1376 Files Available
A Stefan Bauschard Website
You are here:    Home      Trump Debates

Trump Debates

Trump’s upset victory in the 2016 presidential election will substantially change the the salience of different topics under debate and discussion for at least the next four years.  Trump will not only forward a different set of policies than Obama, but he also has a Republican Congress that is more likely to back at least many parts of his agenda than a Republican Congress was to support Obama’s agenda.

On this page we will cover many of the issues that are likely to come up in your debates, including your Politics debates, Congressional Debates, and Extemp speeches.  As a debater or a speaker, you need to be prepared to discuss any of these issues.

Meta Issues

There are two meta issues related to the election that are important.

The ALT-Right, Breitbart, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and racism.  What role did racism play in the election and what role will arguable racists and racism play in the Trump administration.  What does this mean for your research and the assumptions of your arguments? It is important to understand the background of these ideas, entities, and individuals and you can do so by reading our Debater’s Guide to the ALT-Right, Breitbart, Spence, Bannon, racism, and the future of the Trump administration.

The Electoral College.  Trump won the electoral college, which is how the election is determined, but Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes. This has led to a discussion about whether or not the popular vote should replace the electoral college system. Since this is frequently a subject of debate in Congressional Debate and it may come up in Extemp, we have updated our evidence file, added an extensive bibliography, and produced two essays that identify the main arguments on each side of the debate.  You can access all of these resources at this link.

Specific Topics

School vouchers. Trump’s nomination of Betsy DeVos to the position of Secretary of Education means a renewed debate about school vouchers and the privatization of public education.  To help you prepare to speak and debate on this topic, we have produced a new bibliography and linked our previous school vouchers file.  You can access the material at this link.

General Immigration.  The immigration debate will heat up again and will likely include debates on many specific subsets of the general issues, including increased deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants, stricter border enforcement (a wall?), the role of high skilled immigrants, the DACA program and protection of undocumented immigrant students, sanctuary cities and deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

The US immigration debate (2015)

Understanding the winners and losers of immigration policy

Immigration and the economy. For now, we have updated our bibliography and  general file related to the impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the economy.  You can access the bibliography and file here.

Should refugees from Syria be at least temporarily banned from the US? The sustained civil war in Syria has resulted in a massive exodus of refugees from the country and the region, resulting in the overflow of refugee camps in Lebanon and Turkey and a massive push into Syria.  Earlier this year, President Obama made a controversial decision to substantially increase the number of refugees the US accepts from Syria.  Republicans have always been critical of this approach, arguing that the refugees present serious security threats to the US.  Trump originally campaigned on a pledge to bar all Muslims from entering the US, which is absurd, but he has now focused his messaging on banning individuals from certain countries from reaching the US. He may very well start by banning arrivals from Syria, which would completely arrest the refugee flow.

Over the last year, Millennial Speech & Debate has made many resources on the general question of accepting refugees from the Middle East available. The resources, including an updated bibliography, are available here.

A Muslim travel ban and the US economy 

Should students in the DACA program be protected from deportation? Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA “is an American immigration policy ordered by President Obama as an executive action that allows certain undocumented immigrants to the United States who entered the country before their 16th birthday and before June 2007 to receive a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation” (Wikipedia). Many of these students are currently enrolled at universities throughout the United States.

Since the program was created by Executive Order, it is something that President Trump could easily reverse. Most significantly, as eligibility for the program required that participants disclose location information (addresses) about themselves and family members.  The federal government, and soon President Trump, has access to this information and it could be used to find families and students to support deportation.  With nearly 750,000 young people currently enrolled in this program, it is a significant issue, not only for students and their families who may be subject to deportation but also to the universities these students attend.

Should Trump retain this executive order? Should Congress protect it in legislation? How should universities respond it Trump repeals it?

Trump: We’re Going to work something out with Dreamers

Graham preparing legislation to protect Dreamers. More on that legislation :

At least two other Gang of Eight alumni, Dick Durbin and Jeff Flake, are interested in the bill because of course they are. One wrinkle to all of this that might help Graham twist some arms in Congress is the fact that Obama’s administration has amassed a giant database of information on DREAMers via DACA’s registration process. In order to qualify for legal status under the program, illegals had to provide their name, address, fingerprints, and other personal information, supposedly in the assurance that that data wouldn’t be used against them later. Now, suddenly, custody of that database will fall to Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions. If they want to round up and deport the nearly 750,000 young illegals who enrolled in the program, they’ll know just where to find them. (New York City has its own database of illegals who have registered with the city for ID cards. The mayor’s office is considering deleting it lest Trump’s administration gain access to it.) Graham will make the case to fencesitters in Congress that it’d be unfair to let the federal government use that information to remove DREAMers after it was obtained in the first place with a promise of legalization. The only solution: Legalize ’em for real, via statute.

Except … how on earth do you get Donald Trump to go along? True, DREAMers are the most sympathetic class of illegals since many were brought to the U.S. involuntarily as small children, but Trump’s not going to kickstart his populist presidency by signing a blanket amnesty for a group of illegal immigrants, especially on terms that were set by Barack Obama. Presumably Graham is writing this bill in the expectation that it’ll end up as a piece of a larger deal that involves new border security measures too. If, say, Senate Democrats agree to appropriate new money for “the wall,” maybe Trump will see some value in a limited amnesty measure that most of the public is likely to support. (If you believe this story, Trump has been sold on the idea of letting DREAMers stay in the U.S. at least once before.) Besides, Trump’s base is more open to the idea of legalizing illegals than they’re often assumed to be. (Hot Air)

The truth about young immigrants and DACA

Childhood immigrants, once protected, now face deportation

Should the sanctuary cities resist enforcement of federal immigration law? Entering the US illegally is a violation of federal law. The federal government, however, does not have a large enough immigration enforcement division to enforce the law and therefore relies on state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.  Under the principle of anti-commandeering protected by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Printz), the federal government cannot require state and local law enforcement to enforce federal law. As a result, many cities have become “sanctuary cities,” refusing to participate in the deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

President Trump has campaigned to expand deportation and many US cities have pledged to remain sanctuary cities, refusing to assist Trump’s deportation efforts.  Although the federal government cannot directly commandeer state and local law enforcement, they can threaten to remove federal funds from cities if the cities don’t participate in the program.  Both Trump and his chief of staff, Richard Priebus, have threatened this.

Should cities continue to function as sanctuary cities in opposition to Trump’s deportation plans? Should they take the economic hit if the federal government cuts-off aid?

Here are the cities that have pledged to resist Trump’s immigration plan 

Despite Trump’s pledge to cut funding, mayors promise to protect undocumented immigrants 

Mayors weigh in on Trump’s proposed deportation of immigrants

Can cities stop Trump’s deportation plan? 

