Can the U.S. go back to the way things were after Trump?

[BradStevens]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

In foreign policy, yes. For sure. Our allies will still be there waiting for us, and we can eventually pick back up where we left of. Economics, I'm not so sure. The global free trade regime may be on the way out no matter what we do post-Trump.

 

[snarlcakes]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

Yes, certainly. It would be more the same where we can continue to kick the can down the road and run up debt. The top 20% would do well and the young/ working class would continue to struggle.

The only issue is I don't think you can maintain a coalition for that long, because the system doesn't work very well for a majority of the population. If the economy peters out with Trump I think Democrats could run that game plan, but we'll still be right back here in 32 or 36 in my opinion.

Edit: I forgot to mention foreign policy. I agree Goat, the other countries aren't going anywhere. Plus, Trump will end up increasing spending on military, so we're not going anywhere.

 

[BradStevens]

In foreign policy, yes. For sure. Our allies will still be there waiting for us, and we can eventually pick back up where we left of. Economics, I'm not so sure. The global free trade regime may be on the way out no matter what we do post-Trump.

I'm not so sure.

Just one example: let's say European nations (hi, Germany) decide it is too risky to wait and see if Vance is elected, and they decide to ramp up rearmament and building up their military. Once that process is put in place, it might not be easy to stop it. And once it exists at a certain level, that institution might take on a mind of its own, have its own lobbying power, jobs creator, etc. within their system.

Now imagine other European nations do that, too. That means Europe is going to have a lot more say in all manner of foreign policy decisions all around the world, doesn't it? Can we reverse course on that?

 

[snarlcakes]

I'm not so sure.

Just one example: let's say European nations (hi, Germany) decide it is too risky to wait and see if Vance is elected, and they decide to ramp up rearmament and building up their military. Once that process is put in place, it might not be easy to stop it. And once it exists at a certain level, that institution might take on a mind of its own, have its own lobbying power, jobs creator, etc. within their system.

Now imagine other European nations do that, too. That means Europe is going to have a lot more say in all manner of foreign policy decisions all around the world, doesn't it? Can we reverse course on that?

Where are they getting the money? Are they switching energy policies? Are their demographics changing? I think they'll change some around the margins, but until they start voting in right wing conservatives who are willing to make drastic cuts to their social programs, they can't afford a strong military for an extended period of time.

 

[IUINSB]

Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

The only possible way forward is absorption into Canada as the 14th province.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

Go back to what?

There is no back.

Anything related to back is unsustainable.

The world is progressing on A technological level and we either go with it or die while watching other parts of the world thrive. It doesn’t make any difference who is president.

6 of the 9 largest chip manufacturing plants in the world are in the USA. (2023 Data). Chips run the world. And they will be more important. Trump doesn’t matter about that.

AI no matter how you define or use it will require enormous amounts of energy. We e got the energy. Energy is and will drive foreign policy,. All politicians can do is manage it.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Go back to what?

There is no back.

Anything related to back is unsustainable.

The world is progressing on A technological level and we either go with it or die while watching other parts of the world thrive. It doesn’t make any difference who is president.

6 of the 9 largest chip manufacturing plants in the world are in the USA. (2023 Data). Chips run the world. And they will be more important. Trump doesn’t about that.

AI no matter how you define or use it will require enormous amounts of energy. We e got the energy. Energy is and will drive foreign policy,. All politicians can do is manage it.

Also water rights.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Also water rights.

Desalinization take a lot of energy.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

Personally, I think we’re in for continued political turbulence until and unless we get our fiscal house in order….and it will get worse, because we won’t.

Who we have in office isn’t going to make the math change any, alas.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Where are they getting the money? Are they switching energy policies? Are their demographics changing? I think they'll change some around the margins, but until they start voting in right wing conservatives who are willing to make drastic cuts to their social programs, they can't afford a strong military for an extended period of time.

I saw a clip recently of a Canadian official discussing US defense support on election night - and how it enables them to devote more to social spending.

Remarkable in her candor.

And this Is not just true for Canada.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Where are they getting the money?

Exactly. Germany shuttered its nukes. It buys energy from Russia and France. The rise in Chinese auto manufacturing hurts German auto exports. Germany has ridden its auto industry for decades and got complacent. Now the jig is up.

 

[BradStevens]

Go back to what?

There is no back.

Anything related to back is unsustainable.

The world is progressing on A technological level and we either go with it or die while watching other parts of the world thrive. It doesn’t make any difference who is president.

6 of the 9 largest chip manufacturing plants in the world are in the USA. (2023 Data). Chips run the world. And they will be more important. Trump doesn’t matter about that.

AI no matter how you define or use it will require enormous amounts of energy. We e got the energy. Energy is and will drive foreign policy,. All politicians can do is manage it.

