What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Zanza]

I noticed Merkel blamed the US for the refugee crisis too. Libya/Arab Spring/ISIS, etc.

Yeah, that is some serious bullshit, and it is EXACTLY that kind of leftist horseshit that gets people like Trump elected, and western liberals thought of with contempt.

Of all the people doing shit in the Middle East, the responsibility for anything that goes wrong is always with the US. None of them have any agency themselves.

Let's check the official position of the new American government on that...ah, yes:


At least one thing Trump and German vice chancellor Gabriel can agree upon. 

[Tamas]

Well, about half of the refugee crisis would not be happening if the EU didn't topple Quadafi (sp?) in Libya.

[CountDeMoney]

I noticed Merkel blamed the US for the refugee crisis too. Libya/Arab Spring/ISIS, etc.

Yeah, that is some serious bullshit, and it is EXACTLY that kind of leftist horseshit that gets people like Trump elected, and western liberals thought of with contempt.

Of all the people doing shit in the Middle East, the responsibility for anything that goes wrong is always with the US. None of them have any agency themselves.

Then maybe we shouldn't be breaking shit, and then not buying it.  It's been a while since I saw the DAK tear-assing around the Levant or the Gulf looking for the shit.

[Berkut]

We didn't break anything or buy anything. We do seem to suck, in many cases, at trying to fix shit that is already broken.

The Middle East is broken, but it is broken for reasons of their own. The idea that there is some external force breaking it, and if only they had been left alone in some fictional world without anyone but themselves in it is...well, an idea straight out of ISIS actually.

But keep playing that tune, and then wondering why numbnuts like Trump or Le Pen come to power appealing to people who are tired of hearing how they are responsible for everything wrong in the world, and blameless for anything right. Ultra cynicism plays so very well.

[Berkut]

Well, about half of the refugee crisis would not be happening if the EU didn't topple Quadafi (sp?) in Libya.

Of course. Humanity would be so much better off if only brutal dictators would be left in charge, and people who supposedly care about freedom would make sure those dictators could effectively crush any attempts by their people to throw off oppression.

[Berkut]

I think if you honestly think about the refugee crisis from a western, liberal standpoint, we are if anything paying the bill for decades of real politik that saw Western liberal values subjugated to practicality. We supported dictators when we should have, at most, completely cut them off, because it was convenient to do so. It could be the case that this was in fact a necessary accommodation, but an accommodation it is nonetheless, and like all compromises, there is a cost to be paid sooner or later.

If you accept the western liberal idealism that freedom really is better than tyranny, and that people will struggle against their own oppression by a dictatorial regime, then you cannot look at the decades of "peace" under the Ghaddafis and Husseins as some better reality that those of that time were smart about supporting, but just delaying, and probably making worse, the inevitable and necessary correction. If history really teaches us anything it is that dictatorships can last a long time, but not forever. They are marked by failures in transfers of power 100% of the time in the medium run, and the result is nearly always violence and war.

It is an error to look at the war that results and blame it on the proximate actors. They are not the ones who created the situation, they are just the ones trying and mostly failing to deal with it. The US went into Iraq, fucked up the effort, and it was our fault and the result has been a dissster.

The US did NOT go into Syria, because (IMO) the Vietnam syndrome from Iraq...and the result has been another fucking disaster.

I don't buy into the neo-con idea that if only we give people the chance, they will all choose some western democratic system. I do believe that if you let people decide their own government, you will get BETTER government in the long run. The short run might be rather messy. They might elect the Muslim Brotherhood.

But I don't have any alternative. The only other option, if I am to be honest with myself, is to concede that in fact western liberal ideals are wrong, and cannot stand up to a battle of ideas, and we have to use force to keep odious dictators in charge because the option is something even worse than odious dictatorship, at least for ourselves.

[Zanza]

I think if you honestly think about the refugee crisis from a western, liberal standpoint, we are if anything paying the bill for decades of real politik that saw Western liberal values subjugated to practicality. We supported dictators when we should have, at most, completely cut them off, because it was convenient to do so. It could be the case that this was in fact a necessary accommodation, but an accommodation it is nonetheless, and like all compromises, there is a cost to be paid sooner or later.

