Domestic consequences of the 2024 US presidential election: the quickening

[Scotttheking]

Sadly, I think this thread can now exist. Can’t sleep so might as well. This one is for the US perspective.
Trump gave a speech tonight. One highlight from WaPo live summary:

Donald Trump reiterated in his speech that he intends to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a major role within his administration, specifically focused on health, saying that “he’s going to help make America healthy again.”
Trump also emphasized that he does not want Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, to have a role in steering energy policy.
“Stay away from the liquid gold,” Trump said, echoing his usual stump speech. “Other than that, go have a good time Bobby.”
Kennedy earlier this week pledged that a future Trump administration would seek to remove fluoride from drinking water, reversing a decades-old intervention widely credited for boosting public health.

Sadly, that sounds like a rollback of public health policies. I’m really worried about vaccines.

It seems a safe bet that project 2025 people are already hard at work on implementation.

Courts, uggh.

Also expecting a rollback of enforcement of environmental regulations.

It seems the question is not “what”, but “how bad” this is going to be.

 

[invertedpanda]

I never really thought too hard about personal consequences until a couple hours ago.

As far as personal impacts to me, there's a lot of indirect "oh shits", but the big, direct "oh shit, fml" is if the ACA gets repealed. partially, or in full.

I'm solidly middle-class income, but have major health issues that are expensive even with the ACA. I get my insurance via the marketplace, since my employer doesn't provide any (they do provide a stipend though for the marketplace)

If we see a partial repeal of the ACA, it'll most likely be the financial incentives and the like. While I don't get any discounts in the current system, we will most likely see premiums rise for everybody here. I just paid off my student loans a few days ago, so I have SOME cushion, but given the economic forecasts of a Trump presidency, that cushion will most likely be consumed by the increased cost of living.

If we see a full repeal, it's game over for me. Pre-existing healthcare conditions - and having health conditions that are pretty damned expensive even with insurance - mean I'll most likely have to give up treatment entirely since I either won't be able to afford insane premiums for folks like me, or just won't be able to get any coverage at all.

If I had an established and cheap treatment plan in place that was fully effective, I may still be OK, but my current treatment options - while relatively cheap - aren't quite getting me there yet, and I expect to need a shift in treatment methods to solutions that are already expensive and require insurance approval.. Not to mention the costs for periodic labs and imaging. My regular 2-month lab work I get done at the local health dept because they are fairly standard labs (just to make sure my meds aren't killing me too quickly), but some of annual labs to check disease progression will have to be done at the hospital/med group, which is just INSANELY expensive.

EDIT: Did a quick check on pricing for one of my current meds w/o insurance, and holy hell.. Yeah, that one is going to have to stop, because it's about $260 retail for a month & a half supply at my current dosage.

 

[Louis XVI]

If the Democrats hold on to the House, there won’t be any significant legislation. But I expect Trump to take a wrecking ball to the administrative state, and complete his top-to-bottom corruption of the judiciary. Services that help people will be gone, and services that hurt people and enforce power will grow.

I expect Trump to put Musk in charge of cost savings and fire more or less everyone from:

• The Department of Education
• The Postal Service
• The Food and Drug Administration
• The Environmental Protection Agency
• The Department of Labor
• The National Weather Service
• The Department of Health and Human Services
• The IRS’ enforcement division

And I’m sure several other agencies that I haven’t thought of.

 

[Scotttheking]

Oh. Put the IRS’ new direct filing service on the kill watch list.

 

[ramases]

Oh. Put the IRS’ new direct filing service on the kill watch list.

The rent must flow!

 

[Dr_Olerif]

This is a worthwhile endeavour to keep going for the next 4 years (as long as Section 230 doesn't get the bullet, in which case goodbye reasonable online discourse)

 

[Deleted member 326875]

I never really thought too hard about personal consequences until a couple hours ago.

As far as personal impacts to me, there's a lot of indirect "oh shits", but the big, direct "oh shit, fml" is if the ACA gets repealed. partially, or in full.

I'm solidly middle-class income, but have major health issues that are expensive even with the ACA. I get my insurance via the marketplace, since my employer doesn't provide any (they do provide a stipend though for the marketplace)

If we see a partial repeal of the ACA, it'll most likely be the financial incentives and the like. While I don't get any discounts in the current system, we will most likely see premiums rise for everybody here. I just paid off my student loans a few days ago, so I have SOME cushion, but given the economic forecasts of a Trump presidency, that cushion will most likely be consumed by the increased cost of living.