Sanctuary cities in Texas vow to resist Trump’s deportation

Should there be sanctuary campuses?

The push for sanctuary campuses

What universities are doing to protect their undocumented students

Should the US limit the number of high-skilled workers to protect American jobs?  The US admits a limited number of high-skilled workers under H1-B visas in order to offset what many companies argue is a lack of well-educated US workers in order to help businesses in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields. Some argue these visas should be expanded but others argue there are an adequate number of appropriately-educated US citizens to take these jobs.

Should the US expand or limit these visas?  This debate is covered in the immigration bibliography with supporting evidence in the file.

Not all immigrant labor is cheap labor 

How to fix the H1-B visa program

Should the US increase deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants? Some undocumented immigrants have committed significant crimes, including felonies. These deportations increased under Obama, but it is possible that Trump could expand them.  Fivethirtyeight.com claims there are not that many criminal immigrants to deport, but if Trump expands the number of “criminal” immigrants to those who have committed misdemeanors, those who have merely been arrested,  and those who are “in a gang” there would be more “criminal” immigrants to deport.

Should the deportation of criminal immigrants be expanded? Should the definition of what constitutes criminal activity be expanded?

There aren’t 2-3 undocumented immigrants to deport

How many Trump would deport

Should the US increase deportation of all undocumented immigrants? There are probably close to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US, including around 2 million who may have engaged in some type of criminal activity while they were in the US.  Should the US deport all of them?

During his campaign, Trump promised to deport all undocumented immigrants, but there is less support for that among mainstream Republicans and doing so would require cooperation from state and local police (forced or otherwise) as well as the creation of a massive deportation force. It would require aggressive efforts to determine who was here illegally, which would likely  result in the violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens in the process, as well as substantial economic disruptions, as millions of undocumented workers are currently employed and the economy is nearly at full employment.  Given this, it seems unlikely that Trump would undertake such an initiative (and get Congressional backing for it), but it is also the case that many of those who voted for him would push him in that direction.

Should the US build a wall on the Southern border? With a lack of public support and the apparent dissapearance from Trump’s discourse, it appears the US will not be building a wall on the southern border? If it becomes an issue again, we will add resources on it.

Other Domestic legislation

Should the US substantially increase its spending on infrastructure? The central theme of Trump’s campaign was that he would “Make America Great Again” by improving the economic conditions of those who are struggling financially. Since trade or immigration is not really a significant source of economic dislocation, Trump will need to find at least some additional ways of creating jobs. Throughout his campaign, Trump has made case that American infrastructure needs to be improved, which is true. Steven Bannon, his controversial Chief Advisor, is currently working on a $1 trillion+ infrastructure program. And his choice of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary makes it likely he will pursue this:

Trump’s choice of Chao to be transportation secretary and Rep. Price (R-Ga.) as Health and Human Services chief on Tuesday continued a pattern of appealing to the Republican lawmakers who will carry out his legislative agenda next year. Chao, the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will likely be a critical liaison between Trump and Capitol Hill when work begins on his infrastructure package, and the conservative Price is a steadfast Obamacare critic viewed by Republicans as an able technocrat. (Politico)

While the devil is in the details, there are two good sides to the debate and it will likely be debated throughout the spring, both in Extemp and as a Politics disadvantage. To get started, we have a bibliography available.

Should the US lower federal income taxes, including corporate income taxes? The tax reform debate is a complicated one, especially since no specific tax reform proposal has been released by Trump, but we can generally expect a tax reform package that will significantly lower taxes for businesses and include some reduction in taxes for the middle class. Poor individuals often pay little to no tax, and some even argue that taxes will increase for the middle class and the poor under Trump’s plan.

There are a couple of basic arguments in favor of tax cuts — that wealthy individuals should not have to pay a disproportionate share of taxes and that lowering taxes will free up money for businesses to invest in the economy, creating economic growth and helping the poor over the long term. This theory of growth is of course controversial, with some arguing that the state of Kansas proves that tax cuts do not generate enough growth to offset the loss of tax revenues from higher rates, triggering substantial cutbacks in the public sector (schools, health care, welfare, etc).

As you prepare to debate tax reform, there are a number of things that you need to consider —

Will tax cuts stimulate economic growth?
Will the economic stimulus created by tax cuts in turn generate enough government revenue through taxation of future earnings generated by the loss of revenue for higher rates?
Will will the tax cuts be paid for — what programs will be cut?
Who will be the winners and losers from such tax cuts?

Pass corporate tax reform

For some in the middle class, Trump’s plan would mean a tax increase

Should the Affordable Care Act be repealed (and replaced)?  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (or Obamacare) was passed by Congress and signed into law on March 23, 2010 (DHHS). [Full explanation of history @ Wikipedia]

The politics of the passage were tricky. It was passed when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate in addition to the presidency, but it passed the Senate by a very narrow margin. There are currently more than 20 million people who have purchased health insurance through state and federal insurance exchanges as part of Obama care.

There are a few components of the law that are controversial and make it unique.

Everyone in the US must have health care. If you are an adult you must have health care through your employer, purchase your own health insurance from a health care company or purchase it through one of the Obamacare exchanges. If you do not have health care then you must pay a tax penalty at the end of the year.  The tax penalty is not nearly as great as the cost of health care, but it is designed to encourage people to purchase health insurance.

There are subsidies for people who cannot afford health care.  If you cannot afford health care, you are eligible for a federal subsidy to support your health care payments.

Health care providers cannot turn people with preexisting conditions away.  If you have cancer,  a health insurance company cannot either deny you coverage or charge you an outrageous fee. Prior to the ACA, they could do this.

Students can stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26.  This substantially expanded the time students could stay on their parents health care coverage, essentially enabling them to keep health care coverage until they are out of graduate school.

The last two provisions of the law are very popular, and they are two provisions that Trump said he will likely keep when he met with Obama shortly after the election.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised an immediate repeal of Obamacare and Republicans have long fought for repeal as well. Of course, repealing a program that benefits 20 million Americans, rising costs in tow, is not simple, so Trump and Republicans have been pushing for repeal and replace.

But let’s discuss ‘repeal and replace.” Repeal isn’t so easy because even if EVERY Republican wanted to repeal, they’d still need 8 Democrats to get to 60 in the Senate for a complete repeal. That isn’t going to happen. But, the Republicans could certainly repeal all financial support for Obamacare (see budget reconciliation discussion below), something some want to do even before Trump is sworn in as President, though they would likely leave the law in place for 12-18 months so people don’t lose insurance.

