Your predictions please for what America is like at the end of 2028, four years from now.
Quote from: mongers on December 14, 2024, 06:37:20 PMYour predictions please for what America is like at the end of 2028, four years from now.
I note the conspicuous absence of your own predictions while calling for the predictions of others.
Nothing good.
Millions will have been deported, inflation will be record high for 4 continuous years. Red state national guards roam and spread terror in the street of Blue states. Outside of marriage sex and porn are illegal. Contraception is no more.
This is the worse timeline, nothing good happens anymore.
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2024, 07:37:40 PMQuote from: mongers on December 14, 2024, 06:37:20 PMYour predictions please for what America is like at the end of 2028, four years from now.
I note the conspicuous absence of your own predictions while calling for the predictions of others.
I don't have enough knowledge of US politics to make any informed guesses.
I will say, given that Trump has been propelled into office on a tsunami wave of bullshit, and even if he doesn't do lasting damage, then some Americans will find themselves half-drowning in the flood waters of bullshit for four year.
Inflation is a problem. Otherwise everything is pretty much as usual.
I think political-social violence (like the recent CEO killing) will increase. It's a worrying trend and a Trump administration seems uniquely equipped to make things worse.
Due to deregulation, America will be dirtier and less safe for consumers, but more profitable for corporations.
Due to regressive import duties causing inflation and severe cuts to federal social spending, poor Americans will be poorer than now.
Due to isolationist policies and cozying up to foreign authoritarians, the current 'Western' world will be less safe and less of a coherent bloc.
The tribalism in American politics will get even more expressed and will enable Trump's authoritarian governing by decree.
Whatever bad happens half the country will blame it on the left.
I am not entirely sure the American people is as stupid as we tend to think in Northern Europe.
So, Congress will probably change colour in the mid-terms when the Trump billionaire club's policies are failing.
Not that the Dems are exactly clear about their aims either. The big-tent (or in the GOP's the huge SUV) party model is in some ways attractive, while there are a lot of different ideas in that tent.
I fear, with good reason, that environmental law will suffer, and I fear that by 2028, US influence diplomatically has declined to a degree where even the EU countries have a similar clout.
I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
My bet is that there will be no border wall in 2028. Because while coming up with ideas of quite low quality, Trump's follow-through is fairly poor.
That he will claim the era has been bigly and greatly, I am sure of. :tinfoil:
I think this is the most difficult prediction to make. In my mind, the range of possibilities spans all the way from false alarm to atrocities you would sound crazy imagining today.
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2024, 03:57:49 PMI think this is the most difficult prediction to make. In my mind, the range of possibilities spans all the way from false alarm to atrocities you would sound crazy imagining today.
Yeah I agree.
But my base guess is the same but more.
Although I'd add, to lift our gaze from Western navels, that there's been a few stories over the years that 2027 is Xi/CPC's target for taking Taiwan. If that's true, that might be the most significant fact between now and 2028.
"Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!"
The CEO murder is making me even more pessimistic about the future under Trump. The widespread cheering on for what is perceived to be justice through extrajudicial means makes it much more likely in my mind that societal norms are too weak to resist appeals to extrajudicial violence.
Trump's entire game plan for installing authoritarianism seems to be to call the bluff of the legal system when inevitable road blocks pop up, and hope that enough of the masses follow him to make the legal system irrelevant as a check on his power. Once the concept of doing illegal acts for the greater good gets enough acceptance in society, things can get very scary very quickly.
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2024, 03:57:49 PMI think this is the most difficult prediction to make. In my mind, the range of possibilities spans all the way from false alarm to atrocities you would sound crazy imagining today.
As Yogi Berra put it, "the future is hard to predict. Especially the parts that haven't happened yet."
Quote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMSo, Congress will probably change colour in the mid-terms when the Trump billionaire club's policies are failing.
The House, yes. The Senate, not so much. And, on account of that, perhaps one of the most consequential things we're liable to see is that Senate packing judgeships up and down the line with ideological incompetents, who will offer the Supreme Court many, many more opportunities to further weirdify the US Constitution and the laws of the United States generally for decades to come. It's already happening with just what he did in his first four years.
