The matter of banning Acosta from press briefings, clearly contravened established First and Fifth amendment law.
That is debatable. There are valid reasons to ban particular news groups or individual reporters. CNN and the WH reached a compromise so we don’t know how that case would have turned out.
On 7/29/2020 at 12:26 PM, DavidOdden said:
Termination of the DACA program violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment.
Technically it wasn’t the termination itself, but the method of termination which was deemed unlawful. I don’t think this is a great example of him arbitrarily rewriting a law. He might have arbitrarily ended a DHS program. Though DACA itself has problems and will probably be ended anyway.
A nation that is of value to a person will be inclusive by him of every other citizen who was born there or equally becomes a legal citizen there, in that sovereign nation. The outsider - the other - needs to go through the same process and would be keen to … if he/she perceives that value too.
I see Trump as extremely embracing of all who do. In essence: That you are “here” indicates your value in America and to America. I have never bought into that xenophopic/racist criticism by people who, in the final analysis don’t understand Trump’s love for the country and view him with cynicism: he’s out for himself.
What I also could not help gather over the last 20+ years is the gradual decline in pride in the USA by Americans. It came through most visibly from the (Leftist) media and powerfully too by the (Leftist) movie industry, in the content and themes of many or most of its films. The third leg has been well documented by many commentators, being the Leftist professors and teachers in colleges. With almost complete control of those three areas, it’s clear that the Left/Progressives/etc. have dominated many citizens’ attitudes and it shows. First came self-doubt (America isn’t and wasn’t perfect, many mistakes and moral grievances were committed). Then loss of confidence, in even the Constitution. Then cynicism. The shame felt by many for their country became extremely apparent just now, destroying monuments/taking a knee/riots/“systemic racism”- meekly accepted as morally-valid assaults on the country.
In the last 10 years the drift I notice has been outwards, towards the Old World and merging the US character/political/cultural nature closer with the (supposedly) ‘sophisticated, European elitism’.
This sea-change of many Americans’ attitudes to the USA, the rhino in the parlor, needs to be acknowledged here in the election debate. This is a crucial turning point, for you and for the world - obviously not “politics as normal”. The battle is ideological, for the soul of a nation. And if “Biden is our only hope” - America will succumb one way or other to the self-disgust promoted by some/many Leftist Americans.
If it’s his core belief why didn’t he ban them before the apocalypse?
Are you saying that quarantine is not effective and we should prevent the most talented human capital from entering now?
What is the justification for banning healthy people that will improve our lives in the long run?
Because of an anti immigrant core belief.
" You know, mass illegal immigration, which the chamber of commerce pushes all the time, and more legal immigration and trade are just two sides of the same coin, right? The two sides of the same coin, it’s suppression of workers’ wages, OK? Mass illegal immigration is to flood the zone against predominantly black and Hispanic working class so that you’ve got unlimited, you know, unlimited labor pool, and you can keep wages down for higher margins. Immigration and H-1B visas are the same thing in the tech area, that you don’t have to hire American citizens; I can do it with these visas to increase margins."
The attempts to get rid of H1B visas was starting day one.
“BANNON: Where are we in the Trump campaign with the H-1B visas? Because we got the oligarchs down there, man, and they have got Karl Rove and literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are coming with one reason. And they are coming for unlimited ability to go throughout the world and have people come here and compete with kids coming out of engineering schools and IT jobs. If you are in your 40s and 50s right now, people will tell you, they haven’t had a raise in decades in IT. What was supposed to be a great career turned out not to be a great career. It’s because of these visas.”
Easy Truth,
Most Americans (excluding Third World immigrants) want a more anti-immigration stand from their government. The tough job market is one reason but only one. That Trump delivered only part of what he promised on that issue during his last campaign is a liability for him how.
Though Trump has been a disappointment he has done some good things. Probably the most important is that his administration made the existence of the “Deep State” – or whatever you want to call corrupt rogue bureaucrats and those who pull their strings – public knowledge. And he has been slowly – too slowly – chipping away at it.
As with his immigration policies, his two Supreme Court appointments were nothing to write home about but at least they were far better than what we would have gotten under Hillary Clinton. Ruth Bader Ginsburg probably won’t make it through another presidential term so a Biden presidency will affect that branch of government for a generation or two.
The article alluded to in the original post is Biden Must Win or America is Doomed
It quotes most of the pro-Biden speech that Brook made on his show (link in the original post).
Though Trump has been a disappointment he has done some good things. Probably the most important is that his administration made the existence of the “Deep State” – or whatever you want to call corrupt rogue bureaucrats and those who pull their strings – public knowledge. And he has been slowly – too slowly – chipping away at it.
The problem is that he has replaced the previous deep state with his own deep state. Bill Bar, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone are from the Nixon Era. Fortunately they were plucked out by the deep state.
The Crony-ism has increased under Trump, not decreased. You think his proposed FDR type public works would decrease the size of “the deep state”, or make is gigantic? As in Mussolini size. The attack on the deep state has turned into a Maoist type cultural revolution, where they would destroy whatever was built, just to start from scratch. Telling Putin that he believes Putin over Trump’s own intelligence agencies is what should be the norm?
1 hour ago, Dupin said:
Most Americans (excluding Third World immigrants) want a more anti-immigration stand from their government.
Are you arguing that Trump’s immigration promises “should” have been kept? Not sure where you are going with this.
