So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[EscapeVelocity2020]

The genesis thread about the Realistic Impacts of a Trump Presidency was pretty interesting, but ran its course.  I don't want to be mired in political, red/blue divisive squabbles - I can have those conversations with the in-laws :)  What I really want to know is, if Trump's most inner political circle is family because he does not view himself as a public servant (e.g. the Presidency was business motivated (maybe including dealing with Russia)), but collusion is never proven, then what comes next?  We are obviously way off the radar of what the founding fathers thought was possible or prepared for, but what if this is 'the new normal'?   

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%).  Seasoned politicians are being jerked around by a 'non-political business guy', which is a little humorous if you take a step back (to the 1%), but then really not funny if you take another step back... 

In retrospect, future generations will rue the numerous short-sighted, profit and 'easy growth' oriented America-first policies.  I'd vouch that it hasn't become a problem yet - however, extrapolating 4 or 8 years...  What worries you?

(please don't post about healthcare, that has it's own ongoing thread).

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.

[BlueMR2]

It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

This.  I really don't see any big changes.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%). 

I'm not so sure that the stock market is going up because of Trump's empty promises. I think we simply overlooked how many people genuinely believed that communist Muslim Obama was a disaster for the economy. Now that he's no longer a threat, they're flooding the market with the cash/gold bullion that they had stuffed under a mattress/in a savings account. It's been funny to see my Dad (who is a lifelong Republican, voted for Trump, yet despises and distrusts him) beaming at the stock market rally since Trump was elected. I never heard a peep out of him about the constant run of record highs during the second half of Obama's presidency. Partisanship does funny things to your view of world events.

To your point, though, I expect that the gravy train that's been chugging steadily uphill since early 2009 will take a nosedive at some point in the next 3-1/2 years. Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets. It won't convince them that Trump isn't America's savior, but it will keep enough of them home in 2020 that the Dem nominee will secure a convincing victory. Meanwhile, America's institutions will weather the storm without permanent damage. It will be painful for the politically engaged to watch, but it will have minimal impact on my daily life.

[infogoon]

Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.

I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American:

Americans who voted for Mr. Trump appear to have higher incomes than average. One analysis earlier this year found that Trump voters have a median household income of $72,000 (U.S.), more than the $62,000 average U.S. household income and more than Clinton voters earn. Even among his low-education white voters, only 14 per cent earn less than $50,000 a year, according to one survey.

[Sibley]

Based on the last 6 months or so:

1. The US is going to continue to polarize, until we hit a point where we either snap back together, or break apart and form something new (ie, no more GOP or Democratic parties, hopefully not a civil war).
2. The rest of the world is going to basically ignore the US. We will slowly lose influence, moral right, goodwill, etc until someone else becomes the dominant world country. China is a possibility, but given their history of looking inward, I kinda doubt it. I'd think Europe is more likely. This seems to be starting already.
3. Scientific and education excellence will very clearly shift away from the US and towards other countries/regions.
4. Health care as we know it will end, for good or ill, and unfortunately the non-rich are going to be the losers. Of course, they might wake up and essentially revolt. There's way more of them than the rich, so while it would probably get messy, I think in the end we'll end up with single payer. It might take 50 years.

Other predictions, wider than the US & Trump:
5. Coal as an industry is dying. Nothing's going to bring it back.
6. Renewable/alternative energies are going to continue to increase, and costs will decrease. Over time, oil/gas will be pushed out. Transportation technologies will continue to advance and spread, until the combustion engine exists only in antique cars and museums.
7. We're going to lose access to antibiotics due to bacterial resistance. The death toll as a result is going to be horrible, and a lot of people who have fragile health, multiple health conditions, are disabled, etc will die from "minor" illnesses and infections that they aren't strong enough to fight. Infant & child mortality will increase. Vaccination will become an ever more important tool, because we won't be able to treat secondary infections, so preventing as much illness as possible will be critical. People who refuse or are not able to be vaccinated will have a much higher death rate. Eventually, we'll come up with something to replace antibiotics, but we will be much more careful in their use, with strict requirements to be prescribed the new medication/treatment, and strict supervision of adherence to it.
8. Climate change is going to kill a lot of people, drastically change the balance of power at local, regional, and world levels, and we're all going to get smart about not building in flood zones. There will also be a lot more flood zones.

