Trump lashes out against cross border shopping

No not a proponent, but I do admit to being ambivalent. For instance our increasing understanding of the recombinant processes and our own genome makes elimination of certain debilitating genetic diseases an appealing and worth goal. Its a kinda sorta form of eugentics.

Are you not aware of his proposed cuts to social services, medicaid and medicare?

Yep, until they have had due process. Morality trumps trump.

 

Yeah alright, that could explain his "lack of respect for the poor." However, does it explain his "lack of respect for individual liberty and the rule of law?" And what about his policy on drugs?

Why do think the LIBERAL 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the kids should be separated?

 

I'm not aware of anyone saying cross border buying was bad for the US, certainly not Trump.

What Trump was saying is the duties, taxes, tariffs, whatever you want to call it, by Canada was bad for the US, as it discouraged cross border buying. That is why canadians were smuggling shoes across the border rather than paying the fees to Canada. Shoes were just an example.

 

Oh right. Were these duties/taxes/tariffs whatever you want to call it by Canada are in response to Trump's tariffs on Canada?

 

No, of course not. Why would you even ask such a question?

 

Because I'm hearing that Canada has or is at least thinking about a trade response to Trump's tariffs. Is this not correct?

 

I'll take that as you have no idea.

 

I really think he is in over his head. The problem with Trump is that he knows everything (in his mind). The problem with people that know everything is - what can you learn or be taught if you already know everything ?

Now some "know it all's" are smart in some areas. No one is smart in all areas. I heard some stats on the radio the other day that previous admins had a turnover of 5%-15%. Trump is running at 61%. This is in large part due to the above problem - obviously. This problem has been cited by those who have left.

The geopolitical chess game is not a reality TV show. There are some very good players out there. The Chinese for example get the smartest people they can find in a room .. some do nothing all day long but analyse the position on the board. They are not encumbered by needing approval from congress. The leaders to not have to answer to the people every 2 years.

When I look at the moves that the Chinese have been making over the last decade I am very impressed. Trump - not so much. He is underestimating his opponents and over estimating his position on the board.

The US economic hegemony is in large part dependent on our international activities. US companies were able to force their way into markets in the past due to our economic strength. We were the only game in town and if you wanted to play you had to submit.

That is no longer the case. Expropriation of US assets abroad was nearly unthinkable 4 decades ago. Today it is not to unthinkable and in fact is happening. It is not just this danger but, even if some nation does not just take our assets - they can put burdensome tariffs and royalty taxes on our operations - make it very difficult for us to operate.

The problem with a one sided trade war ... US against the world. Is precisely that. Bilateral trade war is not such a big deal .. one country does not our economy make - but with the world ?

These actions are pretty much forcing the world to come together - come together with the purpose of fighting this trade war against the US.

This is not something to be desired - not a "good thing". There is little upside and a whole lot of downside.

 

Trump would short the contractor on his last payment. The amount was not that high (they were paid on much if not most of the contract as the work progressed). It is not like he did not pay them at all. He knew that because the amount was small the contractor was unlikely to sue as it is not worth it. Regardless - it is a very shady and nasty tactic which is completely lacking in integrity.

Abortion, Asset Forfeiture, Pot, Net Neutrality, Arpaio, increasing police powers, separating children from parents of refugees, increasing the power of the oligopolies, food stamps.

Pick a card and I will explain.

 

I gave you a just a couple of examples. "lack of respect for the rule of law" can be seen in his complete disregard for established presidential ethics - emoluments, conflicts of interest, nepotism, obstruction.

As for his policy on drugs? Sessions is still trying to wage the completely failed war on drugs, even pot.

Huh?

 

You weren't aware that this court ruled that kids should be separated from their parents if they are taken into custody?

 

I have already stated my answer is "No, of course not."

 

Given this response, it seems that you were not in fact aware of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision! You might want to look that up if you want to be accurately informed!

 

You went on to ask me why I would ask such a question and I said: "Because I'm hearing that Canada has or is at least thinking about a trade response to Trump's tariffs."

