The Trump Presidency 2.0

[JPhillips]

They aren't close now, but they were in the smart kids group when they were in HS in Eastern Kentucky. Their fathers were both physics profs and they still get together regularly.

[Atocep]

The EU is getting together without the US to commit to aid for Ukraine in order to put them in a position of strength for negotiations with Russia. The UK is committed to boots on the ground as part of a peacekeeping force in the event that a ceasefire is agreed to.

Trump is reportedly pissed that the EU has stepped up to circumvent the negotiations he had done so far and is complaining that this was supposed to be his Nobel Peace Prize (not joking).

He's not going to be able to pull us out of NATO but the damage that's going to be done to our standing on the world stage is going to take a generation or more to repair. Europe pulling off a ceasefire negotiation and leading the way with a peacekeeping opertation is Stage 1 of the US no longer being the leader of the free world.

[RainMaker]

He's absolutely loaded now since he was there pre-IPO. 18F was probably a passion project. Kind of insane because that's one group that actually did a ton of good on very little budget. Guessing they'll be begging to hire them back in a week.

The dichotomy between the US and China is striking. U.S firing people with actual skill for some script kiddies out of Peter Thiel's harem. Meanwhile China has their brightest minds working on shit. No wonder they've surpassed the United States in most technology.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's absolutely loaded now since he was there pre-IPO. 18F was probably a passion project. Kind of insane because that's one group that actually did a ton of good on very little budget. Guessing they'll be begging to hire them back in a week.

The dichotomy between the US and China is striking. U.S firing people with actual skill for some script kiddies out of Peter Thiel's harem. Meanwhile China has their brightest minds working on shit. No wonder they've surpassed the United States in most technology.

Mark Cuban said as much and advised 18F to create a consulting firm and wait for the government to come begging for them to come back.

[JPhillips]

I think he bailed during the first Trump admin. My wife said he's in Quebec now.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Small world. I worked with him on spam filtering back in the day when he was at Google. Smart guy.

Just for the record, thank you for your service (remembering the days posting on Usenet's NANAE (which stands for news.admin.net-abuse.email). Thankfully, the days of open mail servers filling everyone's inbox with levels of garbage is over now that filtering is good.. I remember one prolific spammer claiming the Lumber Cartel was behind this because email advertising was so profitable no one would cut down trees anymore)

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

He's not going to be able to pull us out of NATO but the damage that's going to be done to our standing on the world stage is going to take a generation or more to repair. Europe pulling off a ceasefire negotiation and leading the way with a peacekeeping opertation is Stage 1 of the US no longer being the leader of the free world.

Given 33 million people didn't vote and those that did elected Trump despite knowing who and what he is, maybe we don't deserve to be leader of the free world.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Given 33 million people didn't vote and those that did elected Trump despite knowing who and what he is, maybe we don't deserve to be leader of the free world.

We're not. Macron sat with Trump and fact checked him to his face in front of reporters. The rest of the world is starting to realize that Trump is weak and they're willing to call him on this shit. They've effectively said, "the peace deal you were negotiating is shit, we're taking over from here". There's absolutely no way to spin that as anything other than a weak president that isn't respected by our traditional allies.

People have argued for years for a stronger Europe and that they need to step up. That's happening, but it's going to be entirely at the US's expense.

Look at it this way, the only time in NATO history that Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of 9/11. If there was an escalation between Europe and Russia right now, is anyone confident in saying which side we'd be on?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Look at it this way, the only time in NATO history that Article 5 has been invoked was in the wake of 9/11. If there was an escalation between Europe and Russia right now, is anyone confident in saying which side we'd be on?

I'm confident Trump would be on Russias side. There was a time I would have said that is a bridge too far for the congress but that time has passed.

[Edward64]

Nice pic.

I really hope they can come up with a ceasefire/peace plan that is palatable with Russia & Ukraine. And I really hope they have the political will to take the steps to defend themselves without assuming the US will help.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/euro...se-fiasco.html

European leaders pose for a family photograph at Lancaster House during the European leaders’ summit on March 2, 2025 in London, England.

Yeah, good odds the current NATO is going away. IMO not a bad thing, it's a relic from the Cold War. EU should create an EU centric replacement and/or totally reorg NATO where the US is not the primary protector.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, good odds the current NATO is going away. IMO not a bad thing

I'm not real sure how losing all of our military allies makes us any safer, but if you say it's a good thing more power to you I guess.

[JPhillips]

Is there a single historical example of a nation choosing fewer allies, less trade, and less immigration and coming out more powerful and prosperous?