Go back to:

(1) Free trade

(2) Tight alliances with western nations (Denmark, GB, Germany, etc.) and very close, trusting relationships with some, such as Canada, for example, and the ability to control a lot of military and economic strategy worldwide.

Basically all things Aloha and others have been worried about in threads on here since Trump took office again.

 

[iuwclurker]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

Nit pick; Economically, socially and with foreign policy you mean go forward to where things were.

With DOGE, it appears the current administration is actually taking us forward in terms of eliminating waste.

With illegal immigration, which probably affects the economy most, we can always admit more people if we need to.

 

[hoosboot]

Yes, certainly. It would be more the same where we can continue to kick the can down the road and run up debt. The top 20% would do well and the young/ working class would continue to struggle.

The young may not be struggling as much as you'd like eveyrone to think. Millennials have more wealth (adjusted for inflation) than Boomers and Gen X did at the same age.

 

[Spartans9312]

Where are they getting the money? Are they switching energy policies? Are their demographics changing? I think they'll change some around the margins, but until they start voting in right wing conservatives who are willing to make drastic cuts to their social programs, they can't afford a strong military for an extended period of time.

Europe is looking forward to filling the vacuums we have left. Number 1 being French defense contractors. They realize they have an opportunity in a new global arms race. Number 2 being Italy

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Yes, certainly. It would be more the same where we can continue to kick the can down the road and run up debt. The top 20% would do well and the young/ working class would continue to struggle.

The only issue is I don't think you can maintain a coalition for that long, because the system doesn't work very well for a majority of the population. If the economy peters out with Trump I think Democrats could run that game plan, but we'll still be right back here in 32 or 36 in my opinion.

Edit: I forgot to mention foreign policy. I agree Goat, the other countries aren't going anywhere. Plus, Trump will end up increasing spending on military, so we're not going anywhere.

And yet debt rises faster under Republican presidents. Don't worry about facts though

 

[Mark Milton]

I'm not so sure.

Just one example: let's say European nations (hi, Germany) decide it is too risky to wait and see if Vance is elected, and they decide to ramp up rearmament and building up their military. Once that process is put in place, it might not be easy to stop it. And once it exists at a certain level, that institution might take on a mind of its own, have its own lobbying power, jobs creator, etc. within their system.

Now imagine other European nations do that, too. That means Europe is going to have a lot more say in all manner of foreign policy decisions all around the world, doesn't it? Can we reverse course on that?

A billion percent correct. The sleeping giant in Europe has been Germany. The lack of American interest in Europe or desire to participate with or in Europe, is going to force the European market to look not only inwards but to China (more so than what they have already).

I'm already pissed off that my favorite lower carb snack food--Twiglets, is $8:00 a for an ounce bag. Bonkers! And will only get more more bonkers. The Scottish Grocery Store is about 20 minutes from me (shameless plug for Ackroyd's bakery here: https://ackroydsbakery.com/?gad_sou...8hzQ0G5SJssPLduVQQLxwi_JsUZNbPQBoCQgYQAvD_BwE), has already jumped up their prices significantly.

Once Europe regains its full military independence (outside of those with nuclear weapons), to borrow a phrase, the US "isn't holding the cards anymore".

Like it or not, being intertwined with international markets economically and militarily has been a boon for the US and for Europe. Unraveling that will be painful for all, and we ain't gonna be lovers again with Europe.

 

[snarlcakes]

Europe is looking forward to filling the vacuums we have left. Number 1 being French defense contractors. They realize they have an opportunity in a new global arms race. Number 2 being Italy

I really hope they do, but doubt it. Europe is f#cked in my opinion. They don't have the political will to make the changes they need and they'd have to go back to working full time😉

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Go back to:

(1) Free trade

(2) Tight alliances with western nations (Denmark, GB, Germany, etc.) and very close, trusting relationships with some, such as Canada, for example, and the ability to control a lot of military and economic strategy worldwide.

Basically all things Aloha and others have been worried about in threads on here since Trump took office again.

Well . . .

(1) A future administration can eliminate Trumps ‘s tariff regimen but that is different from free trade.

(2) A future administration can revert to us ding the all heavy lifting for European and Canadian defense against ???? but that doesn’t build mutual trust or control worldwide military and economic strategy.

IMO, and as I tried to point out, conditions will change regarding tech and energy no matter who is in office. We either manage change or it will manage us. Abandoning America First principles is not a betterment.

 

[iuwclurker]

Abandoning America First principles is not a betterment.

“America First” is a political red herring. In general, our principles and policies have always effectively been America first. The question is, what’s more beneficial to us, controlling the world economy or isolating ourselves from it? Producing goodwill internationally or antagonizing trading partners? And so on…

The current Administration’s emphasis seems to be isolationist and antagonistic which suggests an ignorance of the benefits of control and creating goodwill.

