others such as the electoral colleges are no longer required - direct voting with a decent AV system would be more likely to get a candidate that more people liked or a more balanced system of votes in at least the House if not the Senate as well.

But comparing it to other large bodies - which only the EU, India (and arguably China) exist it is the best by a country mile. Which itself is rather depressing.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Obama was a lawyer for a long time before he was President, and by all accounts continued to act like one - very detailed focused, generally cautious and slow to act.
Trump is a... "personality" of little substance. And by all accounts he is continuing to act like one - views life as a reflection of TV, decisions should be decisive and made quickly; ratings = "winning" and detail = loosers.

Some genuinely prefer the second way of behaviour. They think government is too slow, are xenophobic and are anxious about how their life is not improving and blame this on everyone that is not them.

Obama did many things that were wrong - but he did it in a "normal" manner so most things happened behind the scenes or at the very least in a lawful way. Trump prefers to do things as gestures with little interest in whether things are lawful since no one will follow the boooooring case through the courts - least of all his supporters.

There are many things structurally wrong with the political system in the USA - many because things haven't been altered in over 100 years when the country was much more rural; others such as the electoral colleges are no longer required - direct voting with a decent AV system would be more likely to get a candidate that more people liked or a more balanced system of votes in at least the House if not the Senate as well.

But comparing it to other large bodies - which only the EU, India (and arguably China) exist it is the best by a country mile. Which itself is rather depressing.

~:smoking:

The UK system has the potential to be much better. However, the most important and powerful component in the UK system, the Commons, is currently at its worst I've ever seen. Another of its components, meant to hold it to account, the press, is also atrocious. They are institutionally good, but the individuals currently populating and driving them are awful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are many things structurally wrong with the political system in the USA - many because things haven't been altered in over 100 years when the country was much more rural; others such as the electoral colleges are no longer required - direct voting with a decent AV system would be more likely to get a candidate that more people liked or a more balanced system of votes in at least the House if not the Senate as well.

But comparing it to other large bodies - which only the EU, India (and arguably China) exist it is the best by a country mile. Which itself is rather depressing.

~:smoking:

We were able to start from scratch. I have been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolution's podcast, most recently the series on the (failed?) 1848 Revolutions. It seems that even post-WW2, the legacy of nobility and elitist power structures weighs on current European political structures. For instance, why hasn't the UK gone full Republic? The PM is clearly the one running the show, the royal family is just a tourist trap that prints money for the state by luring us curious Americans to come over.

[rory_20_uk]

We were able to start from scratch. I have been listening to Mike Duncan's Revolution's podcast, most recently the series on the (failed?) 1848 Revolutions. It seems that even post-WW2, the legacy of nobility and elitist power structures weighs on current European political structures. For instance, why hasn't the UK gone full Republic? The PM is clearly the one running the show, the royal family is just a tourist trap that prints money for the state by luring us curious Americans to come over.

At this moment in time, the USA / France and Turkey are the best reasons why keeping the Monarchy is better than the alternative: a weak structure with technically all the power helps prevent a strong structure from grabbing all the power. And the UK needs every method of getting in revenue - if this is one I'm all for it!

Elitist power tends to be in power since whoever has power is called the elites. So, yes they've remained and I imagine always will. If the UK were to become a Republic what would be gained exactly?

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Elitist power tends to be in power since whoever has power is called the elites.

Sounds like you've been missing out on recent developments, this isn't universally the case anymore:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8RoLwAnhY

:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Sounds like you've been missing out on recent developments, this isn't universally the case anymore:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8RoLwAnhY

:laugh4:

Very droll...

By almost every metric I measure the value of a human being the man is worthless, but in terms of most metrics of power he is in the top fraction of a percentage point, and therefore is one of the "Nuveau Riche" Elite.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Elitist power tends to be in power since whoever has power is called the elites. So, yes they've remained and I imagine always will. If the UK were to become a Republic what would be gained exactly?

~:smoking:

Not sure how accurate that statement is. I wouldn't define elites simply as the ones who have power in government. Decision making powers are delegatable, easy to imagine that through an aristocracy that bribes the politicians (a legitimate worry among the left in the US under citizens united). In the other extreme who are the elites in a theoretical democratic body picked by random among the population every four years? Unless you are just making a tautological argument that the elite have 'power' in any form, thus those who have power are elites.

As far as what the UK would gain, it depends on what you put into it. The political process shapes the culture and vice versa. What are the expectations of the house of lords under the current system? To be the detached, conservative element of land owners able to check the passions of the commons? Does that class even exist in 21st century capitalism? Over here, captains of industry are often just as impassioned and active in the world around them as the public.

If the remnants of the Kingdom were thrown off and the UK went full republic, how would the perception of the house of lords in this new political context change and adapt? Could this new perception bring about new public expectations and thus higher accountability to the upper chamber? This isn't so far fetched, the US has this exact conversation with our own Senate, which used to be selected by state legislatures, now by popular vote.