So we can bet on "weirdify" being the word of the year in 2028.
I'm down for it.
Quote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMI think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 11:16:42 AMQuote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMI think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.
:blink:
Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2024, 11:32:57 AMQuote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 11:16:42 AMQuote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMI think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.
:blink:
You heard me. It would be hard to think of a more dysfunctional organization in the world than the UN.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 11:16:42 AMQuote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMI think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.
As a Norwegian, I think I am bound by treaty to disagree. :blush: :unsure:
Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2024, 11:37:47 AMSome of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?
I can't answer for BBoy and I'm not quite so anti-UN, but the ICAO. It had predecessor institutions before the UN and standalone multi-lateral bodies to address specific needs can be (and are) regularly created. Tying it all into one general organisation - especially one that can be contentious and has an exceptionally broad range of interests.
Of course I think that sort of goes for the UN too - if there is a need something will be created (and there is no shortage to multi-lateral forums/groups). So I think without the UN we would be creating something very like the UN.
I'd add a friend of mine works for an international organisation that's been very successful in its area since the 50s and has had a strong reputation of actual delivery (and also getting on the ground in very difficult places/situations). They've been more or less subsumed into the UN over the last 10 years - part of the logic made sense in terms of competing for funds for similar goals with other UN institutions. But his perception is definitely that it is now significantly less effective, far more involved in internal UN bureaucratic turf wars and adopting a more risk averse/UN-ish approach to those high risk locations/situations (having said that they still have a presence in basically all of the highest risk category areas from a UN pov).
When it comes to UN, I think it's a concept that even a very bad government is likely better than no government at all (obviously there are always exceptions). UN is an attempt at having a world government, and while it's bad for many understandable and unavoidable reasons, it still provides for means for all the major governments to agree on no-brainers.
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2024, 11:37:47 AMSome of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?
There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.
My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority. It does pre-date the UN after all.
I'm not against multilateralism, no sir. Just anti-UN.
Quote from: DGuller on December 16, 2024, 12:16:40 PMWhen it comes to UN, I think it's a concept that even a very bad government is likely better than no government at all (obviously there are always exceptions). UN is an attempt at having a world government, and while it's bad for many understandable and unavoidable reasons, it still provides for means for all the major governments to agree on no-brainers.
Yeah I think for that stuff the UN works.
I'm biased because of my friend's experience in international organisations but I am more dubious of the UN's "doing" agencies. I think the only one I've really heard positive things about from him and his friends is possibly the WFP (and again has a reputation for going to very difficult places).
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 12:22:20 PMQuote from: Zanza on December 16, 2024, 11:37:47 AMSome of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?
There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.
My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority. It does pre-date the UN after all.
I'm not against multilateralism, no sir. Just anti-UN.
I expected you to refer to the United Nations as they actually exist, not some undefined subset of it that you dislike. In that case I can of course not make an argument.
Quote from: Zanza on December 16, 2024, 12:48:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 12:22:20 PMQuote from: Zanza on December 16, 2024, 11:37:47 AMSome of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?
There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.
My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority. It does pre-date the UN after all.
I'm not against multilateralism, no sir. Just anti-UN.
I expected you to refer to the United Nations as they actually exist, not some undefined subset of it that you dislike. In that case I can of course not make an argument.
I'm not the unabomber with a detailed manifesto of demands here. I just quipped that the UN is never the answer to a problem.
I didn't think that's such an outrageous position to take - at least clarifying that I'm not talking about the UN's specialized agencies. I just don't see the benefit of having those organizations within the UN umbrella - they don't even all have common membership.
I agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 11:16:42 AMQuote from: Norgy on December 15, 2024, 12:44:12 PMI think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.
No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.
Disagree. I think the UN has proven to be useful for creating buy-in for various global standards. Things like the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, The World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization. All of these are useful bodies.
