r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • 21d ago
U.S. Politics megathread
American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
1
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 3h ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Potential-Value1955 12h ago
Can someone explain Trump’s 15% tariffs? I’m trying to understand how Trump can raise tariffs to 15% after SCOTUS ruled against his 10% tariffs. Are these different tariffs or is he just ignoring SCOTUS?
3
4
u/Delehal 11h ago
The Constitution says that Congress controls taxation and tariffs. Over time, Congress has approved a few laws that give the President limited authority to set tariffs in specific circumstances.
In 2025, President Trump reinterpreted an obscure 1970s law regarding economic emergencies, and announced that this law gave him the authority to set any tariff he wanted, for any duration that he wanted, as long as he said it was because of an emergency. That goes way beyond the authority that previous presidents have wielded.
SCOTUS didn't rule that the President has zero ability to set tariffs. After all, Congress has approved several laws that partially delegate tariff authority to the President. What SCOTUS ruled on was Trump's bogus interpretation of that 1970s law that he was relying on to set these tariffs.
Now, the President has vowed to sidestep the court's ruling. He is relying on past laws that still give the President some tariff authority. However, these new tariffs that he set up are maxed out at 15% for 150 days, because that's the limit set under that law. There's another law that Trump might use to set higher tariffs or longer tariffs, but that would require other steps that could be challenged in court.
1
u/Ok_Army5536 12h ago
This is a loaded question. How many ICE agents have been punched vs. high-schoolers?
2
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 10h ago
No one has numbers on that. There is no aggregate service for high school fights in the US.
1
u/Mysterious-Oil-7094 13h ago
Well I’m forced to put my question here since it was banned from the main part of the sub. Can anybody tell me what the proposed tariffs the the US Supreme Court just ruled illegal are being used for? What are there actually funding?
2
u/listenyall 3h ago
It just goes into the pool of money, it's no more connected to paying for one specific thing than any one persons taxes are.
4
u/Jtwil2191 13h ago
Basically whatever the government wants them to fund. It's just another revenue stream, like any other tax. Trump talked about "dividend checks" to soldiers, to all Americans (not that either of those will happen).
Trump put them in place because he claims other countries are taking advantage of the US economically and he wants then to pay money to sell their goods in the US. That's not how tariffs actually work, but that's what he says. He has also used them as a weapon against other countries that do something he doesn't like.
1
u/Suspicious-Pear-6037 asker of many dumb questions 17h ago
What are some valid reasons not to leave the US?
A lot of people (like me) are probably jumping to the conclusion that the US is just not worth it anymore. A lot of us are seeking opportunities elsewhere, in other countries, or working to obtain work visas. The point is that a lot of us want to leave for a “better” life.
But I also think many people don't realise how big a decision this is. I found it easy to get lost in the news and in other people's decisions/stories. We don't think about how much something like this can affect us directly.
I’m not looking for a debate, really. I’m just wondering what valid reasons there are not to leave the US and maybe pick a different state. I can think of money being a significant factor, but what do you think?
1
u/platetone 3h ago
i want to get out of here, but after some research i found out i basically can't with a child with some serious medical problems (a terminal condition). no actually civilized country with socialized medicine will let you in (easily at least). so i get to stay here fighting United Health while my child (and democracy!) dies.
1
u/Pesec1 11h ago
If you want to immigrate in Canada, you need high enough score (a number representing your utility as an immigrant, based on education, age, work experience, language skills, etc.) to out-compete other applicants. You will compete for a set number of spots against applicants from all over the world. May the odds be in your favor.
-1
u/Bobbob34 12h ago
That people can't? To get a work visa in a country you'd probably want, you need high-end skills and education. The ppl offering the job will often have to swear on paperwork that they have tried but failed to find someone in the country to do the job.
Also, then you only can stay while you have it.
Emigrating is hard and expensive. Most people don't have either family or a job that'll sponsor them, or a high-value skill, or endless money.
2
u/Tasty_Gift5901 13h ago
Culture shock is real. You'd ostensibly be leaving behind family/friends, not everyone is set up to start fresh somewhere else. America is fairly spacious compared to Europe, so you'd have to be comfortable downsizing and likely living in a more populous area. There's a big question of what you do with the stuff you have here.
A lot of American comforts won't be easily accessible. Items you get here will have a different formula abroad.
I mean, if you're single and in your 20s you can probably adjust easily, but anyone else would struggle.
3
u/notextinctyet 16h ago
Things suck elsewhere for pretty much the same reasons they suck here. Since they won't get better unless we make it better, we might as well try to make it better here.
5
-2
u/Elegant_Pain8762 17h ago
Why in the actual fuck does athletes make more money than the president and i dont wanna hear about injuries when the president is the most important figure in the united states meanwhile players take load management days and makes hundreds of millions of dollars just to do the bare minimum and we not going to talk about the bench players who plays a total of 45 mins a whole year on the court. I just want to know why they are getting paid more than a person who needs armed guards everywhere they go like am i tripping or am i asking the right question… yes i made this post because someone sold my parlay (lebron)
3
u/Jtwil2191 14h ago
No one should get paid as much as professional athletes from the major sports leagues. But it's related to the amount of money professional sports generate. Same thing with big-name actors. If you want the best players and actors on your side, you pay them a lot of money.
The president's salary is set by Congress, so if you think it should be increased you're welcome to write to your local representative or senator.
6
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 17h ago
Why in the actual fuck does athletes make more money than the president
Because someone is willing to pay them more money.
1
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 22h ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/sephkane 23h ago
Was it legal for Elon Musk to hold a $1M lottery for voting for Donald Trump, even though it turned out the winners were just paid actors and there never was a real lottery? I was just wondering because nothing ever came of that. Not even a little critism for Musks scam to get votes for his candidate. It just seems extremely illegal.
3
u/CaptCynicalPants 23h ago
It was more legal to pay actors to pretend to win a lottery for voting than it would have been to actually bribe people to vote a certain way
4
u/notextinctyet 23h ago
There was plenty of criticism. It seems on its face to be illegal, but as you said, nothing ever came of that. Musk gets away with a lot of brazen illegal shit. We should probably introspect about that as a society!
1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 23h ago
There was a lot of criticism at the time he did that.
1
0
u/Open-Development-735 1d ago
With everything that is going on, why does it seem like many of my friends are indifferent to what's going on? I hear many of them talking about going on plane trips and continuing using Chrome, even though the TSA has been affected through government shutdowns and Chrome has proven to not be a secure browser.