[rory_20_uk]

Not sure how accurate that statement is. I wouldn't define elites simply as the ones who have power in government. Decision making powers are delegatable, easy to imagine that through an aristocracy that bribes the politicians (a legitimate worry among the left in the US under citizens united). In the other extreme who are the elites in a theoretical democratic body picked by random among the population every four years? Unless you are just making a tautological argument that the elite have 'power' in any form, thus those who have power are elites.

As far as what the UK would gain, it depends on what you put into it. The political process shapes the culture and vice versa. What are the expectations of the house of lords under the current system? To be the detached, conservative element of land owners able to check the passions of the commons? Does that class even exist in 21st century capitalism? Over here, captains of industry are often just as impassioned and active in the world around them as the public.

If the remnants of the Kingdom were thrown off and the UK went full republic, how would the perception of the house of lords in this new political context change and adapt? Could this new perception bring about new public expectations and thus higher accountability to the upper chamber? This isn't so far fetched, the US has this exact conversation with our own Senate, which used to be selected by state legislatures, now by popular vote.

In the reality most live, politicians are bought by the wealthy. Sure, there are exceptions such as Theodore Roosevelt, but they are generally hated by those who rather like the status-quo.

The House of Lords shouldn't work. All the ingredients are utterly wrong. Yet somehow it seems to do a much better job and at less of a cost than most alternatives. The Lords is mainly not the landed gentry. Sadly there are a fair number of ex-politicians who have been kicked upstairs but there are also people who are genuinely competent and able to properly review legislation.

If one is holding up the Senate as a great example of a better second chamber I'd really rather stick to the Lords, thanks - copying that gridlocked mess of a Federal Government would be a disaster.

If we were to have a President, if we are lucky we go the way of the Nordics and Germany (so many sentences seem to end up like that). Or we might go the way of France / the USA / Turkey. There is definitely a small theoretical upside - but there is a massive theoretical downside: Tony Blair as President anyone with the two houses stacked with his yes-men? He did enough damage as it was!

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) visited (https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/posts/10155822214623687) a few of the internment facilities:


Sunday morning, I flew to McAllen, Texas to find out what's really happening to immigrant families ripped apart by the Trump administration.

There's one thing that's very clear: The crisis at our border isn't over.

I went straight from the airport to the McAllen Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing center that is the epicenter of Donald Trump's so-called "zero-tolerance" policy. This is where border patrol brings undocumented migrants for intake before they are either released, deported, turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or, in the case of unaccompanied or separated children, placed in the custody of Health and Human Services.

From the outside, the CBP processing center looks like any other warehouse on a commercial street lined with warehouses. There's no clue about the horrors inside.

Before we could get in, CBP insisted we had to watch a government propaganda video. There's no other way to describe it – it's like a movie trailer. It was full of dramatic narration about the "illegals" crossing our border, complete with gory pictures about the threats that these immigrants bring to the United States, from gangs to skin rashes. The star of the show is CBP, which, according to the video, has done a great job driving down the numbers.

Then an employee described what we were about to see. "They have separate pods. I'll call them pods. I don't really know how they name them." Clearly they had gotten the memo not to call them what they are: cages. Every question I asked them had a complicated answer that led to two more questions – even the simple question about how long people were held there. "Nobody is here longer than 24 hours." "Well, maybe 24-48 hours." "72 hours max." And "no children are separated out." "Well, except older children."

The warehouse is enormous, with a solid concrete floor and a high roof. It is filled with cages. Cages for men. Cages for women. Cages for mamas with babies. Cages for girls. Cages for boys.

The stench – body odor and fear – hits the second the door is opened. The first cages are full of men. The chain link is about 12-15 feet high, and the men are tightly packed. I don't think they could all lie down at the same time. There's a toilet at the back of the cage behind a half-wall, but no place to shower or wash up. One man kept shouting, "A shower, please. Just a shower."

I asked the men held in cage after cage where they were from. Nearly all of them were from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.

Then I asked them how long they had been there – and the answers were all over the map, from a few days to nearly two weeks (72 hours max?). The CBP agents rushed to correct the detained men, claiming that their answers couldn't be right. My immigration specialist on the trip who speaks fluent Spanish made sure the men understood that the question was, "How long have you been in the building?" Their answers didn't change.

Cage after cage. Same questions, same answers.

Next we came into the area where the children were held. These cages were bigger with far more people. In the center of the cage, there's a freestanding guard tower probably a story or story-and-a-half taller to look down over the children. The girls are held separately in their own large cage. The children told us that they had come to the United States with family and didn't know where they had been taken. Eleven years old. Twelve. Locked in a cage with strangers. Many hadn't talked to their mothers or fathers. They didn't know where they were or what would happen to them next.
The children were quiet. Early afternoon, and they just sat. Some were on thin mats with foil blankets pulled over their heads. They had nothing – no books, no toys, no games. They looked shell shocked.

