Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap. — Tzeentch

I would disagree here.

The window where Russia would have truly aligned itself to the West has long been shut. I think that time ended during the Kosovo war. The rift happened already in the Yeltsin years. And it was was totally evident with the Russo-Georgian war in 2008. I've always said that for Russia align to the West, we would have needed truly larger than life leaders both in Washington and in Moscow. When the leader of the FSB and his KGB friends got into power, the window was totally shut. But there was in the 1990's a firm belief that this could happen. I remember a German military attache saying that it might be a possibility that Russia would join NATO. I myself and other Finns (then Finland non-aligned) were dumbfounded by the remark.

The West has simply fooled itself to think that Russia would align itself with the West and wouldn't see the West as an adversary, thus all the "reboots" of the US-Russo relations done by Bush and Obama (and of course, by Trump). This has been a disastrous mistake, just like when the West thought that China (and the Chinese Communist Party) would somehow change.

That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo. — Tzeentch

This is Trumpian or Russophile daydreaming, as if the relations between Europe and Russia would normalize. Russia is an existential threat for too many European countries. If Putin is ousted and Russia finally has it's revolution and the Russian's discard the disastrous attempts to retake their Empire, then those relations could improve. Even if that would happen, who knows, still likely many would be wary about a Pro-Western Russia. There would be the threat of a Putinist takeover.

And this is actually the real damage that is now happening to US - Western relations: even if the Trump administration sooner or later ends, there's still this feeling that Americans can choose a nativist-isolationist leader again, who is as hostile to the West as Trump is now.

Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India. — Tzeentch

Those countries that have now sent troops and "volunteers" to fight alongside Russian troops in Ukraine show very clearly which are the countries that are the true allies of Russia.

That alliance is the Anti-American alliance, now clearly formed and visible. It's just the hallucinations of the crazy people to think that somehow now Russia would want closer ties with the US. What it only wants is to drive a wedge between the US and it's allies, and Trump here is the best thing ever that has happened to Putin.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. — Tzeentch

No, this attempt is another form of self-mutilation, shoot oneself in the foot, just as is the crazy idea of declaring sky high tariffs against the whole World and then think it would create prosperity as domestic manufacturing would increase. Just look how long it took for Trump to blink and postpone the tariffs for 90 days. This is similar nonsense, that only a moron can do.

A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided. — Tzeentch

It's likely the reality, with the execption of India, which has and will go it's own way. Just remember that China has as an close ally Pakistan, not India. And China and India have tensions along there border. Yet in the debate club called BRICS both China and India can happily coexist.

This is just assisted by Trump trying to destroy every alliance the US has with other countries... perhaps with the exception of the US-Israeli alliance.

To inhibit the expressions of terrorist should be understandable.
— ssu

Not really. "Terrorist organization sues Finland over free speech rights," isn't exactly a common headline. — Leontiskos

Sorry, I don't understand your point. :sad:

For example, the law distinguishes manslaughter from murder, but with terrorism there is no such distinction. The law does not distinguish terrorists who were acting in good faith from terrorists who were acting in bad faith. — Leontiskos

OK, now I understand what you were after.

Well, do notice that when "terrorism" isn't confined to a tiny cabal of people who we would call homicidal maniacs, it becomes a totally different thing. I already mentioned here the power of numbers. Just think of an insurgency: the insurgents are still terrorists, criminals, but an insurgency isn't just a string of terrorist attacks. Then the case is that the terrorists are "illegal combatants", but usually insurgencies eithers succeed to win the war or there is a political settlement, and the terrorist become people who you can negotiate with (even if at the start this was an impossibility). In a political settlement the terrorists become politicians themselves. There are so many examples of this in history that I don't know where to start.

Traitor and a terrorist are quite different things. To be prosecuted about treason is really different from terrorism, so here I'm not sure what you are thinking about.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. — Tzeentch

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity.

And if the US would be serious about China, it would try to tighten the alliances it has in the Pacific, not start trade wars with it's allies. (Because yes, putting up 10% tariffs and threatening higher ones in 90 days is to start a trade war with others too.)

Why Trump wants to cut the alliances and alienate the friends of the US and then grovel in front of the Russians who view him as an useful idiot is beyond me. Russia knows clearly well how weak and capricious Trump is how easily the US can change it's policies after Trump. Yet it seems that many are eagerly enthusiastic about these developments when the US is clearly shooting itself in the foot.