Sure, you're not going to get much value out of trying to use the UN as some sort of global government, or to resolve intractable political disputes, but as a place to create broad technical frameworks for international use, it's as good a place as any.
Quote from: PDH on December 15, 2024, 04:44:36 PM"Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!"
:D
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 01:17:41 PMI agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.
I have a feeling that neither you nor BB have a good grasp on all the work the UN does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2024, 02:03:08 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 01:17:41 PMI agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.
I have a feeling that neither you nor BB have a good grasp on all the work the UN does.
I don't. I just wish it would do those things without Russia's & China's corrupting influences.
Quote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 01:12:39 PMI didn't think that's such an outrageous position to take - at least clarifying that I'm not talking about the UN's specialized agencies. I just don't see the benefit of having those organizations within the UN umbrella - they don't even all have common membership.
I can see your point, but I come from a small country. We need the UN. We were founding members and even had the first general secretary.
We have had these discussions numerous times here and on the old P'dox forum. The UN is far, far, far, very far from perfect. When the Saudi-Arabians got the chairmanship of the UN human rights council, it wasn't exactly a great moment.
The agencies work. Because they are not the general assembly or the security council. Those two institutions are often what most associate with the UN.
Do you want to know how many Norwegians who have served in UN peace keeping missions? More than served during World War II.
Even neutral Sweden sent peacekeeping forces here and there.
We need the IIC. We need the UN. Although imperfect, it is what we have.
I basically agree as I say if we didn't have it we'd be inventing it.
Although FWIW - again experience I've heard from friend and his friends who work in the international sector is very much that the agencies don't work. There are exceptions like the WFP but they are scathing of UNHCR, UNICEF etc. And from speaking to them, all of the agencies are absolutely riddled with nepotism.
For a lot of those "doing" bits of the UN I think we'd be better off supporting genuine NGOs (especially NGOs from countries impacted by a crisis).
Although fully get that's from people who are generally resentfully within the UN system or outside (on the other hand - there might be a reason why, after four years in a very dangerous posting his contacts are all people outside the UN - because except for WFP and one or two other agencies, they don't send people there).
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 02:55:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2024, 02:03:08 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 01:17:41 PMI agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.
I have a feeling that neither you nor BB have a good grasp on all the work the UN does.
I don't. I just wish it would do those things without Russia's & China's corrupting influences.
It largely does. Do you have any knowledge of the ICAO operating under the corrupting influence of China or Russia?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2024, 03:21:59 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 02:55:45 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2024, 02:03:08 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 01:17:41 PMI agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.
I have a feeling that neither you nor BB have a good grasp on all the work the UN does.
I don't. I just wish it would do those things without Russia's & China's corrupting influences.
It largely does. Do you have any knowledge of the ICAO operating under the corrupting influence of China or Russia?
Russia, no. China, it's continued refusal to let Taiwan in.
Quote from: Norgy on December 16, 2024, 03:08:07 PMQuote from: Barrister on December 16, 2024, 01:12:39 PMI didn't think that's such an outrageous position to take - at least clarifying that I'm not talking about the UN's specialized agencies. I just don't see the benefit of having those organizations within the UN umbrella - they don't even all have common membership.
I can see your point, but I come from a small country. We need the UN. We were founding members and even had the first general secretary.
We have had these discussions numerous times here and on the old P'dox forum. The UN is far, far, far, very far from perfect. When the Saudi-Arabians got the chairmanship of the UN human rights council, it wasn't exactly a great moment.
The agencies work. Because they are not the general assembly or the security council. Those two institutions are often what most associate with the UN.
Do you want to know how many Norwegians who have served in UN peace keeping missions? More than served during World War II.
Even neutral Sweden sent peacekeeping forces here and there.
We need the IIC. We need the UN. Although imperfect, it is what we have.
You're talking to a Canadian.
Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for getting involved in the Suez Crisis and (together with a Norwegian) inventing the idea of peacekeeping. Canada has proudly sent peacekeepers to many crisis zones through the decades.