And then there were the large cages with women and small children. Women breast-feeding their young children.

When we went over to the mamas with babies, I asked them about why they had left their home countries. One young mother had a 4-year-old child. She said she had been threatened by the gangs in El Salvador. She had given a drink of water to a police officer, and the gang decided she must be in with the police. The longer she spoke, the more agitated she got – that she would never do that, that she understood the risk with the gangs, but that the gangs believed she did it. She sold everything she had and fled with her son to the United States.

One thing you won't see much of in the CBP processing center? Fathers caged with their children. After pressing the CBP agents, they explained that men traveling with children are automatically released from the facility. They just don't have the cages there to hold them. Women with small children, on the other hand, could be detained indefinitely. I pressed them on this again and again. The only answer: they claimed to be protecting "the safety of the mother and children."

CBP said that fathers with children, pregnant women, mothers of children with special needs, and other "lucky ones" who are released from the processing center are sent over to Catholic Charities' Humanitarian Respite Center for help. That was my next stop in McAllen. Sister Norma, her staff, and volunteers are truly doing God's work. Catholic Charities provides food, a shower, clean clothes, and medicine to those who need it. The center tries to explain the complicated process to the people, and the volunteers help them get on a bus to a family member in the United States.

Sister Norma introduced me to a father and his teenage son from Honduras. The father said that a gang had been after his son, determined that the boy would join the gang. The only way for the boy to escape was to run. The man left his wife and four daughters in Honduras to bring his son to the United States. His only plan is to find work here to send money home to his family. His cousin lives in New Jersey, so CBP sent their paperwork to the local ICE center in New Jersey, and they would soon begin the long bus ride there.

Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley provides a lifesaving service to people of all faiths and backgrounds, but with a humanitarian crisis in their backyard, they're clearly stretched as thin as it gets. With more money and volunteers, they would gladly help more people.

I asked Sister Norma about the women and babies who were in indefinite detention. She said her group would open their arms and take care of them, get them cleaned up and fed and on a bus to a family member – if only ICE would release them.

"This is a moral issue. We are all part of this human family," they say.

Next, I met with some of the legal experts on the frontlines of this crisis – lawyers from the Texas Civil Rights Project, the Border Rights Center of the Texas ACLU, and the federal public defenders.

I gave them a rundown of everything I'd seen so far in McAllen, particularly when it comes to reuniting parents and children, and they raised some of my worst fears:

The Trump administration may be "reunifying" families, but their definition of a family is only a parent and a child. If, for example, a 9-year-old crosses with an 18-year-old sister – or an aunt or uncle, or a grandparent, or anyone who isn't the child's documented legal guardian – they are not counted as a family and they will be separated.

Mothers and children may be considered "together" if they're held in the same gigantic facility, even if they're locked in separate cages with no access to one another. (In the world of CBP and ICE, that's how the 10-year-old girls locked in a giant cage are "not separated" from their mothers who are in cages elsewhere in the facility.)

In the process of "reunifying" families, the government may possibly count a family as reunited by sending the child to a distant relative they've never met – not their parents. Some relatives may be unwilling to claim these children because it would be inviting ICE to investigate their own families.

Parents are so desperate to be reunited with their children that they may be trading in their legal right to asylum.

The system for tracking separated families is virtually unknown, if one exists at all. One expert worries that for some families, just a simple photo may be all the documentation that the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services have to reunite them. (I sincerely hope that's not true.)

The longer the day went on, the more questions I had about how the Trump administration plans to fix the crisis they've created at the border. So my last stop of the day was at the Port Isabel Detention Center, about an hour east of McAllen. It's one of the largest detention facilities in Texas.

The Department of Homeland Security had released some details on its plan to reunify families. The release noted that Port Isabel will be the "primary family reunification and removal center for adults in their custody."

Let's be clear: Port Isabel isn't a reunification center. It's a detention center. A prison.

There's no ambiguity on this point. I met with the head of the facility. He said several times that they had no space for children, no way to care for them, and no plans to bring any children to his locked-down complex. When I pressed on what was the plan for reunification of children with their parents, he speculated that HHS (the Department of Health and Human Services) would take the children somewhere, but it certainly wasn't going to be to his facility. When I asked how long HHS would take, he speculated that it would be weeks, but he said that was up to them. He had his job to do: He would hold these mothers and fathers until he received orders to send them somewhere else. Period.

So let me say it again. This is a prison – not a reunification center.

We toured the center. It is huge – multiple buildings isolated on a sun-baked expanse of land far from any town. We didn't go to the men's area, but the women are held in a large bunk-bed facility with a concrete outdoor exercise area. It's locked, double-locked, and triple locked. Tall fences topped with razor wire are everywhere, each backed up by a second row of fences also topped with razor wire.

