The Upcoming Trump Presidency

[Don]

Trump's problem is that he's unqualified but wants to act on his own. Bureaucracy in some sense ensures even an idiot can run things if you're willing to let something go through 10 layers of meeting or whatever. Sure, it's not efficient nor the best solution, but you'll usually end up with something that resembles a workable solution after going through all those hoops. There's really no need to take an initiative if there isn't some huge crisis going on and just sticking to the teleprompter will at least ensure nothing falls apart too badly. But of course he doesn't do that, though his inability to pass laws also limits what he can do.

[kali o.]

My yearly bump of this thread (since the news cycle moves so fucking fast and people forget shit)…

Anyone change their mind on Trump or still relatively the same? Any one agree with me on media bias (if you didn't before)?

My position has largely not changed. I have been pleasantly surprised by many of Trumps successes (especially economic, which have kept the rate largely static waaaaay past what I expected). He is either a genius or Forrest Gump incarnate.

[Don]

I think what messes up the media is that they hate Trump and also pretend they're actually fair. On top of that they also want viewership even though if you really hated Trump you'd just ignore him since he's generally pretty lacking in substance so if you're just reporting news there isn't much to talk about in terms of actual policy implemented.

On a tangential note, I find it pretty amazing that people act like the Supreme Court isn't some kind of extension of politics from this Kavanaugh hearing. I mean you or I are just as qualified, if not more so, on whether the Constitution agrees with the right to have semiautomatic rifle or lockboxes in mobile games. It's literally impossible to be wrong because you know the Constiution never thought about these things and a random guy on the Internet is likely more in touch with reality compared to judges who might already be senile.

[kali o.]

I think what messes up the media is that they hate Trump and also pretend they're actually fair. On top of that they also want viewership even though if you really hated Trump you'd just ignore him since he's generally pretty lacking in substance so if you're just reporting news there isn't much to talk about in terms of actual policy implemented.

On a tangential note, I find it pretty amazing that people act like the Supreme Court isn't some kind of extension of politics from this Kavanaugh hearing. I mean you or I are just as qualified, if not more so, on whether the Constitution agrees with the right to have semiautomatic rifle or lockboxes in mobile games. It's literally impossible to be wrong because you know the Constiution never thought about these things and a random guy on the Internet is likely more in touch with reality compared to judges who might already be senile.

I think the media has given up any pretense of pretending to be fair (I believe last I looked negative coverage was above 95% and dominating the news cycle like never in history). I think the media feels *they* are responsible for electing Trump; therefore they are responsible for removing Trump. That's actually fucked up and wrong on every level.

And as someone fairly skilled, in comparison to most, in contract law, allow me to thoroughly disagree with you with respect to qualification. Memorizing case law to make structured and supported legal arguments and proper interpretation is not a easy or in the common persons skillset. It's a very complex process that requires not only an exceptionally ordered mind, but requires an immense amount of study.

For example, if I need to simply judge the enforceability of condition precedent, that requires me to start looking into the primary Act, dig through several related Acts, make sure I have my appropriate definitions, then search out case law. And even then, there is a high likelihood my interpretation won't hold up under the scrutiny of an actual legal professional.

[Replay]

I think the media feels *they* are responsible for electing Trump; therefore they are responsible for removing Trump. That's actually fucked up and wrong on every level.

Why? They have the power they have. Editorializing happens far too often under the pretense of objectivism, but there is a place in media as well for the editorial sphere.

A journalist who truly feels that Donald Trump is unfit to be president is out of line if they present that as objective reporting. They are not out of line if the content is clearly presented as editorial.

It's always so curious to me to watch you preach so heavily about fairness in media. We both understand very well that the media is brutally corrupt, no doubt. I'm just utterly shocked that you actually have the capacity for outrage on something like this. Call me cynical, I guess.

And as someone fairly skilled, in comparison to most, in contract law, allow me to thoroughly disagree with you with respect to qualification. Memorizing case law to make structured and supported legal arguments and proper interpretation is not a easy or in the common persons skillset. It's a very complex process that requires not only an exceptionally ordered mind, but requires an immense amount of study.