[GrantDawg]

So if we are leaving NATO, we can massively reduce our military budget right? I mean I keep seeing that these countries have free healthcare because we pay for their defense, so if we stop paying for their defense, then we get free healthcare. That's how it works, right?

[Lathum]

Honest question. Is there anything he or his cabinet can do that would result in enough of the GOP waking up and putting an end to this? He is so obviously unfit for office.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

So if we are leaving NATO, we can massively reduce our military budget right?

I looked to see how much US spend on NATO. I've seen wide ranges (based on different assumptions) and don't know the true number but below article talks about the intricacies of that calculation. Take it FWIW

NATO and the Claim the U.S. Bears 70% of the Burden: A False and Dysfunctional Approach to Burdensharing

An admittedly rough estimate by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) has far more credibility.[1] It only attempts to estimate the cost of U.S. forces in Europe and estimates that, "direct US expenses on defense in Europe (in current dollars) are estimated to range between US $30.7bn in 2017 and US $36.0bn in 2018,

As the IISS points out, however, simply costing the U.S. forces in Europe does not include the cost of any forces in the U.S. that are effectively dedicated – or earmarked or assigned to reinforcing NATO in a credible emergency or warfighting case. If one somewhat arbitrarily assumes that the total cost would be some three times higher than the cost of U.S. forces actually in Europe, a round number of $100 billion might be as good a guess as any.

But yeah, even if we remove significant amount of troops, assets etc. from NATO, and save (hypothetically) $50B a year, fair chance the $50B will go somewhere else pretty quick vs reducing the deficit.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I'm not real sure how losing all of our military allies makes us any safer, but if you say it's a good thing more power to you I guess.

Trump 1.0 pissed off our European military allies and they're still around 4-8 years later. Yeah, they'll get even more pissed off in 2.0 and they'll become less reliant on us, but that's a good thing.

IMO I'd rather we focus against more recent & existential threats like China. Take the (hypothetical) $50B from NATO and use that money for Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India etc. I'd toss in UK also since they are a NATO country invested in AUKUS.

[JPhillips]

No free healthcare, but if you own the right shit coins you can make a fortune.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump 1.0 pissed off our European military allies and they're still around 4-8 years later. Yeah, they'll get even more pissed off in 2.0 and they'll become less reliant on us, but that's a good thing.

IMO I'd rather we focus against more recent & existential threats like China. Take the (hypothetical) $50B from NATO and use that money for Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India etc. I'd toss in UK also since they are a NATO country invested in AUKUS.

Our allies in Europe got past the first Trump presidency because like most of us, we considered it an anomaly, especially after 1/6. By putting him back in power we are telegraphing to our allies we as a voting public can not be trusted. The damage done will take a generation to repair, if ever.

As for threats like China, we are already screwing that up also. By pulling aid from developing nations we are giving China the perfect opportunity to sweep in and play the long game, something Trump is incapable of grasping because frankly he does not care about the long term health of the nation.

China won the day Trump was elected. They were already winning, this was just the knock out punch. We will never recover from the lead they are going to take in the next 4 years with global relations, AI development, medical research, EVs, etc...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Our allies in Europe got past the first Trump presidency because like most of us, we considered it an anomaly, especially after 1/6. By putting him back in power we are telegraphing to our allies we as a voting public can not be trusted. The damage done will take a generation to repair, if ever.

Western Europe will wait out Trump 2.0. Not saying that things will return back to how it was with Biden but our friendship, frayed as it may be, will resume after Trump.

Yes, unlike some here, I do believe there will be fair elections in 2028 and he won't be able to run for a 3rd term.

As for threats like China, we are already screwing that up also ...

China won the day Trump was elected. They were already winning, this was just the knock out punch.

We were definitely screwing it up prior to Trump 1.0. It was Trump that started to confront China and decouple us from China. Joe to his credit did great work with AUKUS and further strengthened alliances in that region.

I'll concede that Trump 2.0 may screw Taiwan and the AUKUS alliances, but right now, there is little evidence of it e.g. Trump increased tariffs against China (in addition to the ones he put in for 1.0) and that indicates he is just as confrontational as before

We will never recover from the lead they are going to take in the next 4 years with global relations, AI development, medical research, EVs, etc...

We can blame Trump for many things but he does not own the majority of this. The groundwork for China's emergence was due to WTO, globalization, decades of Dem & GOP administrations complacency etc. put us where we are today.

[Edward64]

By pulling aid from developing nations we are giving China the perfect opportunity to sweep in and play the long game,

I assume this is related to Trump greatly restricting USAID.

