What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Syt]

STRENGTHENING AND UNLEASHING AMERICA'S LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PURSUE CRIMINALS AND PROTECT INNOCENT CITIZENS

While we're all distracted by his rants and our election.

Prelude to martial law?

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  Safe communities rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force.  My Administration is steadfastly committed to empowering State and local law enforcement to firmly police dangerous criminal behavior and protect innocent citizens.
When local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible, crime thrives and innocent citizens and small business owners suffer.  My Administration will therefore:  establish best practices at the State and local level for cities to unleash high-impact local police forces; protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials; and surge resources to officers in need.  My Administration will work to ensure that law enforcement officers across America focus on ending crime, not pursuing harmful, illegal race- and sex-based "equity" policies.
The result will be a law-abiding society in which tenacious law enforcement officers protect the innocent, violations of law are not tolerated, and American communities are safely enjoyed by all their citizens again.

"For a safe and secure society."

Also, the wording ... "aggressivey enforcing the law", "unleash high-impact police forces", "local leaders demonize law enforcement", ...

[Valmy]

Sec. 5.  Holding State and Local Officials Accountable. The Attorney General shall pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to enforce the rights of Americans impacted by crime and shall prioritize prosecution of any applicable violations of Federal criminal law with respect to State and local jurisdictions whose officials:
(a)  willfully and unlawfully direct the obstruction of criminal law, including by directly and unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary for public safety and law enforcement; or   
(b)  unlawfully engage in discrimination or civil-rights violations under the guise of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" initiatives that restrict law enforcement activity or endanger citizens.[

Destroying federalism and local control.

[Syt]

Also giving tacit approval to racial profiling etc. (5b)

[Valmy]

Also giving tacit approval to racial profiling etc. (5b)

Oh absolutely.

This obviously doesn't have much to do with going after criminals and protecting the innocent. I mean he has a whole administration full of crooks and criminals who prey on people.

This is about destroying local governments and attacking his opponents.

[Syt]

I think the immediate impact will be going after sanctuary cities.

[Syt]

While at it, also making discrimination great again by getting rid of (or attempting to get rid of) disparate-impact liability.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/

[Zanza]

Destroying federalism and local control.

Gleichschaltung - they follow the playbook to establish a authoritarian and totalitarian state

[DGuller]

While at it, also making discrimination great again by getting rid of (or attempting to get rid of) disparate-impact liability.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/

To be devil's advocate, "disparate impact" is a big can of worms, and I deal with that can of worms professionally as a data scientist.  Yes, disparate impact can be a form of discrimination if you deliberately search for impacts that are most disparate, in order to discriminate by proxy, but it can also just be a reflection of existing inequalities.

In the US society, pretty much any quantity is in some way correlated to race, not necessarily because it has to be, but because society developed in a way that it did.  That means that employing any quantity for anything can make you guilty of imposing disparate impact, and thus make you a person who discriminates, depending on how ambitious and tolerant of bad faith someone is who wants to make it look that way.

[grumbler]

To be devil's advocate, "disparate impact" is a big can of worms, and I deal with that can of worms professionally as a data scientist.  Yes, disparate impact can be a form of discrimination if you deliberately search for impacts that are most disparate, in order to discriminate by proxy, but it can also just be a reflection of existing inequalities.

In the US society, pretty much any quantity is in some way correlated to race, not necessarily because it has to be, but because society developed in a way that it did.  That means that employing any quantity for anything can make you guilty of imposing disparate impact, and thus make you a person who discriminates, depending on how ambitious and tolerant of bad faith someone is who wants to make it look that way.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  You imply that disparate impact is only discrimination when it is deliberate, which is contrary to the meaning of the term.  Discrimination can, indeed, be a "reflection of existing inequalities," but the point of disparate impact analysis is to eliminate those elements of employment that have unnecessary disparate impact merely because they reflect existing inequalities.

Are we disagreeing or just stating the same thing in different terms?

[DGuller]

To be devil's advocate, "disparate impact" is a big can of worms, and I deal with that can of worms professionally as a data scientist.  Yes, disparate impact can be a form of discrimination if you deliberately search for impacts that are most disparate, in order to discriminate by proxy, but it can also just be a reflection of existing inequalities.

In the US society, pretty much any quantity is in some way correlated to race, not necessarily because it has to be, but because society developed in a way that it did.  That means that employing any quantity for anything can make you guilty of imposing disparate impact, and thus make you a person who discriminates, depending on how ambitious and tolerant of bad faith someone is who wants to make it look that way.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  You imply that disparate impact is only discrimination when it is deliberate, which is contrary to the meaning of the term.  Discrimination can, indeed, be a "reflection of existing inequalities," but the point of disparate impact analysis is to eliminate those elements of employment that have unnecessary disparate impact merely because they reflect existing inequalities.

Are we disagreeing or just stating the same thing in different terms?

I don't mean to be pedantic, but discussions like this really need to start with "define [blank]" for a lot of blanks. For example, what do we mean by "discriminatory"? Do we mean unfair discrimination, or simply any outcome that doesn't match census distributions?

If you're a store security officer detaining everyone who steals bread, and one race is disproportionately poor, then yes, you'll end up detaining a disproportionate number of people from that race.  Is that discriminatory? I'd argue no. You're detaining people for stealing bread, not for their race, and not using bread theft as a proxy for race.

Another term we'd need to define is "unnecessary", and that gets very murky in practice. Most businesses don't want to stake out their own definition and hope it holds up under regulatory or legal scrutiny.  To stretch the analogy further, store security may just stop detaining bread thieves altogether to avoid a legal fight they might lose even if they win. And at that point, no one will want to sell bread, because enforcing basic norms carries too much risk of being cast as discriminatory.

[viper37]

Chinese media: U.S. retailers instructed China to resume tariff-effected shipments

America's largest retailers — Walmart (WMT), Target (TGT), and The Home Depot (HD) — have taken bold steps to keep their shelves stocked despite mounting pressure from steep tariffs.

According to the Chinese newspaper Ming Pao, U.S. retailers have instructed Chinese suppliers to resume shipments that were previously suspended due to the trade war.

Analysts say that either retailers are so desperate they are ready to absorb the cost of the higher tariffs themselves or they know that tariffs will be reversed.

"If accurate, this suggests that the big-box retailers anticipate (or know) that tariffs with China are likely to be quickly reset in the coming days or weeks," said freight analyst Craig Fuller.

The move highlights just how urgently Washington and America's largest retailers are working to prevent major supply chain disruptions.

Since Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese imports in early April, cargo shipments from China to the U.S. have dropped more than 60%, according to Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen.

That slowdown isn't isolated; it's hitting every corner of the retail sector, Petersen said.
[...]

These retailers just met with Trump recently.

Either they bribed him for to carve an exemption, or Trump is partially reversing course for everyone.

Also, there's a vote coming in the Senate to remove the emergency for the tariffs.  Might be a way for Trump to save face.

[HVC]

Another option is trump stonewalled but they need inventory. Better to sell more expensive items then bare shelves. Customer is going to bear the cost anyway.

[Jacob]

It's pretty interesting to watch play out.

[viper37]

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The stupid looms large in much of the US lately...