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.
This isn't a particularly good example. First, the U.S. took control of Puerto Rico 125 years ago. What made a country a pariah state 125 years ago is different than what makes a country a pariah state now. Second, the U.S. took control of PR by virtue of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish-American war. The Spanish-American War did not start because the U.S. invaded Puerto Rico.
Because the west had different standards, not because of anyone else opinion, which was my point. If the USA and 3-4 other important western country agree with that, we can instantly go back to that.
The most powerful countries in the world decide what makes you a pariah or not in the international community. And china is clearly not going to make a pariah of someone if they take land lol, they are as busy trading with Russia as ever if not more.
All the weakness in the west currently is self inflicted. We basically abdicated on using our power to control the world. Because "history had ended" so it was the proper thing to do, according to who called the shots.
Carter gave up the Panama Canal, and Trump (or a future president) can take it back. There is no arc of history that necessarily implies imperialism as we knew it can't come back.
Of course part and parcel of what's needed to make the taking of the panama canal profitable is acceptance of that by at least some key allies, sure. Which brings us back to the whole idea that it's enough to credibly threaten military action to achieve some benefit for americans.
Which makes Trump apparently irrational, deluded speeches on the topic quite decent strategically actually. It's exactly the apparent lack of logic by Trump that makes it credible he could do "crazy things". When you can credibly commit to the "unthinkable" you can achieve outcomes you couldn't otherwise.
Is the west ready to accept a neowestern imperialism push? not quite. Are we very far from it? not necessarily. Japanese politics are inscrutable as ever so i won't comment on that, but Germany is just one election away from having the first post-ww2 government which can be actually a peer of western imperialism. They are very close to give up on collective shaming and ready to join the world as a normal country geopolitically.
Italy is governed by someone who is "more royalist than the king" and more "atlantist" than republicans. France has always been the bad guy in the west, we did without it in NATO for a while we can do without it now.
UK is one election from having the first actually center-right (not fake center right) government in generations. Canada is going to be aligned on the center right very soon (ofc Trump has to treat a rightwing Canada better than a Trudeau canada which deserved only scorn and shame).
With some lucks pieces are on the chessboard in a way that could, 1-2-3 years from now, make it so that actual post-badly-read-Fukuyama ideologies are in government in most of the G7.
Western resurgence could come out of that
I am mystified as to why you think Fukuyama was some sort of darling of the leftists, especially back at the time he wrote that book.
It's interesting how your evil leftist soul comes out when you try to "counter" actual opinions you dislike. It's akin to when the "people who cared about public health" threw parties every time a prominent antivaxer died of covid.
Revealed preferences i guess.
Topic is use your power to your own benefit, your counter "tongue in cheek" example is random destruction of some place out of spite. That's your soul deep inside, i get it. Must be truly deep of hatred with humanity to be as leftist as you
Lol my post was a stupid parody of the world view by Luciom.
Sorry it hurt your feelings that much.
In my experience, most intelligent people don't feel the need to constantly bring how intelligent (and IQ) they are on the table.
Never a good sign.
On another note it's pretty funny reading how you perceive me, you couldn't be further from the truth.
It's really amazing that an incompetent conman can say something outrageously stupid and the entire maga verse starts cheering and dancing in support.
Last weekend, we went to dinner with my mother-in-law, her boyfriend, and another couple that are her friends. At one point, the boyfriend and the other man started talking about Trump and Greenland, the Panama canal, and Canada. They thought it was great. They also didn't think taking over any of it had any chance of happening, but they were sure that Trump was thinking four steps ahead of everyone else and that in the end something marvelous would happen.
So the, "Trump started zero wars" crowd going on for years about how he's the man of peace and not a war monger is now in favor of Trump taking over countries by force?
How is this not shocking? Brains literally as malleable as moist oatmeal.
Ahh, grasshopper, you have much to learn.
If the invaded country doesn't put up a fight, it isn't really a war.
