Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

[Mongo]

You may not care, but now the Trumpers are gonna exploit this to their advantage and prop-up their 'fake news' narrative. Like Admiral said, facts still matter.

I believe that tiffer24 was referencing the jacket that Melania Trump wore on the flight to visit one of the children's detention facilities:

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not sure how anyone can function in the 21st century without the ability to recognize verifiable facts

--although a majority voters in America today seem happy enough to ignore the 21st century...

What does any of this mean? Why does the Century matter?

 

[TrickyRicky]

Trump is clearly a horrible president from our perspective; however, honestly I think his support has genuine and deep roots in real and legitimate issues that are facing the US that are hard for an outsider to pass judgement on.

I personally think the two party system they have there is terrible and something to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, what do I know? I have a suspicion that there is a scale component to government effectiveness and that maybe the US is just getting too big to have a proper functioning democracy. Maybe an us against them bifurcated system is the only option save straight-up authoritarianism?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Trump is clearly a horrible president from our perspective; however, honestly I think his support has genuine and deep roots in real and legitimate issues that are facing the US that are hard for an outsider to pass judgement on.

Humanity and a moral/ethical centre is all that is required to pass judgement on his failings as the leader of the free world. There is banal corruption - and then there is consistent and utter disregard for the rules and conventions of government along with a long history of demagoguery - that ought to be more than sufficient for anyone.

Real and legitimate issues doesn't give a president who is clearly interested in any thing but those a pass.

AoD

 

[TheKingEast]

More threats from him today (sigh). I wonder if Obama acted this way, would he still be in office?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

More threats from him today (sigh). I wonder if Obama acted this way, would he still be in office?

Congress would have impeached him ages ago for less.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

America's closest allies are furious about Trump's tariffs, and now an unorthodox idea to go after him is gaining steam

From link.

President Donald Trump's headlong push toward a trade war is prompting unprecedented responses from countries around the world and blowback from top US allies.

In the past three months, Trump has hit countries around the world with a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum exports to the US. The decision prompted a swift response from US allies, including retaliatory tariffs and a radical departure in treatment from other formerly friendly foreign leaders — from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to French President Emmanuel Macron.

But so far these responses have done little to deter Trump from moving forward with his trade agenda, prompting the the consideration of an outside-the-box response for an outside-the-box president.

Op-eds in The Houston Chronicle and the Canadian news magazine Maclean's suggested the only way to quell the rising trade tensions is to strike at Trump's businesses. While some countries, such as China, have appeared to try and sway the president through treating his family's businesses more favorably, countries have not made moves to curtail the businesses' activity within their borders.

Meanwhile, the countries appear to have little immediate recourse elsewhere, other than to try and negotiate with the Trump administration. Several countries have lodged a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization regarding the tariffs, but WTO cases take years to resolve.

Could they do it?

Debbie Shon, an international trade lawyer at Quinn Emanuel and a former official in the US Trade Representative's office under President Bill Clinton, said that effectively hitting Trump's businesses using trade actions — while legal — would be difficult.

"Looking at Trump's businesses, I'm not sure what goods he sells that could be subject to tariffs or how you could use trade actions to hit his businesses unless you really tailored some sort of measure targeting key industries like real estate," Shon told Business Insider.

That would force any country trying to go after Trump to get creative with their response. Scott Gilmore, a social entrepreneur and former Canadian diplomat, suggested in Maclean's that Canada should use anti-corruption laws to pressure Trump on trade.

A Trump-branded skyscraper in Vancouver represents the president's most prominent business venture in the country.

"I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump," Gilmore said. "In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets."...

 

[Admiral Beez]

IMO, the best way to scare the sh#t out of the USA is to have a global "Post-American World" economic and political conference, ideally in the Americas, perhaps Mexico. Everyone comes, Russia, China, Japan, etc, etc. But, is the common foe sufficient to bring leaders together? Will Ukraine sit with Russia, for example?

Maybe throw in a naval exercise off Mexico?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

IMO, the best way to scare the sh#t out of the USA is to have a global "Post-American World" economic and political conference, ideally in the Americas, perhaps Mexico. Everyone comes, Russia, China, Japan, etc, etc. But, is the common foe sufficient to bring leaders together? Will Ukraine sit with Russia, for example?

Maybe throw in a naval exercise off Mexico?

What do you think the USA is doing right now, under the guise of "we don't want to pay for it anymore"? USA is far less of a common foe than Russia or China - both of which are exhibiting variations of imperial tendencies at this point.

AoD

 

[SunriseChampion]

What does any of this mean? Why does the Century matter?