Well, there's a discussion now in Germany about acquiring nuclear weapons. That isn't likely, but what is likely that the nuclear deterrence of Europe will be discussed a lot. France naturally has long time talked about strategic autonomy. Before it was a French pipe dream, now it's a serious alternative.

Okay. Incidentally, how do you see the issue of speech impinging on the question of terrorism? Are you thinking of cases where we inhibit a terrorist's forms of expression? — Leontiskos

To inhibit the expressions of terrorist should be understandable.

Yes, but the question here is whether there is an specific need to evaluate the perpetrator's culpability. If we do that, then we are involved in a moral judgment of the person, and we don't always do that. In the case of the terrorist I don't think we really care about their culpability. We don't care if they acted in "good faith" or "bad faith." — Leontiskos

I think we should always evaluate the perpetrators culpability. Many times it can be easy, when it's someone that uses violence to instill fear. Sometimes it's difficult. I'm not sure why you insist that we wouldn't care about the culpability of someone. In politics and legislation there are always moral question that we try to answer to the best of our knowledge.

Will the split between UK and EU widen?

Hopefully not.

The UK is actually doing a lot especially when it comes to Ukraine with EU countries. Ukraine is the really one disagreement here with the US and the UK is quite on the side of the EU. And remember that the tariffs are in effect with the UK too. I think there should be a way to form back the close ties. I think best example would be a free trade zone between USMCA and UK and EU. In fact the present Trump chaos might give us reason to think so. After following this quite disastrous tariff policy, the outcome can be something different. Just like the first Trump tariffs in the end resulted in the USMCA.

And note that the EU is really a union. It is made up of sovereign states which have to find common ground. It isn't an Imperial player.

Okay, thanks for answering.

The idea here is apparently that we should ban, imprison, or deport someone whose ideas and views will cause a sufficient level of harm, such as a terrorist or someone who aids and abets terrorists. This is similar to this option:

I dismiss KK because entertaining them and their viewpoint will lead to harm.
— Leontiskos — Leontiskos

Yes, exactly.

We should put the bar very high. Naturally there is a lower bar, typically dealt with civil lawsuits, exist where for example I ridicule you and you go to court because of slander. But it's still the same reason.

We should notice from the terrorism example just how extremely rare this should be. There are huge numbers of people that are suicidal, but only a minimal amount who would harm people when killing themselves or take on such lunatic ideas that terrorists in Western countries promote. However, if we want to keep these rare events at a minimum, then government do check what basically is otherwise "free speech".

Now, do you see this as a moral or non-moral move? — Leontiskos

Preventing harm to others is a moral move. How could it be non-moral?

Or in other words, we are going to deport the terrorist, and we need to undertake no moral evaluation of their intentions before doing so. Maybe the terrorist was acting in good faith or was a victim of poor education - it makes no difference to the decision. The police and the terrorist are not at cross purposes in that deeper sense. They are playing the same game, in different directions. If this is right then they are deported but not excluded in the deeper sense, and I will say more about this below. — Leontiskos

Laws have to have a moral basis, don't you think?

Terrorist see themselves as having a just moral cause, naturally.

The terrorists might be non-legal combatants, but they truly feel their cause is justified. For example, the West German RAF (Red Army Fraction) thought that West Germany was still a successor state of the Nazi Germany, and they had total reason to fight it. Their objective was to "wake up" the real Proletariat, which would be woken up when the workers would feel how the German (Nazi) government would attack them. With the Islamic State the dedication is even more convinced as they see themselves fighting for God and the Ummah.

In the end, the morality is just a numbers game. If you and me believe that the state of Switzerland is actually the reincarnate of Nazi Germany and we should join a fight to liberate the Swiss from nazism, then we are seen as lunatics. If millions of people, including many Swiss people and foreigners would think that present Switzerland is this reincarnate, it wouldn't be just lunacy. Usually when millions of people think somehow of reality, then we have to respect that view.

As for the goal, well I’m not sure they have one, but rather a trajectory. — Punshhh

The lofty goals might be to get manufacturing back to the US and a third term for Trump, but it's just a trajectory that they have put into motion. Now on what trajectory the US and the Global economy is on is the question, but it doesn't look so good.

What it will look like, a skip fire. — Punshhh

And what is said about Skip fires?

Skips are not designed to have fires started in them and the fire can quickly rage out of control while it could cause damage to the skip which means that you could find yourself facing a fine for the damage.