So the, "Trump started zero wars" crowd going on for years about how he's the man of peace and not a war monger is now in favor of Trump taking over countries by force?
How is this not shocking? Brains literally as malleable as moist oatmeal.
He never said he's thinking about taking over Greenland by force.
He was asked by a reporter if he would rule out using either economic sanctions or the military and he said no.
That doesn't mean he's sending the military there to take it over by force.
Broken YouTube LinkSo the, "Trump started zero wars" crowd going on for years about how he's the man of peace and not a war monger is now in favor of Trump taking over countries by force?
How is this not shocking? Brains literally as malleable as moist oatmeal.
the "we should never start or participate in wars" crowd is the low IQ MAGA crowd which will be played again and again and already was in 2016-2020.
it's the same people who went like "omg H1B indians are bad america first gogogo" to which Trump responded "I want to give permanent resident cards to anyone who gets a stem degree in the USA.
dumb people exist in both parties but the right-wing ones are easier to satisfy because trump will give them plenty of panem et circensis , including mass deportations of illegals, infinite trolling of the liberals and so on.
and the tools to satisfy the hunger and anger of low IQ right-wing people don't cost much if anything unlike low IQ leftists which basically want a ton of free stuff paid by others.
I mean there are poor people in NYC voting democrats while the only thing their democrat representatives want right now is to repeal the SALT deduction cap
He never said he's thinking about taking over Greenland by force.
He was asked by a reporter if he would rule out using either economic sanctions or the military and he said no.
That doesn't mean he's sending the military there to take it over by force.
He said he would not rule out military coercion. Wtf do you think that means exactly?
"The threat of military force is not force!" The mental gymnastics is quite impressive.
I'm not going to pretend that I think Trump is a master tactician, but I've always found it ridiculous when reporters ask people in power for details on how they'll execute their schemes against opposing parties/nations.
Bitch, if I told you, that only reduces the odds of it working.
My wife watches a ton of murder shows, as is apparently standard for most American females. She asked me the other day how I would murder her.
Why would I tell you that? That's for me to know, and for you to find out!
I'm not going to pretend that I think Trump is a master tactician, but I've always found it ridiculous when reporters ask people in power for details on how they'll execute their schemes against opposing parties/nations.
Bitch, if I told you, that only reduces the odds of it working.
My wife watches a ton of murder shows, as is apparently standard for most American females. She asked me the other day how I would murder her.
Why would I tell you that? That's for me to know, and for you to find o
One can glean information with how a person answers a question that is expected to be an evasive answer - even if the only information is, "Wow, this guy is an idiot," which happens a lot with Trump.
I'm not going to pretend that I think Trump is a master tactician, but I've always found it ridiculous when reporters ask people in power for details on how they'll execute their schemes against opposing parties/nations.
Bitch, if I told you, that only reduces the odds of it working.
My wife watches a ton of murder shows, as is apparently standard for most American females. She asked me the other day how I would murder her.
Why would I tell you that? That's for me to know, and for you to find o
I think the UK has the proper technique in which every new prime minister is asked by journalists on the record to explicitly endorsed the possibility that he or she will be willing to use nuclear weapons, and they all say yes with no additional bullshitting needed (everyone knows it's something that can only happen in rare circumstances) just to clarify there is no moral limit to use unlimited lethal force of necessary.
that should be the only possible answer to any question about the use of military power: that there is never a moral or legal limit to use as much as you possess of it if circumstances call for it.
yeah i was livid when russia was massing troops on the border of ukraine and biden gives a speech declaring "russia indeed intends to invade, this is not them posturing, and the US response will be sanctions"
just the dumbest possible thing in the world to state that "our response will be the bare minimum" it's tantamount to calling up putin and giving him an ok to invade
at first i thought there was a chance he was playing 4d chess trying to bait them into an invasion and then heavily support ukraine (the support we gave them was infinitely more than what our stated intended level of support would be, which was nothing but sanctions) in order to bog down russia in a cost effective manner
however, with biden's 4 years at an end and still no end game in sight, it is very clear that i gave him way too much credit assuming a non-zero chance he knew what he was doing into baiting them into attacking
now i can't help but wonder if russia would still invaded if we did the "we will not rule out any responses" and we could have saved a ton of lives and tax dollars with the entire thing never happening
The money is designed to go to defense companies not be saved by tax dollars, silly.