Regardless of whether or not it is first simply repealed or repealed with a replacement, it certainly will be “replaced” or “reformed.” It would have been even if Hillary was elected. Why? Because the cost increases were unsustainable and insurers were leaving the exchanges. So, in reality, both Hillary and Trump needed to confront the reality of reform/replace, whatever you want to call it.

How do you reform it? Well,it’s not so simple. Earlier this year, the Republicans attempted a “reform” through the Budget Reconciliation process (5 key points about budget reconciliation) that they were able to pass because changes through the Budget Reconciliation process and those only require 50 votes. The problems is that changes in that process are limited to financial changes (“budget” changes). So, what did they do? Well, they eliminated the tax on upper income earners that was designed to support the program IN TWO YEARS, giving them time to replace it. Of course, Obama vetoed it, and Republicans knew he would do that so you can’t even argue it was a real attempt to kill the financial support for the ACA. And, well, even it was Obama care would still be in place, but premiums would be EVEN HIGHER because the source of the subsidy for the poor would be removed.

What does Trump want to do?

Well, we really don’t know, but he’s been arguing for “repeal and replace.” Nothing more. What will he replace it with?

A replacement will be difficult to produce if Trump wants to keep the mandate that insurance companies sell affordable insurance regardless of existing conditions and he wants to keep the provision that students can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26.  Why? Because those provisions are very expensive for insurance companies.  They aren’t practically going to be able to afford them if there are substantially fewer government subsidies and if everyone doesn’t have to buy health insurance.

All this said, there will be some type of health care reform.  One, as Ted Cruz just said, if the Republicans control all branches of government and don’t come through on the agenda, people will come with “pitchforks.”  Two, health care costs, both generally and under Obamacare, are escalating because many young and health people are choosing to pay the tax penalty rather than enroll whereas sick people are choosing to enroll.  This is driving up costs so high that insurers are fleeing the marketplaces.  So, there needs to be either a “reform” or a “repeal and replace.”  The details will be spoken about and debated about soon.

And, today (11/29), Trump announced that he will nominate Tom Price for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). An ardent critic of Obamacare, Price is likely to lead its dismantling, perhaps even through the reconciliation process (as much as possible)

Also, Trump’s decision to have Seema Verma — Pence’s own Medicaid Policy consultant — head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide some additional insight into how Obamacare may be “reformed.”

When Pence was Governor, how, with the assistance of Verma, successfully lobbied the Obama administration to allow Indiana to provide health care coverage for the poor through a “Health Indiana Plan” that “includes health savings accounts and requires participants to contribute small amounts to cover their own care” (CNN). This market-based style approach is what is likely under any “replacement.”

One political problem that confronts replacement is that 60 votes will be needed for replacement — passage of a new bill. Democrats will likely balk at replacement, but if Republicans repeal most of the provisions through reconciliation (which they may be especially tempted to do if the Democrats won’t agree to their replacement), the Democrats’ hands will be somewhat forced, as the alternative will be to leave the 20 million people enrolled in Obamacare with potentially no health care at all.

This debate is complex and will likely last for the entire year. For starters, check out this bibliography.

Should Congress pass legislation that restricts outsourcing? President-elect Trump spent some time on Thanksgiving weekend tweeting about how he was going to stop a plant from leaving Indiana to go to Mexico, protecting 1,000 jobs in the USA. It is unclear how he was going to accomplish this, but presidential candidate Bernie Sanders plans on submitting legislation to hold Trump to his promises that aims to reduce outsourcing  “by withholding federal contracts, tax breaks, loans or grants from corporations that move more than 50 jobs overseas” (The Hill). Of course, in addition to keeping the companies here, the US would need to prevent companies from slashing wages and benefits.

Sanders pressures Trump with anti-outsourcing legislation

Trump’s showdown with manufacturer exposes Obama’s weakness on outsourcing

Should Medicare by privatized? Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has long pushed efforts to privatize Medicare, something likely to be highly controversial. With Republican majorities and a Republican president, can he do it? Is it desirable?  This is probably not likely to be something that is near the top of the agenda, but it certainly will be part of our political discourse.

The Medicare voucher rumor is just more fake news

Democrats vow to fight Medicare cuts

Trump campaigned on protecting Medicare, but his health secretary wants to privatize it

Many Americans unaware of the push for Medicare privatization

Still missing the horrors of the Medicare privatization

Distribute medicare in cash so recipients can choose care

Give participants fixed premiums and the right to choose

Donald Trump is coming for your medicare

Should Medicaid be block-granted? Medicaid is the insurance program for the poor. Paul Ryan would like to block grant these funds to the states to distribute as they choose.

Tom Price’s plan to cut Medicaid spending

What can the government do to improve the economic conditions in rural America? A critical ingredient of the Republican’s success in the election was the fact that the economic gap between rural areas and the cities, particularly those on the costs has radically expanded.  What can be done to address this gap?  Trump recently claimed that in the last 20 years that 70,000 factories left the United States.  What can be done about this? Outsourcing legislation? Reversal of free trad deals? Perhaps, but these won’t stop automation (see below) and will have their own negative economic impacts.  But, what are we as a national going to do to prevent rural poverty?

A decade in rural Ohio: I feel forgotten

Despair and hope in Trump’s America

The 2016 election pitted booming cities against stagnant rural areas

What the conventional wisdom about Trump and working class whites gets wrong 

Democrats don’t have easy answers for the rust belt

Trump’s grassroots supporters will likely pay the price for his economic surge

Working class whites voted for a president who will sap health care and wages

Trump’s proposals won’t help the white working class or the urban poor

High output American went for Clinton, low output America went for Trump 

Foreign Affairs

Should the US abandon the Iran deal?  In the spring of 2015, the US reached an agreement with Iran and other major global powers, including China, Russia, and many European nations, to reduce economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons development for a certain number of years and to bring its nuclear facilities under expanded international monitoring. Republicans have long opposed this deal, an executive agreement, and Trump campaigned on a promise to withdraw from the deal (and, of course, negotiate a new one, a better one). Since this is a deal among many countries and since the alternative may be war, it will not be easy for President Trump to back out of this deal. Nonetheless, it will likely enjoy significant debate, perhaps with Republicans pushing legislation either to add new sanctions or restore old sanctions.

Why the Iran nuclear deal is on borrowed time

Iran’s new agreement with Shell will keep the nuclear agreement safe from Trump 

Trump needs Iran deal to engage Russia and North Korea 

Will the Iran nuclear deal survive under Trump, and at what cost? 

With the Iran deal under Trump?

Iran to US: Honor nuclear deal, or else

Inside the Iran deal: A French perspective 

Why Trump might not rip up the Iran nuclear deal

Trump needs to reverse the Iran deal and assert our interests

Is Trump a death sentence for the Iran deal? 

Will the Trump administration start a wary with Iran? 