An ICE official brought in a group of nine detained mothers who had volunteered to speak to us. I don't believe that ICE cherry-picked these women for the meeting, because everything they told me was horrifying.

Each mother told us her own story about crossing the border, being taken to a processing center, and the point that they were separated from their child or children. In every case, the government had lied to them about where their children were being taken. In every case, save one, no mother had spoken to her child in the days since the separation. And in every case, no mother knew where her child was.

At the time of separation, most of the mothers were told their children would be back. One woman had been held at "the icebox," a center that has earned its nickname for being extremely cold. When the agent came to take her child, she was told that it was just too cold for the child in the center, and that they were just going to keep the child warm until she was transferred. That was mid-June. She hasn't seen her child since.

One mother had been detained with her child. They were sleeping together on the floor of one of the cages, when, at 3:00am, the guards took her away. She last saw her 7-year-old son sleeping on the floor. She cried over and over, "I never got to say goodbye. I never got to say goodbye." That was early-June, and she hasn't seen him since.

Even though the CBP officials at the processing center told me that mothers with children that have special needs would be released, one of the mothers I spoke with had been separated from her special needs child. She talked about her child who doesn't have properly formed legs and feet and walks with great difficulty. One of the mothers spoke of another mother in the facility who is very worried because her separated child is deaf and doesn't speak at all.

The women I met were traumatized, weeping, and begging for help. They don't understand what is happening to them – and they're begging to be reunited with their kids.

Detainees can pay to make phone calls, but all of their possessions are taken from them at the processing center. The only way they can get money for a call is for someone to put money on their accounts. I asked if people or charities could donate money so that they'd be able to make phone calls to their family or lawyers, but they said no – a donor would need the individual ID number for every person detained at the center, and ICE obviously isn't going to release that information.

Three young lawyers were at Port Isabel at the same time we were. The lawyers told us that their clients – the people they've spoken to in the detention center – have strong and credible cases for asylum. But the entire process for being granted asylum depends on one phone call with an immigration official where they make the case for why they should be allowed to stay. One of the first questions a mother will be asked is, "Have you been separated from a child?" For some of the women, just asking that question makes them fall apart and weep.

The lawyers are worried that these women are in such a fragile and fractured state, they're in no shape to make the kind of detailed, credible case needed for themselves or their children. They had no chance in our system because they've lost their children and desperately want them back.

We stayed inside at Port Isabel for more than two hours – much longer than the 45 minutes we had been promised. When I finally went to bed that night, I thought about something the mothers had told me – something that will likely haunt me for a long time.

The mothers say that they can hear babies cry at night.

This isn't about politics. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This is about human beings. Children held in cages today. Babies scattered all over this country. And mamas who, in the dark of night, hear them cry.

I'm still working through everything I saw, but I wanted you to know the full story. The fight for these children and families isn't over – not by a long shot.

[Montmorency]

So, socialist Latina ran against one of the top Democrats in the House of Reps in the D primary, the party boss in New York or somesuch, real Tammany Hall character, real cozy with Wall Street, major bursar and nexus of PAC money throughout the country for the Democratic epilektoi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3QXIVR0bs
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/ocasio-cortez-new-york-14th-district-democratic-primary-campaign-video/

She waaaann. She won decise.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 15,897 57%
Joseph Crowley 11,761 42%

Those numbers are hilarious. (New York has a uniquely restricted primary system, but that's a story for another day.)

Platform:

*Medicare for all (TBF her opponent was one of the first national Democrats to push this on the agenda)
*Tuition-free public college
*Federal jobs guarantee
*Federal Assault Weapons/Hi-Capacity Mag Ban
*Abolish ICE
*Housing as a human right
*Restore Glass Steagall
*Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico
*etc

All these socialist and social-democratic candidates surging across the country at least give us the opportunity for a testing bed, and hopefully a realization on the national level that a party needs a coherent agenda that persist beyond a single election cycle.

Since this is the Trump thread, here is what Trump (So, socialist Latina ran against one of the top Democrats in the House of Reps in the D primary, the party boss in New York or somesuch, real Tammany Hall character, real cozy with Wall Street, major bursar and nexus of PAC money throughout the country for the Democratic epilektoi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3QXIVR0bs https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/ocasio-cortez-new-york-14th-district-democratic-primary-campaign-video/ She waaaann. She won decise. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 15,897 57% Joseph Crowley 11,761 42% Those numbers are hilarious. (New York has a uniquely restricted primary system, but that's a story for another day.) Platform: *Medicare for all (TBF her opponent was one of the first national Democrats to push this on the agenda) *Tuition-free public college *Federal jobs guarantee *Federal Assault Weapons/Hi-Capacity Mag Ban *Abolish ICE *Housing as a human right *Restore Glass Steagall *Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico *etc All these socialist and social-democratic candidates surging across the country at least give us the opportunity for a testing bed, and hopefully a realization on the national level that a party needs a coherent agenda that persist beyond a single election cycle. In other news, but check it on your own time, multiple-run failure and centrally-directed interloper Juanita Perez Williams was handily beaten by a technocrat lefty in an upstate primary. Syracuse has become more competitive in the past 15 years, so a good case study this November for the center >> left vs. center-right theory. In a few months, look forward as well to the big matchup in state-level primary: Nixon v Cuomo. Since this is the Trump thread, here is what [URL=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011795883925663744[/URL] had to say about Crowley's defeat:
Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!) had to say about Crowley's defeat:


Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!


