What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

Is the Democrat plan based on the idea of winning elections? The idea of there being free and fair national elections in GOPmerica going forward seems optimistic, certainly for 2026 elections and extremely so for 2028 elections. And even if the Democrats win Congress in 2026, how many divisions does Congress have?

I get the feeling that the Democrats are intellectually and emotionally unable to keep up with the pace of change. I will be extremely happy to be a mistaken doomsayer, but wild optimism didn't serve them well in 2024 so maybe try a different tack.

[Tamas]

I mean, can we think of a new regime coming to power with popular support having resistance started against it after a couple of months? Unlikely

[Admiral Yi]

"The resistance" is a public theater concept.  It's meaningless in the context of political action or strategy.  Putting on a Guy Fawke's mask doesn't move any of the levers of power.

[The Brain]

"The resistance" is a public theater concept.  It's meaningless in the context of political action or strategy.  Putting on a Guy Fawke's mask doesn't move any of the levers of power.

Do you think that no resistance should be made?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The poll tax riots in the UK in 1990 were instrumental in bringing down Thatcher, for example.

[Richard Hakluyt]

But I do think we need to see what effect all the legal cases have on the Trump regime. If they simply ignore any judgements andcarry on disregarding the law then they become an illegitimate government imo. At which point some form of popular resistance becomes valid.

[Admiral Yi]

The poll tax riots in the UK in 1990 were instrumental in bringing down Thatcher, for example.

Were the riots a creator of political change or a symptom?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I would say both.

Thatcher was in her final manic phase and had started ignoring advice, so she imposed a tax which was widely seen as unjust. Millions of people refused to pay the tax  and a few thousand hotheads (including the usual suspects) rioted in various towns and cities. To the concern of MPs popular condemnation of the riots was not very strong (unlike in last year's summer riots), this led to feelings that "Thatcher has lost it" in the conservative party. Later that year Thatcher was deposed and replaced by John Major, his government replaced the poll tax with a less egregiously regressive tax called council tax.

[viper37]

Trump orders military to plan for 'reclaiming' of Panama Canal: Report

[crazy canuck]

But I do think we need to see what effect all the legal cases have on the Trump regime. If they simply ignore any judgements andcarry on disregarding the law then they become an illegitimate government imo. At which point some form of popular resistance becomes valid.

I don't think the court cases matter at all one way or the other.  I know that is going to be strange coming from a lawyer who makes their money mainly arguing constitutional cases these days, but I don't think that is the way forward for the United States.

Legal cases, only matter when political and business elites accept the legal judgments.  Not just technically in the sense that they obey the order of the court, but also behaviourally in the sense that they modify their behavior.

A really good example of that is what happened in the Ford Pinto case.  That case caused industry wide reforms in how cars were designed and constructed. No longer would there be a cost benefit analysis trading off risk of death or serious injury with profit margins.

Even if a court finds against all of the multitude of legal wrongs being committed by the Trumpists, and even if there is some performative acceptance of a court order, there is no chance that anyone in government will be thinking about ways to modify their behaviour and policies so that they don't run afoul of the law in future.

Rather, they will think about ways to support the law further and avoid the possibility in that court will find against them the next time they do it.

A good example of that, amongst many, are the efforts going on in the justice department to limit the ability of a court to issue an injunction to restrain ex executive orders on an intern basis.

I disagree entirely with Yi's argument that the resistance was only theatre. The women's march was a very important event, which helped give some backbone to the Democrats when they resisted Trump version one.  I think the argument that the lack of a resistance this time around has weekend the backbone of the Democrats.  And of course, we have seen the result of that in the latest vote at the Senate.

[The Brain]

Trump orders military to plan for 'reclaiming' of Panama Canal: Report

"Operation Just Because" used to be a joke.

[Syt]

I had missed this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/us/politics/trump-tariffs-house-gop-vote.html

Republicans Quietly Cede Power to Cancel Trump's Tariffs, Avoiding a Tough Vote

House G.O.P. leaders tucked the provision into a procedural measure needed to pass a government spending bill.

House Republican leaders on Tuesday quietly moved to shield their members from having to vote on whether to end President Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, tucking language into a procedural measure that effectively removed their chamber's ability to undo the levies.

The maneuver was a tacit acknowledgment of how politically toxic the issue had become for their party, and another example of how the all-Republican Congress is ceding its power to the executive branch.

In this case, Republican leaders did so using a particularly unusual contortion: They essentially declared the rest of the year one long day, nullifying a law that allows the House and Senate to jointly put an end to a disaster declared by the president.

House Democrats had planned to force a vote on resolutions to end the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move allowed under the National Emergencies Act, which provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate an emergency like the one Mr. Trump declared when he imposed the tariffs on Feb. 1.

That would have forced Republicans — many of whom are opposed to tariffs as a matter of principle — to go on the record on the issue at a time when Mr. Trump's commitment to tariffs has spooked the financial markets and spiked concerns of reigniting inflation.

But Republican leaders on Tuesday slipped language into a procedural measure that would prevent any resolution to end the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China from receiving a vote this year. It passed on party lines as part of a resolution that cleared the way for a vote later Tuesday on a government spending bill needed to prevent a shutdown at the end of the week.

The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that. But the language House Republicans inserted in their measure on Tuesday declared that, "Each day for the remainder of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day" for the purposes of the emergency that Mr. Trump declared on Feb. 1.

Democrats jeered the maneuver.

"The speaker is petrified that members of this House will actually have to take a vote on lowering costs on the American people," said Representative Greg Meeks, Democrat of New York, who introduced the privileged resolution. "If Congress can't act to lower prices, protect retirement savings and hold the president accountable, what are we even doing here?"

Democrats in the Senate could still try to force a vote to end the tariffs, putting Republicans in that chamber in a tough spot. But in order to terminate the levies, a resolution would have to pass both chambers and be signed by Mr. Trump.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Congress should just go home I guess, it's not like they'll do anything useful anymore.
At this rate you'll break the nsdap speedrun record

[mongers]

Days of BS so far - 54

Days of BS left - 1407

[Valmy]

Days of BS so far - 54

Days of BS left - 1407

If we're lucky