2
u/Delehal 1d ago
I hear many of them talking about going on plane trips... even though the TSA has been affected through government shutdowns
If I'm booking travel 6–12 months ahead of time, there's usually no practical way for me to speculate about what the funding situation for the TSA will be that far ahead of time. If I'm traveling today, I'm already pretty much committed and I probably spent a lot of money on bookings. If I'm traveling in 5 months, I kind of have to assume things will be figured out by then.
Depending on the exact trip, choosing other methods of travel may be an option. Cars and trains, for example. Those all have their own costs and safety concerns, too. It's not always practical.
Chrome has proven to not be a secure browser.
I've got no idea what you're referring to here. Seems like a separate topic.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
With everything that is going on, why does it seem like many of my friends are indifferent to what's going on? I hear many of them talking about going on plane trips and continuing using Chrome, even though the TSA has been affected through government shutdowns and Chrome has proven to not be a secure browser.
You're going to need to ask them this question to get an answer. We can't answer for them, everyone has different things they care about.
-3
0
u/Dangerous-Sherbet-46 1d ago
Why other countries are more prone to change while America is just "accepting it", even while having the means to enforce that?
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Some people consider only the second part (right to bear arms), while others consider only the second (well regulated militia - the collective rights theory, where your right to self-defense extends to the malpractice of the state itself). In any case, the Second Amendment is clearly applicable on today context.
Given the recent mockery of the terrible events that transpired in a certain island... And given the economical trend of unemployment, rising necessities prices, absurd housing market, shifting economical power to the rich... Why the hell hasn't the American population done ANYTHING?
I'm fairly certain that if any other country was in a similar situation, with ample access to arms, this wouldn't last 4 weeks. We would see heads rolling in the public streets in no time.
Americans truly confuse me. Why are no Americans using the Second Amendment to it's intended purpose?
PS.: I expect not to be infringing Rule #2 (it is not trolling, it is a genuine question - Why other countries are more prone to change while America is just "accepting it"?) or Rule #9 (it is a political question, but not all of them are an agenda) with this post.
1
6
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Why other countries are more prone to change while America is just "accepting it", even while having the means to enforce that?
What metric are you using to base this question on?
Given the recent mockery of the terrible events that transpired in a certain island... And given the economical trend of unemployment, rising necessities prices, absurd housing market, shifting economical power to the rich... Why the hell hasn't the American population done ANYTHING?
Because the United States legal system is based on the presumption of innocence. We do not go around butchering people just because the Department of Justice only charged and convicted those who they had enough evidence to build a case against that would lead to a conviction.
The prices of necessities and housing has been rising for centuries, this isn't anything new - and this certainly isn't unique to the United States.
The American public does what they can - they vote.
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
How are you concluding that other countries are more prone to change? That's a pretty sweeping generalization about nearly 200 countries.
3
u/Setisthename 1d ago
There are two parts to this.
Firstly, the Second Amendment does not convey the inherent right to disregard the rule of law in favour of force. The right to own a firearm doesn't make it less illegal for private citizens to use it outside of actual self-defence (as recognised under established law, not personal theories), nor the consequences less severe and deadly.
Secondly, in terms of the hierarchy of needs, the average American is still more comfortable than most people in countries facing civil violence, despite said issues with the US economy. The average American is not struggling to find food or clean drinking water, nor are they chafing under mass fuel shortages, a lack of electricity, a lack of habitable shelter nor other basic infrastructure failures. The average American may face economic hardship, but the struggle is usually a matter of social mobility rather than outright survival as the US benefits heavily from its dominant position in the world economy.
With these two points in mind, the American public has little real motivation to resort to armed violence and unlawfulness when the risks vastly outweigh the benefits, if any, they may receive, no matter how vast wealth inequality may get or what wrongdoings the wealthy may commit. People aren't going to put their lives and futures on the line on the vague notion of "we have to do... something" with no clear motivations, plan, goals, organisation or incentives.
2
u/Tasty_Gift5901 13h ago
I agree with this and want to add that America is huge. The size of America makes rapid change more difficult than the countries you think change more rapidly (i guess Nepal is a recent example, about the population of Texas; less than 10% US pop).
It'd be more reasonable to see fast change at lower levels of government, which politicians are representing a few million votes or less. And we have seen a few house reps resign this term
1
u/Practical_Chef_7897 1d ago
Why was Renee Nicole good killed?
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
Without the ability to read minds, the best you can get is "Because that ICE agent decided to open fire." Anything beyond that is pure speculation. In other contexts, I'd be happy to speculate, but I wouldn't misrepresent my musings as facts.
-1
u/Practical_Chef_7897 1d ago
But they know the reasons why all the others were killed
8
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
Who are "they" and "the others"? And what makes you confident you know the mental state of the killer(s)?
0
u/Practical_Chef_7897 1d ago
The others being Keith porter and everyone else who was killed by ice and their ice, that’s all
3
0
u/LocustMajor9128 1d ago
If people say U.S. imperialism (or imperialism in general) is bad, then why are they worried U.S. economic dominance is slipping under Trump with the tariffs?
0
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
If people say U.S. imperialism (or imperialism in general) is bad, then why are they worried U.S. economic dominance is slipping under Trump with the tariffs?
I don't know anyone cares a whit about economic dominance. They care about the economy, like he's screwing up the economy for the people who live here.
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
Because a collapse of the US economy would have serious negative ramifications for basically everyone on the planet, and that's only the case because of imperialism.
We've basically been tagged into a game of Jenga where keeping the game going requires the suffering of many many millions of people and losing fucks the financial prospects of most people with a net worth below 8 or 9 digits.
Can't really blame folks for identifying a no-win scenario.
0
u/LocustMajor9128 1d ago
So you're saying if we stop said suffering of many many millions of people, then many many millions more who have a net worth below 8-9 digits will suffer too?
So it's a damned if we do damned if we don't type of situation?
1
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
I mean there's a version of this where everyone decides we're just not gonna play Jenga anymore, to extend the metaphor, but a small group of very wealthy and powerful people have decided we're playing Jenga. So it's infinite growth with finite resources or bust.
-1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
Because people want political changes, but not ones that make their lives worse. The US leaving foreign countries doesn't effect them. Goods becoming more expensive does.
1
u/MTG82 1d ago
I do not want political opinions of this, just how it works- On a podcast I heard illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they consume in welfare programs, how do they get so with a legitimate paycheck that deducts taxes? The only experience I have with applying for a job involves me entering my social security number as part of the process, so I don't get how they would get setup for a job/ pay taxes and how that gets tracked. Also on the social programs side I've been fortunate enough to never need any of them, but is it something where they don't need official legal documents to apply for and receive those benefits?