If we see a full repeal, it's game over for me. Pre-existing healthcare conditions - and having health conditions that are pretty damned expensive even with insurance - mean I'll most likely have to give up treatment entirely since I either won't be able to afford insane premiums for folks like me, or just won't be able to get any coverage at all.

If I had an established and cheap treatment plan in place that was fully effective, I may still be OK, but my current treatment options - while relatively cheap - aren't quite getting me there yet, and I expect to need a shift in treatment methods to solutions that are already expensive and require insurance approval.. Not to mention the costs for periodic labs and imaging. My regular 2-month lab work I get done at the local health dept because they are fairly standard labs (just to make sure my meds aren't killing me too quickly), but some of annual labs to check disease progression will have to be done at the hospital/med group, which is just INSANELY expensive.

I am at the same boat as you. Currently with a contract job, so ACA. Given my health condition, I always budget for max-out-pocket (at least the math is easy). Not sure what will happen. It is possible California would have something if ACA is gone.

 

[PuglyWont]

I'm worried about the ACA... that's my immediate concern. I have diabetes, it's fairly well managed... but it's an ongoing concern. I take 5 medications at the moment, nothing life threatening if I don't take them but still pretty essential. I'm scrambling in my head trying to think up options for employment situation to get a job with health insurance....

The owners where I work are pretty hardcore Trump fans... I don't think they realize I continue to work there because of the ACA. That goes away and I can't afford my healthcare, I'm saying bye-bye. Elections have consequences... deal with it.

If they start messing around with the ACA... something people have come to rely on over the last 15 years... there's going to be so many Trump voters with buyers remorse.

 

[wrylachlan]

I mean Trump has said he has no connection to Project 2025 so we really have no idea what he’s going to do…

Too soon?

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

The current implementation of democracy in the US has failed. The contrast between these two candidates was in no way subtle, the issues were not subtle. If the American electoral system couldn't get this election right, it's broken. This cannot be fixed by little tweaks like getting rid of the electoral college or ending the filibuster in the senate. There needs to be a fundamental re-think of how we choose representatives.

One thing that stands out to me is that the US began with a system that placed far more power in the hands of the elite, and that system chose leaders like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. Senators were not directly elected and the electoral college was meant to be a real thing -- that is, you really do choose your electors and then those electors really do choose the president (ie, the electors aren't just a rubber stamp).

I realize it seems antithetical to everything we as Americans have been taught, but the American people clearly have no special wisdom that makes them better able to choose the best leaders than people in other countries. That was an illusion. We depended far more on the smoky back room to generate two acceptable candidates than we realized. I think we need to figure out how to get that back, but without it devolving into a corrupt oligarchy.

I think a way to do this might be to have people vote for a local 'elector' who then has the responsibility of voting for all positions further up the chain. The ratio of citizens to these electors would need to be pretty low, so that people have a better chance of personally knowing, or at least talking to, their elector. This proposal is superficially similar to a soviet system, but a key difference in my mind is that the elector should be expected to use their best judgement in representing the interests of the citizens, they shouldn't just try to vote however they think the citizens want them to vote. My hope is that people would tend to select people they (1) trust and (2) believe are well informed and have good judgment regarding public policy issues. The citizens don't have to get it perfect, they just need to pick people who are, on average, better at making election decisions than the collection of dummies who just elected Trump.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

For folks who are at serious risk of severe consequences due to the loss of the ACA -- my heart aches for you. And for everyone else who is going to suffer from this. In my case, I think there's a pretty decent chance that both my wife and I could lose our jobs (we work for a non-defense federal contractor, and who knows what might happen to our employer).

I'm so sorry to say that Joe Biden vastly overestimated the American people. Although there are many individuals who I think are great, as a group we are rather stupid.

 

[Lt_Storm]

On the "how bad" line of thinking, now seems like the time to read up on the dark enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and Curtis Yarvin. After all, that's the philosophy behind the politics of Peter Thiel, and we just put JD Vance in the Vice President's chair with Trump sitting behind the resolute desk.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

The current implementation of democracy in the US has failed. The contrast between these two candidates was in no way subtle, the issues were not subtle. If the American electoral system couldn't get this election right, it's broken. This cannot be fixed by little tweaks like getting rid of the electoral college or ending the filibuster in the senate. There needs to be a fundamental re-think of how we choose representatives.

