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.
The Hill: Republicans fume as GOP absences help Democrats move judicial nominees
Senate Republicans aired frustrations Tuesday after Vice President-elect JD Vance and other party members skipped votes Monday, greasing the skids for Democratic-backed judicial nominees to be greenlighted as part of a final push to fill the bench with lifetime appointees before President-elect Trump takes office.
Republicans attempted to slow down an effort by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to advance more than a dozen judicial nominees Monday, hoping to prevent Democrats from completing one of their priorities before they cede power at year’s end.
However, they were unable to stop them, as a handful of GOP members did not show up to the Capitol for votes, which stretched until close to midnight.
Headlining that group were Vance and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), President-elect Trump’s choice to lead the State Department, angering GOP members during their weekly Tuesday policy luncheon.
You keep comparing apple and oranges, like not long ago when you were arguing you had nothing in common with some other country in Europe (was it romania) and you couldn't care less, all that in a larger comparison with USA federal gov.
You are completely omitting how things got there and formed.
I.e Europe nowadays is a fairly recent concept and reality that has nothing to do with how USA organically formed.
Same with comparing with UK.
You are just simplifying this way to much, mostly to win the a
The basic question is why do you think centralization of power is good in general, and why do you think in specific it's fundamental for american success to not allow different states to have different rules about what is legal to consume there.
I mean is it so disastrous that some states have legal cannabis and some don't? why wouldn't that work for literally everything else? as far as i know the only bad thing with cannabis is the federal government interfering (or having the power to interfere if he so chooses, a power which recent administrations luckly decided not to use) .
Why can't it be the same for everything else that people produce sell and consume?
SO now that we understand why I said buy it at Walmart, what do you think the odds of being able to buy raw milk at Walmart while rfk Jr is in charge? Any shot at all?
SO now that we understand why I said buy it at Walmart, what do you think the odds of being able to buy raw milk at Walmart while rfk Jr is in charge? Any shot at all?
Pretty close to zero would be my guess, I think any changes will just be banning certain ingredients and "better" labelling.
What would need to be improved about labelling?
First they bring them to the camps to prepare for deportation, then when things are more difficult and expensive than expected from there, other arrangements can be made. But that would never happen, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you also opine in the past that a death sentence should be carried out one minute after the appeal fails?? That's hard core bro.
It's far more humane than detention for a random amount of months/year in inhumane conditions like those for death penalty convicts and then they kill you anyway,
Because you're an unapologetic fascist and imprisoning and expelling minorities and poor people is you solution to literally every societal problem.
Generally speaking, I would say the Luciom's rhetoric aligns very closely with Proud Boys' rhetoric. As best I can tell, the core of Proud Boys' rhetoric mostly centers around (i) asserting the supremacy of Western culture; (ii) asserting that the U.S. and other Western democracies are in the process of being stolen and corrupted by a vaguely defined left-wing cabal; (iii) describing everything they do and everything they like as a defense of liberty; and (iv) describing everything they dislike and everything they oppose (e.g., BLM, antifa) as communism.
Things like worshipping Trump and overt racism are important to some Proud Boys, but incidental to others.
That sounds a lot like Luciom.
You do understand it takes federal manpower to track people down and throw them out of their homes?
I understand it takes manpower to do that but no i don't understand how it has to be federal employees necessarily (although it will be in the case of Trump administration i guess).
You have a wonderful institution in your country history which is that of the bounty hunter, and you already use it for people who skip bail and the like if i am not mistaken, it could be used to track people down and take them into custody for being illegals.
And it would cost a small fraction of having federal employees do the same and it would have a capillarity of execution and success rate that will allow for basically all illegals being captured and deported.
The majority of crime in the United States is committed by U.S. citizens. Can you explain to me the process for expelling U.S. citizens?
And does it work the other way? For example, if a Brazilian citizen commits a crime in Brazil, is it OK for Brazil to just expel that person to the United States? And how does that work exactly? Does the person just arrive on a flight from Rio to JFK with a note pinned to his jacket that reads "he's your problem now."
