US Politics - Trump - Making America Grate!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

To elaborate a bit on my POTUS gaffe (remember I am not American, so for me which POTUS did what, is a bit like for you getting asked about Roman Emperors).

I really mixed up Jackson and Grant. 

Mix up was a bit simplified like this.

I know one former General from the civil war with a drinking problem became President at a later point in his life (not a particularly good one). And somehow I also got Stonewall Jackson (another civil war general in the mix). So I really mixed up a bunch of names. 

[OldGimletEye]

On Trump supporters using Germany as an example of his protectionist ideas.

http://voxeu.org/article/globalisation-and-sectoral-employment-trends-germany

Quote

The German economy faces a trend of structural transformation with a secular decline of manufacturing and rising service employment due to an aggregate technology trend. The same is true in many other high-income countries. Yet, unlike in the case of the US, rising trade with emerging low-wage countries (like China or Eastern Europe) did not speed up this trend in Germany. Trade, in fact, slowed it down because rising exports to the new markets stabilised industry jobs.

So technology is impacting the number of manufacturing jobs in Germany just as it is in the United States. Also, interesting enough, open trade actually seemingly increased the number of manufacturing jobs in Germany.

So it would seem, the lessen from Germany would be: If you want to increase the number of people employed in manufacturing, then don't turn your back on free trade, at least in the long run.

But, what Trump and his supporters seemingly fail to realize is that there is a big constraint that applies to the United States that doesn't apply to Germany, which is: the United States acts as the main supplier of safe stores of value around the world. So long as this remains true, it's doubtful the US will run trade surpluses, at least for awhile. Probably decades.

Much of US deficits is about the US being the worlds banker and not about "bad trade deals", necessarily. Even if you take the view that it would be desirable for another international currency to develop or another reliable source of safe assets to develop, that is probably going to take awhile. The main candidate would be China. But, that's not probably not going to happen until China's financial markets improve and deepen.

Now, the US's position as the main safe asset supplier does give us some big privileges. It means we can borrow pretty cheaply.

Now we can take those cheap borrowed funds and invest them in useful stuff.

It would seem, however, Trump would take those funds and make investments in the wealthy. Cause you know it's a hard knock life, when you can only afford 4 BMW's, instead of 6 or 7.

Now how do you go about making investments in the wealthy? Maybe by refusing to negotiate down drug prices and giving them income tax cuts.

[Martell Spy]

Austin vs. Austin

In Texas, the war between the GOP and sanctuary cities is on.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2017/02/texas_is_trying_to_crack_down_on_sanctuary_cities.html

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'd love if the US would convert to a parliamentary system.

 I don't really understand the parliamentary system very well, but I don't know why it would be better.  While it would be easier to enact laws, there isn't the same checks and balances as a presidential system.

Why do you believe this would be better? 

[The guy from the Vale]

@Lany Freelove Cassandra A parliamentary system guarantees a prime minister has to have the support of the main legislative chamber. However, in bicameral parliamentary systems, there's still legislative check through the second chamber, in addition to the presidency (and inherent veto powers) vested in another person than the prime minister and an independent judiciary. In essence, a prime minister who can't have his legislative agenda carried out usually has to resign.

In essence, in a presidential system, power is vested in one person with strong executive powers (essentially an absolute or constitutional monarch on limited time), with the legislative and jurisprudence just being there as checks on that power. In a parliamentary system, it's the legislative that has most of the power, with a largely (but not completely) defanged executive and still independent jurisprudence,with the president's role closer to the purely role of a representative monarch.

 

All that being said, I think a switch to a proportional system of elections is at least as important for the US, if not more so, than the switch to a parliamentary system of governance. A parliamentary system with elections for parliament even less fair than those for the presidency will just exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lany,

The PM is always directly answerable to the legislature and can easily be removed if the PM abuses their power.  Also, the PM can't be PM without a majority or majority coalition in the legislature.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lany,

Or what TGFTV said.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lany,

The PM is always directly answerable to the legislature and can easily be removed if the PM abuses their power.  Also, the PM can't be PM without a majority or majority coalition in the legislature.

To me, that gives more power to the legislature.  Why is that good? especially if the legislature ends up as far right as our current congress?

 

I admit, the power of the presidency seems to have expanded beyond where it was meant to be, but wouldn't it be better to limit the president's power (or more clearly define it) combined with a direct election.