One thing that stands out to me is that the US began with a system that placed far more power in the hands of the elite, and that system chose leaders like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. Senators were not directly elected and the electoral college was meant to be a real thing -- that is, you really do choose your electors and then those electors really do choose the president (ie, the electors aren't just a rubber stamp).

I realize it seems antithetical to everything we as Americans have been taught, but the American people clearly have no special wisdom that makes them better able to choose the best leaders than people in other countries. That was an illusion. We depended far more on the smoky back room to generate two acceptable candidates than we realized. I think we need to figure out how to get that back, but without it devolving into a corrupt oligarchy.

I think a way to do this might be to have people vote for a local 'elector' who then has the responsibility of voting for all positions further up the chain. The ratio of citizens to these electors would need to be pretty low, so that people have a better chance of personally knowing, or at least talking to, their elector. This proposal is superficially similar to a soviet system, but a key difference in my mind is that the elector should be expected to use their best judgement in representing the interests of the citizens, they shouldn't just try to vote however they think the citizens want them to vote. My hope is that people would tend to select people they (1) trust and (2) believe are well informed and have good judgment regarding public policy issues. The citizens don't have to get it perfect, they just need to pick people who are, on average, better at making election decisions than the collection of dummies who just elected Trump.

I don't have any particular objection to this idea as an idea, but it would require us to have enough power to remake the entire political system.

Not going to lie, things are pretty grim. It should be clear that, as disastrous and destructive and self-evidently counterproductive as they are, Trump's policies appeal to a critical mass of Americans. Since they lack the intelligence to understand that upfront, it is likely they will be equally unable to appreciate that these policies are not making their lives better down the road... or at least, some of them will and simply won't care.

But the route to doing anything about it still lies through the broken political system as it exists... so, if it's not possible to get effective leadership in the present system, it's not possible to change that system either.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

I don't have any particular objection to this idea as an idea, but it would require us to have enough power to remake the entire political system.

Not going to lie, things are pretty grim. It should be clear that, as disastrous and destructive and self-evidently counterproductive as they are, Trump's policies appeal to a critical mass of Americans. Since they lack the intelligence to understand that upfront, it is likely they will be equally unable to appreciate that these policies are not making their lives better down the road... or at least, some of them will and simply won't care.

But the route to doing anything about it still lies through the broken political system as it exists... so, if it's not possible to get effective leadership in the present system, it's not possible to change that system either.

You're clearly right, but maybe with one exception. Biden is still president. The Supreme Court says (not literally, but implicitly) he can do anything he wants so long as 34 senators and the joint chiefs agree. So here's a possible path:

1. Arrest Trump for treason. Declare that under the 14th amendment, he cannot be president.
2. State that neither he (Biden) himself, nor Harris, can be president either, because they did not win an election. This is critical because otherwise it looks like a selfish (and Trumpish) power grab.
3. Declare that the original "article the first" on apportionment was actually ratified (a 'crazy' guy in NJ brought a lawsuit about this several years back -- Biden could just pick it up and say the guy was right, so we're doing it).
4. The practical implication of ratifying that amendment is that there would be over 6,000 representatives in the House and over 6,000 electors. This wouldn't be exactly what I proposed in my earlier post, but it's definitely in that direction.

On the one hand, this is a crazy idea. On the other hand, we need a crazy idea.

 

[wallinbl]

I don't know that others are on board with RFK. I'd be surprised if that got very far, as RFK is more often far left than right. The scary name I saw floated was Ladapo for HHS.

I expect Trump to put Musk in charge of cost savings and fire more or less everyone from:

I expect Musk's shareholders to sue him if he tries to leave for a government job.

I expect Musk leaving would be better for his companies, however.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

You're clearly right, but maybe with one exception. Biden is still president. The Supreme Court says (not literally, but implicitly) he can do anything he wants so long as 34 senators and the joint chiefs agree. So here's a possible path:

1. Arrest Trump for treason. Declare that under the 14th amendment, he cannot be president.
2. State that neither he (Biden) himself, nor Harris, can be president either, because they did not win an election. This is critical because otherwise it looks like a selfish (and Trumpish) power grab.
3. Declare that the original "article the first" on apportionment was actually ratified (a 'crazy' guy in NJ brought a lawsuit about this several years back -- Biden could just pick it up and say the guy was right, so we're doing it).
4. The practical implication of ratifying that amendment is that there would be over 6,000 representatives in the House and over 6,000 electors. This wouldn't be exactly what I proposed in my earlier post, but it's definitely in that direction.