[surfhb]

Civil War?  That's hilarious.    People are too caught up in their smart phones to give 2 fucks what happens.

Take away their FB, Instagram and Snapchats and watch them lose their shit

[Malloy]

I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American:



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls. 

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

7. We're going to lose access to antibiotics due to bacterial resistance. The death toll as a result is going to be horrible, and a lot of people who have fragile health, multiple health conditions, are disabled, etc will die from "minor" illnesses and infections that they aren't strong enough to fight. Infant & child mortality will increase. Vaccination will become an ever more important tool, because we won't be able to treat secondary infections, so preventing as much illness as possible will be critical. People who refuse or are not able to be vaccinated will have a much higher death rate. Eventually, we'll come up with something to replace antibiotics, but we will be much more careful in their use, with strict requirements to be prescribed the new medication/treatment, and strict supervision of adherence to it.

I am somewhat more optimistic on this point than you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/first-new-antibiotic-in-30-years-discovered-in-major-breakthroug/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604126/edible-crispr-could-replace-antibiotics/

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Is this going to be in the headlines tomorrow?  Seriously, how can anyone take the American public seriously if we are seen as supporting this President?  This is a unique time in history where the common person can showhow Americans have power over an out of touch government.  Protest, send email and letters to your government officials.  They are listening now more than ever!

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American:



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls.

Regardless of the veracity of your assumptions, there is no doubt that an economic downturn hurts more than just the subset of Americans with substantial stock market investments. Don't you think that the people with decent incomes, but who haven't saved "two nickels to rub together", have the most to lose during the next recession?

[Leisured]

We Australians have regarded America as great since the late nineteenth century. America will continue to be great in spite of President Trump.

I expect that the US State Dept will work around any attempted damage Trump will do. I suspect that the same thing happened under the Reagan administration, and Reagan, worthy man though he was, eventually did what the State Dept told him to do. In any first world country, the bureaucracy is greater than any one man, even the President.

[Gondolin]

If the trend of the last 6 months continue, Trump will go down with Harding and Buchanan as one of the least effectual presidents. While this is good in the sense that various liberal doomsday scenarios will not come to pass, it is very bad because the world does not sit still while Trump sits around tweeting.

 Right now, the Trump administration's primary legacy is the slowness with which it is nominating people for gov't positions. This lack of leadership at the level of "real" getting-the-work-done gov't will leave much of the federal apparatus semi-paralyzed well into 2018.

I'd think Europe is more likely. This seems to be starting already.

Really? The failing EU and a bunch of historically fractious nation states less than 100 years removed from two brutal internal wars? I would argue that as historically colonized areas continue to recover, the global influence of the old colonial powers will continue to decline

[Malloy]

I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American:



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls.

Regardless of the veracity of your assumptions, there is no doubt that an economic downturn hurts more than just the subset of Americans with substantial stock market investments. Don't you think that the people with decent incomes, but who haven't saved "two nickels to rub together", have the most to lose during the next recession?

I do! No-I totally agree with you that the combination of poor impulse control and a relatively luxurious standard of living during their working years will cause a world of hurt for these Trump supporters if anything threatens their income.  Frankly, I think that a lot of the grievance and anger we see from the retired Trump-voting contingent is that they didn't do the math on retirement and can't figure out why they aren't living as well as they used to on social security alone. So, it must be Obama's fault. 

But that's just speculation on my part.

[golden1]

I see things a bit differently long term.

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time.  These aren’t really fully formed ideas yet, obviously, but it is becoming fairly obvious with Trumps presidency plus other things in recent history that our particular government structure is just not working anymore.  People are getting things done, but not the way they used to, and other problems are seeming impossible to solve, at least in traditional ways.