In other news, but check it on your own time, multiple-run failure and centrally-directed interloper Juanita Perez Williams was handily beaten by a technocrat lefty in an upstate primary. Syracuse has become more competitive in the past 15 years, so a good case study this November for the center >> left vs. center-right theory.

In a few months, look forward as well to the big matchup in state-level primary: Nixon v Cuomo.

[Husar]

Just came across the Ocasio story as well, she's only a small Bernie and hasn't won against the Republican yet I assume (or is that an auto-win in her district?), but I still consider it a win for America.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vis-à-vis the compromise thread, polarization, and Trump, this primary is pretty indicative of how the polarization is increasing.

Trump's deplorables continue to back him avidly despite his being a misogynist grandstander BECAUSE he is combative and tries to reduce things to black/white confrontations.

The Dems, especially in the NE, are truly starting to crystalize in favor of out and out social democracy (which has never been mainstream for the USA before).


Both camps want the alternate camp obliterated (politically).



I now believe that we are more polarized than at any point in our history prior to 1840 and after the Civil War.



I am still not sure whether Trump is a cause, a symptom, or a bit of both.

[drone]

Bit of both, but he is an accelerant.

We'll see how much his deplorables support him when he kills their jobs. Badmouthing Harley for problems he caused, or badmouthing Germans and BMW in South Carolina seem like poor rhetorical choices.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Dems, especially in the NE, are truly starting to crystalize in favor of out and out social democracy (which has never been mainstream for the USA before).

I now believe that we are more polarized than at any point in our history prior to 1840 and after the Civil War.

There was a growing Socialist party during the Progressive Era. Managed to make progress in local and state governments until the first red scare after WW1.
Third red scare incoming?

I've been saying polarization is at a scary level for a while. Even Monty is beating the drum of no compromise. Sadly, he may be right if the left is to survive past 2020.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bit of both, but he is an accelerant.

We'll see how much his deplorables support him when he kills their jobs. Badmouthing Harley for problems he caused, or badmouthing Germans and BMW in South Carolina seem like poor rhetorical choices.

They already blame the companies, not Trump. Evidence of a cult of personality; We are far removed from economics driven politics here.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646557/harley-davidson-workers-react-to-news-of-shifting-some-production-overseas

[Montmorency]

There was a growing Socialist party during the Progressive Era. Managed to make progress in local and state governments until the first red scare after WW1.
Third red scare incoming?

I've been saying polarization is at a scary level for a while. Even Monty is beating the drum of no compromise. Sadly, he may be right if the left is to survive past 2020.

Debs got <10% of the presidential vote, right? Then again, that's why Sanders didn't/won't run as an Independent.

Compromise is fine when goals overlap. Compromise for compromise's sake, decorum for decorum's sake: that's nothing but a destructive game for people who have no stake in the consequences of their actions. Why do almost all Democrats almost always vote for the admin's judge picks, when Republicans do not and would not extend this courtesy (wrong word)?. Is it advantageous toward ideals of "bipartisanship" or the integrity and legitimacy of the judicial institution, even on their own terms, to grease along nominees whose sole purpose in life is to eradicate a century of liberal jurisprudence?

Fight demotism with populism, I guess. :shrug:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I've been saying polarization is at a scary level for a while.

But then again, I could be wrong and this is just normal for our democracy...


https://youtu.be/cwVDhwDJIxM

[Montmorency]

damn it


They already blame the companies, not Trump. Evidence of a cult of personality; We are far removed from economics driven politics here.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646557/harley-davidson-workers-react-to-news-of-shifting-some-production-overseas

It's certainly scary to think the only way to discredit Trumpism is either massive one-on-one engagement with boots on the ground (i.e. neocolonialism), or the advent of extreme suffering and privation among the Trump-supporting population.

[Hooahguy]

So Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has retired (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44634176). President Trump now can appoint a new solidly right wing justice, effectively turning the SCOTUS conservative for decades to come. This is a dark time for anyone left of center. And should the Senate not turn blue this November and one of the other left leaning judges either retires or dies before 2020, that would effectively mean the end of progressive SCOTUS decisions for at least a generation.

I'm sure all those progressives who refused to vote for Clinton in the battleground states are proud of themselves right now.

[Gilrandir]

Badmouthing Harley for problems he caused, or badmouthing Germans and BMW in South Carolina seem like poor rhetorical choices.