China isn't giving USAID-type assistance to countries. They are doing big investment projects like airports, roads, ports etc. and they expect a return on their investment. So no, I doubt China will swoop in and do these "good will" stuff.

Arguably, what China is doing with their "silk road initiative" provides a better return on investment than USAID. On the pro side, what they do have the opportunity to help a country economically and therefore, their people on a grander scale. On the con side, the country becomes indebted to China and sometimes the projects are a failure.

This is their long game. Invest in countries with big projects; create relationships with (or bribe) the countries' leaders; expect a return; indebt those countries; ultimately they become more aligned with China's interest than the US.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Honest question. Is there anything he or his cabinet can do that would result in enough of the GOP waking up and putting an end to this? He is so obviously unfit for office.

No. Too much of the platform is focused on "winning" with no regard for what is actually being "won".

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump 1.0 pissed off our European military allies and they're still around 4-8 years later. Yeah, they'll get even more pissed off in 2.0 and they'll become less reliant on us, but that's a good thing.

IMO I'd rather we focus against more recent & existential threats like China. Take the (hypothetical) $50B from NATO and use that money for Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, India etc. I'd toss in UK also since they are a NATO country invested in AUKUS.

You realize leaving NATO would likely mean closing our military installations in those countries, which is the biggest military advantage we have over every other country in the world. Specifically China.

[Atocep]

538 looked at Trump's approval on the top 14 issues plus a blanket "other" for everything else. The only things he's polling above water on are: LGBTQ, energy, ebvironment, and immigration. LGBTQ is the only one above water by more than 5 points. He's under water on everything else.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You realize leaving NATO would likely mean closing our military installations in those countries, which is the biggest military advantage we have over every other country in the world. Specifically China.

Thanks for letting me set the record straight. I know it was implied above by someone else that I wanted NATO to be gone. My actual quote said ...

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, good odds the current NATO is going away. IMO not a bad thing, it's a relic from the Cold War. EU should create an EU centric replacement and/or totally reorg NATO where the US is not the primary protector.

• Specifically, "on NATO being the biggest advantage, specifically China" can you elaborate? How do you see a NATO, a defensive, European based alliance as the biggest advantage over China?

Arguably, the EU organization and its' economic policy, if in coordination with US economic policy could be a significant advantage over China. And, I definitely get UK because they are part of AUKUS but I don't get NATO per se.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks for letting me set the record straight. I know it was implied above by someone else that I wanted NATO to be gone. My actual quote said ...

• Specifically, "on NATO being the biggest advantage, specifically China" can you elaborate? How do you see a NATO, a defensive, European based alliance as the biggest advantage over China?

Arguably, the EU organization and its' economic policy, if in coordination with US economic policy could be a significant advantage over China. And, I definitely get UK because they are part of AUKUS but I don't get NATO per se.

Our footprint in NATO countries gives launching points to quickly respond to anything, anywhere in the world. We have our own military airports in these countries, our own military hospitals in these countries. From a logistics and readiness standpoint that's and advantage no one else in the world has. We also conduct Intel and collection from some of these installations. It's highly unlikely that any conflict with China would be on their soil. Somewhere in eastern or western Europe is much, much more likely. We need that reach or responding to any conflict gets far more difficult.

If we lose these installations where are we sending casualties? Landstul is where we send a large number of our casualties, whether it's Europe, the middle east, wherever. Are we OK with the additional hurdles to getting supplies to our troops? Are we ok not having bases in Europe to stage troops and act as a launching point? How are we refueling our aircraft carriers and other other ships or planes without NATO support?

We get far more from NATO than we put into it. The idea that everything has to be transactional and must give us a direct return on investment or produce a profit is flawed thinking.

[JPhillips]

Has any country so aggressively hurled themselves into a recession?

On March 3, the #GDPNow model nowcast of real GDP growth in Q1 2025 is -2.8%: https://t.co/T7FoDdgYos. #ATLFedResearch

Download our EconomyNow app or go to our website for the latest GDPNow nowcast: https://t.co/NOSwMl7Jms. pic.twitter.com/FdSehrEcSg

— Atlanta Fed (@AtlantaFed) March 3, 2025

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Has any country so aggressively hurled themselves into a recession?

On March 3, the #GDPNow model nowcast of real GDP growth in Q1 2025 is -2.8%: https://t.co/T7FoDdgYos. #ATLFedResearch

Download our EconomyNow app or go to our website for the latest GDPNow nowcast: https://t.co/NOSwMl7Jms. pic.twitter.com/FdSehrEcSg

— Atlanta Fed (@AtlantaFed) March 3, 2025

They were open about this too. They were saying sacrifices were going go have to be made and it would be really rough for a couple years.

