731–740 of 843 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s always been the U.S. view of foreign policy. MAGA is just honest about it.
You may be right, but the honesty has destroyed an insane amount of good will and privilege that the US previously enjoyed (deservedly or not). To throw that all away for literally no benefit is . . . not good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes The system is capital. Unavoidable
Seems like China avoids it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. The checks and balances wasn’t meant to setup a system where Presidents can be sent to prison but to prevent “crimes” (for the lack of a better word) to happen to begin with. Of course our current “party over Country” system has practically killed any semblance of checks and balances…
> Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. That sounds a lot like a king. Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing. I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.
They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.
This is just the citizenry paying double tariffs. First, we bought the higher priced goods. Now, the companies are trying to take our tariff payments again, this time from the government, to "make up" for the tariff money that we had already paid them in the first place. What should happen is that $X of the budget should be put into escrow for the next administration to use after these criminals make their way out.
Instead of being mad at companies that were forced to pay illegal tariffs, who now want to recoup some of that, be mad at the cause of illegal tariffs. Letting the govt keep the money by fighting over who is a victim, hold the govt feet to the fire so they learn not to do this to begin with.
I wonder if brands will have a "tariff refund" sale. Make everything 20% off until all of the brand's tariff refund is passed on to customers. Of course, this wouldn't help the customers that already paid the tariff but it could be a good marketing ploy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The people are to blame. Both the people who voted for the criminal to be president. And the people who supported such a horrible Democratic candidate that she couldn't even win against Trump.
If you really want to get to the root cause, on the Democratic side it’s the people who promoted/supported/covered up for Biden when it would have been obvious to anyone close that he wasn’t fit for the purpose any more. And Biden himself, for his hubris. That was why things were rushed and there wasn’t a proper primary. Yes, they could have held a very late/quick convention and would likely not have picked Kamala, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large cap company I totally dont work at paid 4% of revenue in tariffs last year. Our bonuses were cut in half. I dont have visibility into our customer pricing. It is fucking obscene how stupid this tax is. And all for what? So billionaires can get a bit richer? How did this help us, like at all???
Judge actions by their outcomes, not by their stated purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where a single person "rules" without needing to face opposition in a parliament nor even requiring support from its own party But that doesn't describe the US right now. The problem is that the GOP is providing at least enough support to enable the behavior that we currently see. If congress as a whole wanted to stop things they could. I actually quite like the US system but the combination of first past the post…
The founders never imagined a coequal branch of government voluntarily giving up its power.
Several framers of the constitution expressed deep concerns about the potential for coordinated non-governmental "factions" taking over government via elections.
Unfortunately, despite going to great efforts to limit power centralization internally, concerns of external centralization were not heeded and there are no limits on the coordination of the US government via non-governmental organizations such as parties.
This might have been a prophesy:
> Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
> It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
> [Omitted here, but at this point he worries that even a foreign country could weaponize a party to take control of the country, via elections.]
> There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true, and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with layout, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.
-- George Washington [0]
States used to operate independently enough that the same party in different counties and states might have varied views. But today, both parties have become highly centralized and homogenous from local to federal levels. Now intensely centralized themselves, they are well prepared to each compete to centralize government as an extension of a single party.
And given it has become relatively easy to do so, the incentives are now there for parties to treat elections as war, and party control of government as the highest priority policy at all times. Incentives don't mean it has to happen, but ... well we know how that goes.
The winner take all elements, where a party that gains a power edge over the other is in a better position to entrench themselves further, if not permanently, are also in play.
When competition for power devolves into a dichotomy of complete wins or losses, the most powerful decision makers spend their time continually competing, with little attention left for concerns about competent governance or the public's well being.
The current state of the unchecked US party system is the number one problem for the country. As all other problems migrate downstream from it.
The biggest problem isn't "which" party gains control. The problem is that any party could ever obtain majority control in all three branches.
I do find it kinda crazy that we had a specific policy surrounding tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) that was in the center of the worst economic collapse in US history. And now, less than 100 years later we're like "hey let's try that again!" https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-average-u-s-tariff-rate...
I mean honestly that's about right. As soon as it falls out of living memory people forget why the fence was there and tear it down. Expect rhymes from the 1930's—an economic depression, tension leading to another world war. Fun stuff ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Predidency is an Institution which needs to be protected at all costs. That sounds a lot like a king. Last I checked, our founders were pretty against the whole king thing. I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit.
> I would be shocked if a single one of them said that a President should be immune to prosecution for crimes they commit. They said or they haven’t said it, no? If they did we’d have paper trail.