Generally speaking, I would say the Luciom's rhetoric aligns very closely with Proud Boys' rhetoric. As best I can tell, the core of Proud Boys' rhetoric mostly centers around (i) asserting the supremacy of Western culture; (ii) asserting that the U.S. and other Western democracies are in the process of being stolen and corrupted by a vaguely defined left-wing cabal; (iii) describing everything they do and everything they like as a defense of liberty; and (iv) describing everything they dislik
Didn't know those were the ideas of the proud boys i guess i made the mistake to believe the mainstream press about them and i thought they were neonazis.
But the photos showed they had terrible aesthetics so i didn't check in detail.
Let me check what they self-describe themselves as
The majority of crime in the United States is committed by U.S. citizens. Can you explain to me the process for expelling U.S. citizens?
I thought the mentioning of expulsion was about the deportation of illegals. I don't have a model where citizens get expelled (but i have one where the death penalty is used a lot more)
Quite sad to see rococo align me with a group that appears to be antisemite (i am not in the slightest) and in favor of extrajudicial killing of political opponents (i am not in the slightest)
Quite sad to see rococo align me with a group that appears to be antisemite (i am not in the slightest) and in favor of extrajudicial killing of political opponents (i am not in the slightest)
I was describing what I understood to be their core branding. You of course can find all types of garbage people who describe themselves as Proud Boys, including people who are overtly antisemitic.
I'm not too sympathetic to your point about extrajudicial killings. You have celebrated the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse shot people you describe as "Marxists."
Rittenhouse (a hero that I hope will inspire a whole generation or more) went there on purpose to find a reason to kill Marxists, and he found a legal one, which is one of the most moral things a person can do with his life, legally killing Marxists.
You have made it clear that you would celebrate if someone plowed through a group of people who were blocking traffic.
I understand that those things wouldn't be extrajudicial killings in Luciomtopia because vigilantism would be lawful, and indeed encouraged, in Luciomtopia. Fair enough. But the blood lust seems real.
Why do you call them "undocumented"? Did they lose their documents while applying for citizenship or a visa?
Or do they have no documents due to entering illegally? If it's the latter, then why not just call them illegal?
Because they are undocumented. People can't be illegal. Actions can be. People can be undocumented. We don't even call murderers illegals. Being in the country without proper documentation isn't even a crime. It's a civil infraction. The misuse of the term "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" is a gross attempt at othering.
Trump, for example. He’s been a white collar criminal for half a century. That is not in dispute, it’s just that a majority of Americans simply do not care. Too bad he wasn’t convicted in the Senate after he was (twice) impeached. He’d for sure still have won in 2024. That’s not a good omen for the future of the USA.
You have made it clear that you would celebrate if someone plowed through a group of people who were blocking traffic.
I understand that those things wouldn't be extrajudicial killings in Luciomtopia because vigilantism would be lawful, and indeed encouraged, in Luciomtopia. Fair enough. But the blood lust seems real.
Well the bold makes all the difference and as an expert of the law you should know that better than most other people.
As for the traffic i am pretty sure i made it very clear that i asked for a change in the rules to allow passing through people that illegally block traffic, legal.
Btw it's not blood lust, because if it was indeed legal to go with your car through people who block traffic, people would stop blocking traffic and there would be no deaths related to those incidents.
Same with other displays of legal violence if allowed. If it was legal to (say) kill people on the spot if they throw soup at art in a museum, people would stop throwing soup at art in museums.
If border patrols were allowed to shoot to kill trespassers of the border indiscriminately (with a complete guarantee no legal action could be taken against them if they do so , and so on), very few people would die because of that. A very small amount at the very beginning because people wouldn't believe that was actually the case then the attempt to trespass would quickly drop to 0.
If the italian military navy was legally allowed to sink ships with "asylum seekers" in our territorial waters, same thing. In this case lives would actually be saved by the tens of thousands in the long term, as with no departure, no "asylum seekers" would drown in the sea because their small boats have problems or there is a storm and so on.
That doesn't necessarily generalize to all behaviours (mostly because clear "en flagrante" isn't obvious for many behaviours) but it does generalize to socially disruptive behaviours in public.
As for the rittenhouse comment if i was to write it today i would add *violent* before Marxists, or even better "engaging in violence" after Marxists, to clarify it better (although it is clear for people who know the dynamics of those events, not everyone knows them).
I am not for making it legal to kill people just because of their ideas until and unless they start being violent toward other people or property. But i would expand the definition of violent actions to planning violent actions more generally that it is currently the case.