Backfile —

Icon of Iran Nuclear Deal Disadvantage Consolidated Iran Nuclear Deal Disadvantage Consolidated -- Subscribers Only (310.5 KiB)

Should the US restore (or end) full economic and diplomatic ties with Cuba? The US has had a long standing economic embargo on Cuba that was placed after Castro’s Communist revolution.  Although there has never been enough support for lifting the embargo, the Obama administration took action to reverse a number of restrictions that had been issues by the executive branch.  Although there was not sizable resistance to these actions, Republicans have generally been opposed to at least further normalization.

The death of Raul Castro on Saturday, November 27th, once again brought US Cuba policy to the forefront of US policy discussions and Trump’s Chief of Staff, Richard Priebus, has stated that Trump may reverse the opening.

A nervous Cuba awaits the Trump presidency

Principled US policy can help Cubans overcome Castro’s legacy

Trump should finish the opening in Cuba

Protecting journalism from Donald Trump

Threatening Cuba will backfire 

Will Castro’s departure be the catalyst for big changes in Cuba?

How Trump could roll back Obama’s Cuba policies and why he might not want to 

Will Trump stop America’s reset with Cuba?

What’s the point in isolating Cuba again? 

Backfiles —

Icon of Cuba Embargo Bad Cuba Embargo Bad -- Subscribers Only (1.6 MiB)

Icon of Cuba Embargo Good Cuba Embargo Good -- Subscribers Only (317.5 KiB)

Should the US align with Putin and Assad to defeat ISIS in Syria? The Syrian civil war has been waging for years, with no end in sight. More than 200,000 people have died, hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled, and cease-fire agreements have collapsed because the US and Russia find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict — Russia backs Syrian president Assad who is protecting his power in Syria by engaging in massive bombing campaigns, including using chemical weapons on his own people. Understandably, the US doesn’t want to risk war with Russia over the conflict.

One complicating element is that there are many groups fighting in Syria, individuals from what the US claims are “moderate” groups to ISIS. Trump and his backing Assad and Putin because they think ISIS is a greater threat and want to engage in (or at least support) a massive bombing campaign in Syria to drive ISIS out of Syria into Iraq, where they will bomb them even more.  This will obviously have tremendous humanitarian consequences and support two dictators (Putin and Assad), but it has the potential to defeat ISIS.

Should the US back Putin and Assad?
Are there other solutions?

The fall of Aleppo could mark an even more deadly phase of the conflict

Putin and Assad are about to achieve their biggest victory in Syria

Trump’s Syria problem

Trump Jr. holds private talks on Syria with Pro-Russia figure

Why Trump’s instincts on Syria are partially right

How President Trump could help end Syria’s civil war

A big winner from Trump Middle East policy? Iran

How will US relations with Russian improve? Is this improvement desirable? Trump campaigned on improving relations with Russia.  Is such an improvement desirable? What are the benefits and costs? How will it be accomplished?

Putin’s revenge.  This Politico Magazine article explains the history of US-Russian relations since Bill Clinton was elected in 1994. It contextualizes the hacking in terms of Putin’s opposition to the Clintons.

Russia has a submarine nuke delivery drone

Russia seen moving missiles to Eastern Europe

Trump must learn from past mistakes with Russia

First, do no harm 

Nuclear war is no longer unthinkable for Russia

The two Putin problem

If Trump wanted a US-Russia grand bargain, what would it look like? 

Small steps or a grand bargain? 

Cooperation with Russia is Possible

Get ready for the most violent Detente ever 

Putin: Trump agrees relations must be straightened-out

Advice to President Trump on US-Russia policy

How to think about Russia 

Trump’s biggest headache: Russia’s nuclear weapons

The good news and the bad

Keep the future in mind

Draw red lines

Put Russia in context 

Wishful thinking and vital interests

Putin is not our friend

Russia’s determination to revive the post Cold-War era

Should the US pressure European NATO countries to increase their military spending? Is Russia a threat to NATO? On the campaign trail, Trump pushed back against the relevance of US military commitments to the defense of Europe, something that is actualized through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump argued that these were potentially unnecessary and that European allies should at least pay more of the costs of the security.

What does this mean for NATO? Will Trump “ghost” NATO?
Will security commitments no longer be seen as credible?
Should the US pressure allies to pay more of the costs?

NATO: Necessary but not sufficient

NATO confident Russia will maintain alliance 

What happens to NATO now

Trump’s NATO demands clash with EU budgets 

Make Europe defend again?

America’s European allies

The end of Europe’s comfort zone 

Can Europe defend itself?

Poland prepares for Trump 

Waiting for America, waiting for Europe

Can Trump calm European nerves after his election? 

What Trump means for central and eastern Europe 

These three maps show why Russia has Europe spooked 

How World War III could begin in Latvia 

This tiny sliver of Russian territory (and its weapons) is what Russia fears the most

How to deter NATO’s greatest fear: A Russian invasion of the Baltics

Would Russia attack and invade the Baltics?

How to deter NATO’s greatest fear: A Russian invasion of the Baltics

Should the US label China a currency manipulator? One of the argued causes of the US-China trade imbalance is efforts by China to manipulate the value of its currency, changing the relative value of imports and exports.  In order to put pressure on China’s practices, on the campaign trail Trump threatened to label China a “currency manipulator.” China pushed back, arguing that if the US did this it would cancel orders for Boeing aircraft, stop exporting iphones, and prevent the impacts of other products.

Should the US prevent China’s State owned Enterprises (SOE) from purchasing US companiesThere have been some recent proposals to prevent Chinese companies owned by the government from investing in and purchasing US companies. Should these move forward?

What should China think of Trump?

Is US isolationism a threat to global peace? Trump’s campaign focused around a general theme of “America First” – that the US should prioritize getting its own economic house in order before worrying about the rest of the world. A draw-down in overseas military commitments (both in terms of direct commitments and indirect financial support) could be seen as components of  this move toward a isolationist foreign policy, but is this good for America? Is it good for the world? The US, as the leading global economic power has always been the “world’s policeman.”  What will happen if we draw back?

What’s so great about American world leadership?


Icon of Hegemony Good Hegemony Good -- Subscribers Only (388.9 KiB)

Icon of Hegemony Good -- Asia Hegemony Good -- Asia -- Subscribers Only (203.4 KiB)

Icon of Hegemony Update -- September Hegemony Update -- September -- Subscribers Only (300.4 KiB)

Icon of AT Hegemony Solves War AT Hegemony Solves War -- Subscribers Only (167.7 KiB)

Icon of Hegemony Advantage Answers Hegemony Advantage Answers -- Subscribers Only (247.9 KiB)

Can Trump succeed in negotiating a deal to reduce the North Korean threat? The threat from a nuclear North Korea never seems to fade. Can Trump successfully negotiate with the country?