Of course we still have this massive military at the federal level.  If Trump wanted to, he could send in the army and force the states to comply, but he likely won’t do that, and I am fairly certain he would be stopped (nothing is guaranteed). 

I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

[Gondolin]

I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.

I think we're light years from this sort of upheaval. I hate Trump but, one shitty President does not make for the end of the republic. He could *try* something really destructive but, he's already backed off a dozen minor gaffes due to advisor influence, nothing indicates that he'd have the will to order the military to fire on civilians over some domestic squabble.

  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

What makes you say that? Many millions still live under King and Church monarchies. They're doing alright and the form of gov't had been around for over 2000 years!

[HPstache]

This:

I don't want to be mired in political, red/blue divisive squabbles - I can have those conversations with the in-laws :) 

Followed by this:

What I really want to know is, if Trump's most inner political circle is family because he does not view himself as a public servant (e.g. the Presidency was business motivated (maybe including dealing with Russia)), but collusion is never proven, then what comes next?  We are obviously way off the radar of what the founding fathers thought was possible or prepared for, but what if this is 'the new normal'?   

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%).  Seasoned politicians are being jerked around by a 'non-political business guy', which is a little humorous if you take a step back (to the 1%), but then really not funny if you take another step back... 

In retrospect, future generations will rue the numerous short-sighted, profit and 'easy growth' oriented America-first policies.  I'd vouch that it hasn't become a problem yet - however, extrapolating 4 or 8 years...  What worries you?

Is quite humorous.

[golden1]

Just because monarchies still exist doesn’t mean that new government types won’t evolve.  I don’t think representative democracies or socialism is the end of the evolutionary line of civilization structure. 

[RangerOne]

The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

There were a few rallies in confidence because historically we know that a full Republican controlled government will hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations and cut regulation, which can only help quarterly profits, so given our endless bull market this is little surprise and would have worked that way for any Republican President elected.

Unlike most presidents though, I think he may have a noticeable economic impact at some point for better or worse and if he does it will be because he did something with international trade. Imposing tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA could end a lot of different ways or never happen at all.

With regards to health care and other policy, Trump appears to be extremely hands off compared to recent Presidents. That can be good and bad. His preferred mode seems to be just pass whatever congress can get through and he only occasionally interjects with a campaign promise through executive order, see the immigration ban. Otherwise he is fine with whatever the house and senate can cook up. I can only speculate what the long term impact of his failing to fill numerous government posts will be. Probably a bottle neck of government action in many various areas. Some might see this as a good thing as it certainly lessens the ability of the executive branch and federal government in general to do things.

One area were Trump has stood apart is all his tough talk on illegal immigration actually appears to be having an effect as immigration is down. How much is due to him versus other factors is probably debatable but its down enough to where it probably isn't a coincidence.

I still have no love for this guy. His style sucks, he works entirely off emotional appeal and facts are just an inconvenience for him. I still don't buy into the argument that his persuasion tactics are all well thought out strategy. His commentary and actions strike me as impulsive though I will grant, he has an intuitive knack for deflecting any and all criticism especially from the media.

This doesn't surprise me since his career is built on a hate him or love him style of self promoting and media manipulation. Its something he is just great at either through practice or intuition. I don't believe that will translate fully into political negotiations because I am not convinced he has the underlying cold calculating though process to back up his ability to make an emotional appeal. Though I could easily be proved wrong in time, but I personally wouldn't bet on it.

 Either view of him is arguable since no one can be certain how his mind really works day to day, but I have personally yet to see a moment where he appears to be thinking critically and planning out his next move in a methodical way, its possible but he is a complete break from the mold of people who work that way at least as they tend to appear on the surface. 

I also still believe, based his families continued conflicts of interests, that a large motivation for his presidency is self enrichment. He is not alone in that camp, it is probably the number one thing politicians are accused of and occasionally crucified over, but given the size of his families business interests it is one of the most brazen examples of such conduct. Maybe someone like Dick Cheney was as bad, but Dick and Bush didn't have large families also playing roles in their cabinet and campaigns making similar gains.

