What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

What's the over/under on Trump eventually staging a military take back of the canal?

Or am I confused and that was last week's BS?

It's so hard to tell since Trump is such a BSer.

Apparently Rubio did get some concessions from Panama about ending Chinese concessions on ports around the canal.  They also got promises that US Navy ships to transit for free (which apparently they already did).  But I don't think Trump ever declared that a "win".

[Jacob]

Yeah, so like I've said elsewhere my read on Trump's character is that he's going to be very hesitant about committing US troops anywhere. If he ever does, I think it'll be a sea change in the direction of his presidency and the trajectory of the US.

Trump - and his tech bro oligarchs - thrive in the manufactured reality of the online world, but they have not shown any real signs of feeling confident in the world of the military. I suppose Eric Prince's group of mercenaries - whatever they're called now - may be a vector for change there. But IMO there's still a massive difference between deploying oligarchal PMC and deploying a nation-state military.

We'll see, though.

[Norgy]

Trump - and his tech bro oligarchs - thrive in the manufactured reality of the online world, but they have not shown any real signs of feeling confident in the world of the military. I suppose Eric Prince's group of mercenaries - whatever they're called now - may be a vector for change there. But IMO there's still a massive difference between deploying oligarchal PMC and deploying a nation-state military.

We'll see, though.

I am not sure, but hasn't Prince from the group-formerly-known-as-Blackwater re-invented himself as an investment fund manager and creating secret cabals to cement ties with Russia?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yeah, so like I've said elsewhere my read on Trump's character is that he's going to be very hesitant about committing US troops anywhere. If he ever does, I think it'll be a sea change in the direction of his presidency and the trajectory of the US.

Trump - and his tech bro oligarchs - thrive in the manufactured reality of the online world, but they have not shown any real signs of feeling confident in the world of the military. I suppose Eric Prince's group of mercenaries - whatever they're called now - may be a vector for change there. But IMO there's still a massive difference between deploying oligarchal PMC and deploying a nation-state military.

We'll see, though.

and while the US army may be strong: if Trump and his oligarchs piss off enough people there will be too many fronts in world that no longer has a single power.

[Sophie Scholl]

"I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe."

US Secretary of Defense, February 12, 2025.

That's... not good. It is very, very, very not good. 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

nato is done

[viper37]

Yeah, so like I've said elsewhere my read on Trump's character is that he's going to be very hesitant about committing US troops anywhere. If he ever does, I think it'll be a sea change in the direction of his presidency and the trajectory of the US.

Trump - and his tech bro oligarchs - thrive in the manufactured reality of the online world, but they have not shown any real signs of feeling confident in the world of the military. I suppose Eric Prince's group of mercenaries - whatever they're called now - may be a vector for change there. But IMO there's still a massive difference between deploying oligarchal PMC and deploying a nation-state military.

We'll see, though.

and while the US army may be strong: if Trump and his oligarchs piss off enough people there will be too many fronts in world that no longer has a single power.

The US army was strong because the US was rich country with a functioning Federal government.

If they don't have the capacity to raise tax, defend themselves from internal and external threats, root out corruption, deploy their forces, put their civilian forces to work and effectively deploy their military where it's needed, the US army will quickly become as effective as the Russian army.

[Grey Fox]

"I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe."

US Secretary of Defense, February 12, 2025.

That's... not good. It is very, very, very not good. 

It is not but Egseth words are not gospel. Trump always put people in competition to eachother. Sure Eggy here wants an imperial USA but is that Kellogg's point of view?

[viper37]

"I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe."

US Secretary of Defense, February 12, 2025.

That's... not good. It is very, very, very not good. 

It is not but Egseth words are not gospel. Trump always put people in competition to eachother. Sure Eggy here wants an imperial USA but is that Kellogg's point of view?

These guys says what Trump and Musk tell them to say.  They are but puppets.

[viper37]

US cyber agency puts election security staffers who worked with the states on leave

Staffers at the nation's cybersecurity agency whose job is to ensure the security of U.S. elections have been placed on administrative leave, jeopardizing critical support provided to state and local election offices across the country

What did we tell ya about free and fair elections for the next cycle?

Yi, still optimistic about your country?

[Grey Fox]

"I'm here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being the primary guarantor of security in Europe."

US Secretary of Defense, February 12, 2025.

That's... not good. It is very, very, very not good. 

It is not but Egseth words are not gospel. Trump always put people in competition to eachother. Sure Eggy here wants an imperial USA but is that Kellogg's point of view?

These guys says what Trump and Musk tell them to say.  They are but puppets.

Not in that way. They are sycophant vieing for the scraps at the big table. Eggy is anti-China while Musk is pro-China.

[The Brain]

In a famous video clip President Musk first says laughingly that some elections are important and some are not (ie the next one wink wink nudge nudge) before doing Nazi salutes, and the GOP crowd cheers. This is where we are. Or rather were  some time ago, things are only getting worse. Europe has to disengage from America.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

at this rate the US won't be invited at the next DDay celebrations either.

[mongers]

at this rate the US won't be invited at the next DDay celebrations either.

Nope Trump will make sure he attends, he needs that platform, from which to demand that France now pays for the cost of the invasion and it's liberation.

[Syt]

at this rate the US won't be invited at the next DDay celebrations either.

Will be interesting to see who will attend the US 250th anniversary next year.


Meanwhile:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-judges-rulings-constitutional-crisis-presidential-power-a9c593cf3f9faec23a03f4a5123fefdb

White House says judges balking at Trump's actions are provoking a 'constitutional crisis'

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House said Wednesday that court rulings going against the Trump administration are coming from "judicial activists" on the bench whose decisions amount to a "constitutional crisis."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made the comments as she pushed back against critics of Republican President Donald Trump's expansive actions slashing the government workforce and federal spending.

"We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law," Leavitt said.

Trump's moves in the first weeks of his second term to overhaul the federal government and fulfill his campaign promises have been met with more than 50 lawsuits, with judges blocking some of his administration's moves at least temporarily. Top administration officials have responded by attacking the legitimacy of judicial oversight, one of the foundations of America's democracy which is based on the separation of powers.

The focus on the courts has intensified as the other long-standing check on the presidency, the Congress, is Republican-controlled and has largely gone along with Trump's unilateral actions, including his firing of government watchdogs.

When asked Wednesday if the White House believes the courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions to Trump's orders, Leavitt said the rulings "have no basis in the law" and "have no grounds." She said the White House would comply with the courts but believed the administration would "ultimately be vindicated."


"This is part of a larger, concerted effort by Democrat activists, and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump," Leavitt said, referring to Trump's personal legal challenges, including the criminal trial in New York in which he was convicted last year.

Judges have blocked, at least temporarily, his effort to end birthright citizenship, permit access to Treasury Department records by billionaire Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency and roll out a mass deferred resignation plan for federal workers.

Musk, the world's richest man who has been given far-reaching powers by Trump to shrink the federal government, has posted on social media that judges who rule against the administration should be impeached.

"A corrupt judge protecting corruption. He needs to be impeached NOW!" Musk wrote about the judge in the Treasury Department case. Vice President JD Vance said Sunday on X, " If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

As court cases pile up, questions have arisen about whether Trump, pushing to expand the limits of presidential power, would comply with court rulings.

Trump on Tuesday said he would, but suggested he would consider some kind of response to the judges and called their actions a "violation."

"It seems hard to believe that a judge could say, 'We don't want you to do that.' So maybe we have to look at the judges because that's very serious, I think it's a very serious violation," Trump said.

Leavitt made clear that Trump's team will also "seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted," she said.