Donald I, emperor of the world.

[First Aspect]

And wait a long time for the dust to settle, seeing if the US tries to rebuild bridges over a decently extended period during which the lunacy doesn't return. (See Brexit.)

It seems to be difficult to put populist back in its box. See Brazil which is flirting with electing another Bolsanaro, despite how catastrophic the first one was. Or indeed the US which has inexplicably elected Trump twice already. Or us, who haven't seemingly learnt much from Boris, Brexit and the floundering populist clowns who too us through that and the pandemic.

So the more stable hold outs, such as the EU which benefits from inertia, or China which benefits from authoranatianism, will be less willing to trust that anything is other than transient.

I see that as the main obstacle to re entering the EU. Why would they start a lengthy and detailed process that could be derailed or terminated on a whim by a populist prime minister?

 

[Psamathe]

And wait a long time for the dust to settle, seeing if the US tries to rebuild bridges over a decently extended period during which the lunacy doesn't return. (See Brexit.)

And also what those bridges might cost the US in real monetary terms. They dump significant tariffs on allies to try and push their domestic political/military ideology and those allies will need a lot of convincing and particularly good maybe one sided deals to talk them round again.

And some of it won't happen eg failure to supply munitions to Europe so Europe can only respond by rapidly building up its domestic munitions manufacturing. Once done as US wants the business back it will be difficult for European Governments to throw out those domestic businesses employing local people with votes and paying taxes to their government to return to a proven unreliable US supplier. They'd need massively cheaper product before even starting to look to US supply again.

 

[briantrumpet]

And also what those bridges might cost the US in real monetary terms. They dump significant tariffs on allies to try and push their domestic political/military ideology and those allies will need a lot of convincing and particularly good maybe one sided deals to talk them round again.

And some of it won't happen eg failure to supply munitions to Europe so Europe can only respond by rapidly building up its domestic munitions manufacturing. Once done as US wants the business back it will be difficult for European Governments to throw out those domestic businesses employing local people with votes and paying taxes to their government to return to a proven unreliable US supplier. They'd need massively cheaper product before even starting to look to US supply again.

Yeah, it's bridge burning on steroids, plus all the health catastrophes in the pipeline because of plunging vaccination rates etc., and the ramifications of politicising higher education & research. The list is long, and though it's only taken five years to destroy so much, even if they start rebuilding, it's going to be a generation before the damage is repaired (if ever...)

 

[First Aspect]

Yeah, it's bridge burning on steroids, plus all the health catastrophes in the pipeline because of plunging vaccination rates etc., and the ramifications of politicising higher education & research. The list is long, and though it's only taken five years to destroy so much, even if they start rebuilding, it's going to be a generation before the damage is repaired (if ever...)

The horse trading over intelligence and weapons is particularly damaging. No one will want to be reliant on them if supply is stopped or satellites controlling them are just turned off.

 

[briantrumpet]

The horse trading over intelligence and weapons is particularly damaging. No one will want to be reliant on them if supply is stopped or satellites controlling them are just turned off.

I think the Starlink/Musk thing is the starkest example where governments will/should twig that outsourcing everything to tech bros with no government control is a surefire way to disaster, arguably much more risky than another King Trump.

That said, the other imponderable at the moment is whether the supposedly democratic institutions of the US are going to reassert their constitutional functions once Trump is gone. At the moment, it's little more than an entertainment complex for old fogeys.

 

[First Aspect]

I think the answer to the second one is no. SCOTUS has and will continue to inflict damage. Either a democratic president would have the courage to rebalance it (Biden mooted the idea, but presumably decided that way would lead to madness) or try to legislate for term limits, requiring a constitutional change or SCOTUS itself rejecting an inevitable appeal.

The other option is a good behaviour based ejection of one or two of them, via impeachment. Which firstly requires quite a high burden of proof, notwithstanding rumours about Thomas in particular, and would face the usual supermajority hurdle.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think the answer to the second one is no. SCOTUS has and will continue to inflict damage. Either a democratic president would have the courage to rebalance it (Biden mooted the idea, but presumably decided that way would lead to madness) or try to legislate for term limits, requiring a constitutional change or SCOTUS itself rejecting an inevitable appeal.

