President Donald Trump

How would you prove or disprove such a hypothesis ?

In 1861, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in defiance of the Supreme Court.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist...

Was Lincoln a disastrous failure as a president ?

I meant the idea that the economy should
be entirely self-sufficient without engaging in any international trade.

It is sort of funny that you point to a literal civil war as your example of authoritarianism succeeding. Democracies sometimes suspend certain constitutional protections during national emergencies, which is no surprise. Notice if congress thought there was a reason to back up the Supreme Court they could have impeached him. You want Trump to be able to defy both congress and the Supreme Court apparently. That makes you a uniquely dangerous thinker, even if there’s no shot anyone would sign on to your political program.

How time fly.
When the Republican Party still made sense and had a semblance of believing in facts.
Most surprisingly from Cruz o0 .

Was premonitory

Took only 1 decade for the party to fall in trump stupidity worldview .

Let me know when you make up your mind about what you mean .....

Why is it funny that a civil war demonstrated the efficacy of authoritarianism under Lincoln ?

I am not a supporter of Trump. I've been pretty steadfast in that.

I'm not even a fan of nationalism. My political preference is that there be a globally coordinated governance without national boundaries.

But as long as national boundaries are the current law of the land .... I see a national security rationale in tariffs. If we are unable to ensure domestic access to critical raw materials and production of essential goods and services, then foreign actors who supply those things can extort from nations whom they supply. Tariffs have a legitimate purpose in the context of sovereign tribal conflicts.

If I were running the world .... there would be no need for tariffs because there would be no national boundaries.

it is actually a non sequitur nut nut.

what you want to justify is domestic aid to crucial sectors not tariffs, at least with the indicated rationale.

if you want to guarantee your country is able to produce x you don't tariff imports of x, you subsidize the manufacturing (or farming) of x, it is less inefficient.

autarchy means an attempt to complete self sufficiency with 0 reliance on trade.

Let’s say you live in a nation that just has no ability to produce or manufacture some necessary resource, what can your theory tell them what to do?

But then you suppose that you’re a country like the US which might have the ability to produce everything domestically. Well if you have access to countries that produce those essential resources better than you, and they are also not powerful enough or inclined to go to war with you, why would you ever care about the national security risk of them having some leverage over you? They benefit from selling you the critical resource, and you benefit from buying it.

Now if there is some really scary adversary that you rely on for manufacturing, using tariffs might have some value. But that’s what the IEEPA seems to already cover.

Another issue that you’re ignoring is that tariffs are a national security risk. As you said, it’s economic warfare. Targeting other countries unilaterally doesn’t gain you any favors. Any time you attack someone economically you are intentionally hurting their people, and you put a wedge between yourself and the other country.

To be fair, the typical spelling is autarky, and autarchy can apparently also be used as a term for authoritarianism. So lack of clarity on my part.

ah ok in Italian it's autarchia, and the Greek roots are self-evident (self-power) in our language as we use them for a lot of words.

btw related to the other post, I am not sure the USA can produce coffee and cocoa in meaningful quantities.

and before someone claims those are luxury items that a country can do without, I suggest people read around accounts of soldiers in war and how exceptionally important for american troops morale was to have coffee and chocolate available on the field.

the USA used to understand these things which is why they even had an ice-cream making ship in the Pacific theater during ww2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_crea...

I rarely agree with you ... but this is one of those things we're on the same page about.

You're omitting several other possibilities beside a country being powerful enough or inclined to go to war with us .........

The world order may change. Today, the Chinese government hosted both the leaders of India and Russia. That's a powerful trifecta. So a country that just wants to be friendly to whichever power source has the most leverage might move away from friendly relationships to the US as part of its own survival,

Second, you are ignoring the possibility that the capacity to supply the US with certain goods and services could become compromised by environment conditions beyond sovereign control. Covid provided an example of that when we were able to observe the security risk associated with "just-in-time" logistics that depended upon invulnerable supply chain continuity. The lesson learned is that nothing is invulnerable.

Apparently, a lot of the fallout from India is that Trump wanted Modi to support his case for a Nobel Prize for brokering a peace between India and Pakistan .... an outcome that was both false and beyond the pale for Modi politically.