Furthermore, depending on where you have your skip positioned, the extreme heat at the bottom of the skip can cause surfaces such as tarmac to melt. If you have your skip located on a public highway, you might find that you are billed for the damage and the relaying of a new surface.

Others seem now to just look how Trump's fire will go and how the starter of the fire will handle his smoky effort. The US and China are now in a full blown trade war and other countries are looking at 10% tariffs. Already Trump has backed down on some electronics like smartphones. And likely many we will wait until those 90 days will pass and see what Trump will do next.

The bond market and the so-called "bond vigilantes" put Trump to back down already from his ultra-high tariffs. And this is the interesting and crucial part here: how will the US treasury market behave in the future? "The flee to safety" wasn't to the US bond market, as it usually has gone to when the market corrects. Gold has gone up. The Swiss franc is already showing signs of being one "harbour for safety" as the US dollar has plummeted to the franc quite dramatically.



Likely again the small European country will have it's exports industry howling for a devaluation and the interest rates might get to be negative again.

How other countries deal with the new situation is going to be interesting. Diversification to new trading partners will be the hot topic now.

Then give a definitive answer. Answer the OP. That's what it's there for. I gave my answer in post #2. — Leontiskos

Definitive answer to “What is it about this type of person that justifies dismissal?” or "At what point is a moral dismissal justifiable?" That's your question in the OP?

When one's statement really can be harmful to others. Not when those statements are just annoying, incorrect or wrong. One can have moderation and then have real dismissal/banning etc. Something that becomes a legal matter.

Dismissing / banning someone for one's ideas and beliefs shouldn't happen lightly as we understand how important freedom of speech is for our society to function. The reasoning for dismissal / banning should be to prevent harm to be done to others. The intent should be clear. Naturally people will have different views on just what is reasonable evidence for dismissal. Every case is likely unique.

Yet the question really should be: does this or can this truly harm someone? Because people can indeed have different views, think about the World differently and come to different conclusions. That's inevitable.

We can argue that "sticks and stones can hurt my bones, but words can't" or think that "Hate Speech" rules have gone too far, but we shouldn't forget that there is the actual threat of harm done to others.

Here the example of how the Islamic State franchises it's terrorism shows how dangerous this can be. One can get the materiel of the organization from the net and one can simply say to be a follower of the Islamic State, make a terrorist strike and the terrorist organization will happily take credit for one's actions. One doesn't have to get in contact with the organization. This strategy from the IS makes it totally understandable that various police and intelligence services do try to survey the net and social media and find possible sites and people who help or create a place for terrorist organizations to spread their message.

I don't find that to be a reasonable stance. We know of all sorts of things that were illegal and yet should have been done, such as freeing slaves. — Leontiskos

We were talking about terrorism. Yet you say then later:

It sounds like you guys don't believe that opposing murder or terrorism is a rational act. That in opposing murder or excluding a murderer we are acting like "priests," not "philosophers," and that there is no rational justification for opposing murder or terrorism, or dismissing/excluding those who engage in these acts.

Is that right? If so, Aquinas would find this quite amazing. — Leontiskos

Make up your mind.

It sounds like you have no answer to the OP, or that you want to discuss a different OP. Do you have answers to Q1 or Q2 of the OP? Or are you saying that cultural taboos and laws are unquestionable and rationally opaque, and cannot be inquired into? — Leontiskos

I think you didn't understand my point.

My point is that for Q1 and Q2 you can get definitive answer and everything isn't just a rhetorical game. These accusations aren't just insults that someone hurls at others when they disagree with them. Yet there has to reasonable evidence for this, because far too much these accusations are hurled on others as a way to win a debate / silence others.

Okay, so you think we should dismiss (or act negatively towards) a site or person that gathers funds to Al Qaeda and Isis? — Leontiskos

Yes. Leontiskos, you and I go to jail if we gather funds to terrorists. Being OK with that happening wouldn't be good for the administrator of this site.

If this site has moderation rules like the following: "Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.", then something that is considered far more dangerous than hate speech (described in the moderation rules) surely isn't allowed.

(In fact, the US pushed this legislation so much here in Europe that lawyers here not that giving financial aid to Al Qaeda would get you longer prisoner terms than first degree murder.)

