• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Four


Status
Not open for further replies.
I said before the election Trump cant fix the economy, no one can. Isolationism and protectionism does work in the short term historically. The best you could hope for is he doesn't make it worse. But I'll be honest i don't hold much hope of even that scenario.

I predict he will spend money on credit (As did his predecessors, as have ours here in Australia) that will create some jobs and positive sentiment. Hopefully enough from his pov to secure a second term. But he wont fix the debt problem.
 
He'll be lucky to last the first term. Even Republicans are exhausted from his chronic demonstrations of ignorance and inability to actually behave responsibly.
 
He'll be lucky to last the first term. Even Republicans are exhausted from his chronic demonstrations of ignorance and inability to actually behave responsibly.

But as one local talking head here stated quite correctly, every prediction made about him has fallen over thus far.
 
I would like to see him succeed, But only because i would like to the the USA succeed. To be prosperous and strong. To rebuild the space program to have money to burn in research and development technologies across all fields medicine, energy etc.
 
He's overwhelming everyone with so much craziness that they can't keep up. I don't think he ever expected to be President, and there are reports he lets people such as Bannon do a lot of the heavy lifting, which explains many of the dumb decisions. He shows up to sign and say dumb things, such as talking about "Apprentice" ratings at a prayer breakfast and all the illegals who voted for Clinton.
 
I would like to see him succeed, But only because i would like to the the USA succeed. To be prosperous and strong. To rebuild the space program to have money to burn in research and development technologies across all fields medicine, energy etc.
That's the reason why he has any good will left. But it's been an exhausting two weeks with no letup.
 
Protectionism in America
According to Michael Lind, protectionism was America's de facto policy from the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to World War II, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war.

The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade, and implemented a 44-percent tariff during the Civil War—in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort, and to protect favored industries.[22] This policy was continued by Presidents Ulysses S Grant and Theodore Roosevelt.[20] William McKinley (later to become President of the United States) stated the stance of the Republican Party (which won every election for President from 1868 until 1912, except the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) as thus:

Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, "Buy where you can buy the cheapest"…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: "Buy where you can pay the easiest." And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[23]

In Kicking Away the Ladder, developmental economist Ha-Joon Chang reviews the history of free trade policies and economic growth, and notes that many of the now-industrialized countries had significant trade barriers throughout their history. The United States and Britain, sometimes considered the homes of free trade policy, employed protectionism to varying degrees at all times. During the 1820s, during the height of the Industrial Revolution, Britain's exports on manufactured goods stood at over 50%. In fact, it has been argued that the Industrial Revolution was only made possible due to protectionist policies, coupled with pressure from chronic warfare, which created a large incentive for Britain to invest in labor-saving devices.[17] Britain's turn to free trade only began in the middle of the century. In 1846 the Corn Laws, which restricted import of grain, were repealed due to domestic pressures caused by the Irish Potato Famine. Britain reduced protection rapidly until its industry began to collapse during the late 19th century, in response to pressure from American and German competition.[24]

The United States maintained weighted average tariffs on manufactured products of approximately 40–50% up until the 1950s, although they dipped to lows of roughly 10% during the 1920s, which were augmented by the natural protectionism of high transportation costs in the 19th century.[25] The most consistent practitioners of free trade have been Switzerland, the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree Belgium.[26] Chang describes the export-oriented industrialization policies of the Four Asian Tigers as "far more sophisticated and fine-tuned than their historical equivalents".[27]

What worries me is protectionism always get a shot in the arm from war.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets hope this remains funny


But i fear he may "go hard" on Iran, and even China in ways that will very bad
 
Trump's Benghazi is a real scandal. He couldn't be bothered to go to the situation room, or get the proper backup and intelligence. His people blame Obama, whose people never gave the go-ahead, despite the lies that they did.

Trump didn't bother to show up in Situation Room for botched Yemen raid

I predict this event will wind up being a mouse's piss in the ocean by the end of his term. He's said hes going to go hard on ISIS. I expect more of this on a scale that will make it pale in comparison.

The same thing happened on D Day

So, when the first urgent but confused reports of an Allied landing were radioed and rung through to the Wolf’s Lair headquarters as early as 4am on the morning of June 6, his staff found him (Hitler) asleep.

Nobody dared wake him.


One thing would have changed history
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On refugees again.
Whats the view on economic refugees. How many should the west take ?

Don't get me wrong who could blame someone for wanting a better life, Money in the pocket, food on the table. Access to social services and security.
I totally get why an economic refugee wants to come here.