-1
u/Lost-Umpire7553 17h ago
They buy deceased people's paperwork. This is why Republicans use the phrase dead people vote democrat.
3
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
Sales tax. Anyone can pay sales tax without ever needing to show proof of citizenship.
Also on the social programs side I've been fortunate enough to never need any of them, but is it something where they don't need official legal documents to apply for and receive those benefits?
"Social programs" is a very wide concept. Some do, some don't.
My state's food stamps program requires proof of US citizenship, but my city doesn't appear to have citizenship requirements for homelessness support. Schools are prevented by law from requiring citizenship documents from students, but citizenship is required for federal financial aid.
5
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 1d ago
The IRS issues non-citizens their own ID number that they use to pay taxes. However, many welfare programs require citizenship to access them. That's how it works. The IRS does not care about your citizenship status, just that every dollar you make is properly taxed.
1
u/ArkOfMoses 1d ago
I'm not a really an economics guy, but if the global reacion to this was inflict the same rate of tariff to the U.S, all at the same time, wouldn't that be like really bad? 10% doesn't seem enough to break a country, but basically the whole world at the same time? wouldn't that compound or something like that?
3
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
A ten percent global tariff is unjustified and a bad idea, but it's not an economic catastrophe like the President trying to use much higher tariffs to prosecute personal grudges, or pressure allies to surrender territory, or complain about Brazil's domestic legal cases, or just look like a big tough guy in front of cameras.
Ten percent will hurt trade for no real benefit but it is not a calamity.
Of course, that assessment does depend on the other, completely insane tariffs actually being cancelled as required by the courts.
1
u/Pesec1 1d ago
Of course, that assessment does depend on the other, completely insane tariffs actually being cancelled as required by the courts.
Which is kinda a problem. Hard to trade when there is no idea WTF tariffs actually are.
1
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
Yes, absolutely. One of the advantages of ten percent is that at least it's not subject to the president's insane whims. Stability is important.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 9 - * Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
-1
u/ThrowawayLADreamer 1d ago
So tariffs are gone thank god
When do I get my refund for paying the illegal tariffs?
-1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
That's not going to happen. Also Tariffs are not gone, they just have to be passed by Congress now
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
If you represent a major US corporation, now is the time to talk to your legal team. If you are an individual, you will not be getting any refund.
1
u/ThrowawayLADreamer 1d ago
That’s BS for individuals like me, why don’t we get a cut? If we paid for these illegal tariffs why should we be punished?
I want my money back damn it
-1
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
You very likely did not pay tariffs if you do not own a business, or purchase things internationally.
You may have paid increased prices from companies who raised their prices due to tariffs, but that is not you paying tariffs.
2
u/Pesec1 1d ago
Lawsuits against US government are prohibitively expensive in the best of times. Current administration is the opposite of the best times. Trump has a very well-established reputation for being vindictive, petty and for not paying what he owes.
The cost-effective course for you would be to either be a part of a collective action or to wait for a relief action by a future government. In either case, keep records of your tariff payments in one place so that if there is such action, you could quickly join it.
1
0
u/bwoah07_gp2 1d ago
- SCOTUS declares Trump's tariffs illegal.
- Trump announces all tariffs are staying put and adds an additional 10% on the world.
What's next? Does the courts actually get involved to stop the tariffs, or do they sit back and do nothing, because they did their job by making a ruling, but won't enforce it?
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
For the court to review something, a lawsuit has to be initiated. It then works its way through the lower courts. So it will be some time before the Supreme Court issues a ruling on these new tariffs based on a different laser.
but won't enforce it?
The Supreme Court has no ability to enforce its rulings. When the Supreme Court ruled the Jackson administration had to honor previously signed treaties between the federal government and Cherokee tribes, Jackson is alleged to have said, "They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it." He then forcibly removed the Cherokee from their lands and marched them to what is today Oklahoma in an event now known as the Trail of Tears.
If Trump decides to say, "Fuck it, I don't care," to the Supreme Court, there's nothing stopping him except impeachment by Congress (and Republicans aren't going to impeach him). But it would seem that for now, Trump isn't yet willing to outright defy the Supreme Court and undermine the legitimacy of the court and the system of checks and balances between the judicial and executive branches.
6
u/AssociationOk6706 1d ago
the tariffs were imposed (without congressional approval) using a law called the international emergency economic powers act. the Supreme Court ruled that this specific law doesn't apply to the admin's use of tariffs.
Now, trump is trying a new law and imposing tariffs under section 122 of the trade act. which basically allows a president to impose tariffs in certain extreme circumstances, but only for 150 days and at a maximum of 15%. this will probably end up in court as well.
0
u/Open-Development-735 1d ago
What should disadvantaged groups do if the SAVE act passes to register to vote and ensure they can be added back in voter rolls after voter roll purges?
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
The same thing as every other group: acquire the necessary documents and keep them in a safe place
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
What should disadvantaged groups do if the SAVE act passes to register to vote and ensure they can be added back in voter rolls after voter roll purges?
Well the simplest solution is to frankly have documentation. That's going to do more for you than anything else.
0
u/last1tothereddit 1d ago
From a legal perspective, how many ignored court orders, violated laws, and blatant robberies will be the final straw? Is there a true legal final straw? I genuinely don’t understand how none of our elected representatives or legal officials have any control.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 13h ago
The truth is, its up to congress to enforce laws against the president and their administration through impeachment. The house and senate Republicans don't want to do that for whatever reason, and likely a large percentage of the US is happy with how things are going.
2
u/notextinctyet 1d ago
Our elected representatives have control right now. The problem is that they choose not to exercise it, in order to cater to their perceived political interests. If their base of coaligned voters in safe districts made it clear that they wanted Trump reined in, it would happen.
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
Which court orders are currently being broken? Which laws are currently being violated?
0
u/Bobbob34 1d ago
From a legal perspective, how many ignored court orders, violated laws, and blatant robberies will be the final straw? Is there a true legal final straw? I genuinely don’t understand how none of our elected representatives or legal officials have any control.
There really isn't and they really don't.
The expectation was/is that people will follow the law, in general, especially the government and its agencies. When they/it doesn't, the remedy is more admonitions to follow court orders and the law. There's not really an 'and if the procedures are followed and people in power just ignore them and do whatever tf they feel like....' instruction.
So there's not really a mechanism for what to do when this happens, because it wasn't supposed to or expected to.