On the one hand, this is a crazy idea. On the other hand, we need a crazy idea.

I think we both know this is never going to happen. Even if we agreed on its justification, the Democratic Party would be too spineless to do it. They are, in their hearts, liberals. They still believe that institutions will win out and that power is best used through those institutions. So, in January, the institutions will swear in Trump. And then the country will be in God's hands -- meaning that here as a literal statement, if I've understood Project 2025's religious sections correctly.

Apologies if I'm not in a particularly sunny disposition about the future at this precise moment in time.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

I don't know that others are on board with RFK. I'd be surprised if that got very far, as RFK is more often far left than right. The scary name I saw floated was Ladapo for HHS.


I expect Musk's shareholders to sue him if he tries to leave for a government job.

I expect Musk leaving would be better for his companies, however.

Under the kind of nakedly corrupt administration Musk and Trump have suggested the US needs, the legal defense would be that the companies are actually much better off when Musk simultaneously holds corporate and political offices because the companies will make a lot of money off the government.

Project 2025 is uninterested in RFK and will either isolate him, or if his absurd appointment continues, that will be a sign that the 2025 folks haven't succeeded in taking over the administration from within.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

I think we both know this is never going to happen. Even if we agreed on its justification, the Democratic Party would be too spineless to do it. They are, in their hearts, liberals. They still believe that institutions will win out and that power is best used through those institutions. So, in January, the institutions will swear in Trump. And then the country will be in God's hands -- meaning that here as a literal statement, if I've understood Project 2025's religious sections correctly.

Apologies if I'm not in a particularly sunny disposition about the future at this precise moment in time.

Yeah, I admit that you are most likely correct. I'm just pointing out that there is, at least theoretically, a way.

But I'll also point out that Lincoln was in his heart a liberal. He really could have adopted an attitude of 'oh well, that's what they voted for, I don't have any constitutional authority to keep them in the union'. Instead, he created a new reality in which he imagined he did have that authority. And because his side won, most Americans grow up mostly unaware that what Lincoln did was every bit as radical as what I'm proposing -- maybe more so.

 

[crazedgironemo]

I expect Trump to put Musk in charge of cost savings and fire more or less everyone from:

• The Department of Education
• The Postal Service
• The Food and Drug Administration
• The Environmental Protection Agency
• The Department of Labor
• The National Weather Service
• The Department of Health and Human Services
• The IRS’ enforcement division

And I’m sure several other agencies that I haven’t thought of.

You missed the most important one to Leon personally: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Yeah, I admit that you are most likely correct. I'm just pointing out that there is, at least theoretically, a way.

But I'll also point out that Lincoln was in his heart a liberal. He really could have adopted an attitude of 'oh well, that's what they voted for, I don't have any constitutional authority to keep them in the union'. Instead, he created a new reality in which he imagined he did have that authority. And because his side won, most Americans grow up mostly unaware that what Lincoln did was every bit as radical as what I'm proposing -- maybe more so.

At the end of what you are proposing there would essentially be an unelected dictator in office, still no clear path to restore any kind of democracy, and the people who just won the election have most of the guns.

But beyond that, they're liberals. I say this with no harshness or contempt. I think I'm one myself. They've invested their professional lives into institutions and believe in those institutions. They will live and die by those institutions. And the institutions say that Trump will be president.

I've commented before on here that despite how bad Trump supporters claim they think things have gotten, hardly anybody alive who grew up, really, anywhere in the modern West and is less than 100 years old has the slightest idea of how bad things could actually get. We kick these institutions around enough, eventually we will break them. Perhaps we now have. Democracy is difficult to maintain since it's an inherently unnatural condition, and eventually, for one reason or another, there will be no more democracies. Hopefully we haven't reached that stage.

Not a terribly uplifting message and hopefully in the months to come we will figure out what might be salvageable.

 

[Deleted member 326875]

At the end of what you are proposing there would essentially be an unelected dictator in office, still no clear path to restore any kind of democracy, and the people who just won the election have most of the guns.