I wouldn't call it badmouthing. They really did poorly. In the World Cup.

[Husar]

I now believe that we are more polarized than at any point in our history prior to 1840 and after the Civil War.

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate.

Of course there are some in the Trump camp who are, as I said earlier, still convinced that more capitalism will somehow improve their lives again, because they're too deluded to realize that they're literally useless for capitalists at this point. But overall I feel like the polarizing thing these days is mainly that the better-offs want the capitalist system to persist and make some cosmetic changes to the degree to which people are required to smile when they see a gay couple or a black person without actually improving anyone's financial situation considerably. Whereas the poorer strata are starting to realize more and more that these identity politics are just a distraction from the ongoing impoverization of more and more lower strata and the ongoing financial polarization of society while having money is more and more required to yield actual political power. In other words, they realized the growth of the oligarchic structures.

In other words, I should have put my prediction in the predictions thread about capitalism and where it's going leading to some kind of poor peoples' revolution at some point if noone stops it. The only problem is that in this case the only candidate the poor people had to go for was an idiotic billionaire con-man. But then again with a school system where only expensive private schools can provide good education and noone is really lifted up, how could you expect the poor and lesser educated to make an educated choice? Good thing that the new secretary of education wants to privatize the system even more for her own gain while probably making it even worse for the poor.

Accelerationism indeed. If this continues, the capitalist speedster may hit the wall even sooner than I would have expected. It may just take a while for the die hards to realize how this administration is duping them due to their low level of education and lack of self reflection in a country where self-advertizing and shallow, outward appearance are everything. :sweatdrop:

Am I too harsh? Too wrong? I think there is no new polarization, it's just the same old class warfare that Marx described, except that it has been waged by the rich on the poor for a while and the poor took a long time to realize it and fight back (see low education levels). The media in the US (espeically Fox I guess) is always quick to cry "Class warfare!" when the poor want something, but when there's a policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, it's described as necessary for the economy...

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that this is nothing new - you could be referring to the USA in c. 1910 before the Trusts were broken up, there were no food standards, housing standards nor meaningful unions.

For the lower orders things improved considerably over the next c. 50 years due to both technology and the mass wealth transfers as the rest of the world was destroyed in two world wars and so the structural problems were not focused on. Now the rich are getting richer and not enough is getting to the masses so there is dissent as the browns / yellows / blacks are doing all the jobs the blue collar workers relied on for their middle class house with the picket fence. Free trade was fine as long as the world followed the Colonial model of wealth flowing into the USA but now that has also reversed.

And the answer, as is so often the case, is an ill-defined external threat coming in. Be that immigrants or the "easily won" trade war on other foreigners. Rather reminiscent of 1984.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I wouldn't call it badmouthing. They really did poorly. In the World Cup.

All You Need is Loew.

[Gilrandir]

All You Need is Loew.

It was a bad idea (for Germans) to let Russia host a World Cup. Germans never did well in Russia.

[drone]

They already blame the companies, not Trump. Evidence of a cult of personality; We are far removed from economics driven politics here.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/623646557/harley-davidson-workers-react-to-news-of-shifting-some-production-overseas

Watch footage of his South Carolina rally. When he lays into BMW, you can see about half the people behind him going, "Wait, what?".

[Montmorency]

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate.

Of course there are some in the Trump camp who are, as I said earlier, still convinced that more capitalism will somehow improve their lives again, because they're too deluded to realize that they're literally useless for capitalists at this point. But overall I feel like the polarizing thing these days is mainly that the better-offs want the capitalist system to persist and make some cosmetic changes to the degree to which people are required to smile when they see a gay couple or a black person without actually improving anyone's financial situation considerably. Whereas the poorer strata are starting to realize more and more that these identity politics are just a distraction from the ongoing impoverization of more and more lower strata and the ongoing financial polarization of society while having money is more and more required to yield actual political power. In other words, they realized the growth of the oligarchic structures.

In other words, I should have put my prediction in the predictions thread about capitalism and where it's going leading to some kind of poor peoples' revolution at some point if noone stops it. The only problem is that in this case the only candidate the poor people had to go for was an idiotic billionaire con-man. But then again with a school system where only expensive private schools can provide good education and noone is really lifted up, how could you expect the poor and lesser educated to make an educated choice? Good thing that the new secretary of education wants to privatize the system even more for her own gain while probably making it even worse for the poor. .

Accelerationism indeed. If this continues, the capitalist speedster may hit the wall even sooner than I would have expected. It may just take a while for the die hards to realize how this administration is duping them due to their low level of education and lack of self reflection in a country where self-advertizing and shallow, outward appearance are everything. :sweatdrop:

Am I too harsh? Too wrong? I think there is no new polarization, it's just the same old class warfare that Marx described, except that it has been waged by the rich on the poor for a while and the poor took a long time to realize it and fight back (see low education levels). The media in the US (espeically Fox I guess) is always quick to cry "Class warfare!" when the poor want something, but when there's a policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, it's described as necessary for the economy...