It's goes back to these billionaires telling people they have to make sacrifices while creating tax breaks for themselves.

[Edward64]

Thanks for elaborating. I better understand your rationale. My comments below ...

Originally Posted by Atocep

Our footprint in NATO countries gives launching points to quickly respond to anything, anywhere in the world. We have our own military airports in these countries, our own military hospitals in these countries. From a logistics and readiness standpoint that's and advantage no one else in the world has. We also conduct Intel and collection from some of these installations. It's highly unlikely that any conflict with China would be on their soil. Somewhere in eastern or western Europe is much, much more likely. We need that reach or responding to any conflict gets far more difficult.

If there is a shooting conflict, it is highly likely it'll happen in Asia and not eastern/western Europe. The threat to Europe is Russia, not China.

What tension has China caused in Europe? In Asia, we have Taiwan; building artificial islands and contesting the Spratley islands which is pissing off everyone; conducting aggressive naval drills near Australia & Vietnam; border conflict with India etc.

Joe championed AUKUS which is primarily with UK and Australia. For all practical purposes, Japan & Philippines are also part of AUKUS or like affiliate members. South Korea, for obvious reasons won't officially be in AUKUS. Joe negotiated and is reopening Subic Bay & Clark Air Force bases in Philippines etc. See below article for how Joe has built up our presence in Asia.

U.S. builds web of arms, ships and bases in the Pacific to deter China - The Japan Times

If we lose these installations where are we sending casualties? Landstul is where we send a large number of our casualties, whether it's Europe, the middle east, wherever. Are we OK with the additional hurdles to getting supplies to our troops? Are we ok not having bases in Europe to stage troops and act as a launching point? How are we refueling our aircraft carriers and other other ships or planes without NATO support?

My position is, because the China military threat is much more likely in Asia and not Europe, that we should spend the (hypothetical $50B) in Asia and further build up the infrastructure you state above, and provide more training, arms etc. to our allies in Asia.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks for elaborating. I better understand your rationale. My comments below ...


If there is a shooting conflict, it is highly likely it'll happen in Asia and not eastern/western Europe. The threat to Europe is Russia, not China.

What tension has China caused in Europe? In Asia, we have Taiwan; building artificial islands and contesting the Spratley islands which is pissing off everyone; conducting aggressive naval drills near Australia & Vietnam; border conflict with India etc.

Joe championed AUKUS which is primarily with UK and Australia. For all practical purposes, Japan & Philippines are also part of AUKUS or like affiliate members. South Korea, for obvious reasons won't officially be in AUKUS. Joe negotiated and is reopening Subic Bay & Clark Air Force bases in Philippines etc. See below article for how Joe has built up our presence in Asia.

U.S. builds web of arms, ships and bases in the Pacific to deter China - The Japan Times


My position is, because the China military threat is much more likely in Asia and not Europe, that we should spend the (hypothetical $50B) in Asia and further build up the infrastructure you state above, and provide more training, arms etc. to our allies in Asia.

$50 billion isn't getting us anywhere close to replacing that we already have. I'm very skeptical that any conflict with China would be in Asia. Eastern/Western Europe or possibly Africa are far more likely. If it's Asia then the forces and infrastructure in NATO countries would still be vital to any response. The Asian countries that we have a foothold in generally aren't large enough to support what we need or replace what we have in NATO countries.

Improving our foothold in Asia isn't necessarily a bad thing but shouldn't be an either/or thing with NATO. Giving up what we have to respond to a current threat is shortsighted. Are you confident projecting who our biggest threat is going to be 10 years from now let alone 50 or 75?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

$50 billion isn't getting us anywhere close to replacing that we already have. I'm very skeptical that any conflict with China would be in Asia. Eastern/Western Europe or possibly Africa are far more likely.

This is the crux as to why you and I differ. I don't know how to convince you that China is much more interested in Asia militarily than Europe so we'll agree to disagree here.

Giving up what we have to respond to a current threat is shortsighted. Are you confident projecting who our biggest threat is going to be 10 years from now let alone 50 or 75?

As I've stated, I'm okay with NATO 2.0 just as long as US is not the primary driver.

I do agree that Russia is a threat, but unlike Asia, NATOexUS should be able to handle Russia with US playing a supporting role. Between Russia and China, IMO China is the greater threat. Russia is declining, China is emerging and therefore more likely to have conflicts with US interests.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This is the crux as to why you and I differ. I don't know how to convince you that China is much more interested in Asia militarily than Europe so we'll agree to disagree here.