For example, if I need to simply judge the enforceability of condition precedent, that requires me to start looking into the primary Act, dig through several related Acts, make sure I have my appropriate definitions, then search out case law. And even then, there is a high likelihood my interpretation won't hold up under the scrutiny of an actual legal professional.

Yes, Don is wrong that the average person is as qualified as a judge or other working legal professional to interpret law. The average person on the street isn't qualified to judge a case.

At the same time, that average person is affected by the laws that judge makes.

So the eternal problem is how to find people who are intelligent enough to understand the meta issues behind and around any law, while still making the law both moral and comprenehsible for any citizen who has the basic compulsory education to understand.

We do badly at this in North America. Our legal system - and its costs - essentially mean that plutocracy is the rule of law in our civil system, and even to some extent our court system. A civil trial is *always* won by the party who can afford to drive the other bankrupt in legal costs before the completion of the suit, resulting ironically in only "fair" civil trials for the 0.01%.

Peter Thiel's comment on Hulk Hogan having "no effective access to the American legal system, as a single-digit millionaire" was chilling, and is relevant.

I'd like to believe our criminal justice system is still at least somewhat better, but realistically I probably don't want to know just how plutocratic that is as well.

*shrug*

America is at root, still probably more of a plutocracy than any other form of government - including democracy and all related institutions. This remains problematic, but our society as a whole has no will to change it - witness rulings like Citizens United.

[Replay]

For what it's worth, I believe Donald Trump has quite exceeded my expectations.

That's because I expected to be in the middle of World War III by now, though.

He's doing well! I mean really, we all could have been in a nuclear ashpile by now.

Is he a corrupt, lying, two-faced, racist old con man? Signs point to yes. I guess I'm just inured by now. I used up all my outrage on Dubya. I am utterly unsurprised anymore at the moral failings of our Presidents. No one gets there without the blessing of our intelligence services these days, and you don't get to be a cool kid in that club unless you're kind of fundamentally shitty at heart in some way. And hey! I'm not a saint myself.

Is a lot of the "good economy" going to be revealed as a puff of smoke in under a decade, as deregulation, tariffs, and inflation clobber the shit out of the poor and middle class, and eventually some major financial institution or American company or set of companies blow it up for everyone and require massive government intervention again? I can't promise on that one, but it's been the script for every major Republican Administration of my lifetime.

Trump will generally have my support to remain President as long as the nation continues to elect him, even if I'd prefer someone else - I believe in our country and its democracy still, and ironically, despite all the shenanigans and electioneering, he really didn't do anything others fundamentally didn't do to get there. (Dems, please note that running Hillary last time fundamentally reduces your chances to object to this.)

That's contingent on him doing a few things though:

1. Avoid starting a major war on fucking TWITTER. This is still my biggest worry about Trump's legacy, though it's lessening with every year that he doesn't turn the world to ash.
2. Retain Mattis as Defense Secretary. I will vote for Jim Mattis for President himself at this point, though I no doubt I disagree with him ideologically on many issues, because his tenure as Defense Secretary and the effective day-to-day commander of our military has seen no major escalation of conflict over two years with the BOSS HE HAS, and that's fucking nothing less than astonishing.
3. Start to develop a real plan for the economy that is more than just "tax cuts and hey look at the jobs figures". I will eat crow on one thing - I *never* expected that the corporate tax rate cut would actually result in as much hiring as it has, even if executives and shareholders are still keeping most of it - but there are realistic risks, too. The tariffs are likely to spark inflation, indeed already are - prices on basic goods are starting to creep up again, and prices that rise are always resistant to dropping in America. It still took blowing a hole $700b wide in the Federal budget to do it, and that's an inflationary risk too.

[Don]

I think the media has given up any pretense of pretending to be fair (I believe last I looked negative coverage was above 95% and dominating the news cycle like never in history). I think the media feels *they* are responsible for electing Trump; therefore they are responsible for removing Trump. That's actually fucked up and wrong on every level.

I don't know if the media fells like they helped electing Trump (though they certainly did with all the free coverage) but they definitely feel like they're supposed to be the resistance, which is absurd. If Trump declared war on Mexico and Canada, he's not going to be stopped just because guys on CNN are doing some fact checks.