I will be surprised if he gets a full wall built. I think we will see something partially done. Thats his easiest promise to deliver. I will be much more surprised if he manages to improve the conditions of the working class especially with regard to manufacturing and energy workers. The negotiations and planning for this would be at least as tricky as healthcare and Republicans seem to have no desire to help him beyond cutting regulations and taxes. I guess the first an real test of that is whether they do manage to renegotiate NAFTA.

[RangerOne]

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%). 

I'm not so sure that the stock market is going up because of Trump's empty promises. I think we simply overlooked how many people genuinely believed that communist Muslim Obama was a disaster for the economy.

Except that narrative flies in the face of a fact you mention later. We had amazing rallies under Obama. Because of the financial bail outs and crazy free money from the Fed...

Keep the same economic conditions that the Fed and Obama allowed and add less regulation and taxes onto it and you are basically throwing fuel on a forest fire.

Obama and the fed layered on regulations, but they made government lending so cheap that they still achieved their intended effect of artificially re-inflating asset prices and the stock market to absorb all the bad debt in the system and regenerate all the wealth lost in the crash.

Now with some of those same lending policies in place we have the specter of a Republican controlled Fed Gov who may be willing to dump some of the wall street regulations keeping truly astronomical bubbles from inflating. How would this produce anything other than optimism and a bull-er bull market.

However in the mean time the Fed and ECB are finally signalling the rallying cry of the onset of a quantitative undwinding coupled with interest rate hikes, which are likely to send everything right back the other direction.  That is some seriously uncharted territory.

[RangerOne]

I see things a bit differently long term.

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time.  These aren’t really fully formed ideas yet, obviously, but it is becoming fairly obvious with Trumps presidency plus other things in recent history that our particular government structure is just not working anymore.  People are getting things done, but not the way they used to, and other problems are seeming impossible to solve, at least in traditional ways.

Of course we still have this massive military at the federal level.  If Trump wanted to, he could send in the army and force the states to comply, but he likely won’t do that, and I am fairly certain he would be stopped (nothing is guaranteed). 

I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

Part of this is just the same pattern we saw under Obama but flipped. They are very different people and leaders but the visceral reaction of Red or Blue states to a Federal government threatening to make union wide policy shifts is the same or at least similar.

[RangerOne]

Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.

I wouldn't mind seeing a crash because I want to see prices on certain assets go down. But the joke is on all of us if we think that a market crash is hurting globalists. For every rich person who lost it all in 2008, another one became even richer or didn't go to jail for losing rich peoples money or speculating with poor peoples pensions.

[RangerOne]

Wow Sibley - how do you sleep at night with that mindset!  You honestly think about a US civil war and revolution?

I highly recommend the following post:

It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

Historically it would seem we tend to over blow our doomsday predictions and the things that hit us the hardest we rarely see coming.

But I will say from a partisan standpoint I am disheartened by complete climate change deniers at least when it comes to our leaders. I would much rather see the political discussion shift to what can or are we willing to afford to do about this. Than to stay on complete denial.

But translating science into policy is not black and white.

[Sibley]

Wow Sibley - how do you sleep at night with that mindset!  You honestly think about a US civil war and revolution?

I highly recommend the following post:

It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

Well first, OP asked for speculation and that's what came to mind. Will everything happen that way? Probably not. But it's not impossible. I thought it was impossible for Trump to win the election and clearly that happened. I'm actually fairly optimistic, with a side of realism. Also, I like history, and some of the most interesting historical times are times of great social and political change, which were not always, or even frequently, peaceful.

Re civil war and revolution - we'd have to have something pretty drastic happen to the internet. Because too many people are too absorbed in their digital worlds to look around. We had a good number of people wake up when Trump won the election and afterwards, including myself. But not everyone yet. However, if something happens to seriously hurt the lower classes in a real, direct way, we could be in trouble. (think French Revolution - it took a lot for the lower classes to revolt, but once they hit that point it got ugly, fast.)

