Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
To be fair, Joe Biden ignored the constitution and the Supreme Court and still gave student debt relief after being told he had no power to
so maybe trump will follow that precedent and ignore ...
dems always open the door that bites them in the ass, dont they (hi Harry Reid)
Imagine they succeeded at eliminating the filibuster 2 years ago?
Trump can suggest they make an amendment. I do not believe trump would try to deport legal residents without an amendment, no
Trump is not suggesting they make an amendment. Holy crap dude. He is telling you he's going to try to get the Supreme Court to overturn a specific case that ruled on this exact thing.
I found Trump supporters and Republicans a populist bill to get behind... since they're populist and want to drain the swamp:
The bill would mandate corporations with over $1bn in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a “United States Corporation” under the obligation to consider the interests of all stakeholders and corporations engaging in repeated and egregious illegal conduct can have their charters revoked.
The legislation would also mandate that at least 40% of a corporation’s board of directors be chosen directly by employees, and would enact restrictions on corporate directors and officers from selling stocks within five years of receiving the shares or three years within a company stock buyback.
All political expenditures by corporations would also have to be approved by at least 75% of shareholders and directors.
how would regulating businesses more drain the swamp?
Trump is not suggesting they make an amendment. Holy crap dude. He is telling you he's going to try to get the Supreme Court to overturn a specific case that ruled on this exact thing.
i might be mistaken, but the ruling was about people whose parents were still under the jurisdiction of an enemy power wasnt it? I think it is hard to apply it here. but i guess not impossible
Probably the same way appointing billionaire sycophants to cabinet positions will.
i might be mistaken, but the ruling was about people whose parents were still under the jurisdiction of an enemy power wasnt it? I think it is hard to apply it here. but i guess not impossible
Basically correct, and yes, it doesn't apply here, but that's exactly what they're going to try to do. It's incredibly naive to think he's bluffing.
separation of powers
FYI you can read about the attempts here.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blo...
At no point did Biden "ignore the constitution." There were disagreement on the level of authority and the particular way in which things were handled, but this is not comparable to literally ignoring the constitution.
And ROGDFL at trying to equivocate Biden fighting republicans to help the american people with trump fighting the constitution to deport american people.
You don't concede that he ignored the Supreme Court
Regardless of the reasons you can pick and choose what to follow based on moral cause?
Okey dokey
Try reading the article. But a quick summary is to regulate businesses to incentivize them to re-invest in their business, and workers, and not do stock buybacks, which is what creates the swamp.
From article:
In the 1980s, the largest corporations in the US dedicated less than half of profits to shareholders, reinvesting the rest into the company, according to a fact sheet on the bill provided by Warren’s office to the Guardian.
But over the past decade, more and more profits have gone to shareholders rather than workers or long-term investments. During the same period, worker productivity has risen, with only modest increases to real wages for the median worker, while income and wealth inequality have soared.
“Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations’ shareholders make out like bandits,” said Senator Warren in a statement on the bill “We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders’ pockets.”
Given that 93% of all stocks in the US are owned by the wealthiest 10% of the population, with over 50% of all US households owning no stock at all, Warren argues the corporate policy of maximizing shareholder value is predicated on “making the richest Americans even richer at all costs”.
Try reading the article. But a quick summary is to regulate businesses to incentivize them to re-invest in their business, and workers, and not do stock buybacks, which is what creates the swamp.
From article:
In the 1980s, the largest corporations in the US dedicated less than half of profits to shareholders, reinvesting the rest into the company, according to a fact sheet on the bill provided by Warren’s office to the Guardian.
But over the past decade, more and more profits have gone to sharehol
It’s easier to make profits with paper money buying paper money (financial economy) then creating and selling stuff (real economy).
Just a sign how too much money is in the system .
And yet they want another tax cut lol….
Yes, I consider it nonsense. There is no "might" about it. It's a horrific idea that will have horrific consequences with very little chance of being passed legitimately. Squarely in the nonsense category.
There are countries higher in HDI than the USA (ie, considered by most experts *better, more civic countries than the USA*) that don't have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship (aka "ius soli"), unrestricted, is in no way or form considered a necessary element of a succesful , modern, liberal democracy.
Lacking it is *objectively* not horrific, as in "we know as certainty that you can have a splendid country with awesome quality of life for citizens without birthright citizenship".
That's uncontroversial and objective.
You can like to give unrestricted citizenship to anyone who is born in a country, but you can't lie claiming that unless you do so, a country is doomed in any way, sense or form.
Trump can suggest they make an amendment. I do not believe trump would try to deport legal residents without an amendment, no
He will try to deport entire families of adult illegals and "american" minors, then claim in court those minors aren't actually american because they are born from illegals and the citizenship clause doesn't cover for them.
Then courts will probably say "well no, you are wrong", but there is a tiny chance they will say "actually this is the correct interpretation".
They will do that in a county bordering mexico which has a favourable district judge, under the 5th circuit (so basically they will do that in Texas), maximizing their chances to get a favourable court opinion until SCOTUS.
In SCOTUS they have low chances but there is hope.
FYI you can read about the attempts here.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blo...
At no point did Biden "ignore the constitution." There were disagreement on the level of authority and the particular way in which things were handled, but this is not comparable to literally ignoring the constitution.
And ROGDFL at trying to equivocate Biden fighting republicans to help the american people with trump fighting the const
The Biden admin ignored the fact that the executive cannot give away money on it's own will, and that includes forfeiting a credit the federal government has toward someone.
There are countries higher in HDI than the USA (ie, considered by most experts *better, more civic countries than the USA*) that don't have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship (aka "ius soli"), unrestricted, is in no way or form considered a necessary element of a succesful , modern, liberal democracy.
Lacking it is *objectively* not horrific, as in "we know as certainty that you can have a splendid country with awesome quality of life for citizens without birthright citiz
You can like to give unrestricted citizenship to anyone who is born in a country, but you can't lie claiming that unless you do so, a country is doomed in any way, sense or form.
Good thing no one did that, then huh, sport?
Aside from all the usual lunacy that we saw in Trump 1.0), my prediction is that Trump's health issues will finally catch up with him & he will be seen less & less. They will just wheel him out every now & then... pull a string on his back.... and he will squawk "Make America Great Again".
He will become a figurehead.
But Republicans will continue to worship him like politicians do with "Little Kim" in North Korea.
i think it'd be a net positive for everyone, trump lover and trump haters if thiel/vance were really running the show the next 4 years