22 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@Lany Freelove Cassandra A parliamentary system guarantees a prime minister has to have the support of the main legislative chamber. However, in bicameral parliamentary systems, there's still legislative check through the second chamber, in addition to the presidency (and inherent veto powers) vested in another person than the prime minister and an independent judiciary. In essence, a prime minister who can't have his legislative agenda carried out usually has to resign.

In essence, in a presidential system, power is vested in one person with strong executive powers (essentially an absolute or constitutional monarch on limited time), with the legislative and jurisprudence just being there as checks on that power. In a parliamentary system, it's the legislative that has most of the power, with a largely (but not completely) defanged executive and still independent jurisprudence,with the president's role closer to the purely role of a representative monarch.

 

All that being said, I think a switch to a proportional system of elections is at least as important for the US, if not more so, than the switch to a parliamentary system of governance. A parliamentary system with elections for parliament even less fair than those for the presidency will just exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

Thank you. I can see somewhat why people might be in favor, I guess, as the idea of one person with that much power is rather scary. I agree with you that switching to a more proportional system for elections is crucial  

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lany,

The PM is always directly answerable to the legislature and can easily be removed if the PM abuses their power.  Also, the PM can't be PM without a majority or majority coalition in the legislature.

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

From another Non-Yank: You're thinking of Ulysses Grant. Andrew Jackson was the pre-Civil War president responsible for the Trail of Tears (i.e., forcible removal of Native Americans living in the Appalachian Mountains and the Eastern Mississippi Basin).

Grant did not have an alcohol problem -- all part of the Glorious Lost Cause lies.  Effective lies, based on the facts that when he was stationed in California after the Mexican War, he hadn't seen his wife and child for years already, and was still separated from them.  His superior officer was abusive.  He was lonely and miserable and wanting his family desperately.  He drank too much.  He never did before and never did so again, and certainly not while running a war or a country.

 But the slur constantly came up from his southern enemies and haters -- and his northern ones who supported rivals for commanding the army --  during the war and after, and as ever since.  People repeat it, even historians, without actually looking for the documentation, which documentation shows exactly what was repeated in the first sentences above.

When it comes to Jackson I shall not defend him -- but what is forgotten that when Calhoun & South Carolina started demanding Nullification or Secession, Jackson shut the suckers down, just like that.  He was a Union then, Union now and Union forever man.  On his deathbed he supposedly muttered that his one regret other than not shooting Clay was not hanging Calhoun.  Keep in mind, It's been as impossible for historians to find substantive primary documentary proof of that statement as much as for Grant running a war falling down drunk.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Zorral said:

Grant did not have an alcohol problem -- all part of the Glorious Lost Cause lies.  Effective lies, based on the facts that when he was stationed in California after the Mexican War, he hadn't seen his wife and child for years already, and was still separated from them.  His superior officer was abusive.  He was lonely and miserable and wanting his family desperately.  He drank too much.  He never did before and never did so again, and certainly not while running a war or a country.

 

That's too bad. I always had a little bit of fondness for William T Sherman's quote,"Grant stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk...."

[The guy from the Vale]

@Zorral Point taken. I didn't want to slander Grant (whose failure sadly doomed the far too necessary Reconstruction), but the meme of Grant the drunkard seems pretty pervasive.

[Aemon Stark]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lany,

The PM is always directly answerable to the legislature and can easily be removed if the PM abuses their power.  Also, the PM can't be PM without a majority or majority coalition in the legislature.

Yes and no. I'm not sure what sort of abuses would be required to turf a PM, but parliamentary discipline and first-past-the-post often mean that this power rests with the government party caucus (and sometimes unelected party officials!) rather than Parliament per se. What's more - in Canada anyway - it's not clear how much reserve power the Governor-General actually has. In 2008 we had the spectacle of Harper proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote he likely would have lost. 

Otherwise the PM does not require a majority (or even a formal coalition or alliance) in the Commons to govern. The PM remains in power until resignation or dismissal by the Crown (GG). The latter has never occurred. Usually a PM will automatically resign following an election defeat, but with a marginal result may continue to try to form a government. It suffices only to survive confidence tests (Speech from the Throne, money votes). 

Even with a minority government, the PM is able to exercise significant executive power via Orders-in-Council and various interpretations of the Royal prerogative. 

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

In essence, in a presidential system, power is vested in one person with strong executive powers (essentially an absolute or constitutional monarch on limited time), with the legislative and jurisprudence just being there as checks on that power. 

I really cannot agree with this characterization; Congress is more powerful than the executive on domestic affairs.  Most of the Executive's checks on Congress's power can be overridden (like veto overrides), whereas the reverse is not true.   In addition, given that they have the power of the purse and impeachment, if push really comes to shove between the President and Congress, Congress is going to win.  The issue is that Congress has a lot more difficulty with unity, which makes both slower and less powerful.  