 

[hoot1]

Well . . .

(1) A future administration can eliminate Trumps ‘s tariff regimen but that is different from free trade.

(2) A future administration can revert to us ding the all heavy lifting for European and Canadian defense against ???? but that doesn’t build mutual trust or control worldwide military and economic strategy.

IMO, and as I tried to point out, conditions will change regarding tech and energy no matter who is in office. We either manage change or it will manage us. Abandoning America First principles is not a betterment.

The Trump slogan of Make America Great Again and the whole idea of America First principles has a downside in my view.

The "us versus them" line of thinking along with the whole concept of global competition runs contrary to the fact we are one human race. A single race which must find a way to share this planet together in peace where everyone is a winner.

In my youth I prayed each night that a nuclear war would not destroy us all.

Today I wonder if global competition and the "us versus them" philosophy inherit in this conflict will ultimately destroy us all. For example, it is hard to give up competing in the global economy and do what it takes to combat climate change. AI might offer a solution, but on the other hand, AI takes lots of energy to run along with all nations being willing to cooperate.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

“America First” is a political red herring. In general, our principles and policies have always effectively been America first. The question is, what’s more beneficial to us, controlling the world economy or isolating ourselves from it? Producing goodwill internationally or antagonizing trading partners? And so on…

The current Administration’s emphasis seems to be isolationist and antagonistic which suggests an ignorance of the benefits of control and creating goodwill.

I don’t think America First is a red herring. I think the better phrase is Americans First.

I never understood the isolanist label as applied to Trump. I think he is 180 degrees away from isolationism. He He wants America to influence the world in all aspects of economic affairs. I don’t think you can list a single policy that smacks of isolationism. I think you ( and others) use ISOLATIONISM! as a meaningless buzz word similar to Trump is a racist, threat to democracy etc.

 

[BradStevens]

I don’t think America First is a red herring. I think the better phrase is Americans First.

I never understood the isolanist label as applied to Trump. I think he is 180 degrees away from isolationism. He He wants America to influence the world in all aspects of economic affairs. I don’t think you can list a single policy that smacks of isolationism. I think you ( and others) use ISOLATIONISM! as a meaningless buzz word similar to Trump is a racist, threat to democracy etc.

Isolationist doesn’t have nearly the same negative connotation as those other words in the US.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Trump slogan of Make America Great Again and the whole idea of America First principles has a downside in my view.

The "us versus them" line of thinking along with the whole concept of global competition runs contrary to the fact we are one human race. A single race which must find a way to share this planet together in peace where everyone is a winner.

In my youth I prayed each night that a nuclear war would not destroy us all. Today I wonder if global competition and the "us versus them" philosophy inherit in this conflict will ultimately destroy us all. For example, it is hard to give up competing in the global economy and do what it takes to combat climate change. AI might offer a solution, but on the other hand, AI takes lots of energy to run along with all nations being willing to cooperate.

Don’t agree. Two parties ( nations) negotiating out of their own self interests produces better results than some amorphous objective for the benefit of humanity that is usually really useless and cumbersome. (United Nations) America First doesn’t mean the world can go to hell or America Alone. It certainly doesn’t mean fighting in an “us v. them” context. When negotiating agreements or disputes, the parties looking out for there own self-interests produces pretty good results.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm not so sure.

Just one example: let's say European nations (hi, Germany) decide it is too risky to wait and see if Vance is elected, and they decide to ramp up rearmament and building up their military. Once that process is put in place, it might not be easy to stop it. And once it exists at a certain level, that institution might take on a mind of its own, have its own lobbying power, jobs creator, etc. within their system.

Now imagine other European nations do that, too. That means Europe is going to have a lot more say in all manner of foreign policy decisions all around the world, doesn't it? Can we reverse course on that?

I don’t understand this post at all.

Why is your example a bad thing?

Why would you want to reverse course?

Who do you believe will be the enemy to justify all the military spending?

Will better economic connections matter?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A billion percent correct. The sleeping giant in Europe has been Germany. The lack of American interest in Europe or desire to participate with or in Europe, is going to force the European market to look not only inwards but to China (more so than what they have already).

I'm already pissed off that my favorite lower carb snack food--Twiglets, is $8:00 a for an ounce bag. Bonkers! And will only get more more bonkers. The Scottish Grocery Store is about 20 minutes from me (shameless plug for Ackroyd's bakery here: https://ackroydsbakery.com/?gad_sou...8hzQ0G5SJssPLduVQQLxwi_JsUZNbPQBoCQgYQAvD_BwE), has already jumped up their prices significantly.

Once Europe regains its full military independence (outside of those with nuclear weapons), to borrow a phrase, the US "isn't holding the cards anymore".

