What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Tonitrus]

And probably having to face a reality where one would need to use a lot of methods that Trump himself introduced.  That is, lots of firings of his cronies/sycophants and executive orders (though probably with less pageantry).

Not to mention probably some ugly confrontations with the USSC. 

And some angry voters with guns. 30% or whatever the poll suggested who said that Trump was free from corruption?

That has always been a mostly fantastical concern.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I listened to an interesting pod on geopolitics, a local Swedish one. They more or less argued that the US pivot east, heralded by Obama in 2008, is on-going. It's a natural result of the US hegemony being under threat from China.

As part of that it's not in the US interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine. Russia is a counter-weight to China, and whilst them winning is not necessarily beneficial, them losing hard is very bad for the US. This is the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump stance on the war and has been consequent regardless of presidency.

Further the argument was that the internationalist policies (free trade, NATO and so on) of the US since the war (WWII that is) has always been a "the state" going against the inclination of both congress and people. The US population is naturally isolationist and the current trend is just that side of the argument gaining influence.

So, Trump is not the cause of the current US move towards isolationism, he's just the half-wit that happens to sit in the Presidents chair during a time when the process is accelerating. But that process would have happened regardless, we saw it under Obama and Biden also.

All of this is to say that if our politicians would have taken their heads out of their asses in 2008 and back then pivoted to increased European autonomy, like Obama said, we would have been far better positioned right now to handle the current mess. What happens now is the result of systematic natural processes that were able to be seen back in the 90's.

I think history will prove the American pivot here wrong. China, for all it's faults, is largely willing to play within the rules-based order, while Russia is not. China does not appear to have the soft power /propaganda abilities or leverage over billionaires needed to undermine and destroy our democracy.

[The Brain]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

[Threviel]

I listened to an interesting pod on geopolitics, a local Swedish one. They more or less argued that the US pivot east, heralded by Obama in 2008, is on-going. It's a natural result of the US hegemony being under threat from China.

As part of that it's not in the US interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine. Russia is a counter-weight to China, and whilst them winning is not necessarily beneficial, them losing hard is very bad for the US. This is the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump stance on the war and has been consequent regardless of presidency.

Further the argument was that the internationalist policies (free trade, NATO and so on) of the US since the war (WWII that is) has always been a "the state" going against the inclination of both congress and people. The US population is naturally isolationist and the current trend is just that side of the argument gaining influence.

So, Trump is not the cause of the current US move towards isolationism, he's just the half-wit that happens to sit in the Presidents chair during a time when the process is accelerating. But that process would have happened regardless, we saw it under Obama and Biden also.

All of this is to say that if our politicians would have taken their heads out of their asses in 2008 and back then pivoted to increased European autonomy, like Obama said, we would have been far better positioned right now to handle the current mess. What happens now is the result of systematic natural processes that were able to be seen back in the 90's.

I think history will prove the American pivot here wrong. China, for all it's faults, is largely willing to play within the rules-based order, while Russia is not. China does not appear to have the soft power /propaganda abilities or leverage over billionaires needed to undermine and destroy our democracy.

China is not playing within rules-based order. They're constantly pushing their boundaries just like Russia and doing what they can get away with. Back in the day we pretended that Russia behaved, but looking at it in the rear-view-mirror they never did. It's the same with China.

Whether the US goes fascist or not is neither here nor there in a geopolitical sense. They have the same limitations either way and the same forces will play out. Sure, there might be minor differences, a war with Iran here or an invasion of Cuba there, but it'll lead to the same general end either way. A conflict with China over the Pacific and a tense, but not necessarily awful, relationship with Europe. In the end European and US goals are more or less the same, to contain China.

[The Brain]

OTOH China hasn't expressed explicit intention to invade the Nato homelands, which makes it stand out from Russia and the US.

[Valmy]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

Won't happen. No matter how decent the next few Presidents might be the knuckle dragging barbarians who comprise about 40% of the country will put another jackass in power eventually.

