What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

thanks Joan

[Sheilbh]

Just occurred to me that Trump will be in office during the 250th anniversary.

(I could be wrong but I almost suspect he will spend a lot of his time on the event planning for that )

[crazy canuck]

Just occurred to me that Trump will be in office during the 250th anniversary.

(I could be wrong but I almost suspect he will spend a lot of his time on the event planning for that )

I hope he devotes all his time to that

[Tamas]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

[frunk]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

I don't think it really makes a difference if he's there or not, apart from Putin getting better cell reception.

[HVC]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

I don't think it really makes a difference if he's there or not, apart from Putin getting better cell reception.

Funny, after America won the Cold War I'd never imagine that the US would be the get the puppet government put in place by Russia.


Also, Trumps been ozempic-afied, right? He's face looks weird.

[Savonarola]

It is very easy to interpret Trump the way his voters interpret him: what the individual voter liked to hear, is true and what Trump will do. The rest is just showmanship and acceptable lies to gain power.

A number of Trump's promises are contradictory; he can't eliminate the professional bureaucracy and simultaneously hire enough ICE agents to deport all the ilegales.  Others are impossible, Efficiency Czar Elon Musk cannot reduce the Federal Budget by 2 trillion dollars; an amount greater than the discretionary spending in the federal budget.  So I'm trying not to do the opposite; and interpret the showmanship and lies as his true intentions.  I do think he will pursue a more isolationist foreign policy; he will actually give RFK Jr. (a man who thinks that Covid was genetically engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews) a leadership position in Health and Human Services; I think he will try to significantly change the federal bureaucracy; and he will use the Justice Department to go after the people who have "Wronged" him.  He's made other promises, which he could carry out and which have the potential to be equally catastrophic, but these are the consequential ones that I think are most likely to keep, (and if he doesn't, or they don't work out as badly as I expect, then he wasn't as bad a president as I expected.)

[Tamas]

Yes he can! 

[crazy canuck]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

All that is a given.  Things only get worse if Trump adds to it.

[Tamas]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

All the is a given.  Things only get worse if Trump adds to it.

Fair.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

IDK why you guys think an absentee Trump is any better than an active Trump. He is an amoral lazy conman but that also means he doesn't actually believe most of the shit he ran on. But his government will be full of lunatic right-wingers and reckless chancers like Musk. If he goes to play golf and lets his toadies run the government, how is that better than the crap he'd do himself?

I don't think it really makes a difference if he's there or not, apart from Putin getting better cell reception.

Funny, after America won the Cold War I'd never imagine that the US would be the get the puppet government put in place by Russia.


Also, Trumps been ozempic-afied, right? He's face looks weird.

That's because China won the cold war. The west didn't in hindsight

[Barrister]

Wouldn't that depend on the court's ruling?  I think your logic is that if the court upheld the executive order they would have to overturn the 14th Amendment and apply it retroactively, regardless of Trump's stated preference to deny it only to future, as yet unborn people.  I'm trying to come up with a relevant example of some law being changed and applied retroactively but I can't.  But maybe citizenship is unique in that it's a status and not an act.

OK so I wanted to chime in on this whole debate.

For starters, of course, the USSC can't "overturn the 14th Amendment".  What's being discussed is the notion that the 14th Amendment, as written, does not grant citizenship to children born in the US to people without legal status.

Forgive me, but I'm going to dive into first year law school stuff.

Broadly speaking there are two kinds of laws - common law and statutes.  Statutes are fairly straight-forward - Congress passes a law, the President signs it, and the law comes into effect on the date it says.  A statute does not have retrospective authority - it can't change the legal status of things that have already happened.

Common law though - that's when justices look back over past cases and past precedent.  They then don't make new law, but rather they proclaim what the law always has been (when properly understood).  When the USSC overturns Roe v Wade in Dodds they don't say "we just don't like Roe v Wade", instead it's "Roe v Wade didn't understand the law, and it always should have been the other way".

Now there can be exceptions to both.  I'll give you a fun little example - The Manitoba Language reference (bet you didn't see that coming).  Under the Manitoba Act, which is how Manitoba joined Confederation as a province, it was supposed to be a bilingual province.  That included that all laws in Manitoba needed to be passed in both French and English.  At some point though Manitoba just stopped doing that, passing laws only in English.

So there was a court case that said every single Manitoba law for the prior 50 years or so was invalid.  But they also held that would lead to chaos, so they gave Manitoba several years grace period to re-pass any and all laws in both French and English.

But notice that's the exception.  The SCC didn't say 'from this day forward, all laws must be passed in both languages' - because that's not how court rulings and the common law works.  Because court rulings do apply retrospectively.


So - if the USSC decides that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to people without status in the US, the most plan understanding of that ruling would be that works retrospectively, and that anyone who gained citizenship that way was granted it incorrectly.

Could the USSC wave it's hands and say "but just in this case only the ruling doesn't apply retrospectively"?  I mean sure.  That's bad precedent and bad law, but they're supreme court justices and I'm not.  But it would be the exception to the general way court rulings work.

[grumbler]

That's because China won the cold war. The west didn't in hindsight

Nonsense.  The West won the Cold war and the two decades following its conclusion. The third decade was probably a tie between the US and China, and Trump's election will probably give the fourth decade after the end of the CW to China.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that Germany didn't win the Franco-Prussian War because, in hindsight, they lost WW1.

[crazy canuck]

That's because China won the cold war. The west didn't in hindsight

Nonsense.  The West won the Cold war and the two decades following its conclusion. The third decade was probably a tie between the US and China, and Trump's election will probably give the fourth decade after the end of the CW to China.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that Germany didn't win the Franco-Prussian War because, in hindsight, they lost WW1.

The analogy is correct, but damn you for making me feel old 

[Sheilbh]

Nonsense.  The West won the Cold war and the two decades following its conclusion. The third decade was probably a tie between the US and China, and Trump's election will probably give the fourth decade after the end of the CW to China.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that Germany didn't win the Franco-Prussian War because, in hindsight, they lost WW1.

Maybe. I think there's an argument that the US won the Cold War in Europe and believed that ended it, but never achieved more than a stalemate in Asia.