If you accept the western liberal idealism that freedom really is better than tyranny, and that people will struggle against their own oppression by a dictatorial regime, then you cannot look at the decades of "peace" under the Ghaddafis and Husseins as some better reality that those of that time were smart about supporting, but just delaying, and probably making worse, the inevitable and necessary correction. If history really teaches us anything it is that dictatorships can last a long time, but not forever. They are marked by failures in transfers of power 100% of the time in the medium run, and the result is nearly always violence and war.

It is an error to look at the war that results and blame it on the proximate actors. They are not the ones who created the situation, they are just the ones trying and mostly failing to deal with it. The US went into Iraq, fucked up the effort, and it was our fault and the result has been a dissster.

The US did NOT go into Syria, because (IMO) the Vietnam syndrome from Iraq...and the result has been another fucking disaster.

I don't buy into the neo-con idea that if only we give people the chance, they will all choose some western democratic system. I do believe that if you let people decide their own government, you will get BETTER government in the long run. The short run might be rather messy. They might elect the Muslim Brotherhood.

But I don't have any alternative. The only other option, if I am to be honest with myself, is to concede that in fact western liberal ideals are wrong, and cannot stand up to a battle of ideas, and we have to use force to keep odious dictators in charge because the option is something even worse than odious dictatorship, at least for ourselves.

I don't think the refugee crisis is caused mainly by political factors but rather by economic factors. There are some exceptions like Syria and people have always and will always flee from war as that's just a natural reaction for humans. But in most of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa the main reason people are looking for a better life is economic hopelessness. There has been massive population growth in the Middle East and Africa for the last two generations or so and the states there have failed to kickstart a corresponding economic growth that would offer their people any hope to better their lot. At the same time, transport has become relatively cheap and safe (despite people drowning in the Mediterranean) that sufficient numbers are willing to risk their life and fortune to get to a place that at least offers a minor chance to better their lot - Europe.
Not being able to offer their populations any economic perspective seems to be independent of whether the government in question is a benevolent democracy or a vile dictatorship. Most of the countries of Africa and the Middle East have failed at this. The exception are those oil-rich gulf states, but I guess that will change soon as well when the sheer innovative power of Western capitalism will have eroded their price advantage in producing oil and will have created electric cars to lower demand. That will fuck up the gulf states for good as well, which will just add to the economically depressed areas in the South and South-East of Europe.

[Berkut]

No argument from me, I was more addressing the particulars of actual war driven refugees.I don't even know how to being to imagine a solution to the economic mess that is most of Africa and large parts of South America.

The illiegal immigration problem in the US has some analogies to the economic refugee problem in Europe, I am sure. Two sides of the same coin. The US pretends like they are not coming here at all, and bitches about "illegal immigrants" while Europe seems to be more honest about seeing them coming, but completely unprepared culturally to deal with it.

[alfred russel]

If there is a trade deal between Britain and the United States during Trump's term, I would expect it to be terribly one-sided. The British government will be desperate to show that they can conclude FTAs after leaving the EU and facing tariffs with the continent. Like suckers, they'll just accept whatever "deal" Trump offers them and will agree to whatever American regulatory standards the Americans offer them. They'll effectively exchange the EU standards that they have a voice on with American standards that Trump dictates them. And that are - especially in consumer protection - often lower than those of the EU.

I disagree with this. Trump has referred to himself as "Mr. Brexit". He is ideologically committed to the Brexit cause. For the same reason Chavez's Venezuela sent subsidies to places like Cuba even while they were facing dire straits, Trump's America will support a UK pursuing Brexit.

[Syt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EOe0lIMM-U ?

[Zanza]

If there is a trade deal between Britain and the United States during Trump's term, I would expect it to be terribly one-sided. The British government will be desperate to show that they can conclude FTAs after leaving the EU and facing tariffs with the continent. Like suckers, they'll just accept whatever "deal" Trump offers them and will agree to whatever American regulatory standards the Americans offer them. They'll effectively exchange the EU standards that they have a voice on with American standards that Trump dictates them. And that are - especially in consumer protection - often lower than those of the EU.