[The Brain]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

Won't happen. No matter how decent the next few Presidents might be the knuckle dragging barbarians who comprise about 40% of the country will put another jackass in power eventually.

Mos Def.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

Won't happen. No matter how decent the next few Presidents might be the knuckle dragging barbarians who comprise about 40% of the country will put another jackass in power eventually.

That can, technically, happen everywhere. After all, France might put Mélenchon in the driver's seat too

[viper37]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

Won't happen. No matter how decent the next few Presidents might be the knuckle dragging barbarians who comprise about 40% of the country will put another jackass in power eventually.

I'm looking at Quebec & Canada here.  

Since the beginning, what I've heard is that once the dust settles, most corporations would be willing to resume trade with the US.

Poilièvre went on a US tour.  He did some pushback on Trump's 51st state idea, but essentially, the message was the we need closer ties with the US.

He has fallen in the polls, but I think it still represent the mood of a certain segment of the population and a large part of the corporate world.

Many of our businesses are American-owned/affiliated.  Many Canadian businesses operates in the US, it's much, much easier there than in Europe.  Even if some States have different regulations, it's not that bad generally to do commerce, most rules are dictated by the Federal authority.  In Europe, you don't just deal with the EU rules, you have to deal with each country you want to export to.  It's impractical and costly for a smb.

If CUSMA/NAFTA gets renewed, a lot of our businesses will want to resume commerce over there.

US has asked for major concessions and I believe some businessmen are more than willing to sacrifice others for their own gain (not surprising).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

In Europe, you don't just deal with the EU rules, you have to deal with each country you want to export to.  It's impractical and costly for a smb.

Yep, it's because the internal market isn't finished. The EU is basically stuck with massive internal tariffs that no one wants to get rid of due to protectionist reasons. Which I understand, but surely there must be a way to streamline much of it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater

[Zoupa]

I mean, even if Trump and his cronies get voted out in 2028 and actually leave the government ... how do you address the damage they did to the ability of the government handling its responsibilities and restore faith with partners abroad and the voting population?

One or two generations of decent behavior will probably convince other countries that the US can be trusted.

Won't happen. No matter how decent the next few Presidents might be the knuckle dragging barbarians who comprise about 40% of the country will put another jackass in power eventually.

That can, technically, happen everywhere. After all, France might put Mélenchon in the driver's seat too

You'll be happy to know he's polling around 20% against Bardella at 80% in a hypothetical 2nd round.

[Zoupa]

I listened to an interesting pod on geopolitics, a local Swedish one. They more or less argued that the US pivot east, heralded by Obama in 2008, is on-going. It's a natural result of the US hegemony being under threat from China.

As part of that it's not in the US interest that Russia is defeated in Ukraine. Russia is a counter-weight to China, and whilst them winning is not necessarily beneficial, them losing hard is very bad for the US. This is the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump stance on the war and has been consequent regardless of presidency.

Further the argument was that the internationalist policies (free trade, NATO and so on) of the US since the war (WWII that is) has always been a "the state" going against the inclination of both congress and people. The US population is naturally isolationist and the current trend is just that side of the argument gaining influence.

So, Trump is not the cause of the current US move towards isolationism, he's just the half-wit that happens to sit in the Presidents chair during a time when the process is accelerating. But that process would have happened regardless, we saw it under Obama and Biden also.

All of this is to say that if our politicians would have taken their heads out of their asses in 2008 and back then pivoted to increased European autonomy, like Obama said, we would have been far better positioned right now to handle the current mess. What happens now is the result of systematic natural processes that were able to be seen back in the 90's.

This is 2015 thinking. There is no rime or reason to the Trump administration's geopolitical decisions. There's no grand design, no 3d chess, no pivot. Xi could release a statement saying how strong Trump looks and all tariffs would be out the window. Bribe him a bit and Taiwan is gone.