Replay had a point about how he was expecting World War 3 which hasn't happened. Honestly, that's what I expect media's role is. All I need to know is that Trump hasn't started World War 3 and that's good enough for me. I don't need to know he lied about how many people were applauding him or how he exaggerates numbers. Sure if Trump is claiming Canada is amassing tanks across the border and someone want to point out this isn't the case that's fine, but otherwise I don't need to know how 3 out of every 4 irrelevant thing he said is false because they're not relevant.

For the law issue I'm not saying the average person has an understanding of law comparable to a Supreme Court Justice. I'm saying that when it comes to issue of Constituitionality or lack thereof, a lot of modern issue is way outside the scope of the Constitution which means nobody can actually be an expert in it. For example I remember the Supreme Court justices were asked about they'd rule on digital surveillance and they'd look into previous rulings on government tapping phones or phonographs because that's the precedent they got. But other than that both are data there's nothing comparable in the scope of the two and you simply can't compare them. If the Supreme Court ever took a case on whether Assault Rifles should be banned I can guaranteed you won't find any relevant information in the Constitution on whether people should be allowed to possess a weapon that's unthinkable during the time the Constitution is written. Sure if we're talking about who gets to regulate interstate commerce according to the Constitution I'm sure the judges know that way more than the average guy, but if we're talking about issues that didn't even exist at the time of the Constitution nobody is more qualified. Slavery was a thing and then it was not, and it's not because 5 guys in the Supreme Court suddenly go 'you know now that I think about it the Constitution says slavery is bad'. No it's because people's opinion change and a war was fought over it and then they decided they should keep up to the times. If the South won the Civil War I'm sure the Supreme Court will decide that slavery is still totally fine.

The Court reflects what is prodominently believed by the guys at the time and claim the Constitution backs up, so for example you probably won't suddenly have a majority ruling we should return to slavery even though the Constitution clearly supported that at one point because this is something the population no longer finds acceptable. As far as I can tell the Supreme Court doesn't like to actually get in the way of the executive branch, and even on something like the Muslim ban it's generally some kind of technicality which is why after they reworded and changed a few things it passed. How exactly does the knowledge of the Constitution lets you know the first version of the Muslim ban was unconstitutional but the second is? It's merely an opinion since the two version basically ended up doing the same thing. The Constitution is not Dr. Light who has a contingency for everything that will happen in the next 500 years. It doesn't have an answer of 'what do you do if the president wants to ban Muslim under national security pretenses'. While it's true this issue is easier to trace a line of precedents, but as we can see from the ultimate outcome, it's still mostly just posturing and technicalities.

Now if the Supreme Court wants to actually lead and proactively decide laws that affect policy changes obviously they're far more qualified than you or I, but I just don't see that happening. If MLK didn't exist, I highly doubt the Supreme Court will take the initiative to decide that segregation is no longer constitutional.

[Julius Seeker]

Elect a clown, expect a circus.

[kali o.]

It's always so curious to me to watch you preach so heavily about fairness in media. We both understand very well that the media is brutally corrupt, no doubt. I'm just utterly shocked that you actually have the capacity for outrage on something like this. Call me cynical, I guess.

I'm sorry -- why are you "shocked"?

That's because I expected to be in the middle of World War III by now, though.

While I get the intrinsic human tendency to have apocalyptic fantasies (hell, I have them for a zombie apocalypse and it was the primary motivator for obtaining my gun license), do you REALLY believe this was ever a possibility? While I get this idea was wildly stoked by the Dems prior to election, a President is not a position without checks...and beyond that, you have to have such an unfairly low estimation of Trump to give these fantasies any credibility. I mean, sometimes it seems people really believe this billionaire with his own company, that has been in the American spotlight for decades, lacks the basic cognition required to tie his shoes.

Is a lot of the "good economy" going to be revealed as a puff of smoke in under a decade....

That is hyperbolic to the reality, but yes, on the long term, the US cannot continue as it has. What's interesting to me is that Trump clearly supports efforts to correct that path based on his general policies, but lacks the support from the public (and therefore his own party and the dems) to enact real radical change (such as bringing manufacturing back, slashing non-essential spending abroad and restructuring entitlements). You have this outsider finally -- and what are you doing to support some changes?

