mfryd

ddawson100 said:

hmlongco said:

As has become increasingly evident, the world is growing less and less tolerant of bullies.

The was an old internet adage that said that it had a tendency to reroute around damage. I suspect that the world is now trying to figure out how to reroute around the United States.

Not just an adage. It's built into the protocol for routers. It's literally what they do. Good metaphor, but sadly, because of contracts and trade policies and human memory of reliability, however, the damage from the trade war (tantrum) will leave some lasting marks.

Yes, there will be some long term damage.

sconosciuto said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The Trump administration tries to claim everything is an emergency or national security related. But they never like to provide any evidence of either claim. 

The Trump administration asserts various "emergencies" as a justification for violating the law and the US Constitution.   It is normal for the population to look the other way at these sorts of things when they like the direction the administration is taking. A big issue i that by looking the other way when you like what's happening, you lose the ability to do anything if you don't like the direction the government is taking.


The only thing that's new is the magnitude of what's going on.  Previous administrations have never violated the law in such an egregious fashion on so many controversial issues.  But then, this is what America wanted.  After all we did elect a convicted felon. 


A good example of previous violations is the US highway system.  The US Constitution envisions a lean and mean federal government.  The Constitution enumerates the few things the Federal government is responsible for, and explicitly reserves everything else to the states.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds the responsibility or authority to create a national highway system.   At one point the government tried to justify it as being for national defense, but that's no longer applicable.  The US military can deploy via air to anywhere in the world.  Trying to do a domestic deployment by road would only slow things down.  We don't have roads to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., yet we were able to wage war there.

Now, I am not suggesting that it's a bad idea to have a national highway system.  Personally, I think it's a good thing.  My point is that it is contrary to the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are in favor of it, so we tend to look the other way.  

Someone needs to re-read the Commerce Clause. The Founding Fathers, contrary to the ahistorical assertions of conservatives, envisioned the Constitution as a living document rather than being frozen in amber as if the US would perpetually be the nation of farmers and shopkeepers that it was three centuries ago.

After re-reading the CC, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what it was like to travel by motorized vehicles for long, interstate travel before the advent of the freeway system.

The Roman Empire as history knows it would not have existed without a comprehensive road system, read up on that as well. A comprehensive system of roads connecting the entirety of its interior would indeed be critical to defense of US territory in the event of invasion. That such a crisis is extraordinarily unlikely today*, 70 some years after the inception of the interstate highway system, does not change that simple fact.

*on the other hand... the US spearheaded a push to go to war against a sovereign nation in order to depose the despotic dictator of a sovereign nation that the former alleged was an imminently dangerous peril to international peace,  and obtained UN blessing for it...

Yes, the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.  That's why we have a process for, and a history of, amendments.   I don't think they intended that we should simply ignore parts of the Constitution that are not popular.  The early United States was like the current European Union.  A collection of independent states/countries, joining together for a few, explicitly enumerate, purposes.  The goal was a small Federal government and strong state's rights.

The tenth amendment explicitly states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states.   This tells us that the Federal Government does not have power over everything, and that something must be reserved to the states.

Yes, the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate interstate commerce.    While roads are helpful to commerce, they are not, in themselves, commerce.   

One can make the argument that just about anything can be tied to interstate commerce, and therefore the Feds have authority over everything.  The tenth amendment makes it clear that this interpretation is wrong.   

Consider the situation where someone wants to grow marijuana in their backyard for personal consumption.  This clearly has nothing to do with interstate commerce.  Yet, the Feds claim that they have the authority to regulate this, as the grower might change their mind, and sell the marijuana to someone in another state.   By this interpretation the commerce clause would cover everything, as anything can lead to interstate commerce.  That interpretation violates the tenth amendment.

Now we can have a discussion on whether Federal regulation of marijuana is good or bad, but that's a separate discussion from whether or not the Constitution allows the Feds to regulate it.

Similarly, during the 1970s energy crisis, the Feds instituted a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph.  Whether or not this was good or bad, the Constitution clearly does not give the Feds the authority to regulate speed limits on state and local roads.  However, the country turned a blind eye to the Constitutional issues as we were in a gasoline crisis.  The shortage was so bad that many areas had to resort to even/odd gas rationing (if your license plate was an odd number you could only buy gas on odd numbered days).


Keep in mind, that when President Eisenhower created the "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", he understood that the commerce clause didn't give him the authority.  His claim was that it was for national defense (A responsibility which is delegated to the Feds).  Therefore, the highway system is designed to allow for the movement of tanks.   However, the realities of the modern world make this concept obsolete.  Today in times of conflict,  we transport troops and gear by plane, not land.

foregoneconclusion said:

The Trump administration tries to claim everything is an emergency or national security related. But they never like to provide any evidence of either claim. 

The Trump administration asserts various "emergencies" as a justification for violating the law and the US Constitution.   It is normal for the population to look the other way at these sorts of things when they like the direction the administration is taking. A big issue i that by looking the other way when you like what's happening, you lose the ability to do anything if you don't like the direction the government is taking.


The only thing that's new is the magnitude of what's going on.  Previous administrations have never violated the law in such an egregious fashion on so many controversial issues.  But then, this is what America wanted.  After all we did elect a convicted felon. 


A good example of previous violations is the US highway system.  The US Constitution envisions a lean and mean federal government.  The Constitution enumerates the few things the Federal government is responsible for, and explicitly reserves everything else to the states.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds the responsibility or authority to create a national highway system.   At one point the government tried to justify it as being for national defense, but that's no longer applicable.  The US military can deploy via air to anywhere in the world.  Trying to do a domestic deployment by road would only slow things down.  We don't have roads to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., yet we were able to wage war there.

This trade war is a gift to China.   Trump is teaching the rest of the world that the US is not a reliable trading partner, it is not an ally in defense, nor will it help you in your time of need.   Any country that is interested in a stable growing economy will want to shift to China as a trading partner, and perhaps Russia for defense.   Neither of these choices are good for the US in the short term or the long term.

Stabitha_Christie said:

mfryd said:

This is what the country asked for.  Trump made it clear that this was his intention.

The people wanted a change, and that's what we got.

If you think Trump is right, then America will quickly come out of this better than before.  If you put more weight into what history and the vast majority of economists tell us, then we are in for a depression.   Time will tell who is right.

Frankly, until the economy stabilizes, and recovers, I would be surprised if any company was willing to make an investment in increasing US based manufacturing.

I am going to disagree with your first sentence, totally agree with the rest. The majority of voters did not vote for this but a plurality certainly did. Sadly the majority couldn't agree on what they wanted and the plurality won. 

This time around, of the people who voted, the majority chose Trump.

People who don't vote are effectively casting a vote that matches the results of those that did vote.   I know people who did not vote because they didn't like either candidate.  They effectively voted for Trump.

Of course, those who believe in conspiracy theories "know" that the election was rigged, and Trump shouldn't have won at all...