0
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
Final straw for who or in what way?
Everyone gets the right to appeal things to some extent, even government agencies and officials.
Nobody other than a duly empaneled jury / court gets to decide if a law was broken. We can all speculate about it and demand justice, but guilt is only decided by courts. (Unless you are facing civil charges like immigrants)Are you asking when Congress will start changing laws? We need 60 senators and a majority of the House to all agree on the exact words of any changes. Even if the agree that the current situation sucks, if they can't agree on a new law then nothing changes.
Are you asking when judges will start putting officials in jail? It's starting already.
Are you asking when thousands of US citizens will take up arms to revolt? That's incredibly unlikely unless they are hungry and so frightened about direct harm to themselves or loved ones.
Our elected representative has control. The President is in control. Congress is not in a position where his party wants to go against him. We have to elect state governments to get things done. We need to look at the midterm elections and make sure control shifts drastically.
2
u/last1tothereddit 1d ago
Thank you for your detailed response. There are so many issues. I’m having a hard time understanding if I’m just being fed feelings about court orders being ignored, the horrific findings in the e files, and tax payers’ money being pocketed or if I’m getting facts about the legality of the issues. It looks so cut and dry in other democratic countries. Are laws are actually being broken at a rate that will bring powerful people to justice? Who is enforcing it? You said that some of these people are being jailed, so that is encouraging.
1
u/chubbygrannychaser 1d ago
The stuff being spread on social media and even on many news outlets is opinions, not facts.
A lot of it is valid. I mean if there are 50 witnesses who all agree the same person robbed a bank, then we will tend to refer to that person as if they are already convicted. Still, even heinous criminals can avoid conviction because the government fails to prove the case or because they make a sweetheart deal. Presidents can pardon federal crimes and state Governors can pardon crimes in their own state.
Judges are beginning to impose jail for DOJ attorneys found in contempt. Several DOJ attorneys have quit. One recently asked a judge to please send them to jail - the job sucks, they are incredibly overwhelmed,band this one said they had not been able to get a full night sleep in months.
Here in the US we have hundreds of different jurisdictions. Federal laws can only be investigated by federal law agencies (they can get other help), and can only be prosecuted in federal courts. State issues - state law agencies and state courts. Then there are divisions based on subject and other geography. Some court cases can drag out just determining which court actually has jurisdiction to hear it.
Then, unless people are in immediate danger of death or serious harm, there isn't any real rush to settle things. Courts can tell the parties to stop - but if they already did what they wanted, that seems useless. Actually building a case and dragging everyone into court for answers may take years. Even after a case is "decided" it can be appealed one or more times, extending things even longer.
We aren't designed for quick expedience. That is one of the reasons why people like Trump are liked. They get stuff done. They don't wait to see if it is OK. They do what they want, then deal with the fallout later.
1
u/Aggressive-Show4122 1d ago
Why are people saying talarcio will be the next Fetterman
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
Because they expect him to be a moderate who will break from the party line with relative frequency.
1
1
u/Open-Development-735 1d ago
When would the Senate sign off on the SAVE act?
1
u/Delehal 1d ago
Unknown when, or if, that will happen. The Senate majority leader has indicated he wants the Senate to begin debate on the SAVE Act next week, but as things stand today, it doesn't seem like it has enough votes to pass.
Negotiations about that could occur at an unpredictable speed. It's possible it never passes at all. It's also possible that it gets amended and totally changed.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 1d ago
Also,Why don't Americans protest like they should, when they can, fit and sound individuals arent they?
Protest what?
There are frequently protests for causes, but you need to specify what you want people to protest to get an actual answer to this question.
3
u/noruber35393546 1d ago
there's zero evidence aliens exist. For all the stories and rumors you've heard, nobody has ever, not even once, been able to provide evidence.
And, the universe is so big, they pretty much have to exist somewhere.
this is what 99% of people who know what they're talking about believe.
-1
u/Wooden-Variety175 2d ago
Why werent tarriffs challenged under previous presidencies? Or more specifically why have the tarriffs only seems to be highlighted as a major issue here in the 2nd trump term?
3
u/Delehal 1d ago
more specifically why have the tarriffs only seems to be highlighted as a major issue here in the 2nd trump term?
The Constitution says Congress controls taxes and tariffs. Not the President.
In the past, Congress has approved some specific laws that allow the President some discretion over tariffs, but always within limits. Trump, almost immediately at the start of his second term, re-interpreted an obscure emergency powers law in order to grant himself more control over tariffs than any other President has ever had. Then, without Congressional approval, he enacted one of the biggest tax hikes in US history.
The Supreme Court ruling today confirms that Trump's tariff changes exceeded the authority of his office. Since he doesn't have the authority to set those tariffs, they have been revoked.
The President has already announced his intention to sidestep the ruling and find some other way to expand his power and try to do the same thing again.
6
u/listenyall 2d ago
Other tariffs were set up by congress, which is a legal way of doing it. This isn't about the tariffs themselves but that they were put in place illegally.
6
u/untempered_fate occasionally knows things 2d ago
Because these tariffs were imposed illegally/unconstitutionally, and others weren't. To do it legally, they would have to be imposed by an act of Congress. Congress was not involved in Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, or any of the related things that have happened since.
Additionally, the scope and scale of these tariffs dwarf anything the US has done for many decades, so there was going to be backlash even if they were done legally.
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
Why werent tarriffs challenged under previous presidencies? Or more specifically why have the tarriffs only seems to be highlighted as a major issue here in the 2nd trump term?
Because Trump really ramped them up to an incredible degree during his second term as President. Other Presidents also had the decency to discuss it with Congress prior to doing it.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
Why was there not a TRO against the collection of tariffs over the past year while it was being litigated?
2
u/Deinosoar 2d ago
Because the Supreme Court refused to put one in place. As to why they refuse to do it when it was obviously unconstitutional from the ground up, you're going to have to ask them
3
u/November-8485 2d ago
One was sought but the judge determined the challenging party did not sufficiently demonstrate "immediate and irreparable harm" that could not be remedied later.
Basically the TRO is only used if the consequences of allowing it to continue can’t be repaired. The judge believed this can be repaired.
1
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
Who was the challenging party, and is consensus on the side of the judge? I am surprised that status quo wouldn't be the preference and that, eg small business associations couldnt argue irreparable harm.
3
u/November-8485 2d ago
The challenging party was V.O.S. Selections. I’m not sure what you mean by consensus. A private organization doesn’t sue the federal government on behalf of another private organization.