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

It's worth reflecting on this diptych of what-if articles:

LOOKING back, it is easy to see clues that Donald Trump did not really want to serve a second term as president...

This Thursday marks 250 days since the Associated Press and other news organizations declared Hillary Clinton to be the “apparent winner” of last year’s presidential election...

Through the lens I use, both of these articles implicitly suggest that the problem of who is president is one of the smaller problems the US political system is facing.

[Leisured]

I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.

Already thought of. Play the video. Nice sarcastic website.

https://www.americabutbetter.com/

[NorthernBlitz]

I think the rest of the Trump presidency will be like it has been.

Lots of terrible tweets.
Lots of news stories about how he's not a good president.
Not a lot of legislation passed.
More of the two parties trying to tear the country apart for the sake of political gain.

The he will win or lose the next election based on how the economy is doing in 2020. Particularly employment numbers and how people feel about job prospects for the future.

[infogoon]

Do people think it's likely that he'll actually complete his first term? We're talking about an obese septuagenarian fast food addict who apparently never sleeps, working the most stressful job in the world. I think it's more likely he steps down for health reasons than it is that he gets impeached, but either one seems like a possibility (especially if the Dems manage to actually win a majority in 2018).

[Mississippi Mudstache]

The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

So you're saying that expectations and consumer sentiment have nothing to do stock market performance? Thanks for getting that out of the way in the first line - it saved me from having read your whole post(s).

[Fireball]

The he will win or lose the next election based on how the economy is doing in 2020.

This.  No matter what, it eventually goes back to the economy. Always.  Especially in this case because a great economy is about the only positive note Trump can continually fall back on. "Look at the stock market! Lowest unemployment rate in 10 years!"  At least at this point, he doesn't have much else tangible.

[HPstache]

Do people think it's likely that he'll actually complete his first term? We're talking about an obese septuagenarian fast food addict who apparently never sleeps, working the most stressful job in the world. I think it's more likely he steps down for health reasons than it is that he gets impeached, but either one seems like a possibility (especially if the Dems manage to actually win a majority in 2018).

Yes

[RangerOne]

The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

So you're saying that expectations and consumer sentiment have nothing to do stock market performance? Thanks for getting that out of the way in the first line - it saved me from having read your whole post(s).

Of course they have everything to do with short term stock trends. I am just saying that expectation leading to such speculation would be similar for any GOP president. I just don't think we should hand out blue ribbons to a president because his party gives the speculative community a woody.

It takes years after a presidents term to begin to even partially realize their economic impact. I find the stock markets speculation uninteresting.

Come back after the GOP has passed some tax reform, or after a trade deal has been renegotiated that improves job numbers, boost business earnings or hits a GDP growth target and we can talk about giving Trump a gold star.

Hell we still haven't seen the full economic impact of Obama's presidency as we are still seeing the upside of QE, if we think all or must of it has been an upside. Most home owners probably do. Shortly we may see what the downside of that choice is.

[Jtrey17]

I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.

Haha!!

[Capt j-rod]

I think this type of thread is an awesome reinforcement as to why our community does what they do. I love to watch and listen to "preppers". No matter what happens good or bad, not being upside down financially will be your best friend. We have the flexibility to go elsewhere or not do anything at all.

[StarBright]

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time. ...>.

....

  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

^Was just talking about this with my folks last week. I live near a rather small town that has signed up to meet the Paris Accord goals and the town is actively planning to go all in on renewables. I've been thinking about where this leaves the town in 15 years when compared to surrounding red areas. It is definitely food for thought.

On the other hand, maybe it just serves as the testing ground for the whole federal government. I have a lot of faith in individual states testing policy.

