For every fact there are an infinite number of falsehoods. The first amendment doesn’t distinguish between the two and neither do the people. For us in the US the loudest voice wins.
1 Like
My guesses:
-
He will definitely re-exit the Paris Accords, because exiting treaties is fun. And roll back as much climate policy as possible.
-
He will probably water down the tariffs and other dubious economic plans, because everybody knows they are stupid.
-
Gaza will stay the same, because Israel is already doing what it wants.
-
Ukraine might lose the Donbas region?
-
Not sure about “mass deportations”. Probably also watered down. But history makes me nervous.
Similar to last Trump election, I’m more worried about what will happen in the future than what is on the table right now.
4 Likes
In insurance terms, I’d say that you generally adopt a prudent risk management mindset. Consider things that could happen. Some of them will be improbable enough that it’s not practical to prepare for (or they’ll be bad enough that it’s not worth preparing for). Focus on contingencies that are more probable (but still hopefully unlikely) which can more realistically be prepared for.
I could ramble on…but I have work to do. I can say that learning from the prepping community is a lot like learning something from social media. Look in from the outside, don’t let yourself be sucked in to the full crazy. When you see reasonable-sounding information (even from people who are at other times nuts) accept it; and when you see crazy…move on and don’t engage.
4 Likes
In all fairness neither the Paris Accords nor the JCPOA were/are legal treaties in the USA.
If you don’t want a POTUS to be able to arbitrarily exit them, maybe get them through Congress instead of having a POTUS arbitrarily enter them.
3 Likes
He will target the countries where the US has the largest trade deficits.
Thats Mexico, Canada, China, Taiwan, South Korea
Have you noticed that asian stocks are tanking and their currencies are depreciating?
Trump win means trade wars and protectionism.
He will also target any country in NATO not spending 2% of GDP on defense.
Canada queaks by there (I think they are at 2%) but quite a few European countries are sub 2% still.
It’s kind of ironic that Trump claimed massive levels of voter fraud in PA last night and he won the state.
1 Like
TIL: Trump did follow the Paris Accord rules. Which is to say, he had to give 4 years notice. Which means we didn’t actually exit the Accords until November 2020, after electing Biden. We were only out for 3 months.
I’d expect that in the next year or so, Ukraine and Russia will reach an “agreement” to accept the current de facto boundaries. Trump will axe any attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO. So, in a few years, when Putin or his successor want to promote the glory of the Родина…
Canada’s still lagging with no credible plan to get to 2%.
1 Like
Trump is a blowhard and assho*&. But he was absolutely correct when he talked about European members of NATO wanting a free ride off of American military spending and the dangers of cozying up to Russia for oil and gas.
For all the talk about him being a Putin puppet and being complimentary to dictators he was the one who first started sending lethal military aid to Ukraine and imposed pretty serious sanctions on Russia and North Korea.
3 Likes
The Dems still have the filibuster… for now.
The GOP can “go nuclear” and kill it, but that would be foolish in the long run. McConnell won’t do it because he’s not that dumb. A successor might. Ironic as it is to say, I think we have to hope McConnell stays in power until the midterm. In 2026 the Republicans are defending 20 seats (including Maine and North Carolina) and the Dems are defending 13 (including Georgia).
McConnell is one of the Republicans up in 2026 and given his age might hang it up. We’ll see.
He announced a while ago that he was stepping down as leader. Thune, Cronyn, or Scott are running to succeed him.
1 Like
Oh crap… that does ring a bell. I don’t know those guys well enough to know who is the sanest of the lot.
Scott would absolutely get rid of the filibuster.
That would allow them to replace two sitting SC Justices (Alito, Thomas), and possibly Sotomayor with much younger SC justices.
This would be a diaster for the US.
Replacing justices who retire or die does not require 60 votes, and there’s no need for them to pack the court when it already is a supermajority.
2 Likes
- What is the meaning of the different shades of blue?
- It would also be interesting to see what these % translates to in terms of $$ (or euros; seeing the values in the same denomination at any rate).
The only thing they have to fear is fear itself
That, and assault. And maybe lack of health care. And the leader of the free world painting you as a villain.
5 Likes
Nah, that’s just in your heads