So Trump had a tantrum and decided to up Indian tariffs from 25 to 50%.

unlike manyother cases where the justification for tariffs was made up bullshit, that +25% was purportedly because India keeps buying huge quantities of russian oil, making it far easier for Russia to basically disregard western sanctions.

While it's possible Trump actually doesn't care about starving the coffers of russia, that motivation is actually a reasonable one. You impose anti-economic tariffs not for made up economic reasons, rather as punishment to try to strongarm a country into behaving in a way that aligns with your geopolitical interests.

If you were the PM of India .... who would you find to be a more reliable supplier of oil than a Russia with which it has enjoyed longstanding stable trade relation or the US which is led by an impulsive leader who flip flops on a daily basis ? Not to mention that Russia sells to India at a discount to market. Russia's other main customer is China. So you can a strategic alliance between 3 countries which represent a gigantic share of global population and share of the Earth's critical natural resources.

We may be watching a version of the US which is relinquishing it's superpower status as a result of diplomatic failures.

There is some tentative evidence that Trump is deeply unwell

https://x.com/FluteMagician/status/19618...

Basically the fact that various rightwing media/influencers are digging up past photos/videos while pretending they are new material allows us to be skeptical about the president current conditions.

So maybe Vance comment about being ready to serve wasn't just a random comment

It will be interesting to see who the MAGAT's turn to after Trump departs the scene. He has a near messianic hold on his supporters by virtue of his rare personality. I'm not sure it's all that simple to create a similar following with a new mouthpiece.

it depends how he leaves the scene. If it is a biden-like decline i suppose MAGA wouldn't accept the 25th to be invoked so they will keep looking at trump as the messia while vance calls the shots.

If instead the 25th is used and/or Trump dies then it will depend on whether Vance leadership will be contested within the republican party or not. If it is, depending on who the contestants are, the base could fracture as well

What is your point?

Also, only a small fraction of cases involve constitutional questions.

I dont know how tuned in your are too right wing populist politics, but Fuentes has basically revolted against Trump and especially Vance. He seems to have a lot of support online, but it is always hard to tell how much of this is real (and how much Pakistan actors, who have a particular personal animus towards Vance because his wife is Indian) and how much it will translate into real life.

Trump has enough of a stranglehold on the party to keep things under control right now. But in a post Trump world, or if Trump continues on his Bidenesque decline, if there is something real there it could be a major problem for the Republicans going forward.

Well i know that a portion of the super-alt right is anti-Israel, but those aren't MAGA-trump-fans because Trump is overwhelmingly pro Israel already. Those are alread out of the tent.

I was thinking all those people that today always agree with everything Trump does and incoporate everything he does or say as their own moral system (10-15% of american adults? 30m something people).

Those can be inherited by Vance or not, but it depends on republican opposition (or lack thereof). Not fuentes or tucker or candace or other people far outside the republican party. I am thinking actual republican senators or governors

The salience of the Israel issue is probably over-estimated for right wing populist politics. Even if people have an opinion on Israel, it isn't really something that moves the vote one way or another.

Immigration, especially legal immigration of Indians and Chinese, on the other hand is very salient. And there is an online populist revolt, lead by Fuentes, against Trump's legal immigration policies, where it is unknown how big a deal it will be at the ballot box moving forward.

rightwing people aren't idealist ******ed dreamers. If they care a lot about immigration they will always vote republican regardless because voting democrats is just worse for infinity multicolored entrants.

They can make some noise but if they care about stopping immigration as much as possible they will always vote republican, it's a very safe voter base. But that's different from being MAGA (like they are today).

Question is will they support an anti-immigration Vance or an anti-immigration [Rubio, Cruz, insert your name here] that has other ideas about other stuff?

There's no greater pie in the sky pipedream than wanting to go backwards in time like many conservatives constantly say--yourself included 😀

I think you may be underestimating how much a fractured party could result in:

1. Losing Senate/House seats in purple areas
2. Getting a suboptimal candidate elected in primaries
3. Depress overall voters for your side in a general election