But that's exactly it - we're so caught up in that legacy and history we fail to see how toothless the UN is today. See how the UN has said nothing about the invasion of Ukraine. The UN has no role in the South China Sea. The UN will pass resolution after resolution about Israel - but that too has been to no effect. Not to mention the corruption and cronyism involved.
In my ideal world where the UN is abolished - the World Food Program, the IAEA, the ICAO, the World Bank, and countless others - all would continue to exist. I'm not against multilateralism.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 16, 2024, 03:30:00 PMRussia, no. China, it's continued refusal to let Taiwan in.
Russia maybe wait and see for the ICAO's decision/findings on MH17 brought by the Netherlands.
Although I'm not on the anti-Russia/China corrupting the UN as my issue. I think it's important and useful to have an organisation that reflects the world which will involve Russia and China. I'd just maybe not rely on it to effectively do stuff as well.
To come back to the thread: I predict that the United Nations including it's agencies will work less effectively after Trump's second term.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2024, 08:25:24 PMNothing good.
Millions will have been deported, inflation will be record high for 4 continuous years. Red state national guards roam and spread terror in the street of Blue states. Outside of marriage sex and porn are illegal. Contraception is no more.
This is the worse timeline, nothing good happens anymore.
Outside of marriage sex Republicans aren't that stupid to ban their favorite activity. ;)
they will however ban same sex marriage and do their best to make life miserable for same sex couples.
Quote from: viper37 on December 16, 2024, 04:04:30 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 14, 2024, 08:25:24 PMNothing good.
Millions will have been deported, inflation will be record high for 4 continuous years. Red state national guards roam and spread terror in the street of Blue states. Outside of marriage sex and porn are illegal. Contraception is no more.
This is the worse timeline, nothing good happens anymore.
Outside of marriage sex
Republicans aren't that stupid to ban their favorite activity. ;)
they will however ban same sex marriage and do their best to make life miserable for same sex couples.
I don't think people understand the GOP of 2024 (2025).
It's now very much a pro-porn, pro "grab 'em by the pussy" party. It's the "Bro" party, led by Bro-in-Chief Donald Trump.
Maybe they take steps to ban gay marriage somehow - but only because it's now the anti-marriage party. It's the "fuck who you want with no responsibilities" kind of party.
For historical reasons it's still going to be pro-life - but the Christian right is not in the drivers seat any more. At least - not the religious Christian right. Now it's all about "Christian nationalism" which is just code words for white nationalism.
Quote from: DGuller on December 15, 2024, 05:03:38 PMThe CEO murder is making me even more pessimistic about the future under Trump. The widespread cheering on for what is perceived to be justice through extrajudicial means makes it much more likely in my mind that societal norms are too weak to resist appeals to extrajudicial violence.
Trump's entire game plan for installing authoritarianism seems to be to call the bluff of the legal system when inevitable road blocks pop up, and hope that enough of the masses follow him to make the legal system irrelevant as a check on his power. Once the concept of doing illegal acts for the greater good gets enough acceptance in society, things can get very scary very quickly.
Trump is sympathetic to Rodrigo Duterte, former Philippine president, who oversaw extra judicial killings of drug dealers during his presidency.
Definitely the right time to set the precedent that it's okay to shoot citizens in the street, as long as one can spin the narrative that they're bad people.
Quote from: Norgy on December 16, 2024, 08:23:44 AMSo we can bet on "weirdify" being the word of the year in 2028.
I'm down for it.
My linguistic genius will be recognized! :punk:
Quote from: Zanza on December 15, 2024, 03:24:37 AMDue to deregulation, America will be dirtier and less safe for consumers, but more profitable for corporations.
Due to regressive import duties causing inflation and severe cuts to federal social spending, poor Americans will be poorer than now.
Due to isolationist policies and cozying up to foreign authoritarians, the current 'Western' world will be less safe and less of a coherent bloc.
The tribalism in American politics will get even more expressed and will enable Trump's authoritarian governing by decree.
This seems like a decent first stab, given what we've seen in the 1st month of the BSing.