But beyond that, they're liberals. I say this with no harshness or contempt. I think I'm one myself. They've invested their professional lives into institutions and believe in those institutions. They will live and die by those institutions. And the institutions say that Trump will be president.

I've commented before on here that despite how bad Trump supporters claim they think things have gotten, hardly anybody alive who grew up, really, anywhere in the modern West and is less than 100 years old has the slightest idea of how bad things could actually get. We kick these institutions around enough, eventually we will break them. Perhaps we now have. Democracy is difficult to maintain since it's an inherently unnatural condition, and eventually, for one reason or another, there will be no more democracies. Hopefully we haven't reached that stage.

Not a terribly uplifting message and hopefully in the months to come we will figure out what might be salvageable.

Sad part is people will suffer personally and still do not see the value of the institution. People were literally dying in hospital and still did not believe in vaccine.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

At the end of what you are proposing there would essentially be an unelected dictator in office, still no clear path to restore any kind of democracy, and the people who just won the election have most of the guns.

But beyond that, they're liberals. I say this with no harshness or contempt. I think I'm one myself. They've invested their professional lives into institutions and believe in those institutions. They will live and die by those institutions. And the institutions say that Trump will be president.

I've commented before on here that despite how bad Trump supporters claim they think things have gotten, hardly anybody alive who grew up, really, anywhere in the modern West and is less than 100 years old has the slightest idea of how bad things could actually get. We kick these institutions around enough, eventually we will break them. Perhaps we now have. Democracy is difficult to maintain since it's an inherently unnatural condition, and eventually, for one reason or another, there will be no more democracies. Hopefully we haven't reached that stage.

Not a terribly uplifting message and hopefully in the months to come we will figure out what might be salvageable.

For a short time, there would be a dictator. But... he was elected. He would just be overstaying his term a little bit for the purposes of facilitating a new election under a system better aligned with the intent of our founding fathers.

My point isn't that you're wrong. You're very, very likely right that the Dems wouldn't go for this idea. I guess I'm tossing the idea out there into the ether as a form of, I don't know, therapy or something.

 

[Stern]

I expect Musk's shareholders to sue him if he tries to leave for a government job.

Surely his shareholders would benefit from him destroying all regulatory agencies that might get in his way? Also, if you're a government employee, remember to print out everything you've done for the past year so you can explain to him personally why you shouldn't be fired.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

For a short time, there would be a dictator. But... he was elected. He would just be overstaying his term a little bit for the purposes of facilitating a new election under a system better aligned with the intent of our founding fathers.

My point isn't that you're wrong. You're very, very likely right that the Dems wouldn't go for this idea. I guess I'm tossing the idea out there into the ether as a form of, I don't know, therapy or something.

I get that. I think we'd all benefit from taking a few days, going for a hike or having a beer or whatever it is each person does to center themselves a bit.

The next term is not going to be like the first term. Hopefully, it is not apocalyptic (except in the literal sense that it will be apocalyptic when we piss away some of the last remaining chances to maybe do something about climate change). The institutions and civil society groups that limited the damage last time around are mostly in tatters now. If it is possible to limit the damage, and I frankly don't know if it is, then it's going to require a lot of hard work on the part of all decent people.

But, in the meantime, it's okay to take some time and try, if not to find some peace, at least to find some motivation.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

I get that. I think we'd all benefit from taking a few days, going for a hike or having a beer or whatever it is each person does to center themselves a bit.

The next term is not going to be like the first term. Hopefully, it is not apocalyptic (except in the literal sense that it will be apocalyptic when we piss away some of the last remaining chances to maybe do something about climate change). The institutions and civil society groups that limited the damage last time around are mostly in tatters now. If it is possible to limit the damage, and I frankly don't know if it is, then it's going to require a lot of hard work on the part of all decent people.

But, in the meantime, it's okay to take some time and try, if not to find some peace, at least to find some motivation.

Thanks...

So another line of thought... I'm no historian, but my impression is that during those centuries after the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance, Europeans actually achieved quite a bit. They quietly (and perhaps somewhat miserably) laid the foundations for a better (sometimes, anyway) world, by turning inwards and focusing on their local communities. Perhaps if we all turn inward and work to make our corner of the world a little better, some number of us will come up with ideas that, when later combined, lead to a better world.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Thanks...