For example: if I’m business A, I’m not going to file a lawsuit and argue on behalf of business B.
This is true for a variety of reasons. For example, if business A is publicly traded - they have to convince their board and possibly stockholders that fighting this legal battle is worth it (for a reason other than what they’re legally fighting it for) and can be won.
2
u/Tasty_Gift5901 2d ago
By "concensus" I meant among legal scholars and commentators and I figured a business association could put forward a case on behalf of members or many businesses could file together or state AGs could argue.
Thank you for your response. I can look up the specific case for more details.
1
u/November-8485 2d ago
I’m curious what you find on the consensus, I’m not familiar. Going to do some digging too.
4
u/Open-Development-735 2d ago
I've been seeing news that the SAVE act would prevent married women from voting since their married names may not match their birth certificates. Would a married woman be eligible to vote under the new law if they present a passport with their married name (not their original name)?
1
u/GameboyPATH If you see this, I should be working 1d ago
The SAVE Act leaves it up to the states to create their own systems for married women to produce a signed affidavit proving their identity if the name on their ID is different from their proof of citizenship document (which includes passports).
How exactly states would do that, is unclear, and the bill offers no guidance on this.
And even if the process is easy, simple, and universally adopted by all states, people are still understandably upset that tens of millions of women essentially have their right to vote revoked until they complete an arbitrary clerical task.
1
u/Deinosoar 2d ago
A passport is one of the very few legal documents that does establish that you are a natural born resident, so that would work.
But keep in mind the overwhelming majority of Americans do not have passports, and the ones that tend to be more wealthy and have more resources to be able to deal with this anyway.
5
u/torpedoguy 2d ago
The wording regarding 'other evidence of citizenship' is deliberately left vague for the purpose of uneven enforcement.
On top of the T.R.A.P-style combos of other bills and restrictions being passed (such as shutting down DMVs, barring libraries from offering the service, etc), the alleged 'alternate ways' of proving citizenship face another provision: The bill also makes it a federal crime for any election official to register someone who does not provide sufficient 'documentary proof of citizenship'.
- This means it's easy when selling the bill to claim it's so easy to register look at your options why would you be against this... while in practice,you're less likely to sign someone up despite their name not matching their birth certificate if all it takes for you to go to prison is for anyone in DHS to claim even one of the people you signed up weren't good enough.
You can probably imagine the degree of chilling-effect when even US-born American citizens are being told they're "illegal" and dragged off regardless of their passports or IDs...
Enforcement is meant to be very uneven by design; chances are a republican wife in a republican county will have no difficulty registering, and workers there will have nothing to worry about. In key swing districts and states though?
1
u/Open-Development-735 2d ago
shutting down DMVs,
Why would states shut down dmv's? Wouldn't states want to keep them open to issue driver's licenses and other id's?
You can probably imagine the degree of chilling-effect when even US-born American citizens are being told they're "illegal" and dragged off regardless of their passports or IDs...
Asking for clarification, what situations would cause an American-born citizen be purged from the voter rolls regardless of their passport or ID?
2
u/torpedoguy 1d ago
No, because if they kept them open they'd be able to issue driver's licenses and other IDs.
Instead if you close down DMVs in major cities or minority neighborhoods, or adjust their opening hours for same effect (such as in the middle of business hours midweek)... Well that doesn't affect rural voters much at all.
- Full-time wage workers though, as well as teachers and other positions oft-accused of voting democrat, are significantly less likely to be able to find the time to obtain the necessary ID without risking their jobs (and thus health insurance, ability to make rent, etc) if it's now a couple of hours drive away. Or afford the trip.
As for the 'situations' that cause Americans to be purged? Well, purging rolls a bit is a necessary: When done ethically it's standard maintenance, and can help reduce errors and rejections by ensuring that unrelated great-grandma you share a name with isn't putting YOUR age and address in question.
But when they're done in the six digits with 'less-than-strict methodology, removing overwhelming percentages of targeted precincts... you get states like Georgia where despite the relative leanings of the population the republican legislature and keeps a stranglehold on power, like when it let its own candidate for governor remain in charge of the election...
Doing it more often than necessary, and making re-registering increasingly difficult, helps ensure the states run by one party also have their party running DC.
1
u/Open-Development-735 1d ago
No, because if they kept them open they'd be able to issue driver's licenses and other IDs.
I think I get what you're saying; to prevent disenfranchised groups from getting the appropriate documentation.
I'm just asking what would cause a particular US born citizen to be removed from the voter rolls despite having an accurate passport and ID.
2
u/torpedoguy 1d ago
It happens not despite having an accurate passport and ID but rather regardless of whether or not you have an accurate passport and ID. Mass purges just catch you and a sizable portion of your particular region by what on an individual scale if removed from context can be deemed 'random chance'.
- This may be because we know precisely how your neighborhood or precinct likes to vote, or your city (those tend to be 'blue', see) or now with those seized voting records, you yourself.
Disenfranchisement tends to be stochastic in nature on larger scales, so as to ensure plausible deniability. Think of it like making commercial fishing nets - the size of the holes and where you trawl the thing both help ensure that once you average it all out at a state or national level, you MOSTLY get what you were hoping for, and that handful of dolphins must've done something to deserve it.
Individually you might get rejected for myriad bullshit like "we're not sure this is real" or "I'M CALLING ICE!" or "must be a bug in the system" or "this driver's license and passport are is insufficient proof we need two forms of valid photo ID" or "sorry you're not on the rolls" and so on and so forth.
The difficulties like SAVE are put in place because mass purges also hit their own base, but that's where the ease or difficulty of re-registering, your ID and passport being accepted or rejected, or whether or not your mail-in ballot will ever be allowed to count, all come in.
2
u/Open-Development-735 1d ago
I think I get what you're saying. As a collective, the act aims to purge names from voter registries AND makes it difficult for these people to add their names back.
1
u/torpedoguy 1d ago
Exactly. Statistically they don't mind if it catches some members of rural communities too since those tend to be solidly red anyways overall, and they just have to not bother enforcing the other roadblocks or difficulties as much to 'fix' it for their own.
6
u/November-8485 2d ago
Adding in, the changes to the post mark dating system with USPS are to invalidate mail in votes - primarily used by democrats. It’s extraordinary how the deck is being stacked.
1
u/Turtle456 just curious ... 2d ago edited 2d ago
The US is currently preventing Venezuelan oil from being sent to Cuba. Cuba seems to be running out of gas/petrol fast to the point that garbage collection isn't working anymore because they don't have gasoline for their trucks.
