The Trump Card...

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Personally I think since Trump has NO real power yet...he should let the powers to be continue on without mudding the water....he has made his intention clear now...he should watch and wait till January at that time step up and get involved and do his thing...IMO the US is looking pretty idiotic at this point...diplomatically
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worn Out Manager

blackpup

Veteran Expediter
what will be required is to put federally mandated caps on healthcare services and pharmaceuticals, and rein in insurers, as well.
Some would consider that price control, which the Repubs have been historically against, wouldn't you say?
Yep, that's the term, and yep, they're against it. And it would need to cover everything from the price of a heart transplant to an angioplasty to the price of a Tylenol and the prices of medical equipment, all of which has become a golden goose riding a gravy train. And, it would also need to constrain severe limits on malpractice insurance and jury awards.
I would go the other route , remove the bureaucracy that controls health care
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Political rectitude is a two-way street. China does not appear to be particularly intimidated by Trump. How politically correct is it to steal a submarine, conduct live-fire military exercises in strategic waters for the first time in a very long time, publicly state that Trump is "as ignorant as a child," and say Trump "has no sense of how to lead a superpower?"
Aside from the fact the "political rectitude" is an oxymoron, no, China doesn't appear to be intimidated by Trump, or anyone else. Appearing to be intimidated by anyone would make them look weak, at least in their own eyes. China's actions are not politically correct at all, nor is it intended to be. It's straight-up muscle-flexing.
China has done all of these since Trump was elected. It is reported today that China's state-run newspaper said, "Since he has not taken office, China has kept a calm attitude toward his provocative remarks. But if he treats China after assuming office in the same way as in his tweets, China will not exercise restraint.”
Trump isn't intimidated by that, either.
If live-fire exercises and a submarine theft are examples of restraint, I worry a bit about what non-restraint might look like. China has the ability to deeply harm U.S. interests.
The US has the same ability with China, and they know it. The US and China need each other, but China needs the US more than we need China, and China knows that, too. China's economy is largely based on exporting to the US. In 2011 China's surplus with the US was $155 billion. That's 175% of China’s overall trade surplus being related to sales to the United States. 149.2% for 2010, 115.7% for 2009, and 90.1% for 2008. In 2014 the trade deficit with China was $343 billion, and last year it was $365.7. This year will likely show it inching up even more. China needs us, bad, especially since orders for Chinese goods from the EU and Great Britain has collapsed starting in 2011 (because the EU said enough was enough with China) and it's gotten steadily worse since then. That makes China even more reliant on the American consumer than ever before.
At will, they could trigger a panic in the bond market by signalling the intention to dump some of the U.S. bonds they now hold.
The US Treasury would love that, actually, because it drives the value of their T-bills down, and their interest payments would be less in the long run, including those payments to China. In the short run, there would be disruptions and probably a 1.5 to 2% drop in the US gross national product until the US worked its way out of it (in no small measure by bring manufacturing back here). If China wants to play all big and tuff, the US government could just up and disavow all of the $1.3 trillion of China's securities (which would absolutely happen in the case of any type of serious military actions between the US and China), making them worthless.

Even if China wanted to actually unload all of its T-bills in an attempt to crash the US economy, unless the renminbi becomes an internationalized reserve currency, there is no way China could unload its massive US debt without it ruining its own economy, as more and more of China's business are private businesses that also own a good chunk of those T-bills.

If China does not buy the next Treasury bill, then someone else will buy it with dollars, because it can`t be purchased with anything else but dollars. If China sells a T-bill out of its portfolio, they can only sell it for dollars. What does it do with the non-interest-bearing now-less-valued-cash it acquires? It can buy goods or services or real property available from the US, again, available only for dollars. If China prefers none of these, its remaining option is to trade them for yen or euros, using that cash to buy stuff for sale in yen or euros. But now, someone or some institution that gave up the yen or euros now has those dollars, and where do they go? They can buy stuff for sale in dollars, or they can buy those interest-bearing T-bills that were just sold by the Chinese. There ya go.

There is not a thing China or any other country can to do mess up our economy by ‘manipulating the dollar’ or ‘dumping tens of billions of T-Bills’ into the market. The Fed has the power to offset any inflationary or deflationary disturbance that originates outside the dollar realm. As big and complicated a mess as it might seem, it all comes down to one simple fact - China cannot create American base money; it can only buy or sell assets or liabilities denominated in dollars (the most important of which is oil, which is, of course, priced in dollars).