Can Trump make a deal with North Korea?

How should the Trump administration manage Turkey? In response to an attempted coup in July, President Erdogan has taken a very hard line against opposition forces in the country. Erdogan has voiced support for Trump, identifying him as a hard liner as well. How should the US manage its relationship with Turkey, an important US NATO ally in the region?

Why Turkey is salivating for President Trump 

Handling Turkey’s runaway politics 

Is Trump presidency a threat to Mexico’s economy? Threats to build a wall, expel undocumented workers, limit the flow of remittances, and restrict trade, he left Mexico to perceive Trump as a significant threat to its economy. Is this a reasonable fear? What are the consequences? Should the US be concerned about Mexico’s economy? How should President Trump manage the US relationship with Mexico?

Mexico reels at nightmare of Trump presidency

Can Mexico cope with Trump?

Should Trump (RE)-Pivot to Asia? During the campaign Trump seemed to signal a willingness to abandon US allies in Japan and South Korea.  Immediately after winning the election he promised to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership (TPP).  Does Trump need to change his approach?

Trump’s pivot to Asia

How Trump can make the pivot to Asia great again

American leadership in the Asia-Pacific must continue

Should funding for the Ex-Im bank be rescinded? The Ex-Im bank provides financing for US companies who want to export goods abroad. While this will probably not  be a hot topic this spring, some are concerned that free market Republicans, including Trump in this case, will abandon support for the bank.

Should Ex-Im bank funding be rescinded?

Ex-Im faces new problems with Trump

Backfiles —

Icon of Export Import Bank DA Export Import Bank DA -- Subscribers Only (203.8 KiB)

Icon of Export Import Bank Answers Export Import Bank Answers -- Subscribers Only (82.3 KiB)

[Note: the “DA” file contains the evidence that says it is good]


Should the use of torture, including waterboarding, in the war on terrorism be expanded?  

Donald Trump has been advocating expanding the use of torture in the war on terrorism.

This file contains some arguments as to why employing torture is likely to actually undermine the war on terrorism.

Icon of Torture Bad Torture Bad -- Subscribers Only (103.0 KiB)

Trump has not changed his mind about torture

Is the terrorism threat increasing? Is the terrorism threat significant?

Icon of March 26, 2016 Terrorism Update March 26, 2016 Terrorism Update -- Subscribers Only (197.8 KiB)

Icon of A -- WMD Terrorism A -- WMD Terrorism -- Subscribers Only (32.9 KiB)

Icon of Terrorism DA -- Terrorism Threat Terrorism DA -- Terrorism Threat -- Subscribers Only (265.8 KiB)

Icon of Terrorism Answers Terrorism Answers -- Subscribers Only (1.2 MiB)

The uncertain metrics of terrorism in 2016

How will Trump fight terrorism, particularly ISIS? Will Trump’s approach succeed or worse the problem?

Will Trump pour gasoline on the ISIS fire? 

Obama’s terrorism claim hides an inconvenient truth

Is ISIS a significant threat?

ISIS: Less territory, more dangerous. 


Does free trade, including NAFTA, threaten US jobs? An easy case could be made that the discussion of trade should be moved-up much higher in the essay. After all, the basic claim that free trade, particularly the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is responsible for the outsourcing of American jobs was a the most common argument of Trump’s campaign. As soon as Trump was elected, he promised to reverse the United States’ decision to join the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and not seek ratification by the Congress.

As someone who has researched trade for more than two decades, I’m sort of surprised by the massive opposition to free trade. Yes, the opportunity to produce goods overseas and import them has the potential to depress wages and threaten jobs, but it also opens up export markets for US companies who make a lot of money selling goods abroad. And, of course, cheaper goods lowers prices for consumers (why do you think it is so economical to shop at Wal-Mart)?  Restricting trade threatens US exports, will likely raise the price of consumer goods, and will likely increase the geopolitical influence of other countries that are willing to trade. For example, absent the TPP China countries are more likely to join a regional trade agreement supported by China. If the US reduces its trade with Latin America, China may fill in there as well. Free trade also arguably reduces the risk of war by creating economic interdependence between countries.

I wrote the last paragraph not to necessarily convince you that all trade is good or that maybe we can’t get a better deal, but to point out that questions of free trade are complex and are worth of significant debate.

Icon of I -- Free Trade I -- Free Trade -- Subscribers Only (27.8 KiB)

Icon of A -- Trade Solves War A -- Trade Solves War -- Subscribers Only (25.4 KiB)

Icon of AT Trade -- Free Trade Bad AT Trade -- Free Trade Bad -- Subscribers Only (338.5 KiB)

Icon of Toxic Waste Toxic Waste -- Subscribers Only (62.4 KiB)

Free trade under fire

A trade policy that would not leave low wage workers behind 

The art of the trade deal: priorities for policy 


What the Trump presidency means for the environment

Trump’s regressive environmental policy threatens global climate change 

Donald Trump and the science of climate change denial

Should the US withdraw from the Paris climate accord?  “he Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015. It was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York. As of November 2016, 193 UNFCCC members have signed the treaty, 115 of which have ratified it. After several European Union states ratified the agreement in October 2016, there were enough countries that had ratified the agreement that produce enough of the world’s greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force. The agreement went into effect on 4 November 2016.” (Wikipedia).

President Trump campaigned on a commitment for the US to withdraw from the Paris accord but unless the US also withdrew from the UNFCC treaty the US wouldn’t be able to withdraw from the Paris Agreement for Four years.

During a campaign speech in North Dakota in May, Trump told a cheering crowd, “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.” The agreement, however, was negotiated and ratified by the global community, so Trump cannot simply call it off. (So far, 193 countries have signed the accord, and 113 have ratified it). But Trump still has perhaps the most power here to follow through on his promise, compared with his other pledges.

Pres. Barack Obama unilaterally ratified the Paris accord without the Senate, and Trump could withdraw the U.S. from the agreement nearly as easily by signing an executive order, even on his first day in office. Experts note that it will take the U.S. four years to fully back out of the agreement, due to the way it is structured: Under the Paris accord, any country that wants to leave must wait three years after the agreement takes force (which happened on Nov. 4) —and then there is an additional yearlong notice period. Yet “as a practical matter, the announcement and paperwork would have the effect of removing the U.S., setting it on a certain course for withdrawal,” says Scott Fulton, president of the Environmental Law Institute.

Trump will have another option if he doesn’t want to wait four years: He could pull out of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with an executive order, which would simultaneously withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement. It would take only one year to complete, although it is viewed as a more drastic move. “It would be a very dramatic thing to withdraw from the UNFCCC,” Freeman says, “He could do it, but it would annoy an awful lot of our allies.” Trump, though, has recently appeared to soften his stance on the Paris accord. In a recent interview with the New York Times, he said he had “an open mind” about the agreement.