Like it or not, being intertwined with international markets economically and militarily has been a boon for the US and for Europe. Unraveling that will be painful for all, and we ain't gonna be lovers again with Europe.

Germany has big problems now that have nothing to do with Trump. It is in the third year of a recession . (negative growth). The rest of Europe is better. Energy is X4 the cost of US energy. The auto and medical equipment industries (two large exports) are hurting because of China. Its politics are a mess and it can’t form a strong purposeful government (a fault of the parliamentary system). It’s increasing national debt. The real estate market is depressed. I could go on. And this is all while the U.S. had Biden in charge.

I don’t agree with the point about U.S. holding cards (assuming that should be important). A strong Europe less dependent on Uncle Sam makes both parties better and stronger.

 

[iuwclurker]

I don’t think America First is a red herring. I think the better phrase is Americans First.

I never understood the isolanist label as applied to Trump. I think he is 180 degrees away from isolationism. He He wants America to influence the world in all aspects of economic affairs. I don’t think you can list a single policy that smacks of isolationism. I think you ( and others) use ISOLATIONISM! as a meaningless buzz word similar to Trump is a racist, threat to democracy etc.

America First is a red herring when used to imply Harris, Biden or any previous Administration didn’t operate on the notion of “America first.” Thus, you use it as a red herring when you imply this conversation has anything to do with “abandoning America First.”

This Administration’s tariff-dominated trade strategy is in effect isolationist. It’s primarily American companies that spearheaded the creation of “Chimerica” for our own benefit. Offshoring was MBA America engineered. Our standard of living (in terms of abundance of cheap goods, not increasing relative income) skyrocketed on the backs of cheap labor from abroad. This Administration wants those jobs brought home? Who wants to work for those wages? Meanwhile here at home labor unions have been undermined by “right to work” laws. It’s a poorly conceived strategy.

We need a strategy to increase the ability of our workforce to earn high wages, not ask them to compete with impoverished labor from “shithole” countries.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

The young may not be struggling as much as you'd like eveyrone to think. Millennials have more wealth (adjusted for inflation) than Boomers and Gen X did at the same age.

Not surprised.

Millennials had earlier access to democratized investment networks and capabilities than us Xers had early in our careers. Employers also offer much more than we had access to back in the late 90s.

Millennials are also having fewer children and that’s a big money saver.

 

[TMFT]

IMO, domestic & foreign policy is always on a pendulum to a degree. So that will be the "easier" one.

The harder one will be a balance of power issue. Congress can only cede so much power to the executive before it becomes difficult/impossible to claw back. Regardless of whether President Trump is a fundamentally good or bad person, the real risk is a President gets elected who has all of the assumed power and is undoubtedly an authoritarian. Then we're in for a real rough time.

I've seen far too many reps & senators so far this year say that Congress is so dysfunctional that they need the President to be able to unilaterally stop programs that Congress has passed. That is such a wild admission of incompetence that I can't believe these people are still going to ask for votes. "We're terrible at our jobs and we're so feckless that it doesn't matter what we do anyway, so vote for me!" Inspiring.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Not surprised.

Millennials had earlier access to democratized investment networks and capabilities than us Xers had early in our careers. Employers also offer much more than we had access to back in the late 90s.

Millennials are also having fewer children and that’s a big money saver.

Also, the increase in wealth from generation to the next is significantly outpaced by the growth of per capita GDP in the same time period, so Millennials may have a bigger piece of pie than we did at their age, but that's largely because the pie has grown considerably, and their share of the pie is still relatively small.

YMMV on how much that matters, since it gets into a debate over absolute economic security vs. the wealth gap.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

***For the purposes of this thread, please assume Trump's foreign policy ideas won't work and that our economy might be hurt by the tariffs and his strategizing. If you just can't imagine that, try to sit on the sidelines and think about why you are so certain of your positions. For the purposes of this thread, we're just going to assume they might not work so we can discuss secondary options.***

So let's say MAGA loses in 2028 and the American public forms a sort of consensus that the US should abandon Trump's foreign affairs and economic policies. Can we go back to the way things were? Completely? Substantially? If not, what is the way forward that might also incorporate the complaints and desires of the people who elected him in 2024?

Is this a coincidence where all populists are corrupt or a symptom of the status quo being challenged?

 

[iuwclurker]

Is this a coincidence where all populists are corrupt or a symptom of the status quo being challenged?

View embedded media

All corrupt, no coincidence.

 

[Mark Milton]

Is this a coincidence where all populists are corrupt or a symptom of the status quo being challenged?

View embedded media

if you read the trial reports, she and the other 20 defendants who embezzeled nearly 3 mil dollars barely put on a defense.

Salvani is the deputy prime minister of Italy

There are scores of populists that run every year in Europe. Poland, Germany, etc.