At will, China could blockade Taiwan, instantly presenting Trump with a crisis to manage that far outstrips any notion of making a deal and instantly destroying any perception that China is somehow intimidated by Trump.
The "deal" isn't some trade thing or something that convinces China to stop devaluing its currency, the "deal" is that China will no longer be able to yank our chain and pull our strings. If China wants to blockade Taiwan and suicide its own economy as part of that "deal" then Trump is fine with that. No matter what, China will stop taking jobs away from Americans and putting the screws to the US.

Trump has China worried. For good reason. Some of China's enemies, so to speak, are Taiwan, Japan and The Philippines. Some people may think the Philippines' President Duterte and China have become close friends and allies, but they haven't. Duterte has been largely in preservation mode ever since China ignored utterly a Hague court ruling against Chinese colonization of The Philippines' Spratly and Paracel Island territories. Duterte agreed to play along provided China allows Philippine fishermen to use their own Philippine domestic waters without intervention. Obama refused to help out The Philippines with its dispute with China (for whatever reason) which is why Duterte lovingly refers Obama as the "son of a whore" among other pet names. But look what's happened thus far. The first foreign leader to meet with the President-elect in person was Japan's Prime Minister. One of the first congratulatory calls after the election was from Duterte. And the call from Taiwan's President was orchestrated before the election even took place.

But Chinese President Xi knows the stakes, and is a little less panicky than the columnists who run China's state-run media. Trump and Xi spoke a few days after the election and both men said it was a good conversation. A couple of weeks ago after a meeting with Henry Kissinger, Xi noted with pleasure that, "The development history of China-US ties since the forging of diplomatic ties has proven our common interests far outweigh the differences."

US-China relations will almost certainly become uncomfortable for both sides, but both sides also know that it's in their own best interest to not let things get out of control. The caveat is that China's ruling elites are quite worried, because their own citizens are big fans of Trump, who see Trump as not only a fresh face in world politics, but Trump’s patriotism exposed the ugly side of the American reality of American politics being corrupt, which is right in the Chinese citizen's wheelhouse, and seeing someone like Trump speak about it is a breath of fresh air for them. The elites know that Trump could be an unprecedented challenge for China and the world because his perceived isolationism (he's not isolationist) and populism is a very dangerous, especially for China. But in the end, China isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
The New York Times just published an editorial urging that the electoral college be abolished.

While they correctly state the fact that Trump did not win the popular vote, I'm not so sure aboloshing the electoral college is a good idea. While the one-person-one-vote, direct-democracy argument has merit (virtually every volunteer organization, civic group, local-government, county, and state operates by it), it is worth noting that the reasoning the Times cites for abolishing the electoral college could be used to abolish the U.S. Senate also.

The Founders set up two houses in the legislative branch for a reason and provided that terms and jurisdictions served by senators would be different those of representatives. If the reasoning for the existence of the Senate is sound, it seems to me that the reasoning for the electoral college is sound also.

Direct democracy is the law of the land at the local and state levels. At the national level, the Senate and the electoral college both provide powers to a smaller state that the House and a true popular vote does not. To me, it does not seem beneficial to the nation to let that go.

Fundamentally, this is a states-rights issue. If you accept the idea of abolishing the electoral college, would you also abolish the Senate? If not, why not? The Senate is an affront to one-person-one-vote, just like the electoral college is, is it not?

Having a two-house legislature provides important checks and balances. So does the electoral college.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Trump friend and advisor Newt Gingrich recently suggested that if a conflict with the law exists with Trump's advisors, Trump can simply pardon the advisor in question and keep that person on board. With that idea now out there, why stop there? Large numbers of people are up in arms about the conflicts of interest they say Trump's business holdings create. Trump could put that to rest once and for all by pardoning himself, could he not?

This would not be an illegal act or impeachable offense. The constitution allows the president to pardon people without justification or explanation. Trump needs power to get the things done he wants to do. Why hold him back? Newt might be onto something here, right? Why shouldn't Trump exempt himself, his family and his appointees from the law by exercising the powers of pardon the president has? With the law out of the way, it will be a lot easier for him to do what the people elected him to do, right?
 
Last edited:

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
The New York Times just published an editorial urging that the electoral college be abolished.