VIKTOR ORBÁN, Hungary’s prime minister, says the “overwhelming majority” of migrants in Europe are not refugees but are merely seeking a better life. Robert Fico, his Slovak counterpart, says up to 95% are economic migrants. The distinction matters, for under the 1951 Refugee Convention and a string of EU laws, European countries must offer refuge or other types of protection to asylum-seekers who can demonstrate that they are fleeing war or persecution. They are under no such obligation to those looking to improve their prospects, even if they have left behind lives of destitution.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/09/economist-explains-4

Surely we have a moral obligation to take them in and let them stay too.

But if we thought overpopulation was already overtaxing the earths resources , try taking billions of third world consumer patterns and giving them 1st world consumer trends.

overshootday_how-many-earths_635.png


Guess What? We Have Already Used Up All Of Earth's Resources For 2016 Kids News Article
 
Trump's Road to the White House

Well worth the watch, Love him or hate him.

The last two weeks have been no different to the last 17 months, and despite the pronouncements of "Its all over" and Don Voyage, we saw here in Australian media and in these threads he did it.

Mexicans are rapists- Its all over.
Megyn Kellys menstruation- That's it hes sunk.
The more the establishment went after him, the stronger he got.
Grab them by the ..... Don Voyage game over.

As a phenomena its fascinating, i wonder who will play him in the inevitable movie to come out of this historic story.

People are sick of business as usual politics, he claimed to be something new. A new way of doing things, dispensing with political correctness gone mad.

I am genuinely interested to see what he can do now that hes been given the chance.

In 1966 Robert F. Kennedy delivered a speech that included an instance: There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.”

Its going to be that, That's for sure.
 
3 Fronts in Legal Battle Over Trump’s Immigration Order
By ADAM LIPTAK, New York Times
FEB. 6, 2017

WASHINGTON — Opponents of President Trump’s targeted travel ban opened a three-pronged attack on Monday, telling the federal appeals court in San Francisco that the ban is a threat to the rule of law, to the nation’s security and to the economy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will soon decide whether to stay a trial court’s order blocking the ban. It declined to do so immediately on Saturday night, and instead ordered additional briefs to be filed. The last brief, from the Trump administration, is due on Monday by 3 p.m. Pacific time.

The case was brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota. Their appellate brief, filed early Monday morning, said that “President Trump unleashed chaos by signing the executive order at issue here” on Jan. 27. The order banned travel from people from seven mostly Muslim countries and limited the nation’s refugee program.

On Friday, Judge James L. Robart of the Federal District Court in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking key parts of the ban. On Saturday, the Trump administration appealed, arguing that Judge Robart’s order would cause irreparable harm to national security.

In response, lawyers for the two states said that was not plausible, as it would mean that the nation had long been suffering “some unspecified, ongoing irreparable harm.”

“That makes no sense,” the brief said. “As this court has held, preserving the status quo against sudden disruption is often in the interest of all parties.”

On Saturday, the Trump administration urged the Ninth Circuit to reject arguments based on religious discrimination, even though Mr. Trump has said he meant to favor Christian refugees. Judicial consideration of the president’s motives, the administration’s brief said, would violate the separation of powers.

The states responded that “courts have both the right and the duty to examine defendants’ true motives.”

They added that the administration had taken “a dizzying number of positions” on whether the executive order applied to permanent residents holding green cards. The order itself appears to cover such people, but the administration has said it will not enforce that part of the order. Questions about permanent residents are not moot, the states’ brief said, as the administration could again change positions.

Several former diplomatic and national security officials filed a declaration making a second kind of argument.

“We view the order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer,” the declaration said. “In our professional opinion, this order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds.”

The officials filing the declaration included John F. Kerry, a secretary of state under President Barack Obama; Madeleine K. Albright, who held the same position under President Bill Clinton; Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser; and Leon E. Panetta, who served as secretary of defense and head of the C.I.A.

Mr. Trump’s order, the officials said, would endanger American troops and intelligence sources, disrupt counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts, damage the economy and have “a devastating humanitarian impact.”

“And apart from all of these concerns,” the officials said, “the order offends our nation’s laws and values.”

The third front in the legal battle against Mr. Trump’s order in the appeals court was opened by the technology industry and other businesses.

Almost 100 companies, including Apple, Facebook and Google, urged the Ninth Circuit to continue to block Mr. Trump’s order, saying that the order “harms the competitiveness of U.S. companies.”

The “instability and uncertainty” created by the order, the brief said, “will make it far more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to hire some of the world’s best talent — and impede them from competing in the global marketplace.”

“Immigrants or their children founded more than 200 of the companies on the Fortune 500 list, including Apple, Kraft, Ford, General Electric, AT&T, Google, McDonald’s, Boeing, and Disney,” the brief said. “Collectively, these companies generate annual revenue of $4.2 trillion, and employ millions of Americans.”

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Follow The New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/...ollection/news-event/donald-trump-white-house
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top