[kayvent]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

[wenchsenior]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

While that is true, the problem is with how long the system can take to check the President.  We tend to worry about presidential war powers (e.g., Trump picks military beef with North Korea via twitter, and Seoul gets nuked in response), but I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone who studies presidential pardons noted that it is by far one of the most explicit legal allowances of presidential power. This person stated that it would actually be more explicitly allowable for Trump to hire assassins to e.g., kill senators blocking the health care vote and then pardon himself and said assassins (or do it proactively) than it was for e.g., Obama to use various executive workarounds to try to limit carbon emissions. Of course, in that case one has to assume that Congress would act to remove Trump from office.  But this commentator said that legally, Presidents really could kill someone and get away with it.

I had never heard it put in such stark terms before, and it was quite frightening to contemplate. I'm not sure this commentator was accurate, but it would be interesting to hear some legal experts discuss such a scenario.  Interesting in a bloody car crash kind of way.

[kayvent]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

While that is true, the problem is with how long the system can take to check the President.  We tend to worry about presidential war powers (e.g., Trump picks military beef with North Korea via twitter, and Seoul gets nuked in response), but I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone who studies presidential pardons noted that it is by far one of the most explicit legal allowances of presidential power. This person stated that it would actually be more explicitly allowable for Trump to hire assassins to e.g., kill senators blocking the health care vote and then pardon himself and said assassins (or do it proactively) than it was for e.g., Obama to use various executive workarounds to try to limit carbon emissions. Of course, in that case one has to assume that Congress would act to remove Trump from office.  But this commentator said that legally, Presidents really could kill someone and get away with it.

I had never heard it put in such stark terms before, and it was quite frightening to contemplate. I'm not sure this commentator was accurate, but it would be interesting to hear some legal experts discuss such a scenario.  Interesting in a bloody car crash kind of way.

Bill Clinton did get away with multiple counts of rape. Pardon's were not involved though. Presidents seem to be able to get away with a lot without needing to invoke their own pardon powers. (Nixon being another one.)

At work the other day, we actually talked about what you were referring to. I contended that the next president would never throw the assassin president in jail. It would be horrible optics. They had a clever rejoinder. I forget it.

[Lagom]

Civil War?  That's hilarious.    People are too caught up in their smart phones to give 2 fucks what happens.

Take away their FB, Instagram and Snapchats and watch them lose their shit

Pretty much the plot of a modernized telling of 1984.

[Grog]

Just saw the speech given to the boy scout jamboree (teenager).

Woah. I had no idea trump was really that deranged. I just thought it was a front. But that speech left me literally speechless. He actually blatantly bragged in front of teenager. And what a mess of incoherent speech. No message and no direction at all.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

[C-note]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of. 

[kayvent]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

[C-note]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

I know that and you know that and lots of others know that but not having the authority doesn't prevent him from tweeting it or a suggestive tweet.

[sequoia]

I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

Correct. However, I think there is a high possibility that the current president would tweet and insult North Korea in the next 3.5 year. Next thing we know, they are bombing South Korea with nukes, artillery or both. Seoul is only 35 miles from the border, so it is within North Korea artillery range. Guess what, now we are getting dragged into war. So yes, while only congress can declare war, that does not mean we can avoid war.

No doubt we will crush North Korea if it comes to that, but it will be very costly in money and life.

[Geoduck]

So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!

[aspiringnomad]

So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!

Nope, you really couldn't make it up. If anyone in the future ever doubts that truth is stranger than fiction, a reading of the events of the past 6 months should disabuse them of that doubt. What a clown show this is.

[marty998]

So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!

Nope, you really couldn't make it up. If anyone in the future ever doubts that truth is stranger than fiction, a reading of the events of the past 6 months should disabuse them of that doubt. What a clown show this is.

All you need is for Scallamucci to do the Fandango now.

(Cue thunderbolts and lightning, that is all very very frightening...)

[scottish]

Breaking news - Scaremoochi (or whatever his name is) is OUT.   Shortest tenure ever!

[kayvent]

Yeah......if anyone wanted to see how self-immolation looked like......they can watch the highlight reel for Sackamurci. Didn't even last long enough for me to learn to spell his name.