Sorry that was my poor attempt at a joke since a free trade agreement that already got what he wanted was already in place.

Maybe establish a free trade agreement to ensure Canada isn't putting tariffs on US goods.

China's goal is almost certainly to ensure liberalism does not soon return to dominance in the US. I am skeptical that making common cause with such a power is ultimately in the long term interests of European liberals.

Reminds me of this Vox article from Matt Y (www.vox.com/2015/3/2/812...) in which he discusses the fundamental flaw in US democracy - the dueling mandates. He posits that we have worked for so long in part by using discrimination as a deal making tool through much of the 20th century.

Some of that must be an unfamiliarity with the medium. The landlord analogy seems apt. One thing about landlords is that they are not, by and large, professional investors (even if they make all or most of their money from investments). Games may be similar where the "suits" aren't gamers.

Of course a part of this is the fact that the Nasdaq and the rest of US stocks are all dropping too. Not this much, but quite a lot.

Ultimately, it may also be true that the Dreamer protection, while a much, much more pragmatic and moral policy goal, is also unconstitutional.

I think the answer is somewhere in equal protection and freedom of association. The pres can't exclude institutions who "use DEI" (whatever that means) for example from funding because it must be given out equally without added conditions not created by Congress.

I agree that they are different and I agree that it at least feels pretty obvious how. I'm not super convinced that it is legally obvious. Here's how I see it: if one can exempt a class of people (e.g. the Dreamers) from prosecution, then why can't one exempt a class of recipients from funding?

It is no coincidence that the US did not impose our own presidential system on Germany or Japan and instead opted for systems that avoid thr dueling mandate.

Trump is pushing those bounds to the extreme by, for example, not distributing funds that are appropriated by Congress. I don't know the specifics of the sanctions, but it could be in a similar vein.

This is arguably normal prosecutorial discretion; the state has limited resources so the prosecutor must choose which criminals (I use the term generically here) need to be punished and which are just not worth our time. I think it is fair to exempt people who know no home but the US. 4/

Obama made an official policy for undocumented immigrants who came here as children which exempt them all from prosecution and deportation. 3/

"Enforcement" includes normal prosecutorial discretion where there is always leeway to choose when and in what way a law is enforced. Recently, presidents including Obama and especially Trump have been pushing those bounds by choosing not to enforce certain laws at all. 2/

It is. Sort of. We have a problematic system of dueling mandates where laws are passed by Congress, but are enforced by the president who is elected separately. 1/

The real dumb thing is that Trump would prefer an alliance with a nation of 143 million and $13k gdp per capita over an entity with 450 million people at $44k per capita.

Aside from the fact that the authoritarian state of Russia will always find the CCP more reliable than even the Republicans.

There's an overwhelming belief among groups here in the US that our military strength is all just charity. I think a lot of it is exhaustion from Iraq where people felt we were only there to be "police" and were better off not involved. It has become the lens for many American's idea of geopolitics.