The other option is a good behaviour based ejection of one or two of them, via impeachment. Which firstly requires quite a high burden of proof, notwithstanding rumours about Thomas in particular, and would face the usual supermajority hurdle.

Yeah, SCOTUS seems a particularly problematic part of the system, in that an overtly partisan group can in effect make laws do what they think they should do via biblical-like 'contortional' interpretations of precedents and the Constitution to get the partisan interpretation they want (Alito and Thomas being the most egregious exemplars in the current bunch).

How the US ever though that having an overtly partisan judicial system was the best solution to equal justice for all is baffling.

 

[briantrumpet]

More BBC winning in the Trump case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmy0ryjx7741o

He's going to keep on trying to delay, obviously, and I've no idea what happens if he simply delays so long that the court runs out of patience.

 

[First Aspect]

Yeah, SCOTUS seems a particularly problematic part of the system, in that an overtly partisan group can in effect make laws do what they think they should do via biblical-like 'contortional' interpretations of precedents and the Constitution to get the partisan interpretation they want (Alito and Thomas being the most egregious exemplars in the current bunch).

How the US ever though that having an overtly partisan judicial system was the best solution to equal justice for all is baffling.

It's issuing decisions with reasoning that contradict one another, at the moment. Given the periodicity at which some of the more important ones come around, it will take about a century to rationalise them.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's issuing decisions with reasoning that contradict one another, at the moment. Given the periodicity at which some of the more important ones come around, it will take about a century to rationalise them.

I mean, they can't even update the font/style that they issue their ludicrous decisions in: it's still in some archaic 19th-century style, as if that gives it more authority. It makes me laugh when they think they've got a long history of 250 years. By then the pub in Ashburton had already been in existence for about 650 years.

 

[First Aspect]

More BBC winning in the Trump case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmy0ryjx7741o

He's going to keep on trying to delay, obviously, and I've no idea what happens if he simply delays so long that the court runs out of patience.

We are well into the obfuscation phase that most of his legal cases end up in.

 

[Pinno718]

The Lindsey Graham bombshell documentary just dropped in a documentary about his homosexual relationships. I have no objection to that and I care not what people do in their private lives but it's the hypocrisy about him preaching family values and voting against same sex marriages.
Plus (and the most significant thing), was he compromised? Did Israel hold dirt on him?
Mossad are well known for their honey traps.
People are asking if Graham was a national security threat and that this needs a full investigation.

 

[briantrumpet]

We are well into the obfuscation phase that most of his legal cases end up in.

As he's the one claiming the damages though (rather than defending), even in the US system there must a recourse to saying if the plaintiff won't co-operate with court orders for evidence despite numerous attempts, then the case will be thrown out. Shirley?

 

[Pblakeney]

As he's the one claiming the damages though (rather than defending), even in the US system there must a recourse to saying if the plaintiff won't co-operate with court orders for evidence despite numerous attempts, then the case will be thrown out. Shirley?

What happens if he delays long enough that he's just D.Trump/Joe Bloggs without Presidential protection/excuses?
I'd assume that the BBC would go for costs at least.

 

[briantrumpet]

What happens if he delays long enough that he's just D.Trump/Joe Bloggs without Presidential protection/excuses?
I'd assume that the BBC would go for costs at least.

Well, as I haven't a clue, I asked Gemini. If these answers are true, I doubt if the judge in this case will take too many attempts to force deposition before dismissing it, given he's obviously annoyed about the first missed one, and has set a fairly short window for the second attempt. I can't see Trump delaying beyond his term as POTUS at this rate (and I can't see any benefit for him, unless he falsely thinks the requirement will just go away if he keeps on delaying). I can only think he's approaching the case as if he's a defendant and that they can't prosecute him if he keeps on delaying.