And I'm correct of course, so perhaps you just haven't heard about it. https://www.dw.com/en/canada-hits-u...iffs-on-metals-whiskey-maple-syrup/a-44466313

 

I'm very much aware of Canada's retaliatory tariffs, I'm also aware of this, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-prepare-steel-quotas-tariffs-on-china-others

Perhaps you would care to read what I posted on the tariffs previously in this thread.

But none of these actions by Canada addresses the need for Canadians to smuggle shoes across the border and how Canada's policies discourage cross border shopping.

 

Aren't certain people genetically predisposed in a way that gives them an advantage?

What laws on any of these has Trump changed?

I saw this come up last year, but nothing actually happen though right? I also note that California passed its own Net Neutrality bill. Either way, what has Trump said about it that is a problem in your mind?

I suppose you mean the pardon that Trump gave him. Yeah, that wasn't the greatest move, so that would explain why you talked about Trumps lack of respect for the rule of law. Fair enough.

This is a BAD thing? Surely you can't be serious.

I'm going to assume that you mean asylum seekers as they can't be refugees unless given that status. If they don't go to a port of entry to request asylum, but instead try to sneak in through the back door, what are the authorities SUPPOSED to think? Why would they need to sneak in through the back door, risking their and their kids' lives in the journey, if they can seek asylum at a port of entry? They have to initially be assumed to be of bad faith and NOT asylum seekers, at which point, where would YOU put the kids? In detention with their parents? And what about the non-asylum seekers? Don't you care about the separation of those kids?

In what bill was the power of the oligopolies increased?

What about them?

 

So then what Trump was saying made sense to you?

 

True - what is the point here though ?

Trump has re-instated asset forfeiture - a nasty violation of the rule of law.
Sessions is going after pot smokers - a nasty violation of individual liberty
Trump wants to overturn Roe v Wade - a nasty violation of individual liberty

Trump favors removal of net neutrality = lack of respect for individual liberty - freedom of speech and so on.

Arpaio had no respect for the rule of law.

I am quite serious. This is one of the most serious issues facing our nation.

Let me step back and ask you a question - Perhaps you favor totalitarianism so forgive me for assuming otherwise for the sake of brevity.
I assume you are for limitations to Gov't Power. (which was the point of the principles in the DOI - principles on which this nation was founded and by which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted).

The question is then ...OK .. "Limited to what" .. what are the limitations to Gov't power - as per the DOI" 2) even if you do not like the DOI what then should be the limitations to Gov't power.

I am not going to get into a semantics game over the definition of refugees. Regardless - even for the one's that do not fit into the definition of refugee - as many of them do - please explain to me how the punishment fits the crime ( back to that pesky Rule of Law again).

Tax Cuts, Regulatory changes, lack of enforcement of anti competition laws on the books ( This is not just about what Trump has done - but what he has not done).

Drug testing for welfare, Work for welfare, Decreasing the amount of food stamps .. and so on.

 

Isn't this all that Trump is saying when talking about "genetic superiority?"

This is when criminals have their proceeds of crime seized? What law says that this is illegal to do?

He has said this? Not according to Google.

Which part of the removal of net neutrality do you think would adversely impact individual liberty and freedom of speech?

Well what part of the increase in police powers is a serious issue? Surely not ALL of it! Do you want police to have much LESS power or something? If so, why?

Yes, I am for limited government power.

You mean Department of the Interior?

Well that's another argument isn't it? That's about whether the law against illegal immigration should change so that the punishment fits the crime.
However, until then, shouldn't the law be enforced? What do you suggest, that it DOESN'T get enforced? Throw all of the aliens into the general population? Yeah, that'll work a treat!

 

OK so we started out by you asking "what has Trump said/done". I gave you a long list of about 10 things. We are now down to about 5 so I am taking this as you accept 5 of the points I have made.

Eugenics ideology goes further than belief in genetic superiority. It is belief that hierarchy in society is justified on the basis of heredity and/or presupposes genetic superiority and that people on the lower end presupposes genetic inferiority.

1) asset forfeiture - Asset forfeiture is a violation of the rule of law - "presumption of innocence".
2) R v Wade - nit picking and you did not look very hard https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137950/trump-vows-will-overturn-roe-v-wade-automatically
3) Net Neutrality prohibits your internet provider from censoring or preferring content
4) Police power - in order to understand police power one first needs to understand "legitimacy of authority" .. my apologies for the undefined acronym. Declaration of Independence (DOI)

A - The DOI puts individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. This is the essence of a constitutional republic - that there are things that the Gov't is not allowed to mess with.

