The fact that this question needs asking tells a lot about how other countries see the current administration.
¹) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Goldreserven#Diskussi...
What's happening is a much simpler, more drastic concern: does the US respect its international commitments?
Since then, it flip-flopped on the Paris Agreement, single-handedly put tariffs on goods imported from literally every single country in the world, withdrew from WHO and so on and so on.
Not only does the US not respect the commitments it already agreed to, it hasn't done so for the past 10 or years.
These commitments were commitments by the administration in the White House at that time. They were not accords or treaties ratified by Congress. Agree with them or don't, they should have been understood as what they were: limited in legitimacy and free to be canceled by the next administration with no discussion.
This isn't a matter of arcane political skullduggery, it's spelled out in the US Constitution's definition of treaty, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. The people were not formally heard.
Not just the US: a lot of countries implemented stimulus packages to get their economy going post-COVID.
The inflation of these programs was unexpected/predicted:
* https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/in...
I think it's also worth noting that a lot of people have 'forgotten' other factors happening besides stimulus and monetary (central bank) policy—especially when it comes to energy and food prices:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
If countries enter the lunatic phase of money printing you never quite know what they're going to do next. But it probably isn't going to be good for asset owners and it may well already be too late to get things out of well known vaults. Better to be a bit early.
He largely put that group in place in the executive and the judiciary.
It's a lot more than "a single president". It's the two thirds of American voters who either voted for him or couldn't be bothered to vote against him, even after having seen how he behaved in his first term.
That's why he's not the biggest problem. He's more of a symptom than a cause. He won't be around for ever, but even after he's gone, most of those same people will still be around.
Without populism, he'd have nothing.
It's true that he 'duped' them, but we're all duped on some level.
Is it possible that we're not actually that resilient, but instead it will just take tens of years for the damage to fully manifest?
That's why farmers vote for politicians and policy that put them out of business. In my hometown, the county went from 150 dairy farms in 1990 to 3. They voted to keep their guns or whatever bullshit they were told to worry about, and were wiped off the map by the deregulation they "wanted". My little town is a rural ghetto, the richest people in town now are the school principal and state trooper.
POTUS is an acute condition. The sickness lay deeper.
They're not motivated by an abstract argument. Any moment you're going to see a comment about how they should've put their money in crypto or some foolishness like that. This is not about central banking or government issued currencies. This is about a specific risk of dictatorship and war.
That was purely an accounting gain (because of selling that gold and buying it back). After realising this PnL the gold is now held at a much higher cost basis.
pedantic, adjective.
marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects
> This is not about central banking or government issued currencies. This is about a specific risk of dictatorship and war.
It's about both things. And the parent comment you are dismissing was also about the power of the president to upend the established order.
Not really. You just weren't paying attention before. To wit, countries (including Germany!) have been questioning the safety of storing gold in the United State long before the Trump administration.
Examples 2012: Venezuela Receives Last Shipment of Repatriated Gold Bars https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-01-31/venezuela...
2013: Bundesbank to retrieve $200bn of gold reserves (Bundesbank is Germany’s independent central bank) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/bundesbank-ret...
2014: Netherlands moves 122.5 from New York https://www.dutchnews.nl/2016/02/85796-2/
There's obviously more, but that gives you a sense of it.
There's many simple, small changes the US could put in place to make its political system less corrupt.
It beggars belief that this comment is even worthy of debate; the fact people actively disagree is astonishing.
Also, he's 79, and turning 80 this year. I'd be good with a limit of 75, which would mean no one in office at 80+.
They both present overly simplistic answers. The blue simplistic answers generally fall short and fizzle, as they're framed in disempowering ways and neutered by corporate lobbying. The red simplistic answers cause active harm by rejecting reality and the idea of second order effects. Grump's policies are basically what the grassroots red tribe has been lusting after for decades, and the results have been disaster after disaster - regardless what one thinks effective policy should look like.
(the only two political philosophies I've been able to find that match Grumpism are anarcho-capitalism and religious fundamentalism. I used to have more of an ancap perspective, but I moved past that thanks to Yarvin's writings)
In this instance, if the murderer had been prevented from reentering the country, this murder would not have happened. Everyone can agree this would have been a much better outcome.
But we can easily imagine a slightly different situation where the mother gets deported, the kid stays here in the "care" of the boyfriend, and then gets subsequently strangled by the citizen-but-criminal boyfriend.
Without data and a logical model, we're hopelessly lost in the weeds. Data for putting in context how prevalent various types of these occurrences actually are. And a logical model that keeps the focus on the relevant details. For instance, the [presumably criminal] convictions seem much more relevant here than the immigration status. And the immigration status seems like a red herring that feeds into those simplistic answers.
I can see the logic in the age limit, but I think the most likely scenario is that Trump stays in power until death.
At least to me, he is very predictable. He has an MO, and he never deviates very far from it. And he publishes his stream of consciousness on social media, which exposes a lot about what he's thinking at any given moment.
If his decision to attack Iran was predicted, the markets would have prepared beforehand.
Nation states would have prepared.
Instead we have economic chaos the world over.
Don't take the down votes personally, just know there's really scummy people out there
If you listen to the immigrants supporting "pulling up the ladder", you wouldn't be making such bad faith attacks. Typically the arguments come from legal immigrants that took no benefits, attacking policies of mass immigration or illegal immigrants and giving social benefits to immigrants. This isn't pulling up the ladder, this is a fiscally conservative view that someone who pays taxes can hold and is a reasonable policy to have.
You can look through my replies to find people who are not like your straw man.
There were several young Presidential candidates running in both parties over the last few cycles, but voters chose the oldest from each side. Which tells me that voters don’t really care about age as much as they do other things.
Which, when I view it from that lens, kind of makes your argument seem like: “people are voting for politicians based on things I think they shouldn’t, so I want to make a law saying they can’t”
Which is fine. We do that all the time.
It has everything to do with his public support for heinous and moronic and outright unconstitutional acts, and the way that support is pushed from the Legislative arm of the government. Without the majorities Republicans hold in Congress, Trump could have been rightfully removed months ago.
The President is not as powerful as Trump thinks he is. Congressional Republicans are using him as a lightning rod to keep pressure off their backs. They are mildly beholden to him in certain specifics, in that if Trump tells his base to primary you they often will, but they are not preventing Trump from doing stupid shit that even his base doesn't totally support that will objectively hurt everyone like this Iran war.
Reforming the Presidency cannot change anything because the paper already says he can't do these things. It doesn't matter as long as other people just pretend they don't hold the power they do.
Trump has been a moron, a simpleton, a grifter his entire life. None of this comes from mental deterioration. He's just a fucking moron who only knows retribution and grifting and refusing to pay contracts. A 35 year old Trump would be doing nothing different.
It is surprising to me in a bad way that someone thinks the relationship between the US and the EU (who have traditionally been allies) has become so adversarial that someone would compare it to the relationship between Russia and the EU.
The comment was: the EU should expect the US to hammer them the same way they hammered Russia.
And my point was, that would be a significant course change because for the US & EU to be like Russia & EU would be a significant change.
That was my point. I hope that is clear now.
This is a very weak punishment for what Russia is doing every day.
The EU have very deliberately avoided actually confiscating Russia's money. It is sill there, and (much to the annoyance of those who do want to actually confiscate it) Russia can have it back as soon as they stop their illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Closest the EU got to actually confiscating that money is, in fact, a loan such that if the peace agreement fails to include reparations then EU nations cover the loan but everyone's hoping Russia agrees to reparations so they don't need to.