what does trump want?

[shakahislop]

I do think the main thing I'd the firing of anyone who prosecuted him or did anything to thwart him and replacing them with loyalists. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are gonna be running the FBI, I'm gonna say it again, Kash Patel and Dan Fucking Bongo will run the FBI. That is beyond ludicrous. Even taking everything else into consideration I would never have believed that possible. I thought it was a joke at first.

But basically he's appointing laughably under qualified lickspittles to every post with authority. Nobody will prevent him from doing anything - but at what cost? If all the upper echelons of everything are run by cretins will they fall apart, or will the FBI etc carry on despite their leadership?

the best one is Linda McMahon, who I used to inhabit and use to hit people with chairs and throw through tables on WWF No Mercy on the N64, is now in charge of Education. I love that

 

[IdleRich]

You used to inhabit? Is that some sort of euphemism?

 

[Murphy]

Its not inconceivable.the army swear allegience to the constitution and are supposed to defend it. Things would have to go pretty far tho!

change the constitution, riddled with amendments

 

[IdleRich]

"You can't change the second amendment!"

 

[Mr. Tea]

I love when people on the right talk about "handouts".
It's like all of these slack-jawed yokels in rural areas that have been shooting themselves in the foot for decades and are finally starting to see the seeds of their idiotic voting, especially by voting for Trump a second time. "Oh, I didn't think that _I_ would be affected, just the people I hate."
got some news for ya, red rural areas generally depend more on handouts than blue urban areas which also tend to be the actual drivers of the economy that make it possible for red rural voters to even have live a life.
I'm also loving all the stories about federal workers that are Trump voters and supporters losing their jobs, or things like a Trump supporter' wife being deported ("oh, no - I just meant for other people to suffer, and for other people to have their families deported")
so much delicious schadenfreude!

Never mind that by far the single biggest welfare queen is super business genius, Elon Musk.

 

[luka]

to summarize - they are pulling back from about half the world and focusing on their hemisphere and the pacific. and at the same time they are remaking the american domestic state and the democratic process

That raises a lot of questions though. America wasnt spending that money from the kindness of their hearts but from an assumption that a stable and mostly peaceful world ultimately benefitted America. So you wonder what they expect to happen in their absence.

 

[luka]

What benefits do they expect will acrue from a poorer and fractured europe? From an emboldened russia, etc? They must assume that benefits will accrue so what is their image of the future?

 

[hmg]

Its not inconceivable.the army swear allegience to the constitution and are supposed to defend it. Things would have to go pretty far tho!

The Constitution, as it is constituted, is exactly what his administration is defending. Where is "hand out billions of dollars to infinity Haitians" in the constitution?

And America's retirement as world policeman is not exceptional, it's reversion to the pre-Wilson mean.

 

[hmg]

What benefits do they expect will acrue from a poorer and fractured europe? From an emboldened russia, etc? They must assume that benefits will accrue so what is their image of the future?

The message to Europe is that it is an embarrassment, barely worth saving in its current state. However, Europe is not doing that any time soon. America is smart to pivot toward Asia, much more productive, dynamic, and frankly "based"

 

[hmg]

Why throw billions at defending a continent large parts of which, for better or worse, seem hell bent on becoming a caliphate by mid century? Is their view.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It all comes down to a fear of superior Arab virility in the end, doesn't it.

 

[hmg]

I don't care, personally, I don't have a daughter, but i do intend to leave you all to it. Let's make a note to check in on western European demographics by dissensus' 40th birthday. It's abundantly clear where they're going. And that's down to a liberal fear about confronting reality.

 

[luka]

Why throw billions at defending a continent large parts of which, for better or worse, seem hell bent on becoming a caliphate by mid century? Is their view.

partly, you'd assume, becasue europe is part of the same land mass as asia. and by having troops stationed there, and troops in korea and japan you have russia and china penned in. there also used to be some stuff about shared values and democracy and so on but that seems to have gone out the window. also europe is a large market and a prosperous europe makes for a more prosperous world.
i think those are the traditional reasons for throwing billions at europe. i might be missing some.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't care, personally, I don't have a daughter, but i do intend to leave you all to it.

Oh I see, it's all about the RAPE GANGS.

As commendable and sincere as your commitment to women's and girls' safety no doubt is, I'm having a little difficulty squaring it with your support for a man who's already been found legally liable for raping one woman, has been credibly accused of the same crime by a further two dozen, some of whom were just 12 when he and Epstein took turns on them, and who openly wants to fuck his own daughter (and for all we know probably has).

 

[shakahislop]

That raises a lot of questions though. America wasnt spending that money from the kindness of their hearts but from an assumption that a stable and mostly peaceful world ultimately benefitted America. So you wonder what they expect to happen in their absence.

I think it's always been a mixture on the aid side. I read two books over the weekend, one a history of USAID since the 60s and the other a history of DfID, alternating books so that I was reading about the same time periods in each agency at the same time. When you read about the internal wrangling, senior appointments, congressional / parliamentary processes, you get the sense that there's a load of different agendas and that they play out as different compromises at different times. including the hard military ones and the humanitarian ones, they're ascendent at different points. there's plenty of people who really believe in this ideologically on all sides, including electorates

tbh on the military side i do think even there there was an element of spending it from the kindness of their hearts, particularly after the rwandan genocide. r2p and all that

 

[hmg]

partly, you'd assume, becasue europe is part of the same land mass as asia. and by having troops stationed there, and troops in korea and japan you have russia and china penned in. there also used to be some stuff about shared values and democracy and so on but that seems to have gone out the window. also europe is a large market and a prosperous europe makes for a more prosperous world.
i think those are the traditional reasons for throwing billions at europe. i might be missing some.

Europe is failing economically and democratically. There are few shared values now, freedom of speech, technological innovation, wealth creation are all off Europe's side of the table. Any emergent European talent may conclude America is a better home, the situation there is changing fast.

 

[IdleRich]

The Constitution, as it is constituted, is exactly what his administration is defending. Where is "hand out billions of dollars to infinity Haitians" in the constitution?

And America's retirement as world policeman is not exceptional, it's reversion to the pre-Wilson mean.

I'm more talking about the stuff like Congress mandated spending being cut off by unelected dickless teenagers, or executive orders to say the judiciary can't constrain the president, or attempts to have Trump serve a third term or... well all of the things that are clearly totally against both the spirit and the letter of the constitution.

 

[shakahislop]

So you wonder what they expect to happen in their absence.

the one that keeps coming up for me is counter-terrorism. the al qaeda, isis, pakistani taliban continuum hasn't gone away. maybe something else is in the works. but pulling back from trying to maintain some kind of stability in somalia, pakistan, iraq, the new syria could open a window for a resurgence of all of that. like in pakistan the big driver of US policy for a long time has been that they have nukes and they are terrified of a chaotic pakistan for that reason.

 

[hmg]

I'm more talking about the stuff like Congress mandated spending being cut off by unelected dickless teenagers, or executive orders to say the judiciary can't constrain the president, or attempts to have Trump serve a third term or... well all of the things that are clearly totally against both the spirit and the letter of the constitution.

Doge was set up under Obama, Clinton sacked more federal workers. I hope there's never another democrat administration, a third term would be preferable, so you got me there.

 

[hmg]

the pakistan the big driver of US policy for a long time has been that they have nukes and they are terrified of a chaotic pakistan for that reason.

How did the Pakistani nukes thing even happen. Was that China's doing?