Questions about the breadth of the moral sphere aside, it seems clear to me that when someone wishes to dismiss or exclude someone with a charge like, "Racist!," they are almost always involved in a moral judgment. The implication is that the racist has done something (morally) wrong, and as a consequence of that wrongness they are being dismissed, excluded, etc.

This thread is meant to tease out exactly what is going on in that sort of phenomenon. If we had to break it down rationally, what is it about a racist, or a Nazi, or a liar, or a betrayer (etc.) that rationally justifies some form of dismissal or exclusion? — Leontiskos

Behavior in the social media has come to this. It's one way to silence people. And as I noted the moderation rules of this site, it's obvious what kind of accusation it is here to charge another member of being a racist here.

Calling someone racist is actually very much an American phenomenon, which has then spread especially through the Anglosphere. This is because segregation is something that the US hasn't gotten over and racism is still an issue in the US. In other countries these issues can differ. For example in Germany the accusation of being a Nazi can be pretty serious: denying that the Holocaust happened can get you five years in prison. Germans, who do have this painful history, do take it quite seriously.

My point here is that moral judgments start from things that universally are considered not only being unmoral, but even criminal. Us not tolerating them doesn't mean that we are against free speech. Even if we put here "question about the breadth of the moral sphere aside" as you said, we shouldn't forget them. It's similar to talking about the Overton window. We understand that when there is a window, there's also part which isn't in the window, but perhaps "the Overton Wall".

I have declared zero successes, to be sure, nor have I made any predictions of future events. That’s a fool’s game, yet it is absolutely pertinent to the lucrative anti-Trump racket. — NOS4A2

You have made, perhaps unintentionally, predictions of the future.

The racket goes like this: predict a future Trump calamity, like a depression or nuclear war or fascist takeover. When it never arrives, promote oneself and one’s own failed prophesies as part of the efforts that helped stop it. Rinse, repeat. — NOS4A2

You don't have to be the advocate here for Trump, and I think it just blinds you from noticing for example what I say, because you assume the juxtaposition of people being either supporters of Trump or the haters of Trump.

What I'm worried about is that I don't see any kind of way for the polarization that is happening in the US to end. And that's not just because of the Trump supporters, it takes two opposing camps for polarization to happen. I really don't see a way how these two camps would come closer to each other.

And that the two biggest economies stop trading with each other will cause a huge difficulties for the global economy. It doesn't make much sense. Now Trump can easily turn this back: he above all, can make a total 180 degree turn and we'll say it's the famous 4D chess.

So the idea that Elon Musk has purposed would be a great idea. I myself would think that a free trade area of USMCA + UK + EU would be a great idea. The way things are now looks like the possibility of a global recession is quite real, even if things can still change.

And I if I'm wrong, then great! That's wonderful news.

For me the most interesting question asks from whence the moral disapproval arises. — Leontiskos

Think not first about "moral disapproval", think first about something that would be clearly illegal by current legislation. How about a site that gathers funds to Al Qaeda and Isis? Or a discussion not about kittens, but about certain human beings. Would you participate there? Would you be totally OK that some would have these thoughts and spread them publicly... because we have freedom of speech?

The rational grounds are simply things like public security and safety, for starters. Far later come things where would have a discussion about if the issue is morally right or wrong.

Americans are extremely prone to simply painting their own domestic politics onto other parts of the world — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Never has this been so apparent as today.

or that he cites as exemplary "anti-imperialist work" narratives that do exactly this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Anti-imperialist work" usually starts with the juxtaposition of the imperialist (Here, the US) and it's victim. The victim has little if any agency as the focus is on the actions of the imperialist. The focus of the Americans is thus solely on the Americans and their decisions and actions.

This creates a situation is where even in historical research a lot is not looked at.

I stumbled on a good example of this when Stephen Kotkin, a historian I enjoy listening, suddenly gave a huge praise to a Finnish historian Pekka Hämäläinen calling it one of the most important historical studies done at present as the Fin had wrote about Native Americans. Hämäläinen's viewpoint wasn't to list the atrocities that the European settlers did and how the US treated Native Americans, but focused on the tribes as independent actors, who had to adopt with lightning pace to new technologies and to a new situation basically by reinventing themselves. In his books The Comanche Empire and Lakota America, Hämäläinen treats native civilizations as polities making war and alliances.

Perhaps the fault is the idea that prevails so clearly in the works of Noam Chomsky. His first political book The Responsibility of Intellectuals tells in it's name what Chomsky views his role. Chomsky has stated clearly in interviews that he doesn't criticize other nations because it's not his job. He only criticizes the US, because he is an American. That if one criticizes that actions of let's say Turkey, then it is fitting for a Turkish dissident.