B) the authority of Gov't comes from "We the people/consent of the Governed" rather than "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

The Gov't then has no legitimate authority - of its own volition - to mess with individual liberty. The legitimate purview of Gov't - with respect to individual liberty - is very limited. It is for protection from harm - direct harm- one person against another (murder, rape, theft and so on)

If Gov't wants to make a law messing with essential liberty it must appeal to "we the people" for consent and the bar is "overwhelming majority" - NOT 50+1/simple majority mandate. Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism call SMM- "tyranny of the majority"

I can explain the why's and where-fors of you like but this is the basics. When you make bad law - law that steps outside the bounds of the legitimate authority of Gov't - it gives police power (the heavy hand of the state) to punish people for violation of those laws.

If there are little or no limitations to what law the Gov't can make this is totalitarianism.

Now that you know what the legitimate authority of Gov't is - you should be able to list a bunch of laws that are illegitimate.

5) Nowhere do I suggest that laws protecting the integrity of our border should not be enforced - lets not be building strawmen now.
All I have stated is that separating children from the parents of refugees is too harsh and thus not in keeping with the rule of law.

Now that you know what the legitimate authority of Gov't is .. you should also be able to figure out that this is an illegitimate use of authority as the there is no overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rds that agrees with this punishment.

 

I'm not accepting them, I'm just seeking clarity.

So certain people who are genetically predisposed in a way that gives them an advantage - couldn't they be considered to have "genetic superiority?"

I'm confused - if it is used on convicted criminals, "presumption of innocence" obviously doesn't apply.

While abortion may be "a nasty violation of individual liberty" as you said, doesn't Roe v Wade, or any non-legislature passed law demonstrate a
"lack of respect for the rule of law?" Isn't this what the legislature is for? Hasn't the Supreme Court gone well beyond what it was originally intended for?

Why would Trump NOT want to prohibit internet providers from censoring or preferring content? Has he said why he wants to remove net neutrality?

Doesn't it limit "individual liberty?" If it is as general as this, this means that murder would be individual freedom, right?

This is in The Bill of Rights, right?

Protection? How does charging someone with murder protect the victim who has been murdered? How does charging someone with rape protect the victim who has been raped?

It seems to me that the only way to PROTECT, is to wherever possible, PREVENT.

What limits it to protection from direct harm? What was Jefferson basing that statement on?

What calls for the "overwhelming majority?" And how is "overwhelming" defined?

I could certainly make a list of laws that are probably illegitimate in your mind. However, I'm yet to be convinced.
I'm sure that you would simply say that any law which does not enforce against "direct harm" is illegitimate.

What the hell do you think that Trump is doing if not enforcing the laws that protect the integrity of the border?

I can't be straw manning because I was asking you a series of questions so that I could understand your point. In order to be straw man, I would have needed to be giving the impression of refuting your argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by you. That's not what I was doing. You seem to have a incorrect understanding of The Straw man.

The only reason I felt the need to ask if you if you were suggesting that the law "DOESN'T get enforced" is because you don't think the kids should be separated from their families. Well if the kids weren't separated from their families, this would be in violation of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which said that kids must be separated from detained parents - which WOULDN'T be enforcing the law, right? What's the alternative? That kids are detained with their parents? You can bet that the Democrats wouldn't have been happy with that either and that's because they want them all released into the interior of the country! ONLY THAT will make them happy! Future Voters! (as per their own internal party memo made clear!)

I agree. So the law should be changed so that the punishment fits the crime. Until then, what is your solution?

How do you know? Was there a vote in Congress or something?

 

Clearly

How so ? Roe v Wade had the effect of removing a law banning abortion. That is the best purpose of the SC - they should do this more often.

Idiots to not always give reasons for what they do

Prove a single human cell (the mighty zygote) is a living human.

Declaration of Independence - principles by which Law and the Constitution are to be interpreted.

The purpose of punishment is to prevent harm. Deterrence.

The principles of Classical Liberalism. Long story.