Bernie Sanders adheres to the same concept of "identity politics" as the mainstream Democrats, if you consider that to mean emphasizing subaltern perspectives and policy implications for their groups. Indeed, once blacks and Hispanics had time to learn about Sanders, he became more popular among them than with white people. The argument is that he means it in a practical way, while other Democrats tend to be opportunists (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/12/the-democratic-partys-2018-view-of-identity-politics-is-confusing-and-thus-appears-cynical-and-opportunistic/)

The overwhelming share of Trump's vote was cast by party-line Republicans and pseudo-independents. Has anyone shown more than a handful of Democratic > Trump voters (not Bush > Obama > Trump voters), or at a higher rate than in previous elections?

Trump was and is well-liked by the middle and upper classes, stop imagining his voters as destitute hillbillies. If you want to make the case that a strong economic-reform platform can peel some of them away and neutralize the worst instincts of enough of the rest, that's reasonable, but don't resort to fairytales about who they are or how they view the world.

[Husar]

Bernie Sanders adheres to the same concept of "identity politics" as the mainstream Democrats, if you consider that to mean emphasizing subaltern perspectives and policy implications for their groups. Indeed, once blacks and Hispanics had time to learn about Sanders, he became more popular among them than with white people. The argument is that he means it in a practical way, while other Democrats tend to be opportunists (https://theintercept.com/2018/06/12/the-democratic-partys-2018-view-of-identity-politics-is-confusing-and-thus-appears-cynical-and-opportunistic/)

Well, I'm also pro identity politics in the wider sense, but I think these aims should be realized as part of a wieder focus on equality and same rights for everyone and not be the only front goals of a bunch of tiny, selfish movements that are only concerned about their own niche issues with politicians catering to all of them individually. That's what made some poor white people feel disenfranchized and maybe not even entirely unjustified.


The overwhelming share of Trump's vote was cast by party-line Republicans and pseudo-independents. Has anyone shown more than a handful of Democratic > Trump voters (not Bush > Obama > Trump voters), or at a higher rate than in previous elections?

Trump was and is well-liked by the middle and upper classes, stop imagining his voters as destitute hillbillies. If you want to make the case that a strong economic-reform platform can peel some of them away and neutralize the worst instincts of enough of the rest, that's reasonable, but don't resort to fairytales about who they are or how they view the world.

I think that goes largely without saying, but I thought US politics were all about that part of the people who may actually consider switching their votes. After the election everybody talked about how he got the votes of the disenfranchised workers in the rust belt or midwest, so they're the ones I'm focusing on since their needs would probably be better served by Sanders' politics than by Trump's.

Plus I would expect Sanders' ideas to give the African Americans more social mobility and so on. Utopia would be close indeed! :sweatdrop:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate...

I agree that Bernie was the better candidate, especially up against Trump. Had the Dems put him in the lead, it is possible that the narrow victory would have gone the other way.

I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved. The USA has always had a large mass of folks who really don't care much about politics at all, pursuing individual economic and social goals while ignoring the politisphere.

[Montmorency]

I think that goes largely without saying, but I thought US politics were all about that part of the people who may actually consider switching their votes.

Well, in theory. But party-line voting is well-entrenched in our culture, and the real swing vote is among the non-voting population.


I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved.

That's us. We're all tourists here.

The Org isn't an ivory tower, but - it's some kind of tower, right? What's the material?


I agree that Bernie was the better candidate, especially up against Trump. Had the Dems put him in the lead, it is possible that the narrow victory would have gone the other way.

I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved. The USA has always had a large mass of folks who really don't care much about politics at all, pursuing individual economic and social goals while ignoring the politisphere.

One interpretation is that because Sanders is relatively straightforward and honest about his principle and proposals and history, he has an inherent advantage over pragmatically-shifting establishment politicians, the kind Trump can run circles around because he speaks a whole different language.

[rory_20_uk]

The poison in the UK and the USA is First Past The Vote systems. No compromise, no grey areas and always follow your Clan otherwise the Other Lot will win.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

The Government Is Ordering Toddlers to Appear in Immigration Court Alone (https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/toddlers-ordered-to-appear-in-immigration-court-alone.html)


Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles, said she and her team recently represented an unaccompanied 3-year-old in court, “and the child — in the middle of the hearing — started climbing up on the table.”


“I can’t describe to you the room I was in with the toddlers,” Colleen Kraft, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told CNN after visiting one of the shelters. “Normally toddlers are rambunctious and running around. We had one child just screaming and crying, and the others were really silent. And this is not normal activity or brain development with these children.”