While they correctly state the fact that Trump did not win the popular vote, I'm not so sure aboloshing the electoral college is a good idea. While the one-person-one-vote, direct-democracy argument has merit (virtually every volunteer organization, civic group, local-government, county, and state operates by it), it is worth noting that the reasoning the Times cites for abolishing the electoral college could be used to abolish the U.S. Senate also.

The Founders set up two houses in the legislative branch for a reason and provided that terms and jurisdictions served by senators would be different those of representatives. If the reasoning for the existence of the Senate is sound, it seems to me that the reasoning for the electoral college is sound also.

Direct democracy is the law of the land at the local and state levels. At the national level, the Senate and the electoral college both provide powers to a smaller state that the House and a true popular vote does not. To me, it does not seem beneficial to the nation to let that go.

Fundamentally, this is a states-rights issue. If you accept the idea of abolishing the electoral college, would you also abolish the Senate? If not, why not? The Senate is an affront to one-person-one-vote, just like the electoral college is, is it not?

Having a two-house legislature provides important checks and balances. So does the electoral college.
Yea but isn't that like 2 wolf's and 1 lamb voting what's for supper
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yea but isn't that like 2 wolf's and 1 lamb voting what's for supper
Direct-democracy is, yes.

Direct-democracy works best in smaller regions where everyone is of the same basic culture and are of a similar mindset with the same basic values. Smallish countries, states, counties, cities and towns. But even in large states where there are great differences between regions, direct (or strict) democracy can be problematic. Largely populated, concentrated urban areas in the US are populated by people with a vastly different culture, mindset and values from less densely populated areas. The people of these urban areas are, by and large, utterly out of touch with the rest of us. The reverse is also true. The Electoral College, despite Obama's own characterization of it being "archaic," is just as important today as it was when it was first proposed, and largely for the same reasons, that being to prevent largely populated states from dominating and controlling the smaller states.

I touched on this (really hard) in a post earlier in this thread, and expounded on a clear example of a large state having disparate regions in another thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoadTime

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
As an example of the one of the little differences between dense urban peoples and everybody else, only 25% of greater metro New York City residents age 16 to 70 have a driver's license. It's only 35% in Chicago, and 53% in Los Angeles. It's above 90% outside of the urban areas.

Interestingly, in California, more drivers licenses are now being issued each year to illegal immigrants than to US citizens. Granted, there are more of them, but still.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
As an example of the one of the little differences between dense urban peoples and everybody else, only 25% of greater metro New York City residents age 16 to 70 have a driver's license. It's only 35% in Chicago, and 53% in Los Angeles. It's above 90% outside of the urban areas.

Interestingly, in California, more drivers licenses are now being issued each year to illegal immigrants than to US citizens. Granted, there are more of them, but still.

The reason a large number of people in urban areas do not have drivers licenses is they do not need them because they do not drive. If I lived in New York City I would almost certainly not own a car. I'd rely on public transportation as millions do to get around.

In California, a specific program exists that encourages illegals to get drivers licenses. With programs like that, a drivers license is becoming less and less a symbol of legitimate citizenship. With millions of citizens choosing to not have licenses, not having one does not mean anything more than the citizen chose to not have one.

When I was approaching driving age, my classmates and I ached for the day we could start driving. My nieces and nephews at that age now surprise me by the attitude they have toward that same thing. They are in no rush to get a license and only get one when they feel they have no other choice. I don't understand that attitude but it's the attitude these young, legitimate citizens have.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The reason a large number of people in urban areas do not have drivers licenses is they do not need them because they do not drive.
Well, yeah, that's pretty obvious. But it's just one of many of the little differences that end up causing the various ways in which city dwellers and everyone else think, act and lives their lives. If you live in the city, you go to the grocery store every day, or close to it, because you can only shop for what you can carry home with you.

Is not like people outside a large city are unable to fathom not having a driver's license or having to go to the store every day, but those things plus hundreds of other little everyday things cause a separation of priorities between city people and everyone else, a different culture, a different way of looking at things, a different value system.
 

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
Why is it racism?
To want truly equal rights?
To want jobs to stay in America?
I've seen more racism and sexism in the last few years than what we sat in, protest for back in the late 60s and early 70s only this is a different kind I really can't put my finger on it
The Democratic party seems to want to group us into two groups the rich ruling class and the poor working class kinda more like socialism
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter

Let's be fair here and let's not get too carried away. Yes, Slate is a left-leaning publication, and yes, Slate published two conflicting views about the electoral college at different times. So what? The pieces are both opinion pieces. They are written by different authors. They share particular points of view.