To Don - They are not intended to proactively decide and lead laws. That's not a function of the courts. Now it's true some bad activist judges, impowered by a lazy government, have abused this role to effectively legislate from the bench. That is something that needs a check (congress needs to do a better job and the executive powers they granted, delegated legislation, should be taken back). Replay also made the point of costs -- that is, sadly, an issue. And I have no idea how it gets addressed.

[Replay]

I'm sorry -- why are you "shocked"?

Because I didn't think you cared about anything even remotely resembling justice or fairness. I'm sure that sounds awful, but remember that you've spent about ten years trolling the shit out of me, fucking with me, and occasionally trying to see if you can get me to believe that you are a brutal monster. Forgive me for taking you at your word. For what it's worth, I've probably gone far too far in believing in your personal capacity for evil, and I'm open to a new paradigm.

While I get the intrinsic human tendency to have apocalyptic fantasies (hell, I have them for a zombie apocalypse and it was the primary motivator for obtaining my gun license), do you REALLY believe this was ever a possibility?

Absolutely I do. He has the diplomacy and tact of an intestinal bacterium - indeed, a badly behaved bacterium, since most gut fauna chill out and provide a valuable service to the average lower intestine. By many accounts half of his team is working feverishly around him at any given time to minimize all the collateral damage. We are currently paying two Federal staffers $80kish a year plus benefits to tape desk paperwork he doesn't like back together after he rips it up, for instance. This is problematic, partially because as part of the legal agreement between any modern American President and his/her nation is that all such paperwork must be preserved under the Presidential Records Act, and also because it clearly shows that he thinks he's above the law and doesn't have to obey the system of checks and balances that you cite as a reason to believe his erratic behavior in this regard is not a threat. He also tried to order a tenfold increase in America's nuclear arsenal. This is allegedly what provoked Tillerson's "moron" comment - and I have a hard time faulting Tillerson for it. It's really hard to study nuclear security for any given length of time and not understand that such an order is at *best* silly, and at worst likely to increase the world's nuclear risks terribly. I studied it under SECDEF Perry at Stanford myself, even if only briefly - America already has enough nuclear boom to probably eliminate the entire human race from the Earth, and certainly enough to fight any nuclear war we might find ourselves in - and remember, to one and all, we REALLY REALLY don't want to end up in a nuclear war. There is no such thing as a nuclear conflict that does not cause brutal, horrendous consequences for America, even if we "win". Even if you want to modernize America's nuclear arsenal and nuclear-war fighting capability - what you need is better rocketry, MIRV tech, anti-missile tech, not just saying arrant shit about making a bunch more nukes because he thinks it makes him sound tough. And lest you think he ordered that for a Very Good Reason or anything like it, here's a sample of his level of understanding of nuclear security:

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”

I think we dodged a real bullet when he won and appointed Mattis in a panic.

He would have clearly preferred someone far more aggressive, and pliant to his aggressiveness - and indeed one of my bigger fears about the rest of his Administration is that he'll throw another tantrum and fire Mattis like he fired Rex, both of whom have acted as the kind of checks you cite on his power. This has enraged him no end. It's why he fired Tillerson, and why he wants to fire Mattis too. Forgive me for having doubts about the checks and balances when every time he encounters one, he wants to fire the shit out of it. Are we in World War III right now if he had put, say, Bolton in as SECDEF from the start? Possibly not, but we'd probably already right now all be worried about the prospect of a nuclear war with Iran at minimum - I still am, that conflict hasn't gone anywhere or changed in any way - and any such war could easily provoke a larger war as China/Russia get dragged in on Iran's side.

It's still a possibility, kal. Don't even pretend it isn't. It reminds me of how I tried to warn this board, one and all, early on in 2016, that Hillary could easily lose the election.

Would I put money on nuclear war in any given timeframe? No. Do I think the risk is diminishing? Yes - UNLESS he fires Mattis, and that's a real possibility.