“Politicization” is an anti-concept, similar to “polarization”
I kind of like how “politicized” was used in this sentence:
I seldom agree with Mr. Wicker, but he had the honesty to say that to reject Mr. Rehnquist’s nomination solely on the basis of his political views “is dangerous business. It presumes some kind of rightful political orthodoxy; it would tend to politicize the courts according to the temporary political coloration of Congress; it could punish some individuals for their ideas and frighten others out of having any.” (Which, in today’s context, is unanswerably true.)
The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. 1, No. 6 December 20, 1971
The Disfranchisement Of The Right
The article alluded to in the original post is Biden Must Win or America is Doomed
It quotes most of the pro-Biden speech that Brook made on his show (link in the original post).
This is a great analysis. Reminds one that an Objectivist institution should stay out of broadcasting their political personae preferences, and, particularly not commanding and speaking for Objectivists at large. (“Sell-outs to Objectivism”?!). Rand could and did give her advisement - and too she allowed for caveats in her judgments. But who has the predictive-conceptual capacity of Rand, or her reckoning of a person’s character virtues/flaws, or what she saw in their “sense of life”. Especially not her abstractive grasp of the essential nature of America. So why try to imitate her? Is it that ARI’s internet exposure needs to be more ‘relevant’? And why specifically so anti- Trump? Perhaps, I’ll surmise, the ‘market’ for future Objectivists is perceived to be from among the secularist-atheists, while naturally not from the religious-conservatives (although many are known to have accord with Objectivist political theory). Therefore, in the subject matter and tone of many articles/essays I’ve read in recent times which are otherwise very good, if predictable, ARI writers have consistently leaned towards the Leftists, at times looked to be pandering to them. Please leave each O’ist to his/her own judgment calls in these matters.
You write:
“… [Trump] has replaced the previous deep state with his own deep state.”
Previous? Replaced? The Deep State continues to very much exist.
Trump’s administration is in every way better than Obama’s. His biggest problem has been brought on by himself. Perversely, he has surrounded himself by his own enemies.
Our so-called intelligence agencies are corrupt and not to be believed. I don’t know anything about Russia’s.
Comparing Trump to Mao, or his actions to a Maoist revolution, is something Yaron Brook might say. It’s absurd, a prime example of TDS.
“Are you arguing that Trump’s immigration promises should have been kept?” (Scare quotes around “should” in the original.)
Not arguing, stating. There are good arguments on ARI Watch, and you can find others by Lawrence Auster and Peter Brimelow on the Internet.
I’m in the process of packing up and moving. The computer gets boxed this evening.
Yes, there is a non-zero probability that the Dem party will quantum-tunnel to individual rights, economic freedom, limited government etc.
You keep saying that, but I don’t know why you say there is zero chance, and at the same time, there is a non zero chance that Republicans would? I’m asking for reasons, not assertions.
So the government is to determine “immigrants who are needed here”, not the employer. What brand of Capitalism is this?
If you want the employer to do it, then you need to drop your rhetoric about “the most talented” and just admit that you don’t care whether they are the most talented. Because if you want the most talented immigrants, then the government would have to assess their talent before letting them work here. Otherwise you might as well be for completely open immigration like Dr. Binswanger.
if you want the most talented immigrants, then the government would have to assess their talent before letting them work here
You don’t see the fascism in that statement? I am the employer. I could understand the government checking if they have a disease, but other than that it is an infringement of my rights.
What rights are those? Are you claiming a right to bring whomever you want into the country?
In principle, as long as it does not infringe on other people’s rights, it would be similar to any freedom. So, no trespassing, no criminals, spys, no transmissible disease etc.
The question is where does a government get the right to infringe on people’s freedom of movement? (but I think this is going to need its own thread and has been discussed already)
My bottom line is this. I have employed engineers from India and China and Pakistan and some eastern European nations using the H1B system. It is already a grueling process. You cannot bring in anyone you want. And the ones available are incredible in talent. To restrict it is motivated by an anti immigrant policy (that gets votes). Otherwise, it is simply authoritarian. It is also part of a union mindset, form a union, prevent others from working. Similar to licensing laws.
We can also add Rand’s thought on this:
"You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers _your _standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. "
The question is where does a government get the right to infringe on people’s freedom of movement? (but I think this is going to need its own thread and has been discussed already)
Because in the past some Republicans had some glimpses in that direction. It is true, however, that public demand for that has dropped…
And then… there is Trump’s chaotic and clownesque personality…
Who and when? Democrats have had glimpses, Republicans have had glimpses, so I’m challenging you to give evidence. There have been deregulatory measures by Republicans, but often the same types that would propose measures of corporate socialism (namely subsidies). Maybe you mean tax cuts, but that is merely alteration of funding, not any stand about individual rights. I could say that Democrats have had glimpses in terms of decriminalization of drugs, or gay marriage being legal, or opposition to the Iraq war and opposition to the Patriot Act. Of course, those same people believe in some profound regulation on individual choice, but I think these qualify as “glimpses”.
In other words, I don’t think your prediction or justification of why Biden winning has any grounding. I’m not going to vote either direction because I don’t think I can make a realistic prediction of either candidate resulting in something better in the long term. It’s as good as a wild guess. I see the value of the strategy you are talking about (Biden winning would cause Republicans to reform), but I don’t think there’s any evidence that it would pan out that way.