So another line of thought... I'm no historian, but my impression is that during those centuries after the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance, Europeans actually achieved quite a bit. They quietly (and perhaps somewhat miserably) laid the foundations for a better (sometimes, anyway) world, by turning inwards and focusing on their local communities. Perhaps if we all turn inward and work to make our corner of the world a little better, some number of us will come up with ideas that, when later combined, lead to a better world.

I don't suppose on a science and tech site we're going to have a lot of historians of the ancient world stepping forward to help us sort through these issues. But, I have spent an unhealthy amount of time since the first time we thought we might face this in 2016, reading the history of the collapse of empires and republics.

I think the fall of Rome is a bit of a red herring, history as written by old conservative white men who might even have more in common with the Musks and Thiels of the world than they do with us. Western Rome fell... sort of. The Roman Empire continued on. We just don't call it the Roman Empire because if we were taught about it at all we called it the Byzantine Empire. It took centuries of decay to get to the sacking of Rome, and then centuries more decay before there wasn't really a "Roman empire" worthy of the name anywhere. And even then, the idea of Rome was inspiring enough that people founded the Holy Roman Empire... so if you want to count that, the last vestiges of the Roman empire held out until only a couple hundred years ago.

Having said all that... the foundations of a society can get torn down alarmingly quickly if the wrong people are put in charge of them and are committed to that task. I think people in stable Western democracies -- certainly here, probably everywhere -- don't really understand how fragile their societies are. My civics education, such as it was, taught me how a bill gets passed into law and how the basic structures of government work, but not really how they came to be and certainly not how they could be destroyed. I think in most people's minds, they just sort of... are. Except they aren't.

 

[Daedalus213]

. I think in most people's minds, they just sort of... are. Except they aren't.

Yeah. I was having a conversation recently with a student (who was Trump-leaning) and he said something about Trump's felony convictions like "obviously it's not really a big deal, because it's not like they'd let him run if they were, like, serious crimes." And who is they I asked. He didn't have an answer to that. He was incredulous when I explained that it's a very short checklist to be eligible to run for president, and there's no they acting as a gatekeeper other than the electorate.
Which is funny (in a not-funny way), because this student was vocally anti-government. But he seemed shocked that, if Ted Bundy were alive, he'd be allowed to run for president. It was just assumed that it could not happen, that no matter how much you hate the government, it's still a big papa bear that will keep you safe and keep itself sailing (to mix metaphors).

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

I don't suppose on a science and tech site we're going to have a lot of historians of the ancient world stepping forward to help us sort through these issues. But, I have spent an unhealthy amount of time since the first time we thought we might face this in 2016, reading the history of the collapse of empires and republics.

I think the fall of Rome is a bit of a red herring, history as written by old conservative white men who might even have more in common with the Musks and Thiels of the world than they do with us. Western Rome fell... sort of. The Roman Empire continued on. We just don't call it the Roman Empire because if we were taught about it at all we called it the Byzantine Empire. It took centuries of decay to get to the sacking of Rome, and then centuries more decay before there wasn't really a "Roman empire" worthy of the name anywhere. And even then, the idea of Rome was inspiring enough that people founded the Holy Roman Empire... so if you want to count that, the last vestiges of the Roman empire held out until only a couple hundred years ago.

Having said all that... the foundations of a society can get torn down alarmingly quickly if the wrong people are put in charge of them and are committed to that task. I think people in stable Western democracies -- certainly here, probably everywhere -- don't really understand how fragile their societies are. My civics education, such as it was, taught me how a bill gets passed into law and how the basic structures of government work, but not really how they came to be and certainly not how they could be destroyed. I think in most people's minds, they just sort of... are. Except they aren't.

I suppose you could argue the Roman Catholic Church is still alive and going, with the leader in a suburb of Rome, so maybe it's still here. But... it's not quite the same Rome that once existed.

 

[Nekojin]

One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how powerful the government is, the US is a really big place, and the Federal Government has limited resources (and people) to do things. So he can't wrap the entire country up into an obedient dictatorship as swiftly as some people are fearing. He will get pushback, both within the Federal government and in State governments, for anything particularly dictatorial that he tries to do; if it's bad enough, you may see states defying his (and his lackeys') orders.

What this may mean is the Federal government being in a small scale civil war against the big blue states - particularly New York, California, and Washington. But again, he can't be everywhere at once. California has pushed back against some Republican policies, and so have several other states, particularly with regard to immigrants and marijuana, and in the past, the Federal government has chosen not to fight those fights.

