What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think that the democratically elected POTUS wanting to do A is a good reason why A should be done, for all A?

That is the conundrum of democracy.  Sometimes voters make detard choices.  In a democracy detard choices can still grant legitimacy and real power, if you have the votes, or you don't have democracy.

Short answer: yes.  A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

[Admiral Yi]

But the NYT is not a philosophical journal.  The only reason to include such a hypothesis in a daily newspaper of record is if there is some reasonable likelihood it applies. And here it clearly does not.

You've convinced me Joan.  I concede.

[Zoupa]

Do you think that the democratically elected POTUS wanting to do A is a good reason why A should be done, for all A?

That is the conundrum of democracy.  Sometimes voters make detard choices.  In a democracy detard choices can still grant legitimacy and real power, if you have the votes, or you don't have democracy.

Short answer: yes.  A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

I think we're having translation issues with your use of "good". Do you mean valid?

[mongers]

Do you think that the democratically elected POTUS wanting to do A is a good reason why A should be done, for all A?

That is the conundrum of democracy.  Sometimes voters make detard choices.  In a democracy detard choices can still grant legitimacy and real power, if you have the votes, or you don't have democracy.

Short answer: yes.  A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

That is utterly idiotic.

[Admiral Yi]

I think we're having translation issues with your use of "good". Do you mean valid?

I think democracy is a good thing.  I think the absolute cornerstone of democracy is the will of the majority.  Therefore, I as a believer in democracy, feel it is good to accede to the will of the majority, unless it contravenes existing law.  In other words, elections matter.

[Grey Fox]

I don't disagree with Yi here.

Altho, the optics of all those decisions are really bad when the people chosen to execute them are compromised by foreign governments. Hostile government.

[Sheilbh]

Speculation is the proposal of an answer in the absence of relevant information. Analysis is the proposal of an answer based on relevant information. The NYT authors explain why they believe this is possible, using evidence. This is extremely common in news reporting.

I know that you do not argue that news organizations should only report the news and not analyze it.

Okay - thanks. I understand this a bit more.

I think this is where they could do with someone in the government saying that's an answer. Because to take it at face value the bit I still slightly struggle with is beancounters told to do a government efficiency drive and want to do it responsibly need access to, apparently, highly sensitive operational plans from the military. For me there's a leap there that's the bit that needs explaining.

I think democracy is a good thing.  I think the absolute cornerstone of democracy is the will of the majority.  Therefore, I as a believer in democracy, feel it is good to accede to the will of the majority, unless it contravenes existing law.  In other words, elections matter.

So I think there's a few sides. I can't think of a scenario where it would be good, right or justifiable for an American President to annex Canada even with the overwhelming support of the American public. It may be politically and democratically legitimate, but that would still be wrong and bad.

But I do think a mandate matters. Elections are not about selecting a Caesar who you therefore have to swing behind because they've won a majority of votes/electoral college etc. I think it matters what they campaigned on, what they told people they were going to do - because that's what they have a mandate for.

Also I think a really important bit of democracy is loser's consent. I think a part of that comes from a sense of elections as empowering but also constraining. They matter but are constrained by what was taken to the people. Elections and majorities aren't a four-yearly blank cheque.

[viper37]

A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

Any individual shouldn't be above the law, especially the Constitution of the country he was elected to serve.

[Tamas]

Did Trump campaign with the proposed policy of annexing Canada?

[Sophie Scholl]

Did Trump campaign with the proposed policy of annexing Canada?

I believe he started jabbering about the idea post-election in December of 2024. So no.

[Zoupa]

But I do think a mandate matters. Elections are not about selecting a Caesar who you therefore have to swing behind because they've won a majority of votes/electoral college etc. I think it matters what they campaigned on, what they told people they were going to do - because that's what they have a mandate for.

Bingo. Thank you for putting it into words.

[The Brain]

Do you think that the democratically elected POTUS wanting to do A is a good reason why A should be done, for all A?

That is the conundrum of democracy.  Sometimes voters make detard choices.  In a democracy detard choices can still grant legitimacy and real power, if you have the votes, or you don't have democracy.

Short answer: yes.  A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. Do you think there's a good reason to do everything that is legal to do?

[dist]

But I do think a mandate matters. Elections are not about selecting a Caesar who you therefore have to swing behind because they've won a majority of votes/electoral college etc. I think it matters what they campaigned on, what they told people they were going to do - because that's what they have a mandate for.

Also I think a really important bit of democracy is loser's consent. I think a part of that comes from a sense of elections as empowering but also constraining. They matter but are constrained by what was taken to the people. Elections and majorities aren't a four-yearly blank cheque.

Absolutely. And I find Yi's perspective really dangerous in the face of an authoritarian coup that nobody voted for. It's essentially a call to abandon any form of action, be it civic or democratic resistance, echoing Trump's own perspective: that he is an elected King and that his will is law. That's not democracy, nor is it consistent with the American constitutional framework.

And it brings to my mind how Chirac and Macron, after winning high-percentage victories against the Le Pens, used those results to claim full political legitimacy — despite knowing, like everyone else, that a large part of their support came from voters opposed to their policies rather than endorsing them. That posture has created a lot of anger among left-leaning voters in France, which has led to the current situation where many of these voters are no longer to compromise their vote to oppose the far right.

[Admiral Yi]

Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. Do you think there's a good reason to do everything that is legal to do?

Having a good reason to do something and doing it are two different things.  There are good reasons to do illegal things.  If I steal from you, I have more money.  That's a good reason.  But I choose not to steal from you.

[The Brain]

Having the right to do something and doing it are two different things. Do you think there's a good reason to do everything that is legal to do?

Having a good reason to do something and doing it are two different things.  There are good reasons to do illegal things.  If I steal from you, I have more money.  That's a good reason.  But I choose not to steal from you.

Thank you. I think I have the information I need now.