turningrite

1.) Well, you'll have to wait for the Mueller inquiry to do its work to see how Trump will respond. As for abortion, I believe recent polling indicates that two-thirds of Americans want RvW to stand. But will it, especially given the increasingly partisan nature of SCOTUS appointments? Hmmm.... 2.) Trump doesn't seem to acknowledge or respect "norms" where governance is concerned. And he's getting away with it. It's not always a bad thing to challenge the status quo, but to do so without a clear agenda or understanding of the consequences seems foolhardy. If Trump has a rationally considered agenda, apparently even his advisors aren't in on the secret. Look at the reaction of the Director of National Security, Dan Coats, who nervously laughed at the news Trump again plans to meet with Putin after the disastrous (for Trump) Helsinki meeting. 3.) Yes, and Canada did the same thing with its Japanese citizens. This was seen as normal back in the day but no longer. Times change and so too in many cases do attitudes and values.

I actually don't mind the SNL approach because it intends to satirize the abysmal quality of modern discourse. What I really can't stand, though, is self-righteousness. I believe you're in the U.S. so you have access to a broader range of media perspectives than is generally available in Canada, where mainstream media outlets are instinctively mind-numbingly compliant with most aspects of progressivism and political correctness. It often seems like a suffocating blanket has been thrown over the entire society and people aren't permitted to express views that are contrary to the prevailing (elite) mentality. Most people, even when they disagree, just shut up. As my American mother used to note when she was alive, it's the Canadian way.

1.) I think I covered that. 2.) Most Canadians likely don't read the NY Times, so you don't have to worry about it. 3.) Give him time. Who knows about WW3? Apparently he wanted to go to war against Venezuela and at one point boasted that his nuclear button was bigger than the NK leader's. As for abortion, well, his latest SCOTUS nom isn't yet sitting on the court and legal challenges take a while to work their way through the system. Give it time, before assuming...

Although the issue has recently slipped off the radar, perhaps this is the time we should be examining our assisted suicide regime and specifically whether it should be expanded to include 'advance directives', particularly for those who are starting to experience dementia, as well as opening it up to cover other issues like severe depression. A friend of mine who had final stage cancer chose assisted suicide last year rather than languish in a hospital or hospice for weeks or months. As our gawdawful health care system (at least in Ontario) continues to slide into oblivion, shouldn't we offer the sick a broader range of options to deal with their illnesses rather than hold them hostage in a system we clearly don't want to pay higher taxes to improve? And while we're at it, maybe we should just acknowledge that some people with depression, addictions and other intractable problems might find it easier to move on rather than endure the indignities to which we insist they be subjected. Increasingly, we live in a 'survival of the fittest' social and economic model, so why shouldn't those who want to opt out have the right to make the ultimate choice to do so?

Do you actually believe Trump can't or won't have his very own "just watch me" moment? He can get away with whatever Congress lets him get away with. It's becoming increasingly clear that the intended system of checks and balances (a philosophy we've never had in Canada where majority governments are more the norm than the exception) no longer works in a system that's been overtaken by hyperpartisanism. And with enough lapdog Republicans sitting in Congress, I believe Trump probably can impose martial law if he chooses to do so.

My point is that I used to be reflexively "progressive" about social and political issues, including about immigration. As I learned more, however, my skepticism grew. Maybe it's entirely logical that as we age we become more conservative. Perhaps the Oscar Wilde line that 'youth is wasted on the young' should be revised to note as well that experience and wisdom are too often wasted on the old.

Unending bitchfest? I think Canadians are remarkably stoic about (and, perhaps even more importantly, largely unaware of) the problems associated with our immigration and refugee programs. Once more-or-less a progressive myself, the biggest wakeup call I got on these issues was from a friend who used to work in the federal immigration and refugee system. His assessment of the system's weaknesses and problems was chilling. He got out of that bureaucracy. I wonder what he'd have to say about today's problems? My guess is that he'd raise an eyebrow and describe the situation as entirely predictable. Canadians, he'd no doubt conclude, have been sleepwalking for decades.

I think the point is that migrants believe it can serve their interests to develop forms of attachment to Canada, including having children here, in order to be allowed to stay. The fact that it doesn't always work out that way doesn't mean it's not happening.

It now seems more attention is being paid to a concept known as 'whataboutism" which is generally portrayed as a comparative stratagem grounded in logical fallacy. Trump has been criticized for comparing American misdeeds to those of Russia, for instance, which some find preposterous. But is it? American 'exceptionalism' has been deployed to justify a lot of abuses over the years. And in a more local context some of our social justice warriors, imbued with a sense of moral outrage and superiority about supposedly ingrained Western traits as racism, colonialism and the like, don't want any water, particularly in the form of inconvenient facts, diluting their whine, so to speak. But doesn't accountability require that inconvenient facts be introduced to counter ideologically based pretensions? Are we reaching the point where debate is no longer possible because some feel empowered to bully, denounce and shout down those who reasonably challenge often weak arguments?

I think you've largely missed the point, which is that the benefits of globalization in the West have accrued mainly to the investor, corporate and financial classes. The problem with the argument that it's improved living standards in the developing world is that it has only done so to a certain degree. It hasn't raised them to levels that permit those new consumers to purchase goods produced in the developed world, where in fact relatively few consumer goods are now produced. And the WTO system, which permits developing countries to protect their own markets for their own manufacturers, compounds the problem. Globalization was never intended to generate a virtuous feedback loop, contrary to the views of neolib economists. It was always intended to transfer wealth elsewhere and skim profits in the process. That there is a growing and increasingly negative reaction among workers and ordinary voters in the Western world is entirely predictable. We're only now becoming aware of the real consequences of the big lie underpinning globalization.