Is this what's going to happen? I don't know. Nobody does. It could be that Trump's talking about imprisoning Democrats is another show of bluff and bluster, and he'll be just as lazy and inconsequential as he was during his first Presidency. He doesn't really care about all of that Project 2025 stuff, he'd be happier to just go and cheat at golf some more. But the people around him may be far more zealous than he is.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

Yeah. I was having a conversation recently with a student (who was Trump-leaning) and he said something about Trump's felony convictions like "obviously it's not really a big deal, because it's not like they'd let him run if they were, like, serious crimes." And who is they I asked. He didn't have an answer to that. He was incredulous when I explained that it's a very short checklist to be eligible to run for president, and there's no they acting as a gatekeeper other than the electorate.
Which is funny (in a not-funny way), because this student was vocally anti-government. But he seemed shocked that, if Ted Bundy were alive, he'd be allowed to run for president. It was just assumed that it could not happen, that no matter how much you hate the government, it's still a big papa bear that will keep you safe and keep itself sailing (to mix metaphors).

It makes me think of that Steve Jobs quote:

When you grow up you tend to get told that the world is the way it is and you're job is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. That's a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact: Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it… Once you learn that, you'll never be the same again.

One thing I'll say for Trump -- he figured out that he can change it.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

I suppose you could argue the Roman Catholic Church is still alive and going, with the leader in a suburb of Rome, so maybe it's still here. But... it's not quite the same Rome that once existed.

Well, at some point it becomes a bit like asking whether all the "people's democratic republics" are really democracies.

And to be clear... the Roman empire was a pretty horrific place. It has more in common with the fascists than with us in many ways. So I don't actually think we should be terribly sad that it died. My point was just, it didn't die overnight because of one bad leader.

On the other hand, if we're looking to Rome, I suppose the real question is how the Roman republic died, and that is another story entirely and not a very cheerful one under present circumstances.

 

[wallinbl]

One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how powerful the government is, the US us a really big place, and the Federal Government has limited resources (and people) to do things. So he can't wrap the entire country up into an obedient dictatorship as swiftly as some people are fearing. He will get pushback, both within the Federal government and in State governments, for anything particularly dictatorial that he tries to do; if it's bad enough, you may see states defying his (and his lackeys') orders.

They are primed to kill the administrative state, and they have SCOTUS on board with that. If that's all they accomplish, that's a huge deal and terrible for the country.

If they wind up with the House as well, it's going to be a vicious two years.

 

[HPJ]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/yields-soar-trump-win-stirs-bond-vigilantes-2024-11-06/

Thought this was interesting. I'll add a caveat that it's way too early to know what Trumps fiscal policies are going to be.... but, history seems to tell us that the right is not gentle with the deficit. And now that I think about it, the words 'fiscal conservative' don't seem to be as popular as they used to be.

 

[Nekojin]

They are primed to kill the administrative state, and they have SCOTUS on board with that. If that's all they accomplish, that's a huge deal and terrible for the country.

If they wind up with the House as well, it's going to be a vicious two years.

If it's as vicious and effective as you say, there won't be an election for Congress in two years. Or, at least, not an election like what we just finished.

 

[Deleted member 326875]

People like to shit on Russia, China, etc. I think this election demonstrated it is easy to lose some of the things which we have taken for granted.

 

[Shavano]

I don't know that others are on board with RFK. I'd be surprised if that got very far, as RFK is more often far left than right. The scary name I saw floated was Ladapo for HHS.


I expect Musk's shareholders to sue him if he tries to leave for a government job.

I expect Musk leaving would be better for his companies, however.

I don't think fucking up the whole US economy would be good for his companies.

 

[Deleted member 326875]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/yields-soar-trump-win-stirs-bond-vigilantes-2024-11-06/

Thought this was interesting. I'll add a caveat that it's way too early to know what Trumps fiscal policies are going to be.... but, history seems to tell us that the right is not gentle with the deficit. And now that I think about it, the words 'fiscal conservative' don't seem to be as popular as they used to be.

I would expect tax cut similar to previous trump’s tax cut.

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how powerful the government is, the US us a really big place, and the Federal Government has limited resources (and people) to do things. So he can't wrap the entire country up into an obedient dictatorship as swiftly as some people are fearing. He will get pushback, both within the Federal government and in State governments, for anything particularly dictatorial that he tries to do; if it's bad enough, you may see states defying his (and his lackeys') orders.