Meanwhile, the broader legal situation is in flux. A federal judge Tuesday night commanded the White House to reunify families within 14 days if the child is under 5 and 30 days if the child is older. The Justice Department has not indicated whether it will appeal. Attorneys who are involved in the cases said it’s unclear how the judge’s order will work in practice, and when and how it could take effect.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/27/immigrant-toddlers-ordered-appear-court-alone/amp


Yet children who are just arriving at care facilities are still not connected with their families, said Megan McKenna, a spokeswoman for Kids in Need of Defense. She said the children arrive at care facilities without a parent’s tracking number, and parents don’t tend to have their kids’ numbers.

After kids arrive in care facilities, HHS officials work on finding a “sponsor” to care for the child, such as a parent, guardian, family member or family friend. Historically, unaccompanied minors — who tended to be teens — found a sponsor in about a month and a half.

However, Rachel Prandini, a staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said finding a sponsor is more difficult now given recent fears that stepping forward to accept a child could trigger a sponsor’s deportation.

In April, HHS entered into an agreement with law enforcement officials that requires sponsors and adult family members to submit fingerprints and be subject to a thorough immigration and criminal background check.

HHS officials said the process is meant to protect the child.


It’s impossible to know how many children have begun deportation proceedings, Tzamaras said. “There have been reports of kids younger than 3 years old and others as old as 17.”

[...]

She said in a statement that the court’s work is vital: “This is not traffic court. A mistake on an asylum case can result in jail, torture or a death sentence,” Tabaddor said. “We are a nation of laws. We value fairness, justice and transparency.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, in theory. But party-line voting is well-entrenched in our culture, and the real swing vote is among the non-voting population.



That's us. We're all tourists here.

The Org isn't an ivory tower, but - it's some kind of tower, right? What's the material?



One interpretation is that because Sanders is relatively straightforward and honest about his principle and proposals and history, he has an inherent advantage over pragmatically-shifting establishment politicians, the kind Trump can run circles around because he speaks a whole different language.

Good comment about the real swing vote being the mostly uninvolved.

And I agree with you about Sanders' honesty. He has had this outlook on politics and governance his entire adult life and pursued it as vigorously as the times/public allowed. I may disagree with his policy goals, but I do admire his honesty.

[Montmorency]

The Government Is Ordering Toddlers to Appear in Immigration Court Alone (https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/toddlers-ordered-to-appear-in-immigration-court-alone.html)

One of these is not a genuine image of a mass trial.

20875
20876
20877
20878

[Beskar]

http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg

Source: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/

[Fragony]

What a nice graph, just like I remember it from math-class

[a completely inoffensive name]

So Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has retired (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44634176). President Trump now can appoint a new solidly right wing justice, effectively turning the SCOTUS conservative for decades to come. This is a dark time for anyone left of center. And should the Senate not turn blue this November and one of the other left leaning judges either retires or dies before 2020, that would effectively mean the end of progressive SCOTUS decisions for at least a generation.

I'm sure all those progressives who refused to vote for Clinton in the battleground states are proud of themselves right now.

If anything, this will be the kick that liberals need. Too long the left has relied on buying progress through lawyers and the grace of Kennedy.

Get the hell out there and vote.

[HopAlongBunny]

If anything, this will be the kick that liberals need. Too long the left has relied on buying progress through lawyers and the grace of Kennedy.

Kennedy's record was pretty mixed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/06/28/daily-202-five-times-anthony-kennedy-was-the-fifth-vote-shows-the-significance-of-his-retirement/5b34352b30fb046c468e6f63/?noredirect=on

With the Republicans picking the new justice, expect someone much more prepared to toe-the-line.
Roe v. Wade is certainly going to be a target; Trump promised that much in his campaign.
Gay marriage/rights will be on the firing line as well; it just falls within the realm of "things cranky old men get really pissed about"
The future is the Republican's to craft; you know, Hillary's e-mails are still missing...

[Montmorency]

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-leaked-bill-world-trade-organization-united-states-d51278d2-0516-4def-a4d3-ed676f4e0f83.html


Axios has obtained a leaked draft of a Trump administration bill — ordered by the president himself — that would declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules.


Why it matters: The draft legislation is stunning. The bill essentially provides Trump a license to raise U.S. tariffs at will, without congressional consent and international rules be damned.


The details: The bill, titled the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act," would give Trump unilateral power to ignore the two most basic principles of the WTO and negotiate one-on-one with any country:

1. The "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) principle that countries can't set different tariff rates for different countries outside of free trade agreements;
2. "Bound tariff rates" — the tariff ceilings that each WTO country has already agreed to in previous negotiations.

"It would be the equivalent of walking away from the WTO and our commitments there without us actually notifying our withdrawal," said a source familiar with the bill.


"The good news is Congress would never give this authority to the president," the source added, describing the bill as


"insane".

[...]

The bottom line: As a smart trade watcher told me: "The Trump administration should be more worried about not having their current authority restricted rather than expanding authority as this bill would do."

By the way: United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act = US FART Act

For fart's sake, can we skip to the scouring flame stage already?