Executive Order 13769, the Muslim travel ban, violated the McCarran–Walter Act, and the provision favoring immigration of members of minority religions in listed countries violated the First Amendment. Executive Order 13768, where the federal government illegally commanded local governments regarding enforcement of federal immigration policy, was in clear violation of 8 USC 1373 and well-established law regarding the 10th amendment. The matter of banning Acosta from press briefings, clearly contravened established First and Fifth amendment law. Termination of the DACA program violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment.
1 Like
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:
Under-authoritarian or over-authoritarian in his “insane response”, would you say? Easier to say (while far from finally established) with the gift of a little hindsight.
What does it matter? He was in complete and total denial of reality every step of the day. Any approach taken from that standpoint is certain to fail.
Quote
And I don’t know if any other president could have performed any better to save lives and to satisfy all citizens, through the panickers to the denialists, given the extreme predictions by scientific bodies and an alarmist media input delighting in making political hay.
Almost every other leader in the first world did do better, despite the denialists in their country (especially Italy). The predictions of scientific bodies were not “extreme” they were accurate.
Quote
I’m open to correction, but Trump would appear to have been on the side of not closing down the economy (my position from the start) and getting restarted early, but bowed to the purportedly expert consensus he was given. As any leader would have to do.
When did he do this? Have you been paying any attention to what’s been going on at all? The only thing that Trump ever did that experts recommended was wear a mask that one time he visited a veterans’ hospital. Every other time, his position has been in complete defiance of all facts and reason.
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:
What does it matter? He was in complete and total denial of reality every step of the day. Any approach taken from that standpoint…
Trump gets criticism from both sides - the authoritarians and the anti-authoritarians. You seem to be among the former. I maintain he was all for avoiding economic shutdown, and THAT is why it matters. He hasn’t dictated to the people as much as many would wish. The greater “total denial of reality” is denial of the life of huge numbers of individual people (those, the majority, at minimal health risk) who choose and need to continue to operate and function. This is what Trump understood and understands generally, despite his naysayers. Economic freedom of the country ‘matters’ to him. That’s plain.
Could that be an important consideration about him for Objectivists, in particular? It doesn’t seem so.
Figures put out earlier were in fact vastly over-rated by the experts. I don’t believe they had much clue themselves.
Every place has its own context, and New York State was one of the hardest hit in the world, possibly because of high initial infections, density and the amount of elderly. After the fact it’s easy to be clever. Locking down early in some countries hasn’t been completely effective - especially in view of the human cost which will continue being paid for many years.
And I don’t think you can deny that this has been heavily politicized by a pretty cynical opposition and some states and the MSM, set on getting the president via the pandemic, apparently less concerned about wrecking the economy or for Americans’ livelihoods and choices.
23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
Trump gets criticism from both sides - the authoritarians and the anti-authoritarians. You seem to be among the former. I maintain he was all for avoiding economic shutdown, and THAT is why it matters. The greater “total denial of reality” is denial of the lives of individual people (those at minimal health risk) who choose and need to continue to operate and function. This is what Trump understood and understands generally, despite his naysayers. Economic freedom of the country ‘matters’ to him. That’s plain.
He was for avoiding economic shutdown, but if you think that’s because he even remotely cares about economic freedom as such, you’re a fool. This is the same president that started a trade war with China in the 21st century. This is the same president that funneled Covid-19 relief to his family and cronies. This is the same president under whose watch government debt exploded by $6.6 trillion. This is the same president who imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum imports because they were selling it “too cheap”, and some Russian oligarch didn’t like that. Is this the work of a principled mind? Economic freedom as such means nothing to Trump. To him it is only useful if it pays himself, his friends, or keeps his poll numbers up.
Quote
The greater “total denial of reality” is denial of the lives of individual people (those at minimal health risk) who choose and need to continue to operate and function.
This is a bona fide “for the common good” argument. Those at minimal health risk do not have the right to endanger the individual right to life of those who are not at minimal health risk.
Quote
Figures put out earlier were in fact vastly over-rated by the experts.
Nonsense. Abject science-denial.
Quote
Locking down early in some countries hasn’t been completely effective - especially in view of the human cost which will continue being paid for many years.
We have 150,000 dead in the US and over 4 million confirmed infections. We are among the last to lockdown and among the worst in terms of the costs we’ve paid and will continue to pay.