The Trump administration will also have the choice to simply ignore U.S. emission targets under the Paris agreement—the accord does not include any formal punishment for countries that do not meet their goals. Pulling out of one or any international treaties or ignoring their mandates would likely damage the U.S.’s relationship with the international community. Experts say that if the U.S. withdraws from the Paris accord, there could be diplomatic and economic repercussions—some countries, such as Mexico and Canada, are reportedly considering imposing a carbon tariff on U.S. products. (Scientific American)

And recently, Trump said he is reconsidering withdrawing.  US businesses, particularly those in the energy sector, have started lobbying Trump stay in the accord in order to support their efforts to develop new energy technologies and compete internationally with those technologies.  If the US withdrew, it would ceded leadership in such technologies to other countries, particularly the Chinese.

Paris climate deal needs US, warns White House

Why the United States should respect the Paris agreement 

Ban hopes US doesn’t abandon Paris pact

Trump must not put pause on Paris accord 

The trouble with abandoning the Paris agreement

The priority of the irreversible

Is climate change a hoax? There is a widespread consensus among climate scientists that humans have contributed to an increase in the earth’s average temperature. Donald Trump and some in his administration, however, are skeptical of that connection, with many doubting there is any link at all.  He has as selected Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, an outspoken climate skeptic, to lead his EPA transition team (Scientific American).

Recently, Trump has at least stated there may be “some connectivity” between humans and climate change .

Although I thought this debate was long ago settled and not worth re-having, it is possible that you could end up being asked to speak or debate about whether or not humans are responsible for an increase in the earth’s average temperature.  To get you started on that debate, we have linked some files below.

Climate denial will be the official policy of the Trump administration.

What does Trump think about climate change? He doesn’t know either

A Trump advisor wants to scale back NASA’s ability to study climate change 

Trump has options for undoing Obama’s climate leadership

Icon of September 27 Affirmative Climate Update September 27 Affirmative Climate Update -- Subscribers Only (128.2 KiB)

Icon of September 27 Negative Climate Update September 27 Negative Climate Update -- Subscribers Only (278.4 KiB)

Icon of Climate Change Update 1-21-16 Climate Change Update 1-21-16 -- Subscribers Only (249.0 KiB)

Icon of Climate Change And Morality Climate Change And Morality -- Subscribers Only (299.5 KiB)

Icon of Climate Change Update -- August 10 2015 Climate Change Update -- August 10 2015 -- Subscribers Only (171.9 KiB)

Icon of Climate Change Science Aff Climate Change Science Aff -- Subscribers Only (1.4 MiB)

Icon of Climate Answers Climate Answers -- Subscribers Only (313.1 KiB)

Icon of Climate Update 2 Climate Update 2 -- Subscribers Only (151.1 KiB)

Icon of Climate Impacts Climate Impacts -- Subscribers Only (460.8 KiB)

Should the US reduce regulations on energy production? The incoming Trump administration has pledged to significantly reduce regulations on the production of coal, natural gas, oil and shale.

Chopping many of Obama’s key climate change efforts is part of Trump’s plan to encourage fossil fuel production. “I will lift the restrictions on the production of 50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal,”he pledged in his Contract with the American Voter.

To achieve this, the president-elect plans to revoke the Clean Power Plan, open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands for energy development, end the ban on new federal coal leases and lift various other regulations. He will likely attempt to repeal several EPA or Department of the Interior rules, according to experts—such as the Obama administration’s regulations for offshore drilling, its rules for limiting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry’s operations, and others.

Although the energy industry must follow EPA or Interior rules, the president has sway over how strictly they are enforced—which means Trump could decide to weakly implement some of the Obama regulations. Or if Trump decides to change or revoke the current rules, he would not need Congress’s approval to do so. (Scientific American)

Specifically, should Trump reverse the Clean Power Protection Plan? 

Should limits on offshore drilling be repealed?

Should the power of the EPA be reduced?

One major feature of Trump’s plan is to strip down the EPA’s regulatory power. “Department of Environmental Protection [sic]—we’re going to get rid of it in almost every form,” Trump said during a Fox News debate. Besides appointing Ebell, who has called Obama’s Clean Power Plan “illegal,” Trump at times has called for abolishing the agency altogether. But he cannot eliminate the EPA on his own—he needs Congress both to introduce and pass legislation, according to Freeman. And even with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, he likely would not have enough votes. “Eliminating EPA altogether looks to me to be profoundly difficult to do,” Fulton says. Other experts agree that it is highly unlikely that Trump could kill the EPA. “Environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are really popular, and I don’t think most members in Congress are interested in fully repealing them,” Carlson explains. “And if you don’t repeal them, then you need an agency to implement them.”

Trump does have other ways to curb the EPA’s power. He could slash the agency’s budget by asking for significantly less money from Congress, which would make it harder for the EPA to enforce its rules—although he cannot end its funding altogether. Congress will ultimately decide how much money an agency gets through the standard budgeting process. “Every president has different priorities. Some ask for more for EPA, some ask for less,” Freeman explains, “But Congress does what it wants—the president’s budget is a request.” Trump could also direct the EPA not to issue any new regulations, with the exception of statutes that legally require them (such as the Clean Air Act). He could also ask Congress to curb the EPA’s authority, rather than eliminating the agency altogether. “We could see some pretty draconian efforts to reduce the EPA by limiting its budget and power,” Carlson says. “It depends on where Congress wants to place its energy, but it wouldn’t be shocking to see that kind of move.” (Scientific American)


Many of the previously listed topic could fit under the topic of “economy,” but given their own independent significance I decided to put them in their own areas, and some of them will eventually be separated for additional discussion.

Does artificial intelligence and automation threaten the future of the American worker?  A central component of Trump’s campaign was increasing the number of jobs for US workers.  In fact, Trump even campaigned on erecting barriers to trade that make it more expensive to produce goods abroad and the import them to the US. One fundamental assumption of this argument is that jobs are primarily lost to oversees workers and not to automation, robotics, and (soon enough) artificial intelligence.  Are these the predominant trends the real threat to employment?  Stephen Hawking wrote on December 1st:

The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.  This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive. (Guardian)

A world without work

Robotization could push unemployment up to 50% in 30 years.

Should Dodd-Frank be repealed?