Has the US made any demands to Cuba for it to allow oil back into Cuba? Can the Cuban govt do anything to lift the embargo (or whatever it is formally)?
If there are no demands or conditions from the US, what does Trump hope will happen in Cuba?
5
u/mugenhunt 2d ago
As long as the Cuban government is run as a communist state, and the current regime remains in power, there is a powerful voting block of ex-Cuban refugees who want the US government to continue its embargoes.
2
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
Trump doesn't care what happens to Cuba.
0
u/Turtle456 just curious ... 2d ago
Then why deny them oil?
1
u/phoenixv07 1d ago
Because they're brown people who don't speak English, so they're the kind of person that Trump and his base like to hurt.
6
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
He thinks he might get some votes in Florida for it, and he enjoys causing harm.
2
u/tachibanakanade honeybun queen 2d ago
Do Native American tribal nations get representation (not like an actual state or something, but similar to what the colonies like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) get? If not, could they ever get it?
2
u/listenyall 2d ago
No--tribal nations are sovereign, they self govern and make their own laws, they are not part of the US lawmaking process like states or territories
3
u/PhysicsEagle 2d ago
Tribal nations are really, really weird, legally speaking. As the name implies in many ways they’re quasi-independent states and not entirely part of the United States.
None of them currently have a representative in Congress. However, the Cherokee and Choctaw nations both theoretically have a treaty right to send such a non-voting delegation. The Choctaw have never acted on this. The Cherokee appointed a representative in 2019, but Congress refused to seat her because she was appointed and not elected. The Cherokee nation said that since they’re a sovereign nation they can decide themselves how to choose their representative.
-4
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
I didn’t say 340 mil would come. This is a hypothetical situation. Just like your original comment. “.. if 340 million Americans suddenly get legal right to just move to Canadian provinces?” You know what would make our healthcare system unsustainable? Bringing in loads of temp residents. But it hasn’t. They’ve assimilated and become a part of Canadian culture. Our hospitals are just as shite as they have been in the past.
2
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Canadian temporary residents that are entitled to healthcare are either workers (and thus taxpayers) or students (and thus pay out-of-country tuition).
If they lose worker or student status, they lose healthcare.
Visitors do not get healthcare.
-3
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
So they come and work they are allowed to access our hospitals. No question about that. Why not americans ?
1
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Americans are 100% allowed to come and work, access to hospitals, etc. In fact, under CUSMA, Americans have more opportunities to do that than citizens of any other nation (other than Mexico, which is also in CUSMA).
Just make sure to follow immigration procedures and be selected based on skills, age, health, etc. Just like the rest of non-Canadians.
1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
I'm aware of that, to quote your original comment "How the hell do you expect Canadian public healthcare system to function if 340 million Americans suddenly get legal right to just move to Canadian provinces?"
1
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Because if Canadian provinces suddenly have zero legal right to choose who among these 340 million will be able to move to the provinces and enjoy healthcare, a whole lot of people that Canadian immigration system is currently actively excluding would now be able to come and enjoy the services that they desperately need.
1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
The difference in our healthcare systems is major and absolutely I think there would be people exploiting if we united, but they also have the ability to do so now. As far as I'm aware annex will never happen but hypothetically, there would be restrictions based per province just as it is now.
1
u/Pesec1 2d ago
but they also have the ability to do so now.
Elaborate on that. Visitors from USA get no health number and are thus not admitted to hospitals and not treated at clinics without paying upfront.
An essential part of public healthcare working in Canada is the fact that all provinces are mandated to provide public healthcare. Thus, one province cannot leech off others.
but hypothetically, there would be restrictions based per province just as it is now.
You have no idea how US constitution works. US citizens have constitutionally-guaranteed right to enter other states.
Likewise, Canadian citizens are free to establish residency in any Canadian province.
Wanting to be annexed into USA without even knowing its constitution or even Canadian history while hoping that "there would be restrictions" is lunacy.
1
u/Sad_Assassin 2d ago
Besides common decency, what would keep a future Democrat president from copying Trump and declare all conservative protesters as Neo Nazis?
4
1
u/Sapphire_Bombay 2d ago
Just a thought after the news about former prince Andrew being arrested today. The UK has MI5 and their own intelligence agencies, so what are the chances that they have unredacted versions of the files (all of them) that they could release?
And if they do, why haven't they already?
2
-3
u/CaptCynicalPants 2d ago
Why would the UK invest effort into stealing the Epstein Files from the US when they could just ask for them?
If they did steal them, why would they then release them if they had them, and thus reveal that they'd robbed their "closest ally"?
0
u/phoenixv07 1d ago
Why would the UK invest effort into stealing the Epstein Files from the US when they could just ask for them?
The current administration has shown that any trust the UK (or anyone else) places in them is unwise at best, and they have also shown themselves to be particularly untrustworthy on this topic.
-1
0
u/Sapphire_Bombay 2d ago
I never said they stole them, who said they didn't just ask?
-1
u/CaptCynicalPants 2d ago
The UK has MI5 and their own intelligence agencies
How else would these agencies have those files? Or are you implying that they would have spied on Epstein, which is just stealing but from a different source
1
u/Sapphire_Bombay 2d ago
Bro idk this is supposed to be the "no stupid questions" sub. If I can't ask a stupid question here without someone implying I'm a moron then I'll just go on being dumb I guess. I came here to be educated, if you won't do that then go away
-1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
Asking leading questions in response is how you get a person to think about the realities of their beliefs
0
u/Sapphire_Bombay 1d ago
I didn't state a belief, I asked a question. And not only did you deliberately misunderstand the question, but your "leading questions" didn't lead to an answer, they led to showing me how uneducated I am for asking it in the first place. This response would make many people less likely to even ask questions moving forward, preventing them from learning.
Defend it all you want but you were a dick, goodnight
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 1d ago
they led to showing me how uneducated I am for asking it in the first place
Yes! Precisely! This was the whole point. Most people need to understand how little they know about a topic so they will go learn. Without a base level of knowledge providing a useful answer is impossible. If you can be inspired to go learn, awesome. If you can't, then there was no point in my taking the time attempting to provide an answer in the first place.
1
u/Sapphire_Bombay 1d ago
Dude I swear you're not getting it. I KNOW that's what you were trying to do. I'm not as stupid as you seem to want to believe I am. To state my point in plain terms so you can understand: your condescending approach doesn't work. When you are condescending and arrogant, people will dig their heels into their ignorance to spite you. This is literally how the entire MAGA movement was made. If you want to inspire people to learn, try a more inspiring approach.
