US labour watchdog halts Apple cases after group’s lawyer picked for top job

Things felt pretty tame by the end of the first term, almost like the structure of the existing system kept things at bay. It feels very much so like influence from abroad is heavily affecting the current course.

Is that a new feeling?

I figure the people who want the US to withdraw from the global stage have been working on Trump ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times. Power hungry maniacs are a dime a dozen, but ones that are also hell bent on committing economic suicide are a scarce resource and need to be nurtured with care if you want them to actually do it.

It's what I'd do if the US was bullying me around. It's a well tested play (refined during the US interventions in South America in the 70's and 80's).

The lack of repercussions from the first term all added together to give a sense of could do no wrong. Impeached twice, no convictions. Proposed the concept that a president cannot be held accountable except via conviction after impeachment. Pretty much proven true by SCOTUS.

Now, they've taken that cue and just turned the dial to an 11. There's currently very little resistance, and in the places where there is, they've just flat out ignored it. Of course the snowball is going to pick up speed

"ever since 1987 when he paid for that full page pro-tariff ad in the New York Times."

I didn't know this. So New York Times had no issue publishing lies for money. Everything is rotten these days

I'm not sure what your definition of "tame" is, but mine definitely does not include "A pandemic raging through the population with leadership calling it a hoax and proposing to fight it with bleach and horse dewormer, and encouraging the population to defy public health efforts to stop it." 2017 to 2020 was a steady increase in chaos and incompetence, coming to a crescendo with COVID. And after 4 years, voters said "Yea, we want that chaos again!"

It's not just the sense of "could do no wrong" but "DID no wrong". Is he a Criminal who committed Crimes if he never went to jail or was he a "criminal" the same way "we all are" (this is to say, we all speed or disobey minor laws on a daily basis but that could have major repercussions if they were prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law, and doesn't it seem like The Deep State just weaponized edge cases and technicalities to entrap him?)

I don't personally buy into this framing, but it sure seems like millions of people do since points at results

I agree, I meant "tame" as in comparison to where we are now. The first term felt incompetent and maybe a bit malicious, but the current term feels outwardly malicious and extraordinarily corrupt.

I could put on a mask and stay at home for COVID, but I can't do much about shunning our allies, disrupting the world economy, disappearing people, electing a cabinet of highly unqualifed individuals, putting the SCOTUS in pocket, etc. I can advocate, stay informed, support my community, etc., but this feels on another level than the first term and that's what I meant by my comment.

Yeah, here it is: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-foreign-policy-ad/

A headline from the times during that same year: TRUMP GIVES A VAGUE HINT OF CANDIDACY (https://archive.is/xF2pW)

As much as I dislike advertising in general, and specifically the opinions in that ad, I think that whether the New York Times was willing to publish it is not the important detail here.

This was at a time when the US and China were working together to keep the USSR in check while at the same time the US was sending weapons to Taiwan so that they could be used to keep China in check. So imagine being China in 1991. The USSR has just fallen, so they're no longer a threat, but US-sold weapons are still being pointed at you from Taiwan. You'd want the US to leave you alone and stop arming your enemies. And here's this candidate who wants the US to step off the world stage and focus instead on what it can build alone at home.

It seems pretty likely that they'd be in favor of getting Trump elected. Whether they ultimately did is an open question, but if so then it's not shame on the New York Times, but shame on us for not better protecting ourselves against foreign interference.

In a sense most advertising boils down to publishing lies for money, to some degree or another.