China doesn't want conflict in Asia because it's too close to home. That's not how superpowers fight wars. Direct conflict between the US and China is more likely to be part of a larger conflict where each of us is supporting allies elsewhere in the world. Whether that's Russia starting something where both of us jump into it or it's in emerging countries in Africa, I don't see it being Asia. Far too much risk there.

Even direct conflict is highly unlikely. More likely it's a proxy war between other countries we're supporting, similar to Ukraine now but with more direct support through training etc.

Strategically, giving up NATO would be shortsighted and a self own that we wouldn't recover from.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

China won the day Trump was elected.

They've been winning for quite some time. If it wasn't for centuries of sinophobia, they'd probably be the global leader. They're better than the United States in just about everything at this point and don't waste their brightest minds making obscure financial products used to scam people.

If I was Europe, I'd make the switch. Better EV cars, better phones, and they won't drag you into a global conflict every few years to appease some defense contractors.

[Lathum]

I literally said they have been winning for some time and this was the KO. Creative edit of my quote.

[RainMaker]

I agree with you. I just think this has been trending this way for a long time. Outside of weapons and weird financial products, this country doesn't exactly make much worthwhile anymore.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Has any country so aggressively hurled themselves into a recession?

B-b-b-b-but Gulf of America!

[JPhillips]

Nobody can decipher whether or not Trump is saying that agricultural exports will be tariffed beginning in April.

[JPhillips]

dola

Time to start hoarding weather forecasts I guess.

The Trump administration has informed NOAA that two pivotal centers for weather forecasting will soon have their leases canceled, sources told Axios.

Why it matters: One of the buildings is the nerve center for generating national weather forecasts.

It was designed to integrate multiple forecasting centers in one building to improve operating efficiency. It houses telecommunications equipment to send weather data and forecasts across the U.S. and abroad.

[RainMaker]

Almost -3% GDP in just 6 weeks is some remarkable work.

[BYU 14]

Not as remarkable as taking stock gains from 16.2% and 11.65% for me in 2023 and 2024 down to 3.2% year to date and probably be in the break even range after todays bloodbath.

[flere-imsaho]

Orange motherfucker is single-handedly delaying my retirement.

[cuervo72]

Interesting that nightly there seem to be pro-Trump commercials…don’t recall those during Biden’s first year (for a president planning to run again).

[Atocep]

It's rather concerning when a former Trump commissioner and a guy that isn't a big fan of the department of education is sounding alarm bells for what the Trump administration is doing to education data.

Former Trump commissioner blasts DOGE education data cuts

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Not as remarkable as taking stock gains from 16.2% and 11.65% for me in 2023 and 2024 down to 3.2% year to date and probably be in the break even range after todays bloodbath.

I don't think they've even fully priced in tariffs either. They still think he's bluffing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Interesting that nightly there seem to be pro-Trump commercials…don’t recall those during Biden’s first year (for a president planning to run again).

Yeah, I've seen the Kristi Noem one multiple times. Ridiculous, just kissing Trump's ass like an election year commercial.

[Fidatelo]

Tariffs hit 'allies' tomorrow. Sanctions being lifted on Russia. Aid ending to Ukraine. America is all-in on the Russia alliance.

[JPhillips]

Fucking disgraceful.

[RainMaker]

More welfare.

Jaw-dropping corruption in the US:

Trump's billionaire crypto czar is heavily invested in a fund whose top 5 holdings are the 5 in the US government Crypto Strategic Reserve.

Mere hours before Trump announced it, someone bought $200 million in Ethereum & Bitcoin on 50X LEVERAGE pic.twitter.com/LQWZceeTvB

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 3, 2025

[Atocep]

The DOJ announced they're reviewing the conviction of Tina Peters, who was found guilty of tampering with voting machines in a state case in Colorado.

[JPhillips]

Trump says he's going to eliminate the cap gains on crypto sales. That's not how things used to work, but I doubt the GOP in Congress say no and the IRS will just stop collecting.

[Edward64]

T-11

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/04/nego...s-persist.html

Congress is careening toward a government shutdown in just 11 days as the discord between the two parties over funding talks grows, with no clear path to reach a deal.

The government is set to run out of money at the end of next Friday, March 14. Republicans control the House and the Senate, but they need Democratic support to pass a funding bill as it is subject to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.

Hopes of a full funding deal have faded, so President Donald Trump and congressional leaders are falling back on a short-term bill to keep the government open on autopilot, most likely through the end of the fiscal year. But even that is running into obstacles.

My guess is another CR.

But a shutdown game of chicken/stare down will be interesting to see how it shakes out with the Dems (e.g. how much resistance they put up).