[The guy from the Vale]

I may have exaggerated a bit there, @Maithanet. But in comparison to parliamentary systems, I stand by the characterisation. The executive is far more powerful in presidential systems compared to parliamentary ones.

[Zorral]

31 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

That's too bad. I always had a little bit of fondness for William T Sherman's quote,"Grant stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk...."

The full context of this "quote" changes what people want it to mean. Shiloh was bad, very bad.  He tried to resign.  Julia wasn't present -- she kept him on even-keel and spent a lot more time in the field than many realize -- he started to drink.  Sherman stopped him, got Julia called in and all was well.  That appears to be the only time he drank to excess during the war or as president.  On the contrary, in many private letters and journals of those who served with him, those on his staff, are the mentions of his abstemiousness, quite different from most officers.

Grant was a superb strategist and tenacious as a bull dog.  He was congenitally incapable of going backwards from where he was.  My favorite quote of his, from a letter to a friend, involves his impatience by now with the D.C. military command including Halleck and McClellan, wringing their hands about Lee -- when he said he didn't give a damn about what Lee might do, he was interesting in what he was going to do!

One cannot win battles while drunk.  There are ample documented occasions of drunken southern commanders and the disasters they created, particularly in North Carolina and the CSA Army of Tennessee,.  One see a great deal of this within local historians' work (never underestimate the importance to the record of the local historians, particularly those who lived through the events they describe). 

[Reny of Storms End]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The full context of this "quote" changes what people want it to mean. Shiloh was bad, very bad.  He tried to resign.  Julia wasn't present -- she kept him on even-keel and spent a lot more time in the field than many realize -- he started to drink.  Sherman stopped him, got Julia called in and all was well.  That appears to be the only time he drank to excess during the war or as president.  On the contrary, in many private letters and journals of those who served with him, those on his staff, are the mentions of his abstemiousness, quite different from most officers.

Grant was a superb strategist and tenacious as a bull dog.  He was congenitally incapable of going backwards from where he was.  My favorite quote of his, from a letter to a friend, involves his impatience by now with the D.C. military command including Halleck and McClellan, wringing their hands about Lee -- when he said he didn't give a damn about what Lee might do, he was interesting in what he was going to do!

One cannot win battles while drunk.  There are ample documented occasions of drunken southern commanders and the disasters they created, particularly in North Carolina and the CSA Army of Tennessee,.  One see a great deal of this within local historians' work (never underestimate the importance to the record of the local historians, particularly those who lived through the events they describe). 

A new biography just came out on Grant, named something like The American Ulysses, have you read it? I ask because you seem very knowledgeable on the subject and I have been thinking of getting the book. 

[Zorral]

40 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@Zorral Point taken. I didn't want to slander Grant (whose failure sadly doomed the far too necessary Reconstruction), but the meme of Grant the drunkard seems pretty pervasive.

So is the meme that women burned their bras at a Miss America pageant, that Wilson said the vile Birth of A Nation was written in fire, and many, many others -- that are equally historically false and downright lies.  It's what is really meant when in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the newspaper editor states, "When it comes down to printing the truth or the legend, print the legend."

 

It's pervasive because too many people don't bother to check the facts, and indeed, as we see all around us, don't want facts that interfere with their pleasant, to themselves, lies.

We always must keep in mind that information / history is consciously shaped, and always has been and never so much as this moment, except, equally, in soviet russia and nazi germany.  Getting rid of inconvenient facts and creating more convenient fantasies has always gone on.  As one example, Charlemagne participated in this, sending out minstrels and jongleurs to laud his battles against the saracens and moors on behalf of Christianity-- battles that never happened except! -- when he fought for pay and booty on the side of one Spanish moorish group against another. In the meantime his staff and court and vassels were filled with Muslim who practiced their religion with no problem  But he represented himself to Rome and posterity as a Warrior of Christianity against Islam. All politicians are canny as heck at aiming at the main chance for their own profit and reputation, no matter what country or era.

 

 

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Zorral said:

snip

Well, thanks for educating me.

Sounds like there was some Confederate Fake News back in the day.

[The guy from the Vale]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, thanks for educating me.

Sounds like there was some Confederate Fake News back in the day.

It never stopped, didn't it? "States' rights" and Lost Cause and all that...

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

It never stopped, didn't it? "States' rights" and all that...

No, I suppose not.