Quote
And I don’t think you can deny that this has been heavily politicized by a pretty cynical opposition set on getting the president, less concerned about American lives.
“Politicization” is an anti-concept, similar to “polarization”:
"An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .
One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what?. . ."
- Credibility and Polarization, The Ayn Rand Letter
For an “Objectivist” you sure are a treasure trove of anti-concepts.
3 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
He was for avoiding economic shutdown, but if you think that’s because he even remotely cares about economic freedom as such, you’re a fool. This is the same president that started a trade war with China in the 21st century. This is the same president that …
Gosh, another cynic, the president who doesn’t “remotely” care - you obviously have been convinced to believe - about the freedom of the *American* economy, iow, American self-interest and independence that has dissipated by altruism in past decades. China and its dirty ‘trade’ antics a case in point. Despite every indication by his deeds to the contrary, the cynics (and anti-capitalists) of Trump’s intentions keep popping up, bolstered by the ‘reality’ put out by the MSM. So Trump doesn’t live up to the standards for proper Capitalism, you, and nobody else has experienced in any nation and by any past president. Guess what, the Social Democrats (or whatever name they will go by) will not deliver the successful economy you had during Trump’s term.
Without which energetic economy, and growing business confidence in it, the revival of capitalism in the US and elsewhere has no chance in the future.
You may claim that “politicization” is “similar” to the anti-concept, polarization. But claiming don’t make it so.
It has a defined identity and goal and is commonplace.
“Politicizing” an issue is to try to gain political expediency and profit from it with power. Such as laying - and evading - the moral responsibility for (e.g.) mob violence, not on those who incite it, but on political opponents, to attempt to discredit them. (Global warming? Race riots? Iran? China? Coronavirus? Trump’s fault!). Politicization has traditionally been the go-to technique for sacrificers, power-lusters and authoritarians.
5 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
The only thing that Trump ever did that experts recommended was wear a mask that one time he visited a veterans’ hospital.
Basically, if anything goes well, WhyNot will immediately attribute that to Trump enforcing or promoting some good policy and having been right all along, and if anything goes badly, will attribute that to the fact Trump “had to” bow down to consensus. It’s a strange way of thinking, because if he wanted to be consistent, and if he thinks that Trump had to bow down, then he should think that Trump is making things worse by not standing by his principles. At which point he’ll say your standards are too high. Such is the result of someone using anti-concepts, as you identified.
For the sake of the entire thread, don’t bother engaging him. You won’t learn anything, even if you think you might. You’ll get dizzy going in circles.
On 7/28/2020 at 7:57 PM, SpookyKitty said:
Trump’s insane response to COVID-19 should be enough to immediately disqualify him from being given any further consideration as a serious Presidential candidate.
I’m curious about your thoughts on Biden though?
1 Like
5 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
Basically, if anything goes well, WhyNot will immediately attribute that to Trump enforcing or promoting some good policy and having been right all along, and if anything goes badly, will attribute that to the fact Trump “had to” bow down to consensus. It’s a strange way of thinking, because if he wanted to be consistent, and if he thinks that Trump had to bow down, then he should think that Trump is making things worse by not standing by his principles. At which point he’ll say your standards are too high. Such is the result of someone using anti-concepts, as you identified.
For the sake of the entire thread, don’t bother engaging him. You won’t learn anything, even if you think you might. You’ll get dizzy going in circles.
I was about to respond but then I read this. Good advice.
Quote
I’m curious about your thoughts on Biden though?
Put it this way. At this point, I’d rather have 8 more years of Bush than endure another second of Trump.
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:
Basically, if anything goes well, WhyNot will immediately attribute that to Trump enforcing or promoting some good policy and having been right all along, and if anything goes badly, will attribute that to the fact Trump “had to” bow down to consensus. It’s a strange way of thinking, because if he wanted to be consistent, and if he thinks that Trump had to bow down, then he should think that Trump is making things worse by not standing by his principles. At which point he’ll say your standards are too high. Such is the result of someone using anti-concepts, as you identified.
For the sake of the entire thread, don’t bother engaging him. You won’t learn anything, even if you think you might. You’ll get dizzy going in circles.