When the right-leaning Wall Street Journal publishes an opinion piece that shares a left-wing view, does that make the paper responsible for that view? If that paper publishes a conflicting view years later, is that a noteworthy event? When Fox News features a left-wing advocate of some sort, is that a hypocritical act or "pretty funny?"

A publication published two conflicting opinion pieces. So what? In my mind, a publication -- right-leaning or left-leaning -- that publishes a variety of views is doing its readers a service.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Is not like people outside a large city are unable to fathom not having a driver's license or having to go to the store every day, but those things plus hundreds of other little everyday things cause a separation of priorities between city people and everyone else, a different culture, a different way of looking at things, a different value system.

I have lived in a small rural town, in a large city, in the suburbs and on the road, all for years at a time. My priorities, culture, way of looking at things and value system did not change with my address. Because I am a human being, all of these developed over time into their present state, but my core convictions and world view have been pretty constant regardless of my location.

If we made it financially worth your while to live voluntarily in an apartment near a yoga school in India for five years, would you come back to us a Hindu?
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Let's be fair here and let's not get too carried away. Yes, Slate is a left-leaning publication, and yes, Slate published two conflicting views about the electoral college at different times. So what?
It's rank hypocrisy and shows a total lack of journalistic ethics. The Electoral College is the greatest thing since sliced bread when if benefits the Left, but it's an outdated scourge on society when it doesn't. News Flash: The Popular Vote is the Same Way with the Left.
The pieces are both opinion pieces. They are written by different authors. They share particular points of view.
All under the watchful eye and control of a publisher and editor who very much have a say in what gets published.
When the right-leaning Wall Street Journal publishes an opinion piece that shares a left-wing view, does that make the paper responsible for that view?
The paper isn't necessarily responsible for the view, but they are accountable for publishing it. But if they published it to blatantly further an agenda, they they are absolutely responsible for that viewpoint. The WSJ journal publishes op-eds and different viewpoints regularly, explicitly to show various viewpoints.
If that paper publishes a conflicting view years later, is that a noteworthy event?
If it's to further an agenda, yes, absolutely it is. Front page newsworthy, likely. The Wall Street Journal, while leaning right, still holds to objective journalistic standards and ethics. Slate, on the other hand, is a self-described online magazine that provides insight in thoughtful analyses of current events and political news, and as a "general-interest publication." But that's not true. They don't merely have a political bias, a bias that permeates their journalistic standards, but they have a subjective political agenda. So when they publish two diametrically opposed views of the Electoral College, each based solely on whether or not it bolsters their agenda, it's newsworthy hypocrisy
When Fox News features a left-wing advocate of some sort, is that a hypocritical act or "pretty funny?"
A hypothetical stated in that manner, the answer would probably be no, to both, but Fox News produces on its own, without having to bring in any advocate, more than their fair and balanced share of laugh-out-loud hypocrisy. They do it so often it's virtually their stock in trade. Every time they skewer Obama for doing something that they have already either agreed with or given a pass to a Republican president who has done the same-exact-thing, it's the rankest of hypocrisy. More than that, every time Fox News proclaims themselves to be "fair and balanced," they owe the world a laugh track accompaniment.
A publication published two conflicting opinion pieces. So what?
Asked and answered.
In my mind, a publication -- right-leaning or left-leaning -- that publishes a variety of views is doing its readers a service.
Unless they proclaim it to be ethical journalism, then it becomes a disservice.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I have lived in a small rural town, in a large city, in the suburbs and on the road, all for years at a time. My views and biases did not change with my address.
Then how do you explain the vast political ideological differences between densely populated areas and everywhere else? And it's not just in this country, either. The differences are all over the world.

If we made it financially worth your while to live voluntarily in an apartment near a yoga school in India for five years, would you come back to us a Hindu?
If a Progressive Democrat goes and lives on a farm in Iowa for five years, will they return a staunch Republican? Probably not. They will, however, likely return with a better understanding of, and maybe even some surprising agreement with, the people of the farming community. (Dances with Wolves and Avatar taught us that :D). I seriously doubt that I'd come back as a Hindu, because I already know so much about Hinduism, but I may very well come back as an avid practitioner of yoga.
 
Top