Resources forthcoming


Inequality is killing the American dream


Many argue the 2016 election was either exclusively about race or at least that it was framed by race — that the economic anxieties of white voters were essentially transferred to frame of race where minorities were seen as threatening their interests — immigrants taking their jobs, minorities increasing crime, Islamic peoples threatening terror, poor blacks and Hispanics taking their tax money in the form of welfare payments. This was magnified by the role the ALT-RIGHT (some say they should simply be called racists or white nationalists) on websites such as breitbart.com promoting racist conspiracy theories.  After the election, there has been an arguable increase in hate crimes through the US.  Trump is going to nominate Jeff Sessions, a man who could not get confirmation for a judgeship in the 1980s from a Republican congress because of racist statements he made, to be the Attorney General, likely resulting in a substantial rollback of civil rights protections.

Issues of race are complex, but in this section I will try to focus you on some key questions that you should be prepared to speak and debate about.

Are minorities at risk from growing hate crimes? What can be done? 

The impact of the 2016 election on our nation’s schools 

More than 860 hate crimes were reported after the election 

New York to create new police unit to investigate hate crimes

Are there really more hate crimes at schools following Donald Trump’s election? 

“Trump effect” lead to hate crime surge, report finds

The need for compassionate correctness

What role did white identity plan in the election?  What is its future?

A leading nationalist says its simple: Trump’s victory was about white identity

Multiculturalism and the fight for America’s cultural identity 

What Trump voters want to know

Is identity politics a productive political strategyIdentity politics refers to the idea that one’s identity as a member of a racial or gender group, is a useful means to organize politics, particularly for the purpose of protecting minority rights.

Progressives should not cave to anemic liberals in the identity politics debate

Democrats neither can nor should ditch identity politics

White identity politics is still identity politics

The Pandora’s box of identity politics. The left’s obsession with identity politics has brought us Trumpism

Polarized nation, identity politics 

Trump has every reason to keep white people thinking about race 

Will Trump’s policies economically empower blacks?  During the campaign, Trump claimed that the policies of the Democrats left blacks in America in the dust. Will his economic policies empower them?

Racism — Economics

Black wealth in the age of Trump

Will the Trump administration support a war on (radical) islam?  

The clash of civilizations is back

Threats of an anti-Muslim holocaust

The coming war on radical Islam

Are American Muslims at-risk under a Trump administration?

American Muslim officials huddle on ways to survive Trump 

Will the US institute a Muslim registry? Why is this a bad policy option?

What makes today’s America different from the one that incarcerated the Japanese? 

Populism  Some argue that Trump instigated a wave of racist populism and road it to electoral victory.  Is populism here to stay? Is it racist?

Is populism here to stay? 

The power of populism

Populists are out to divide us 

Is Donald Trump the modern day Andrew Jackson?

Is Donald Trump the modern Andrew Jackson?


What does the election of Donald Trump mean for progressivism, particularly the protection of individual rights? Can progressives hang on?

How the left created Trump 

Five reasons liberals have hope 

Hamilton and the implosion of the American left 

Can the Democrats move right? 

Three reasons the Trump coalition will crumble and the Democrats will need to pick up the pieces 


A case can be made that the Trump administration is anti-Islamic.

Is Islam a threat to the West?

Are we headed for a clash of civilizations?

Supreme Court

Will Trump’s Supreme Court appointments reverse hard-won individual rights?

How President Trump could reshape the Supreme Court and the country 

UN Israel Vote

US abstains from UN vote condemning settlements 

Israel summons US envoy over UN vote

8 Possible Trump responses to the UN Israel vote


There are some issues that you may be called to speak or debate about that I think are (unfortunately) somewhat unique to President-elect Trump, or at least to the 2016 election cycle.

Is Trump a liar? One common criticism of Trump is that he is a brazen liar. For example, on the campaign trail he argued that the murder rate is the highest it has been in 45 years, based on FBI statistics, the murder rate is actually the lowest it has been in generations. So, is Donald Trump a liar? What do Trump’s lies mean for the survival of the country? What doe the lies mean for democracy? Is there any way to police the lies?

Donald Trump just told one of his most Brazen lies

How to deal with the lies of Trump 

Donald Trump’s “truths” often fail the test

Is President Trump a threat to American democracy? Many argue that Trump is a threat to democracy because he’s undermined the media, lied to the voters, instigated a dangerous/racist populism, has threatened the credibility of the electoral process by claiming that 3 million people illegally voted (and that he would have won the popular vote had he note voted) and because he claims anti-corruption norms and laws do not apply to the President.

Donald Trump has broken the Constitution

An erosion of democratic norms in America

It’s now on American institutions and the Republican party to check Trump

10 ways to tell if your President is a dictator 

Trump’s love of Evita

Farewell, America

Prepare for regime change, not police change

Trump and Hitler — the shadows of 1933

A Yale professor’s guide to defending democracy under a Trump presidency

What now?

The anti-democratic worldview of Steven Bannon and Peter Thiel 

Are Trump’s conflicts of interest a threat to democratic governance? As alluded to in the last topic, Trump arguably has substantial conflicts of interest.  Will diplomats stay in his hotels and pay high prices  in order to gain favor with the President? Are countries more likely to support his hotel and property deals in order to gain favor? Trump’s wealth and real estate holdings mean he has conflicts like  no other President in history.

Today (11/30), Trump said he was stepping out of his business empire to focus on the presidency. While this is good news, we will anxious await the details that he is set to release on December 15th in a press conference with his kids, who he will be transferring the business to.

Oversight chairman downplays conflict of interest

Trump’s Post Office lease presents egregarious conflict of interest 

Trump: The President can’t have a conflict of interest 

Trump’s Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet

Donald Trump’s Revival of “Honest Graft.”

The controversy over Trump’s tower project in Argentina: What we know

Trump’s lack of transparency exposed 

No more business as usual, Mr. Trump

Congress is duty bound to probe Trump’s finances

Trump’s conflicts of interest are only the tip of the iceberg

Does the Trump presidency present a threat to a free media? Trump is seen threatening free media in a number of ways — isolating himself from the media, promoting fake stories, making outrageous claims, and directly attacking the media.

Can Trump and the press get along?

Trump’s media tactics are straight out of the Obama playbook

Trump will never make peace with the media, so why should the media try?

Can the President use libel laws against journalists?

Farewell, America

Journalists fear for their profession under Trump 

Seven ways Trump is destroying the free press 

Is Trump’s use of Twitter good for America?

Trump’s Twitter addiction could reshape the modern presidency 

Dan Rather

Here’s a question that the press has never had to deal with before: how do you deal with a president-elect, and eventually a president, who regularly Tweets untrue or intimidating statements?

By the nature of the office, when a president says something it’s usually news. Words can move markets, start wars, shift the direction of major domestic and foreign policy. And that’s why most presidents are constrained and careful with their public statements.

Not so Donald Trump. It’s one of the things his supporters love about him and his critics despise. And anyone who thought Trump was going to change after the election, well, as the saying goes, the past seems to be prologue.