Address your comments to me, Eiuol. Show a little respect. And nowhere have I stated Trump has consistently good judgment, nor any of that inane bs you presume of me. He understands the economy - I repeat. He knows what is good for the country: much reduced State Welfare, more employment available and greater productivity. No one here I’ve read or at ARI has had the grace to credit him for this -at least - and in justice and honesty, by O’ist virtues they ought to. He has more trust in the self-responsibility of Americans than do - some Americans. He is far less able at making nice and how to look after civilians who need to be ordered what to do by a Nanny. But what do you expect? Trump to override his scientific advisers? if the experts specify a course of action, an unversed political leader has to abide by them, although reluctantly and against his principle of a working USA.
8 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
8 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
Nonsense. Abject science-denial.
Today’s total of pandemic deaths in the United Kingdom: 45,961. Estimated possible deaths by the Imperial College back in April: approx. 5 million for the UK. A little off, yeah?
Something similar was the prognosis for the USA which I don’t recall right now, but out by also a large factor.
Heh. Tell me that’s science denial. The experts’ own figures. But do your own fact checks.
On 7/28/2020 at 8:28 AM, DavidOdden said:
some day (like, already), some president is going to exploit the powers inadvertently granted to him.
That is arguably the most dangerous issue that we are dealing with as a country. To hear that Trump has been talking about removing the two year limit for a President, was terrifying. Then his believe in complete presidential immunity and the fact that he pardoned people convicted of doing his dirty work. I thought this type of thing only happens in third world fascist systems. When Trump recently tried to remove the position of inspector general, the GOP revolted.
On 7/28/2020 at 8:28 AM, DavidOdden said:
I originally assumed that Trump had a team of competent behind-the-scenes managers who would guide him and therefore us away from the brink of destruction if the occasion arises, that has proven to be over-optimistic.
I admit, I was a Trump fan for a generation, watching the Apprentice and trying to learn something from him and yet, from day one of his presidency, claiming his crowd was bigger than Obama’s first inauguration, not acknowledging that it is hard to beat an actual first African American President in the History of the United States was shockingly disappointing.
On 7/28/2020 at 8:28 AM, DavidOdden said:
a non-Democrat exercising veto power against the left could be important.
You are assuming that Trump is not a socialist. He wants to create public works like FDR, having the government become the biggest employer. When the Covid first bailout was being negotiated, he wanted the government to have equity in the bailed out companies (even Bernie had not pushed for overt communism).
What will Trump Veto?? He claims that Biden has stolen his economic plan.
Currently he is exacerbating racial tensions, appealing to a silent majority mob, and acting like he fights the evil that he already embodies.
People are worried about a highly unlikely journey to communism with Biden and his Supreme Court nominees, while the worst Americans will tolerate is what it is like in Canada or the UK or Sweden. We are not headed to Communism.
But, we are already a crony capitalist, fascist lite country. Full blown fascism is any easy next step. Trump will not stop it, in fact he is opening the door to it (potentially for the next racist leader that actually likes to kill people).
The other possibility is civil war. Again, who is best equipped and temperamentally suited to bring factions together?
1 Like
To “bring factions together”, ET, is what individuals do of their own accord. At work and leisure etc. with each other in freedom of association. A government should not be charged with any more than protecting rights and rule of law, irrespective of ‘group’ and faction identity. And make a bigger mess when they attempt to do so. Even Obama didn’t manage to do so, to bridge the much-exaggerated racial divide, while there were high hopes he could. The “faction” which is on the hard Left is presently and clearly doing its damnedest to not be brought together, to go all-out “radicalized”, to maintain and increase the division in America - all to intimidate voters in the next election. That is Marxist-inspired fascism already in action, with the implied threat that they will arise and cause havoc and fear at any stage the Left doesn’t approve of something. This shock-troop tactic is what I saw happen in Zimbabwean elections and in South Africa. If there’s a hint of Trump’s supposed racism, that is all gleaned from the racialist media; I notice he is totally color blind as is any resort builder accustomed to working with multi-races on construction projects, and dealing personally with everyone from foreign heads of State down to the worker on the site. His black and Hispanic supporters know that.
The nation’s divisions - wealth and racial, mainly - were already occurring, pre-Trump. He was the catalyst not the cause of them coming to the surface.
On 7/29/2020 at 5:05 AM, Eiuol said:
On 7/28/2020 at 8:53 AM, AlexL said:
because GOP is the only major party which could be in the future for some individual rights etc., more than the Dems
if that’s all you meant, Republicans have historically failed on this. All evidence points to “not gonna happen”. You would need a new political party. I don’t have reason to think that any Republicans will reform their ideas if Trump loses.
