When everything is produced on US soil, what stops the US from proclaiming that "What stands on US soil is owned by the US" and all the investments foreigners did were for nothing?
Same thing that stops other countries from doing this. It would create a (multi) generational block against all foreign investment and devastating sanctions.
Cuba did this as part of the revolution. The nationalization of American owned businesses was a major contributor to later hostilities. We don't have an embargo on Russia, yet we still maintain the trade embargo on Cuba.
The current administration is actively burning every bridge built over the last 80 years. I'm not sure that's a strong argument against that potential future (even though I also think that potential future is unlikely)
How about "with the rapid ascent and descent of tariffs against trade partners and allies heretofore unseen in their magnitude, as well as the frequent changes in directions to those tariffs - seeming to use them as threats - again, to our allies and trade partners", the United States has changed its behavior in a way that most people would see as untrustworthy (and if they were a friend or dating partner, most would recommend a temporary cutoff)?
If we had fair trade coming into January, then I would agree with you. But we didn't have fair and balanced trade with many nations. So Trump's actions are at least understandable.
Agreed. People don't seem to understand that unfair trade practices having been going on for decades. It's just that Trump appears to be the first president to actually take action on the problem. And it's pointless debating Trump-haters on day 2 of what will be a much longer process to restructure global trade to be more fair and balanced.
For what it's worth, I would prefer to have a summary as well, rather than listening to Tucker Carlson and someone on his show for an hour and a half. I read his book, Ship of Fools, years ago and what I gathered was that he saw a lot of the same general negatives as the next person and made a lot of sense; but his solution was always an ethnostate, veiled or otherwise, to fix everything - or I suppose "immigration is the harm" and "people not like us", etc.
If there's useful information from what he says, I'd love to hear it, but I don't want to hear the other half again as it's exhausting.
I've never once heard Tucker Carlson frame an argument along the lines of protecting an ethnostate (if thats what you mean) and his contribution is minimal. The majority of the talking is done by Bob Lighthizer (as you'd expect given he is being interviewed).
Actually, your comment is a blinkered, partisan view. The current administration has deeply damaged long-term international relationships and acts in a capricious manner.
Criticizing an administration for its missteps is a fundamental aspect of First Amendment rights and should be encouraged when that criticism is valid.
There was plenty to criticize in the previous admin, and voters who supported them were not shy about stating their griefs.
What I find both curious and frightening is that supporters of the current admin will never speak out against it (a la "four legs good, two legs bad"). The only exceptions are those who have incurred direct harm that they suddenly care about themselves being impacted.
Partisanship is an evil that plagues politics. We were warned by George Washington about this but failed to act accordingly.
Russia actually did do that recently though right? "What stands on Russian soil is owned by Russia"
And the US still trades with them, and seems to really want a closer relationship.
In the same range of the probability of it happening anywhere else, but (if you’re honest with yourself) a bit lower. Seizure of property and/or nationalization of whole industries is not a novel concept.
Serious and genuine question, how? It seems that some of the layoffs in the administration might be illegal, however they still happened and there are no legal consequences yet. High ranked officials discussing national security matters on non approved platforms *is* illegal, yet nothing happened and I bet nothing will happen at all. Given this background, how will the Constitution prevent such a case?
I don't know why they might be illegal. Legal and illegal things are on a spectrum. Some things are illegal in a fairly convoluted way, so convoluted that various judges can reach different conclusions. But some things are quite black and white and confiscation of private property is one of those. The 14th Amendment is quite clear on that.
United States is a Constitutional Republic. Not a democracy according to the US constitution.
$ grep -i democra us_constitution.txt
$ grep -i republic us_constitution.txt
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I understand you're offering this as a gotcha but I'm not sure what you're referring to and it's unclear from context.
In any event, both of those things are typically undemocratic which is why they are rare in functioning democracies and common in autocracies. No system is invulnerable to attack so in certain circumstances they aren't undemocratic. Excluding candidates for, say, a criminal record, mental incapacity, or foreign obligations is less democratic but no reasonable person would claim it voids the will of the people.
Not sure where you're getting the "overturned" part, but if you're trying to point out the the DNC runs roughshod over party members, then you're right only in the sense that they suck.
What sucks more is having a two-party system -- the game is pretty well rigged by that. Voters have the choice of the lesser of two evils. But at least there's a choice involved.
So, comrade, you have failed to sway me. I don't put party before country, even if I was a party member. I doubt you can say the same.
And the person they picked for this is a charismatic narcissist who clearly only cares about himself? The examples of previous "dictators" all clearly believed that what they were doing was for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Those opposed to Trump holding office don't do so because he's in the "wrong party", they oppose him because he is eminently unsuitable for the job. Note that even hard core conservative members of his party advocated for voting for his opponent. That's a first, and there's a reason why.
Note as well that he's making noise about ignoring a constitutional amendment that would prohibit him from the office after this term.
Under this administration? Mainly that Trump doesn't want to directly own everything.
What's stopping the current admin from saying "we don't like you, you gotta sell", now that's another question! Currently the main answer is "your willingness to pay bribes".