He said he would not rule out military coercion. Wtf do you think that means exactly?
"The threat of military force is not force!" The mental gymnastics is quite impressive.
If you've seen him answer similar questions in the past, that's always been his standard answer. Why would he admit to ruling something out? Don't you think our adversaries would use these things against him? (and do you really think he's about to take over another country by force if there wasn't something more to the story than what you're being told?)
I'm not going to pretend that I think Trump is a master tactician, but I've always found it ridiculous when reporters ask people in power for details on how they'll execute their schemes against opposing parties/nations.
Bitch, if I told you, that only reduces the odds of it working.
When a crisis has been thrust upon you, I often would agree. But this isn't that. Greenland isn't some sort of hotspot that Trump got saddled with. He just started talking about Greenland becoming part of the U.S. That's the only reason he is being asked about use of military force in Greenland.
FWIW, for negotiating purposes, I would attach virtually no weight to the possibility of Trump seizing Greenland by force if I were Denmark or the people of Greenland.
If you've seen him answer similar questions in the past, that's always been his standard answer. Why would he admit to ruling something out? Don't you think our adversaries would use these things against him?
Is Greenland now an adversary? If he ruled it out, what do you think would happen? Do you think he's mandated by law to hold to what he said in a presser? We already know Trump is above the law so that can't be it.
(and do you really think he's about to take over another country by force if there wasn't something more to the story than what you're being told?)
Lol @ Trump has the 411, so anything he does is justified. Literal cultist.
now i can't help but wonder if russia would still invaded if we did the "we will not rule out any responses" and we could have saved a ton of lives and tax dollars with the entire thing never happening
The answer to your question is yes. There was never any chance that the U.S. was going to risk a direct conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
The answer to your question is yes. There was never any chance that the U.S. was going to risk a direct conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
perhaps, but i think it'd be foolish to think that if they knew we'd flood the country with money and equipment better than their own they'd have paused for a moment and reconsidered
as we've seen, it's been pretty much a stalemate because russia can't make any forward progress because the gap in equipment far outweighs the gap in manpower
yeah i was livid when russia was massing troops on the border of ukraine and biden gives a speech declaring "russia indeed intends to invade, this is not them posturing, and the US response will be sanctions"
just the dumbest possible thing in the world to state that "our response will be the bare minimum" it's tantamount to calling up putin and giving him an ok to invade
at first i thought there was a chance he was playing 4d chess trying to bait them into an invasion and then heavily support ukr
Dragging the world into a shooting war with Russia seems like a risky play.
It's worse. WAY worse. Trump THINKS and ACTS like he has the 411, but he doesn't. He is lazy. Doesn't read. Does not pay attention to his intelligence briefings. Has a limited attention span. Does not have a good decision making process. Does not surround himself with quality people; only people that will do his bidding.
He's basically bluffed a bunch of rubes into thinking he's a brain surgeon. Problem is, now he has to cut open someone's head, and he's totally clueless.
Prediction: Trump will bring corruption and influence-buying to a whole new level of sleaze with his watches and fragrances and bibles and other garbage he's selling. Trump has made buying influence simple; buy 10,000 bottles of his shitty fragrances or 5,000 crappy watches and get A, B or C! Yet he told his rubes he'd "drain the swamp." And they bought it. And they'll come to his defense and say it's totally OK and totally free from corruptive influence to sell watches and other crap. Just watch.