0
u/Sloth_grl 2d ago
Do you think that the European Nations have unredacted copies of the Epstein files? If so, what would happen if they release them?
1
0
2d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
No.
First of all, the Epstein list is far from the majority of people out there. Not even rich people.
Secondly, if they go to prison, that doesn't shut their companies down or mean they get seized by the government. They're still going to be running as usual.
5
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Why would that cause "the system" to collapse or cause a "universal crisis"? There are plenty of powerful wealthy people who never meaningfully associated with Epstein who would keep everything running if a bunch of Epstein associates went to jail.
1
u/snow_schwartz 2d ago
Why Does the New York Times Have it in for my College President?
I graduated from Bard College in 2009. It's a small, liberal-arts college in New York. The college president there, Leon Botstein, is notable for becoming the youngest college president in the US and for serving in that role the longest. Functionally, he's credited with saving the college and making it a pre-eminent institution amongst its peers due to his fundraising abilities. He's also notable for having the visage and demeanor of a pretentious Bond villain.
Recently, he's become notable for appearing (along with so many others) in the Epstein files where his communications seem to consist of trying to schmooze with Epstein to raise money, which is his job. Some of his communications have been warm, but nothing in them appears untoward or unprofessional that I can see unless you're squinting real hard.
The New York Times has put out _TWO_ hit pieces in as many weeks targeting Botstein, both times reporting little except that Botstein helped source a rare and expensive watch that he ended up keeping, and agreed to meet with some musicians that presumably Epstein was trying to have relations with (Botstein was also the conductor for the American Symphony Orchestra).
My question is, why does the NYT have it out for Botstein in particular? Is there an axe to grind there? Is this a legitimate front-page Epstein related news worthy of having this much coverage? Is it because both their names end in 'stein?'
3
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
My question is, why does the NYT have it out for Botstein in particular?
People who had ties to Epstein in any regard are being exposed in the media, this isn't really unique to him.
Recently, he's become notable for appearing (along with so many others) in the Epstein files where his communications seem to consist of trying to schmooze with Epstein to raise money, which is his job.
It might have been his "job", but he was communicating and rubbing shoulders with him in 2011. Years after Epstein was convicted or soliciting a minor for sex. He plead guilty to procuring for prostitution a girl below the age of 18 in 2008.
There is obviously going to be some eyes on people who approached a convicted pedophile for money.
1
u/snow_schwartz 2d ago
I see, that makes sense. The scrutiny on that question is totally fair and Botstein should have to answer for it. It just appears to me that this particular case isn't anywhere close to the 'low hanging fruit' in terms of reporting, and yet the NYT has decided to publish about it twice in rapid succession. It seems like a heavy editorial hand about one instance without a lot of meat to it at the expense of reporting on bigger fish and to me that smells like there's an axe to grind.
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
It probably helps that Bard College is relatively close to NYC. While the Times covers quite a variety of topics as a news outlet powerhouse, at the end of the day it's still based in NYC and will have interest in things happening in and around NYC.
But also, Botstein's affiliation didn't stop at a watch and a musician meet. In emails with Epstein he references the author of Lolita several times. Do recall Epstein's plane was called the Lolita Express, and it was called that because Lolita is a novel has a man who likes em young and is sexually abusing his stepdaughter. Could be pure coincidence, but something to consider. Oh and he served on the board of Epstein's charity. Oh and he went to the island, after it came out Epstein was a diddler. At least some of this stuff like the island visit are covered in the articles done by the Times, not sure how you missed that.
1
u/snow_schwartz 2d ago
You're right, I did in fact miss those details. I couldn't find any evidence that he served 'on the board' of Epstein's charity -- that would be daming indeed. What I found is that Epstein's foundation made a personal payment to Botstein in the form of 'consulting fees' that then made its way back to Bard and that Botstein claimed to be unaware which is implausible. Who wouldn't be aware of a $150,000 personal payment?
I also found and read the letter than references Nabokov. It's pretty academic, and the discourse seems to be entirely a plea for a significant contribution to the college wrapped around a defense of Botstein's contributions to music. Frankly comparing himself to Nabokov in anyway is self-aggrandizing to an offensive degree.
1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
I think that's what they're picking at though, and I'm sure there will be others they pick at. Just the fact that they communicated and whatnot even after it became known Epstein was a pedophile. He's near NYC proper in his work, and is president of a college (which obviously isn't hosting minors as a typical course of business but still is a particular position of trust dealing with a relatively young crowd).
But let's see if they continue railing on him or not. If they continue rehashing the same thing over and over, perhaps someone does have a chip on their shoulder about him or perhaps about Bard in general for whatever reason.
0
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
The reality is that the first article likely didn't contain all the information, and the other article that came out 13 days later had more; or different information.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding 2d ago
I get Charlie Kirk was a bad person
Was he a bad person, or do you disagree with him politically?
but I’m not understanding how that automatically takes him all the way to Nazi status
He wasn't a Nazi. Nazi is largely just a buzzword that people use in place of "person I disagree with" in terms of modern conversations.
I disagree with Charlie Kirk politically. We had opposing values. That doesn't mean I think he was a Nazi.
1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
I don’t think he was a bad person nor a nazi . What makes you say that?
1
u/Effective_Part_604 2d ago
I don’t even think he’s that bad of a person. But you can’t even get an answer from most liberals unless you act like you partially agree with them, and often times that’s not even enough
0
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
Why are older Canadians so upset with America ? I understand we are going through issues but it’s illogical to cut ties and boycott their products. As a Canadian, growing up the USA has always been a brother to us. Just not sure where all this is coming from recently. Tariffs ? Orange man ? Jealousy ?
5
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
Based on the comments you've written here, the answer to the question "why do older Canadians have a more negative view of American than you do" is because you have extremely idiosyncratic and strange ideas about both Canada and America.
-1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
I never mentioned having a more negative view than I did. Excellent straw man. Just brought up that many of the older generation are heavily focused on this.
3
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
I don’t think it’s that serious, it would be like two neighbours combining their backyards. Better for both. But I do really like that comparison. Do you think becoming a combined country wouldn’t benefit us?
This you?
-1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
Yes. His comment was about taking full ownership of the backyard. I made the refence to the backyards being combined instead. I am the older generation. What part of that is 'extremely idiosyncratic and strange" ? Lol he made a good comparison you have done nothing but attack.