First of all, self criticism is good. Yet if one takes on this kind of role that Chomsky takes, one does get quite a biased US focused narrative of events where everything evolves around the US (and Washington and the Military-Industrial Complex and "the Blob").

This actually has bad consequences. You can see it now at the present how many Americans have a totally different understanding of events in Europe as Europeans have. And as now the Trump administration is truly going after what could be called classic imperialism and a trade war, the alliances the US has are really transforming.

Now we know for certain that influential scientific journals, the “experts” and authorities whom we are taught to listen to, privately believed the lab-leak theory but publicly refuted it. — NOS4A2

Those pushing for gain of function research and involved even distantly to the Wuhan lab had the most incentive to hide it. So for a long time the media went with it.

The most likely explanation is simply a lab accident.

This may true, but it isn't necessarily true; and I don't believe that religions were created with this in mind: they were seeking the truth the best way they could. — Bob Ross

But wouldn't that be philosophy, the love of wisdom, and science?

Just because we can retrospectively determine that they got a ton of stuff wrong, given our understanding now, doesn't mean they were making stuff up to "get answers to questions they can't get a 'logical' one for". — Bob Ross

What I mean here is that you simply cannot get a logical, objective answer to what is morally right and wrong. It's not a question of retrospect or our ignorance. The question is inherently subjective, hence you cannot get an objective answer to. Science can tell us what the World is like. Not how it should be.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, in Stockholm today, draws parallels to Rodrigo Duterte and warns about how the slide into authoritarianism can happen faster than people realize. — Christoffer

It's a good and interesting parallel.

I visited Philippines when I was 16 with my parents who were on a work trip there. We stayed in a nice skyscraper hotel in Makati in the business district of Manila. Few months later there was a military coup attempt and the visitors of the hotel were taken hostage by the rebelling military forces for a while. The coup failed and the hostages were released.

That was what Philipines was like in the 1980's after the ouster of the dictator Marcos, when Philippines was under the shaky times of Corazon Aquino. This just shows what kind of democracy the Philippines is. However now Duterte is now under custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet on the other hand, Bongbong Marcos, the son of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, is the current president. Democracy has survived, sort of, in the Philippines. Can we say that the Philippines is a democracy? Yes, perhaps not the most well functioning example of a justice state, but still.

Perhaps this is the most likely outcome of the Trump era: the US won't face authoritarianism like a dictatorship of Mussolini or Hitler, but a situation where the institutions of the Republic continue... sort of. Yet by any measurement of just how democratic the US is will simply plunge.

What are you guys' thoughts? — Bob Ross

Abrahamic religions, just as all religions, are made for people living in a society. Religions give us answers to questions that we cannot get logical answers, like what is morally right or wrong or how one should live ones life well. Earlier, they gave us stories of our genesis, which we didn't have any understanding of. And of course, religions tell us what happens to us when we die.

The eternal damnation or eternal bliss is one answer to make people follow the moral rules how to live given by the religion. Some would say it's a way to control people.

I understand that this wasn't the answer you are looking for, but perhaps a more of a theological discussion. Eternity creates naturally many questions: what is life after death, when it's not 40 million years, not 5 billion years, but eternity. :wink:

Lol.

We haven't been even three months in on a four year term, and here you are eagerly trying to declare Trump a success and declaring my views to be wrong...because nothing of them has happened in less than three months. Let's just look at what at least a couple years give us under Trump. Let's just enjoy all the winning Americans will be through then.

Besides, let's just look at the forecast you have made:

(2 months ago)

I just want to submit the following for discussion.

Talks are now occurring in Canada in regards to zero tariffs, which is exactly what the president wants. — NOS4A2

Does he want zero tariffs? EU would be open to them. Trump isn't at all interested. He wants tariffs and domestic manufacturing. Trade is bad. But as I said, it's just been few months...

Canada might even be the 51st state. — NOS4A2

Let's see just what happens to this forecast of yours.

And are you walking around in Canada with your Maga hat on, @NOS4A2?

I remember you predicting that of all the wars that Trump is lusting to have, a war with Panama was the second likeliest one. Given that the US and Panama recently partnered to secure the canal and deter China, with a special nod to Panama’s sovereignty, I’m curious if your fears abated or if they still remain. — NOS4A2

If the other side surrenders or caves in, there's not going to be a war. And what I've been talking about is that Trump lusts territory for the US. The old colonial way...

