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.
Trade magazines put out by bar associations. I am not referring to law reviews. This was written as a research paper.
University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2592508
It does say Law Review forthcoming. Doesn't change that it's not a mainstream idea and what I said is materially backed up by the actual constitution, basically word for word.
edit: I missed that the linked version does come from a Law Review, but the original was published in basically a bar journal. That's what I was referring to.
my prediction is that Trump continues to do a bunch of stuff that Biden was doing and libs keep getting pissed off
Spoiler
Trade magazines put out by bar associations. I am not referring to law reviews. This was written as a research paper.
University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2592508
It does say Law Review forthcoming. Doesn't change that it's not a mainstream idea and what I said is materially backed up by the actual constitution, basically word for word.
edit: I missed that the linked version does come from a Law Review, but the original was published in ba
If you are referring to trade magazines put out by bar associations, you are still incorrect. Law students rarely, if ever, publish articles in trade magazines put out by bar associations. The overwhelming majority of that stuff would be written by practicioners.
I didn't say anything to suggest that I thought proportional representation would improve U.S. politics. The absence of proportional representation isn't why U.S. government is dysfunctional.
Ok so please define dysfunctional given the topic started with "extremists in safe seats present absurd policy proposals when elected"
Bar journal articles are usually written by students. No dispositive weight at all. He literally tried to counter my source in the constitution with an article from a bar journal written as a masturbatory exercise. In other words, standard Luciom confirmation bias research. He had to skip past the google result that agreed with me that was a literal article about the amendment to read that and then asked me for the source. lolol
The topic hasn't been invented by Trump, literature is ample because it was something that came up at least theoretically more than once in the past (pre-Trump). My source is a law scholar (i didn't claim it's the consensus , i just claimed there are actual experts who disagree with your non-expert claim).
Rococo is trying to tell you the matter isn't adjudicated at all as well. You claimed certainty about it, and you were completly wrong.
And you have the additional problem of the "chain of succession",is your claim that someone who has done 2 mandates as president of the USA cannot hold any spot of the chain of succession?
If you are referring to trade magazines put out by bar associations, you are still incorrect. Law students rarely, if ever, publish articles in trade magazines put out by bar associations. The overwhelming majority of that stuff would be written by practicioners.
I will defer. You obviously know more about it than I do. Thank you for the correction.
So, we have an unprecedented tb outbreak in Kansas. Did someone predict that? Seems like it would have been a nobrainer prediction.
There is no chance that the constitution will be amended, but this is still the sort of thing that underscores how fundamentally dysfunctional our political system is.
You don't even have to pretend to gaf about anything serious in order to be elected to Congress.
This guy's Wikipedia article speaks for itself.
This was what i answered to Rococo.
You claim this is the sort of thing that shows the system is very dysfunctional.
Because you don't even have to pretend to be serious to be elected.
What's the reason you don't have to pretend to be serious to be elected, in the USA, currently?
This was what i answered to Rococo.
You claim this is the sort of thing that shows the system is very dysfunctional.
Because you don't even have to pretend to be serious to be elected.
What's the reason you don't have to pretend to be serious to be elected, in the USA, currently?
Is this a trick question? A large percentage of voters seemingly don't want serious representation, regardless of whether the district is competitive or not. They want candidates who act like trolls, clowns, or trollish clowns.
Ah so you have no clue at all about the fact that the USA (and most first world countries) stopped vaccinating against TB decades ago i got it.
I guess the "party of experts" failed to inform you about this so you could blame an outbreak of a disease the country doesn't vaccinate against on republicans
Is this a trick question? A large percentage of voters seemingly don't want serious representation, regardless of whether the district is competitive or not. They want candidates who act like trolls, clowns, or trollish clowns.
And you don't think that happens because of the primary process in safe seats, where you are selected not by the whole electorate, rather by the most extremists of your party? do you think the probability of a troll being elected is the same in safe seats and in competitive ones?
Ah so you have no clue at all about the fact that the USA (and most first world countries) stopped vaccinating against TB decades ago i got it.
I guess the "party of experts" failed to inform you about this so you could blame an outbreak of a disease the country doesn't vaccinate against on republicans
I stand corrected.
The bigger issue with outbreaks is the ban on communication and research right now. The war on vaccines will have more long term consequences.
As for the US, they've never done mass vaccination for TB. Here we rely on detection and treatment since it's very rare. TB can be latent and not contagious. If a person gets diagnosed with latent TB they just have to be on the lookout for symptoms of active TB. It's a strange disease.
The bigger issue with outbreaks is the ban on communication and research right now. The war on vaccines will have more long term consequences.
As for the US, they've never done mass vaccination for TB. Here we rely on detection and treatment since it's very rare. TB can be latent and not contagious. If a person gets diagnosed with latent TB they just have to be on the lookout for symptoms of active TB. It's a strange disease.
Bold might be why it should be wise to test all immigrants who come in from countries with 50-100x TB incidence than the USA, and one of the many reasons why illegals (in this case, people who enter illegally only, not visa overstayers) are a direct threat to the wellbeing of the USA.
And you don't think that happens because of the primary process in safe seats, where you are selected not by the whole electorate, rather by the most extremists of your party? do you think the probability of a troll being elected is the same in safe seats and in competitive ones?
Safe seats are a factor on the margins I suppose. But not the main factor. The presidency historically is a competitive race. But someone who is overtly a troll and a buffoon has won two of the last three presidential elections. It's what people want.
They don't see him as being just a troll and a buffoon. He wins because his message about how the system is stacked against normal people trying to make ends meet is true and it chimes with people, though obviously the rest is dog turd which appeals to some others too.
It's a mix. Voters have expressed a preference for someone who is a troll and a buffoon. That said, you of course are correct that not all of his supporters voted for him because he is those things. Some voted for him for other reasons. Those other people are tolerant of or mildly amused by his trolling and buffoonery, but would not cite those things as affirmative reasons why they voted for him.
It's a mix. Voters have expressed a preference for someone who is a troll and a buffoon. That said, you of course are correct that not all of his supporters voted for him because he is those things. Some voted for him for other reasons. Those other people are tolerant of or mildly amused by his trolling and buffoonery, but would not cite those things as affirmative reasons why they voted for him.
His trolling, in conjunction with willing to make reactionary decisions as a result of it, is the reason why I didn't vote for him.