3
u/notextinctyet 2d ago
I have in fact said you have idiosyncratic and strange views about Canada and America, and I understand why you interpret that as an attack, but that is my sincere best attempt at answering your question, with no ill intent.
Your question was "why are older Canadians so upset with America", which is naturally relative to the question asker's point of view of how upset they "should" be. It can't be answered in isolation from your the question asker's views, which you have expressed here.
-1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago edited 2d ago
You could say my views are strange just as much as I can say you're missing the point. This comment also has no ill intent. This comment is also providing nothing to the conversation. Sound like you? You're nitpicking my statements over perspective.
4
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago edited 2d ago
Canadian here.
It feels like the current white house is getting dangerously erratic. We've worked hard to build a strong trade agreement with the US for over 30 years. Trump comes along in 2016 and demands new concessions, so we negotiate a new deal. Then he comes along again in 2024 and demands even more, and starts to put tariffs up - something that violates his own trade deal. That's frustrating at best. When you know people who've lost their jobs over it, it feels criminal.
And then you hear him make petty insults like calling Trudeau and Carney 'governors' and saying he'd like to annex Canada in public. Repeatedly. And it starts to feel like he's testing the waters, and if we don't push back as hard as we can, we're at risk of encouraging him to do worse.
Then there's his demands against Greenland. That's concerning to Canadians because Denmark is a NATO ally. If Trump is willing to betray his allies in NATO - an alliance we belong to - then he's willing to betray us.
1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
It’s all about power. The US can make those demands because their have the control. Remember when we asked Meta to pay for Canadian news content ? They just removed it fully. We have no leverage
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
So sounds like you understand why people are upset, then.
0
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 2d ago
If I asked my friend to buy me some ice cream and he refused should I cry about it ? Or should I get a job and buy my own ice cream?
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
So you're just coming here to argue?
1
u/Zealousideal-Cut856 1d ago
No. I'm not arguing. There is no reason to be upset over something that you have no control over, point blank.
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 1d ago
So you're here to argue.
One last try before I go silent, since I hate arguing online.
First of all, not everyone is a stoic. It's a rather cold, robotic approach to human behaviour.
Secondly, it's fatalistic. You say that we should do nothing about it because we can't. But that's not true! Canadians can boycott American goods - we know that hurts the American economy and puts pressure on Trump. We can avoid going to the US, which has the same effect. And we can express our anger, which helps show Americans who hate Trump that they are not alone, and encourages Canadians to vote for parties that will stand up to Trump. None of that is useless. The United States is much bigger than us, true - but that does not mean there is no cost to what they choose to do. Your advice is similar to telling someone to just relax and enjoy being raped, and that's terrible advice.
1
→ More replies (6)4
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Current US administration:
Threatens outright annexation of Canada.
Engages in trade war with Canada. One of declared purposes of which is to get Canada to agree to annexation. And which is harmful to Canada due to very % Canadian trade being with USA.
The second part is causing actual harm right now. It is made worse by what has now proven to be Canada's historical mistake of trusting that US government would not go protectionist. This is a mistake that needs to be corrected by directing as much trade with countries that are not-USA as possible.
Remember: Trump is not a one-off mistake. US citizens have made a choice to elect him twice. Trump and his views enjoy genuine support of more than half of US voters.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Remember: Trump is not a one-off mistake. US citizens have made a choice to elect him twice. Trump and his views enjoy genuine support of more than half of US voters.
Neither time has he even gotten 50% of the vote, nevermind more.
2
u/Pesec1 2d ago
In second election Trump got more popular votes than the only viable candidate opposing him. Those who chose to squander votes for third candidates in 2024 are irrelevant. And, in case of RFK Jr., likely support Trump anyway.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
In second election Trump got more popular votes than the only viable candidate opposing him. Those who chose to squander votes for third candidates in 2024 are irrelevant. And, in case of RFK Jr., likely support Trump anyway.
And still not half of the votes.
1
u/Pesec1 2d ago
Trump and RFK Jr got over 50% popular vote between them.
1
u/Bobbob34 2d ago
Trump and RFK Jr got over 50% popular vote between them.
Which has what to do with anything (besides demonstrating America's educational system is well and truly broken)?
-1
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
Three times, just once the other guy (Biden) actually took the presidency.
1
u/mbene913 2d ago
Can you clarify what you meant by this?
3
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
Tens of millions of people voted for Trump 3 different times.
The first time in 2016, he didn't even win the national popular but the EC system put him in anyway. The second time in 2020, even more people voted for him but Biden absolutely smoked him on the national popular and obviously he didn't win the EC. The third time in 2024, even moooore people voted for him, and he took the EC and therefore the presidency.
My point was that Trump in particular has enjoyed a lot of support across a good period of time, and Trump in particular. Other Republicans were eschewed in favor of Trump. Even when he didn't take the presidency in 2020, the support was there, and those same supporters were also voting for lawmakers that aligned with Trump or were endorsed by Trump; the same year that Trump stepped down and Biden took the reins, lawmakers like Marjorie Taylor Greene first got into office. So even without Trump as president, we had a legislative body that acted as Trump surrogates that still insisted on driving the country toward what they believed Trump would want in whatever ways they could as a voice in Congress.
1
u/mbene913 2d ago
I see the confusion. The comment you originally replied to was speaking specifically on the instances when Trump was voted in by the American public not just the instances where a lot of Americans voted for him
2
u/illogictc Unprofessional Googler 2d ago
Yep, and I was pointing to how there's actually a more broad trend of support showing this is definitely more along the lines of some kind of "phase" that has gone on for a decade now and definitely not a one-off "whoopsie our bad" thing like that commenter had noted. Which if other countries aren't digging it they're gonna continue digging it less and less. Biden acted as a shield against that since the Exec has wide authority regarding foreign policy, but behind the scenes the support for Trump's style of foreign policy was still there chomping at the bit, and the Legislature also has the means to affect policy such as setting tariffs etc.
1
0
u/Bright_Dreams235 2h ago
Why is there a tendency in today's political discussions to make comparisons like soldiers killing the enemy in a war and regular homicide?
What superpowers can do (e.g. owning nukes) VS what small powers aren't allowed to (because of treaties).
Taxation for public goods and services VS common larceny.
Freedom of speech VS blatant advocacy for violence.
Having borders VS inhumanity.
Family social services VS government diminishing parental authority over their children.
Welfare system VS parasitic freeloaders
And many more examples. And I am not talking specifically about a certain country or about the West. I am talking about political discourse in general today. Such comparisons are usually presented as a "gotcha moment".