A new political party to compete with Reps and Dems - it not gonna happen.
And: if Trump loses, maybe GOP will select in the future much more carefully its presidential candidates.
And finally: there is zero chance that Dems will switch to individual rights, economic freedom etc.
Given all this, getting rid of Trump it is a priority (unless the Dem candidate will be of the extreme left).
3 hours ago, AlexL said:
And: if Trump loses, maybe GOP will select in the future much more carefully its presidential candidates.
But why do you think this could happen? Why are they any more likely than Democrats?
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
You are assuming that Trump is not a socialist.
I am not assuming that Trump has any principled foundation whatsoever. He’s not a capitalist or a socialist, he’s a random behavior generator. He’s an unprincipled statistical machine that tries something, sees if it works, then tries something else. I don’t assume that he will veto the left’s press for socialism on principled grounds. I do assume that the alternative candidate tends to support socialist legislation. So the difference could come down to a slightly higher chance of veto with Trump as POTUS.
The primary threat, IMO, comes not from what Biden will do, but what his successor will do when the Presidential Succession Act is triggered and ?Kamala Harris is the next president.
1 Like
11 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:
Succession Act is triggered and ?Kamala Harris is the next president.
aw bbbbbut the Democrats would never let the far left drive policy decisions… wwwwwould they?
Naw… everything’ll be fine…
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:
7 hours ago, AlexL said:
And: if Trump loses, maybe GOP will select in the future much more carefully its presidential candidates.
But why do you think this could happen? Why are they any more likely than Democrats?
Because I think that, if Trump loses the election, GOP will examine the hypothesis that this had something to do with Trump, the previous GOP choice from among several candidates
I understand that part, but Democrats could do the same thing. For example, if Trump won, some significant portion of Democrats I think would go more towards Yang (who I think is more libertarian friendly based on what I know compared to anyone else who is politically relevant) in terms of political beliefs, at least being marginally more individualistic than Democrats are now. You are saying that Democrats would never move towards individual rights, and Republicans could potentially. But I don’t see why you think Republicans are any more likely. I would actually propose that many Republicans will think that they were not authoritarian enough, proclaiming that Communists are coming, and radical measures must be taken, perhaps with Pence at the frontline. I can come up with similar scenarios for Democrats, which I imagine is what you meant by “zero chance” that Democrats will switch to anything.
On 7/29/2020 at 12:26 PM, DavidOdden said:
Executive Order 13769, the Muslim travel ban, violated the McCarran–Walter Act, and the provision favoring immigration of members of minority religions in listed countries violated the First Amendment.
So you didn’t mean that he “arbitrarily rewrote the law.” You meant that he issued executive orders that got challenged in court. I’m pretty sure that happens to every president, often because the law in the first place is arbitrary or bad or outdated. Sometimes because the EO is bad or poorly written. In this particular case the law (McCarran-Walter Act) looks bad, probably racist even. Trump eventually tweaked his position into Proclamation 9645, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
On 7/29/2020 at 12:26 PM, DavidOdden said:
Executive Order 13768, where the federal government illegally commanded local governments regarding enforcement of federal immigration policy, was in clear violation of 8 USC 1373 and well-established law regarding the 10th amendment.
Based on the Wikipedia article it looks like Trump made a dumb move here. Some of his initial EOs revealed his inexperience or dependency on people like Steve Bannon.
35 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Some of his initial EOs revealed his inexperience or dependency on people like Steve Bannon.
A cardinal Characteristic of the Trump Presidency is an anti immigrant stance. The idea that they take our Jobs (they are rapists etc). This is clearly unambiguously supported by Steve Bannon as a populist, vote getting position. People who saw a stagnant economy after the real estate crash were swayed by this rhetoric. Especially in swing states.
Even with Steve Bannon gone look at the Trump administration’s position on H1b visas.
“Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak”
The most talented immigrants cannot come here based on this view of the world. This is not inexperience, this is core beliefs. It is also a huge loss to us as a nation. It comes across like racist, but it is the basis of the America First Policy. In addition to mercantilism.
The anger at the outsider, the “other” (a key element of Fascism) is part of the political makeup of this presidency.