[Replay]

That is hyperbolic to the reality, but yes, on the long term, the US cannot continue as it has. What's interesting to me is that Trump clearly supports efforts to correct that path based on his general policies, but lacks the support from the public (and therefore his own party and the dems) to enact real radical change (such as bringing manufacturing back, slashing non-essential spending abroad and restructuring entitlements). You have this outsider finally -- and what are you doing to support some changes?

Because the outsider won and immediately appointed one of the worst swamplords in America as his personal attorney? I cannot agree that Trump represents this vast great sea change, and I think the QAnon idea that he's going to Clean Up The Swamp and Arrest All The Criminals (by which they generally mean, purge the liberals and never even look once at the corruption on the conservative side of the fence - more nuanced observers understand that the swamp has a lot of elephants and donkeys both) is very silly. You just don't put Rudy Giuliani in charge of your legal affairs if you're really out to clean up corruption in Washington, or arrest prominent and longstanding Washington criminals.

You also make this assumption that because I've been heavily critical of the status quo that I support anything like the present trade war. Any astute student of economics remembers the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and its role in causing the severity of the Depression. The historical evidence on tariffs improving any given economy isn't all that strong. Here's a small list of companies struggling with the new tariffs, for instance.

The fundamental cause of the loss of American manufacturing is the difference in the cost of American labor and goods caused by the utter relative historical strength of the dollar, as well as the fact that in America you can't just enslave your workers.

The dollar's strength is a particularly thorny issue. America - or at least, anyone who holds dollars as wealth - benefits tremendously from the dollar's strength every day, but it's the single biggest factor in making American labor expensive. I admire your willingness above to say "I don't know what the right answer is" on legal costs, by the way - because I don't know what the right answer is on the strength of the dollar versus its cost to us as far as keeping jobs at home. Making American labor cost-competitive in the world market would require such a relative devaluation of the dollar as to brutalize what wealth we do have stored as dollars now. I have been over the issue many times in my head, with no success.

The labor protections issue is a lot more workable to me - NAFTA, TPP, etc., I have seen as problematic because they fundamentally allow the skirting of American labor laws intended to protect the health and basic financial fitness of workers by shifting jobs to places that have no such laws. Do I want those deals renegotiated? Certainly - but not in the modern conservative direction of "fixing" it all by repealing American labor protections too. American labor's been shafted quite enough already, and certainly isn't sharing the gains of the tax cuts like the modern shareholder/rentier class.

[Replay]

Remember, both Trump and Bill Clinton visited one of Epstein's pedophile orgies. The idea that Trump is really an outsider to the true circles of American power - and various forms of associated corruption - is not what I'd consider an idea strongly backed by evidence. The Rockefeller-led contingent that has ruled America for a few decades is no doubt outraged that he won and put the Mercer contingent in power instead - but he's hardly repudiated someone like Sheldon Adelson, for instance.

The swamp still smells pretty bad to me. We haven't had anything even close to the kind of outsider I really want running America. I want a Cynthia McKinney - not a Trump, or even a Sanders - but the nation won't do it, so I work with what I can.

[Don]

While the Supreme Court probably shouldn't be legislating, they also shouldn't be doing only interpreting the Constitution. For example recently they heard a case on gerrymandering and basically said there's no Constitution basis for perfect equality and that the computer models that they were presented are too complicated for a bunch of old guys to understand and punted the issue back. That's basically saying 'I don't know' and you or I are equally qualified to say that. I mean it doesn't take an expert to say that perfect equality is not granted by the Constitution (e.g. if a state has 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, nobody should expect the House/Senate to split exactly 50/50). Actually I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't even say that since it is not that specific but it's a reasonable conclusion though one that is also completely meaningless. If they were actually doing their job they should try to find some way to say what kind of breakdown counts as unfair gerrymandering and what can be accepted as just imperfection in drawing up district, but they obviously don't do that.

On the issues they do produce a ruling, often it turns into just a reflection of the party that nominated the judge. Again if all you're doing is being a partisan hack that doesn't require expertise. They're supposed to be a neutral party that derives conclusion based on their knowledge of Constitution and other relevant laws, and obviously there's no way any of us is qualified to do that. But I don't think Supreme Court has been doing that for a very long time.