I disagree with this. Trump has referred to himself as "Mr. Brexit". He is ideologically committed to the Brexit cause. For the same reason Chavez's Venezuela sent subsidies to places like Cuba even while they were facing dire straits, Trump's America will support a UK pursuing Brexit.

The new secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross has been quoted as saying that Brexit is a god given chance to steal away business from the UK.

And I don't even think Trump has to actively try to fuck the British in a deal. They will do that to themselves.

[jimmy olsen]

Hmm...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/amid-labor-shortage-south-dakota-dairies-look-puerto-rico-n707521

You know, if Trump actually manages to crack down on immigration from Mexico and Central America, that will just cause an even greater influx of economic refugees from Puerto Rico to pick up the slack.

[Berkut]

Experts from the South Dakota State University Extension hope to bring about 20 workers by September.

They hosted recruiting sessions in November and December in three Puerto Rican communities that are home to dairies and addressed topics such as the farm routine, weather and cost of living. Of the 28 people who attended the sessions, half had an agricultural background. Others were electricians, nurses and construction workers. More sessions are planned for May.

20 workers over the next 8 months! Holy shit!

[jimmy olsen]

Donald Trump our left wing savior?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-trump-set-clash-over-health-care-n707496

President-elect Donald Trump is setting the stage for a potential clash with his fellow Republicans when it comes to the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act. Many of his pronouncements in interviews and on Twitter are at odds with long-held Republican orthodoxy on health care.

Trump's plan will provide "insurance for everybody," he told The Washington Post in an article that ran Sunday night. He added that he's going to push for the government to have the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid. However, neither of those ideas have been mentioned as possibilities in a Republican replacement plan — and they are both proposals usually opposed by Republicans.

Many of the people who gained coverage under Obamacare did so under an expansion of Medicaid — one that Republicans have been fighting.

As for the negotiation of drug prices, Trump said pharmaceutical companies are currently "politically protected" but added: "not anymore."

Republicans and pharmaceutical companies have long been opposed to the government having the ability to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs. The high cost of drugs for Medicaid and Medicare recipients — although different laws concerning drugs govern each program — are a major expense for the federal government. During the controversial expansion of Medicare to add the Part D program in 2003, Congress instituted a ban on drug price negotiations to garner the support of Republicans who largely opposed the expansion of Medicare.

Trump's position could be explosive on Capitol Hill. Even one of Trump's most ardent supporters, Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., told reporters last week that he doesn't agree with Trump on drug prices.

"We can agree to disagree," Collins said.

Related: Senate Approves First Step Toward Repealing Obamacare in Late-Night Session

Trump has already significantly changed the tenor of Republican efforts to repeal and replace the ACA. After Republican leaders in Congress said that it could take weeks or months after they repeal Obamacare to pass a replacement, Trump said in his first news conference that a replacement bill would come "essentially simultaneously." Republicans have since sped up their timeline, saying that parts of the bill could happen "concurrently" with the repeal.

The House and the Senate passed the first of two steps to repeal Obamacare last week. The second step, which will include the details and scope of the repeal, is likely to come in the next one or two months. Republicans must adhere to strict guidelines on what can be repealed because of their use of a budget gimmick called "reconciliation." Reconciliation only needs the support of a simple majority to pass — allowing the GOP to bypass the need to win support of any Democrats — but only tax and spending provisions can be addressed.

Those provisions that could be repealed include a tax on families making more than $250,000 per year, a tax on tanning machines, a tax on the most expensive health care plans, a tax on the insurance industry and a tax penalty on employers who don't provide health insurance for their employees and a tax penalty on people who don't purchase it.

Trump said that he would present a plan for health care repeal after his nominee to be Health and Human Services Secretary, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, is confirmed

[grumbler]

The new secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross has been quoted as saying that Brexit is a god given chance to steal away business from the UK.

And I don't even think Trump has to actively try to fuck the British in a deal. They will do that to themselves.

If Ross hadn't recognized that truth, it would be worrisome. 

Trump's policy is that any trade deal has to benefit the US.  Since he is a mercantilist, that means that he will assume that any deal that benefits Britain is harming the US, even if it seems to benefit the US even more than Britain.  So, I think that you are correct that Britain will not only be in a weak bargaining position, but will be bargaining with someone prepared to, and even required to, screw them.