Authority of Gov't to make law outside its legitimate authority comes from We the people. The people give some authority power to punish for violations of certain codes of conduct - related to direct harm (murder, theft, rape and so on)

Simple majority mandate 50+1 is said to be (in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism) "Tyranny of the Majority". Congress often uses the 2/3rds bar and for some things 75% is required.

There is no point in putting individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't if Simple Majority Mandate is all that is needed to make law.

If you say you believe in "Limited Gov't/ Limited Gov't authority" what then should the power of Gov't be limited to ?

Laws not involving direct harm are not invalid - so long as they meet the bar = overwhelming majority consent.

If some action is viewed by society as so harmful that Gov't needs to be given power to use physical violence to punish people for doing said action - then an overwhelming majority will agree.

Take Pot vs Heroin/Meth/Fentynal. Good luck getting an overwhelming majority to agree that the danger of Pot is so serious that Gov't needs to be given such power.

The others - IMO - it would be relatively easy to get such consensus.

Few people think Murder should be legal. An overwhelming majority agree - the bar is no different for any other law messing with individual liberty.

"Punishment is to Fit the Crime"

I stated what the strawman was - you put words in my mouth that I did not speak.

Bad people make bad law.

Do what most other countries do and put them in Refugee camps.

Authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" - not Congress.

 

If you are including convicted criminals, how does presumption of innocence apply? If you are not, how are people that haven't been found
guilty of anything subject to asset forfeiture? Does the government just take someone assets if they merely suspect them of something?

Isn't it the job of the legislature to remove laws as well as making new laws?

What does this have to do with individual liberty and whether it includes murder?

The only reason that I thought you were talking about the Bill of Rights is because "we the people" appears in it
whereas it does not appear in the US DOI. However, I can now see that the US DOI does mention "consent of the governed."

Do you think that possible punishment will be on the mind of everyone who is thinking about committing a crime? Even when they are smashed out on drugs? Surely you can't be serious.

When you talk about government authority, are you including simply restraining someone based on a credible threat
posed by that person to another person? In this scenario, the person is not charged with any criminal offense. What would you say?

So, WE THE PEOPLE is the entire citizen base? Are you saying that they would need to vote in order to pass a law which does more than just protect from direct harm? If so, how do you define "overwhelming?"

Limited to anything which has a credible threat of leading to direct harm.

Overwhelming majority of the citizen base?

I agree on pot.

Heroine and meth does IRREPARABLE damage to society and most sensible people can see this. I think that your humble opinion is very presumptuous.

Are you happy to be sharing the road with a meth user? Would you be happy with your family sharing a road with a meth user? I think that if you lost a family member to a meth user, you would think VERY differently about the subject. Full drug liberty is the DUMBEST IDEA IN HISTORY! That is not a world that most people would want to live in and I'm surprised that you can't see this!

Sorry; very simply: Is Trump enforcing the laws that protect the integrity of the border?

You stated what you THOUGH it was, but I didn't say that you suggested, "laws protecting the integrity of our border
should not be enforced." I simply asked you if that is what you think! Questions are NOT implications!

Yep. They certainly do!

And refugee camps are all built and ready to go with a sufficient number of them? If not, do you suggest that the law should temporarily not be enforced until they are built?

 

1) Asset forfeiture seizes assets prior to the person being guilty. How is someone a criminal prior to being found guilty ?
2) You did not understand or misread - I was arguing for the legitimacy of a law against harder drugs. If there is overwhelming majority that agrees that Gov't should be given power ... the law is legitimate. I stated that I think it would be very easy to get this consensus for things like meth and fentanyl.. as opposed to pot .

The founders set up a great system - if we would only use it. If something is so dangerous and/or abnoxious to society (murder, rape, incest, theft) then 2 out of 3 people will agree.

This is the bar for legitimacy of law messing with individual liberty. If 2/3rds agree, the law is legitimate. If not, the law is illegitimate "tyranny of the majority".


At the end of the day - as illustrated by the 5 or 6 examples given - The Establishment hates the principles on which this nation was founded and Trump is Establishment as it gets.

You have been duped if you think Trump is not an Establishment wonk.

 

Where does the two thirds come from?