Panama seems to be attempting to hold back Trump, which now seems to be blocking the building of permanent bases. And it should be noted that prior to Trump's annexation plans, Panama was open to joint-operations to patrol the lawless Panamanian - Colombian border. But Hegseth's visit to Panama just shows how hell bent Trump is to enlargen the territory of the US and the administration tries to sooth his desires.

The reality is that if Panama would oppose US actions, nobody in the World would care much about it. Just look at yourself: does the media interview Panamanians about what they think about Trump's actions? Greenlanders were talked to, but not Panamanians. The World is totally used to the US being a bully in it's backyard.

(A demonstrator stood over a burning poster with images of Hegseth, Trump, and Panama's President Jose Raul Mulino, during a protest against Hegseth's visit to Panama.)

(France 24, 11th April 2025) US troops will be able to deploy to a string of bases along the Panama Canal under a joint deal seen by AFP Thursday, a major concession to President Donald Trump as he seeks to reestablish influence over the vital waterway.

The agreement, signed by top security officials from both countries, allows US military personnel to deploy to Panama-controlled facilities for training, exercises and "other activities."

The deal stops short of allowing the United States to build its own permanent bases on the isthmus, a move that would be deeply unpopular with Panamanians and legally fraught.

But it gives the United States broad sway to deploy an unspecified number of personnel to bases, some of which Washington built when it occupied the canal zone decades ago.

The real question if the US truly goes forward with taking back the Canal Zone. Far more unlikely is annexing all of Panama. Here likely the White House will try to behave like "the adult in the room" and try to limit the most delusional ideas of Trump. I guess Panama, just like Denmark and Greenland, try to just stay low and have Trump going off at others and forgetting his most delusional ideas.

And let's see if we get the drone war against the Mexican Cartels or US strikes on Iran. All what you wanted so much when voting for Trump.

Even before Trump the debt was likely to fall into a death spiral. Studies have shown that, without the Bush and Trump I tax cuts, revenue would have been better than neutral. THEY DO NOT CARE.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And no they will likely never default. Instead, they will debase the currency to meet the debt. In fact they have been floating this idea for years now. — hypericin

Debasing the currency is just one way to default. So is hyperinflation too. And the actual policy that has been talking about is high inflation, not hyper inflation (as that simply means that the belief in the currency has evaporated). Few years with 20% inflation make wonders on the debt!

Anyway, I think it's more about being short sighted and hoping that the crisis won't come now. After all, the system that went off the gold standard in 1971 has continued to this day. So why not 10 years more?

Let’s start with the premise: “free trade is good for economies with excess production and trade surpluses.” That is a misunderstanding of how trade works. Free trade isn’t some rigged game that only benefits surplus countries. — Benkei

If it would be this way, then colonies of European empires would have enjoyed an absolutely great economic time, because they had huge trade surpluses. They exported huge amounts of resources, but usually got far less imports manufactured items from their colonial masters. That some poor country exports a lot to the US compared to the few imports from the US (as the country is poor), doesn't make it so that the poor country is stealing from the US (as Trump thinks).

The US receives massive foreign capital inflows. Foreigners buy US Treasury bonds, stocks, real estate and invest in businesses. Those inflows keep interest rates low, fund domestic investment and support the dollar’s global role. In other words, the trade deficit is not some evidence of decline. It is the accounting counterpart of America’s central role in the global financial system. That is just how the balance of payments works. — Benkei

Exactly. And this is the part that many Americans do not understand. How important to all of this is the role of the dollar and just why it is so.

Note the difference when some country exports stuff to Sri Lanka and to the US. In Sri Lanka, the exporter gets Sri Lankan rupees, which he mainly can use either inside the country, or then exchange into a currency his preference. From the US he gets dollars, which he can also use in the US or he can use for example to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

Let's assume that the governments of Sri Lanka and the US both spend recklessly and have huge deficits and basically print more money. Who do you think of the foreigners that export to these countries get a bit nervous about this? The one's holding lot of Sri Lankan rupees or the one's holding US dollars? In fact, for Sri Lanka it's foreign currency reserves that the central bank has are important, because Sri Lanka is a poor country. The US on the other hand is the largest economy and it's dollar is the reserve currency.