The century matters because presumably humanity is progressing as linear time goes on. I mean, in some places this could be seen as a joke, sure, but it is generally true.
For example, the incidence of armed conflict is at its lowest in known history.

So, it's often said that people have a 20th century mentality (suburbs! total war! God hates fags! War on Drugs!) or a 19th century mentality (sex is bad! *insert skin colour here* are bad! scientists are witches!) and so on.

 

[SunriseChampion]

IMO, the best way to scare the sh#t out of the USA is to have a global "Post-American World" economic and political conference, ideally in the Americas, perhaps Mexico. Everyone comes, Russia, China, Japan, etc, etc. But, is the common foe sufficient to bring leaders together? Will Ukraine sit with Russia, for example?

Maybe throw in a naval exercise off Mexico?

I'm sure you're mostly joking but I would be so down for this.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The century matters because presumably humanity is progressing as linear time goes on. I mean, in some places this could be seen as a joke, sure, but it is generally true.

But there’s nothing to suggest we’re any smarter, or better informed, or more intellectually curious or suspicious of what we’re told or taught. I’d say the level of group think today is very high. With our limited attention span and “multitasking” I wonder if anyone could follow in-depth investigative journalism like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. And heaven forbid you express views that are contrary to the accepted canon of the times - social media will eat you alive.

IMO, this century will be marked not by people being more able to call BS on commonly held beliefs and their governments, but instead will be the century of the Sheeple.

For example, the incidence of armed conflict is at its lowest in known history.

Such an absolute statement needs to be defended, thank you.

During the post-Napoleonic to 1914 height of the British Empire, outside of the US Civil and the British Boer War and Opium Wars, there was very little armed conflict. Whereas today we have ongoing armed conflict, with the West stuck in onoing conflict with the the middle east since 9/11, etc.

 

[SunriseChampion]

But there’s nothing to suggest we’re any smarter, or better informed, or more intellectually curious or suspicious of what we’re told or taught. I’d say the level of group think today is very high.

I think we should seperate increased intelligence and the level of information available from intellectual curiosity and scepticism.
It's simply incorrect to say that we are not generally the most informed that we've ever been. I have a direct link to Wikipedia on my mobile phone. What 19th century coppersmith could say the same?
Increased intelligence is also obvious if even only because of universal education (at least in some societies).
Whether or not we're more intellectually curious is debatable. I wouldn't hazard a guess.
The level of scepticism can also be debatable and I do agree with your assertion that the level of group think in our time is very high, even if it is tribalised. That is to say, divided into multiple groups of single orthodoxy.

With our limited attention span and “multitasking” I wonder if anyone could follow in-depth investigative journalism like Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.

"Anyone"? I'm sure very many "anyones" could do just such a thing and do on the daily. A plurality of people? Maybe not.

And heaven forbid you express views that are contrary to the accepted canon of the times - social media will eat you alive.

Amen. The witch hunts are still with us, aren't they?

IMO, this century will be marked not by people being more able to call BS on commonly held beliefs and their governments, but instead will be the century of the Sheeple.

That is a very bleak outlook and I truly, really hope you're proven wrong.
I was only trying to provide an explanation as to why the progression of time as conceptualised by different centuries was brought up and not trying to provide an explanation as to how our current century will differ from others.

Such an absolute statement needs to be defended, thank you.

During the post-Napoleonic to 1914 height of the British Empire, outside of the US Civil and the British Boer War and Opium Wars, there was very little armed conflict. Whereas today we have ongoing armed conflict, with the West stuck in onoing conflict with the the middle east since 9/11, etc.

Sorry, you're right, it was a pretty boldly absolute statement I made.

Give this an eye: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And heaven forbid you express views that are contrary to the accepted canon of the times - social media will eat you alive.

That's rather debatable - considering the sheer range and volume of views posted online, I'd say social media encouraged instead of prevented anyone from expressing said views. In previous times, individuals holding such views would get little to no press, be ostracized by the broader community and society at large to a far greater extent than they do now (and have little to no avenues like GoFundMe or Youtube to raise funds, much less reach other audiences).

During the post-Napoleonic to 1914 height of the British Empire, outside of the US Civil and the British Boer War and Opium Wars, there was very little armed conflict. Whereas today we have ongoing armed conflict, with the West stuck in onoing conflict with the the middle east since 9/11, etc.

Not quite true - among the European grear powers, perhaps:

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

But of course, there is more to history than the European powers.

AoD

 

[SunriseChampion]

I would just like to acknowledge the complete falsehood of my absolute statement after reviewing my own link (and the same provided by AoD). It appears that the incidence of armed conflict is in fact not at its lowest ever.

I wish I could remember a similar chart I once read in The Economist which did show it to be at its lowest ever.