But within the press there is a brewing discussion about what these Tweets mean and how to handle them. Because whether Trump is Tweeting about the musical Hamilton, Saturday Night Live, erroneously saying he won the popular vote, changing the Constitution on flag burning (today’s latest), these statements inevitably overwhelm the news cycle. But in the meantime, there are a lot of other important stories that aren’t getting enough attention – like investigations into Trump’s potential conflicts of interest from his business dealings or some of the more extreme positions taken by his cabinet choices.

Some in the press, and comments I have read on this page, have suggested that Trump’s use of Twitter is a master stroke to deflect attention from more potentially damaging stories. Others have suggested that the more the media plays up the Tweets, the more Trump’s base (which thinks the press is biased to begin with) gets riled up and the more Trump’s message dominates the public discussion. I can see the merits of all of these points.

On the other hand, the president of the United States Tweeting out a lie, threatening people and institutions, betraying an obsession with conspiracy theories – that is all news too. And it’s important that the press doesn’t normalize it.

On this page I am going to try to walk a balance between bringing attention to Tweets when I think they are serious enough to merit, but not allow my postings to be too distracted from other important news. It will be a process to figure it out and I would welcome your thoughts and continued engagement as we go through this.

In times of like this I sometimes try to imagine what my journalistic hero Edward R. Murrow would do. in this case, I can imagine him shaking his head and shrugging in disbelief. “Son, I saw a lot in my time, but I never saw anything like this. Good luck, but I fear you’re on your own.”

Is fake news a threat to democracy? To the credibility of media? What should be done about fake news? There are many sites on the internet producing literally fake news.  This news is frequently shared on social media and there is reason to believe it has impacted the election and that Trump even shared fake news.

The cynical gambit to make fake news meaningless

In news, what’s fake and what’s real depends on what you believe

Pope Francis warns media against spreading disinformation

Trump surrogate: There’s no such thing as ‘facts’ 

The rise of Trump and ALT-Reality media

The cure for fake news is worse than the disease

Don’t threat about fake political news

How Russia used fake news to spread propaganda during the election 

What Google and Facebook are doing about fake news 

Some fake news publishers just happen to be Donald Trump’s cronies

Fake news and the Internet shell game

We tracked-down a fake news creator in the suburbs and here’s what we learned 

Marty Barron’s advice for Trump in the media era

Should flag burning be bannedToday Trump tweeted that flag burning should be banned and anyone caught burning a flag should face a year in prison or loss of citizenship. Since the Supreme Court already upheld flag burning as protected speech, it is unclear why Trump made this statement other than to throw something to his most conservative base of supporters. That said, here are a few links in case you need think you will be called to speak or debate about it.

Trump suggests “consequences” for any flag burners

Trump’s call to ban flag burning is about silencing dissent

Trump’s flag burning tweet inflames, distracts, offends the Constitution

The risks of penalizing a particular thought 

The Carrier Plant controversy.   “President-elect Donald J. Trump and his vice president Mike Pence are claiming a victory in Indiana, where air-conditioning company Carrier and its parent, United Technologies, have announced that they are planning to keep “close to 1,000 jobs” in Indiana. Carrier had planned to move 2,000 jobs from Indiana to Mexico, where workers earn in a day roughly what Indiana workers make in an hour. The terms of the deal are unclear—Trump says he will travel to Indiana Thursday to make an announcement about the plant—but negotiations had centeredaround tax breaks that Carrier could receive for staying, and on changes that Trump has pledged to the overall U.S. tax code that would benefit businesses. United Technologies also has billion-dollar contracts with the federal government; some analysts speculated those contracts would have been at risk had Carrier moved the jobs.” Politico adds:  The deal that President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence brokered to keep Carrier jobs in Indiana likely hinges on its parent company’s fear about losing business with the federal government, said an official who will play a critical role in approving the agreement….The agreement reportedly includes $700,000 in state tax breaks offered by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, a quasi-public entity that doesn’t require legislative approval for its deals.

Should Trump and Pence have offered Carrier financial incentives to stay in Indiana?
Will these financial incentives encourage other companies to threaten to leave if they don’t get them?
Will extensive use of financial incentives threaten the tax base needed for essential public services?

Problems with the deal —

Focusing on retaining low-skilled jobs doesn’t solve automation and discourages workers from being trained for new jobs.

Alan Semuels, The Atlantic, November 30, 2016,  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/carrier-deal/509201/?utm_source=atlfb

The jobs at the Carrier plant aren’t particularly high-skilled, and it’s possible that they could eventually be automated, like many manufacturing jobs across the country. There are other types of manufacturing jobs that the state might have been smarter to invest in. In Indiana, the big growth industries in manufacturing—those that come without presidential intervention, at least—are in highly-skilled factories that make medical devices and orthopedics, Timothy Slaper, the director of economic analysis at the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University, said. Without market intervention, it’s those industries that would grow naturally, and it’s possible that former Carrier workers could find jobs there. “A lot of the jobs that have vanished are these manufacturing jobs that aren’t as high-skilled,” he said. “If you’re a company like Carrier, when you are paying pretty high wages, it’s easy for those jobs to be moved. It’s a bit more difficult when you’re talking about medical devices.” Indiana might do better to double down on its growth industries and not try to keep jobs that are slowly disappearing anyway.

It’s anti-market

Matthew Nussbaum, November 30, 2016, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/indiana-carrier-deal-federal-contracts-trump-232021

If Trump tries to pursue this strategy more broadly to keep other companies from moving jobs abroad, he could run into trouble with Republicans. Claude Barfield, an expert on international trade at the American Enterprise Institute, said brokering aid packages with individual companies is far from a conservative approach. For market-based economists or analysts, this is really a version of crony capitalism, and it’s the kind of thing you really don’t want to get into or have government get into,” Barfield said. “This gets back to who … actually has the ear of the government. So you get the situation where decisions are not made in terms of their economic sense, but in terms of gaming the political system.”


Four ways Trump could tangle with China

Trump picks Branstad as ambassador to China

Trump has already created lots of Chaos

Taiwan lobby scores victory with Trump call

Trump’s Taiwan call wasn’t a blunder, it was brilliant

Trump’s Taiwan call was a step toward balanced relations

Trump and Taiwan

What if America can’t compete with China in Asia

Rubio calls for sanctions on Beijing over South China Sea actions 

Voting Rights

In battle over voting rights, what happens next? 


GOP plans new assault on unions 

How to kill the middle class

Trump era confronts organized labor with greatest crisis in decades


Roe v. Wade may be doomed 

How the public views Ohio’s abortion bill

Protecting reproductive rights under Trump

Comments are closed.


July 2017
« Jun