Why, then, do you assume I watch CNN? I do watch it but also watch other news channels. Preferably, though, I read, and I try to read as many sources as possible (as you'd see by reading my posts), which is becoming more difficult in the online 'paywall' environment.

If Mexico were prosperous, wouldn't a lot of Central Americans seek to settle there?

It might not take a generation or two. Trump's style of governance is so destabilizing that in order to protect himself and his presidency he may be willing to sacrifice the legitimacy of American democracy. A recent column in the NY Times, 'Trump's Road to American Martial Law', argues that it's not impossible to imagine that Trump would impose martial law to quell the civil unrest that would ensue should he decide to fire Mueller and pardon those indicted as a result of Mueller's probe. Of course, your post addresses Trump's economic strategy, which may be equally destabilizing, although this will likely take longer to play out. A column by Heather Mallick in today's Toronto Star, 'Trump tariffs are a ticking time bomb for numbed Americans', suggests that the consequences could be dire if imports of cheap goods, which have placated American consumers for the past generation as globalization has ravaged Western economies, are cut off. Her assessment is a bit 'tongue in cheek' in tenor but it's useful to note that respected historians have pointed out that lack of access to seemingly mundane benefits of consumerism, like blue jeans, undermined the legitimacy and stability of the Soviet system. We assume that our economic and social systems are bullet proof but this may be more wishful thinking than we imagine to be the case.

Trump's America apparently isn't willing to put its money where Trump's mouth is. I recently read an article indicating that U.S. military spending, which is currently about 3.2% of U.S. GDP, is set to fall to below 3% of GDP over the next few years. So, where is his 4% demand coming from? As a columnist, for the NY Times I believe, recently noted, Trump's strategy appears to be to set outrageous expectations and then declare that alliances and institutions he clearly detests have failed when America's allies reject his demands.

I think you're overstating your case. Politicians don't need to be corrupt to waste our money when incompetence and political expediency work equally as well, and perhaps better.

It's my understanding that the number of Mexican citizens entering the U.S. as illegal migrants has dropped over the past several years. As such, perhaps Mexico's participation in NAFTA has had beneficial impacts that Trump seems unwilling to recognize. Also, I believe that the NAFTA labor mobility provision applies mainly to educated professionals, who are the least likely to migrate illegally to the U.S. in any case. The best defense against mass illegal migration along America's southern border is a prosperous and stable Mexico.

Are you watching Fox News?

I believe the correct spelling of the immigration minister's name is Hussen.

Canada doesn't appear to be all that difficult to get into when you consider that we along with Australia have among the Western world's largest immigration intake levels when measured on a per capita basis. And the ballyhooed benefits of the points system are overstated. The number of actual qualified immigrants who enter under the qualified skilled worker and business classes represent about half the country's annual intake. More problematic, perhaps, is that Statistics Canada estimates that about one-third of immigrants leave Canada after immigrating here, presumably including a significant percentage of those being immigrants who arrived under the points system who leave to pursue better opportunities elsewhere. This may be the key to why the economic performance of the most recent generation of immigrants has been relatively poor.

China is already the world's second most important superpower in terms of combined military and economic clout and is nimbly using both to rise to the top. Poor old Trump seems to think that power flows from military hardware (i.e hard power) and forgets that soft power, including economic influence, is actually much more important. China might already have overtaken the U.S. in economic clout. Once the Chinese consolidate their influence in Eastern Asia and the Western Pacific they may well be the world's premier superpower as the U.S. seems destined to pursue isolationism and despite significant military capabilities Russia's economy is too small and too resource-dependent to sustain any significant degree of global influence.

I think our policies and practices are ridiculous. But the current immigration minister is simply a reflection of the Trudeau government's general perspective. I think Trudeau is trying to change the channel by assigning border security to ex-cop Bill Blair, whom Trudeau hopes will be perceived as "getting tough" on a situation the government let get out of hand. Hassan is a poor communicator, but that seems a common trait among Trudeau's ministers. I don't think that shuffling the deck chairs will change much.

I don't think many would give much credit to Bush II given that much of the 2008/09 recession rests at his administration's doorstep due to the impacts of deregulation. The point is that Trump's policies have had little to do with America's currently positive economic situation. Even his tax cuts haven't yet percolated into increased capital investment as many corporations have used the windfall to buy back shares. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/companies-are-putting-tax-savings-in-the-pockets-of-shareholders.html

Which countries, exactly, are caving in to Trump? Maybe the UK, which is trying to manage its Brexit mess, but most other countries (well, Western countries at least) seem to be taking a hard line with Trump and challenging his tariffs, bluster and threats, to an extent that he's lashing out about it. Even the U.S. Senate, with many lapdog Republicans in the mix, recently passed a motion overwhelmingly (88 to 11) opposing his tariff and trade strategy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tariffs-trade-senate-resolution-steel-aluminium-democrats-republicans-jeff-flake-a8443061.html

Thank goodness Obama saved American capitalism from itself!

Thanks for clearing that up! In reading your posts on this topic I thought you were trying to argue the hypocrisy entailed in other tribal/racial identity movements as well as in identity politics in general. But now that I know you're a white nationalist, which I don't believe you specifically noted in your prior posts, I'll at least understand your perspective.