What this may mean is the Federal government being in a small scale civil war against the big blue states - particularly New York, California, and Washington. But again, he can't be everywhere at once. California has pushed back against some Republican policies, and so have several other states, particularly with regard to immigrants and marijuana, and in the past, the Federal government has chosen not to fight those fights.

Is this what's going to happen? I don't know. Nobody does. It could be that Trump's talking about imprisoning Democrats is another show of bluff and bluster, and he'll be just as lazy and inconsequential as he was during his first Presidency. He doesn't really care about all of that Project 2025 stuff, he'd be happier to just go and cheat at golf some more. But the people around him may be far more zealous than he is.

I certainly appreciate attempts to feel better in a dark time, but we are all highly dependent on the competent functioning of the federal government and if that government stops working in the way we take for granted that it will, it's going to do incredible harm to tens of millions of real people no matter how far away from DC they live. So, it's not a matter of blue states refusing to comply with malicious orders -- it's the blue and red states experiencing the collapse of functionality that we depend on. Things that we expect to work aren't going to work. Think about what Musk did to Twitter -- a totally frivolous service that nobody really needs. Now imagine him doing that to the air traffic controllers and countless other things we count on.

 

[Shavano]

The final numbers aren't in but I expect this will be another instance of the Democrat got the majority of the popular vote by a few million and the Republican won anyway. So we're getting in a way a replay of 2000 and 2016. Yes it means our election system is inherently unfair and skewed in Republicans favor.

But it also means a very large number of Americans are going to get the government they chose and deserve, and the rest of us are along for the ride. I expect really large inflation and economic disruptions if Trump really tries to carry out his threats of extreme tariffs and deportations.

When those price hikes kick in, Americans are not going to keep feeling good about Trump. And if he knows that he'll go back on those promises and the consequences of this election will be less severe.

I don't expect him to be able to carry out his threats of revenge on political opponents.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how powerful the government is, the US is a really big place, and the Federal Government has limited resources (and people) to do things. So he can't wrap the entire country up into an obedient dictatorship as swiftly as some people are fearing. He will get pushback, both within the Federal government and in State governments, for anything particularly dictatorial that he tries to do; if it's bad enough, you may see states defying his (and his lackeys') orders.

What this may mean is the Federal government being in a small scale civil war against the big blue states - particularly New York, California, and Washington. But again, he can't be everywhere at once. California has pushed back against some Republican policies, and so have several other states, particularly with regard to immigrants and marijuana, and in the past, the Federal government has chosen not to fight those fights.

Is this what's going to happen? I don't know. Nobody does. It could be that Trump's talking about imprisoning Democrats is another show of bluff and bluster, and he'll be just as lazy and inconsequential as he was during his first Presidency. He doesn't really care about all of that Project 2025 stuff, he'd be happier to just go and cheat at golf some more. But the people around him may be far more zealous than he is.

My views only...

I think it is quite clear Trump has limited stomach for a sustained policy push of any kind. He didn't the first time around, and he's eight years older now. There's a non-zero chance that, apart from some populist window-dressing and some freaks like RFK Jr, the grifters will settle in and we'll go through a few years of robber-baron capitalism and scamming the likes of which nobody alive has experienced here. Trump clearly tired of Vance after only a couple of weeks and I doubt Musk is seriously interested in most of 2025. It will be ugly, and blue states will have to try to build firewalls around the things that truly matter, and the federal system will grow even more broken.

The advantage to the 2025 people is that they have an actual plan in place (which can seem appealing when the alternative is no plan), the people in place, and presumably they can see just as easily as I can that if they don't move now to consolidate power in the transition team, they'll be squeezed out by a bunch of grifters and crooks who don't really care about policy, just blatant self-enrichment.

I don't know who will win that struggle, the Muskites who want to bleed the state dry to become humanity's new oligarchs or the religious freaks who want to ban porn and shut down PBS so that more bandwidth can be freed up for religious programming... but I'm sure that a power struggle is already developing over this.

In the meantime, as far as limits on the federal government, unless people delete their accounts en masse, in January the Trump administration is going to possess one of the most effective state broadcasting systems in human history together with a useful surveillance network over all of the DMs of potential dissidents or opponents foolish enough to communicate via Twitter.