The US didn’t create the global economic order to rack up trade surpluses. It created the order to prevent another world war, contain communism and entrench a rules-based system in which it would remain the institutional and financial center, regardless of whether it was exporting more goods than it imported. That strategy worked. — Benkei

It worked so well that Nixon could take the US dollar off the gold standard and the credibility of the US dollar didn't collapse. Oil was sold in dollars as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States had pegged their currencies to the dollar... because of the alliances/security guarantees the US had with them (called Twin Pillars back then).

Now, of course, Trump is making his best effort to do away with these alliances that have been crucial for the US.

I think there's a structural problem with Western health services as nearly all Western countries face problems with their health services. Our nations are so prosperous that there indeed is the ability for there to be an universal health care system. And the alarming example of how costly a private system or some hybrid can be we can see from the United States, where the cost are higher, often multiple times higher than in other OECD countries per capita.

Yet the structural problem is that the system is intended and developed for a situation where the population is growing. If Western countries would have the demographic pyramid of many African countries, this wouldn't be a problem. The larger younger generations could by taxes and other payments take care of the current retiring and retired generations. Because it's natural that after the brief encounter with the system as we are born, it is more likely that we will be customers of the health care system at old age.

That our population doesn't grow and basically is getting smaller makes huge economic problems, but also a problem with health care services. What happens after the boomers are all dead, that's a different situation.

Another issue is that this health care and welfare spending is consumption, and it doesn't create something to the future like true investment or education. Perhaps we should look at it as a necessity for the whole democratic society to chug along, as without the welfare state and transition payments, you will get at worst violent political upheaval, even a revolution. But that is something that we don't think about. We make the hypothetical "what if" only with defense expenditure: having no military, any large country would put itself to peril as a hostile country could take charge of "security" itself.

Yet it's obvious what a welfare state does give: security and social cohesion. When you don't have anybody begging on the streets, when you don't have homeless people in the streets, you don't have that wealth inequality so apparent. You do have lower crime rates and less fear. That welfare state can also alienate people and create a class of people that are dependent of welfare is in my view a smaller problem than having homeless people around on the streets where you live. The issue is that it simply costs a lot, because the services cannot be done by robots.

I'm not so sure they care about that either. — hypericin

I think they have to care. At least at some point.

You see, the interest on the debt is already a higher spending issue on the budget than defense spending. At that, no DOGE or whoever can touch (even if they tried), because not meeting the interest payments is default.

The interest on the debt is on the average now 3,3% which is over 1% higher than five years ago. Just an additional 1% of interest and the whole debt thing is worse. Think if it would be double, 6,6% which is on the long run quite normal. That would basically double the expenses. And let's remember that we have come from literally from the lowest historical interest rates of all time and now the cycle is going up.

What they really got scared was the treasury selloff.

(Barrons, 9th April 2025) The selloff in U.S. government bonds gathered speed on Wednesday, with the 30-year Treasury yield set to rise the most in more than 40 years as a paradigm shift in trade policy upends the bond market.

Yields on the 30-year government debt were up 0.144 percentage point to 4.858% on Wednesday morning, putting them on pace to gain 0.467 point over a three-day period. If the market closes at current levels, it would be the largest three-day gain since January 1982.

The Trump administration might not care about the stock market, but the government does care a lot of the interest on the US debt!

EDIT: also I forget but obviously the EU raised retaliatory tariffs as well. So when do we get the 100% tariff? — Benkei

That isn't yet sure. And let's remember that the EU response was for the tariffs raised before Trump's "Liberation Day".

Eu moves a bit slowly.

Exactly.

Trump finally blinked.

But let's remember that now Trump has that trade war with China and still he has those tariffs with everybody at 10%. That 10% + China trade war will have an effect on the US economy.

It's not going to be the absolute disaster of a lifetime. Just your normal Trump disaster. :wink:

And that's exactly what happened today isn't it. Hedge funds delevered by selling their treasury bonds. It's absolutely wild. — fdrake

The safety trade is being out of the dollar. Gold has been a great asset of safety.

And people are buying necessities before the prices start rising.

I think he's one of a committee, or more likely the figurehead, allowed his tantrums. Otherwise it's all his show, and I do not think he is remotely near that able. — tim wood

When you read books about his first administration, they portray a very clear picture, which is repeated again and again.

First of all, every US administration looks to those inside it as chaotic, perhaps with the exception of the Eisenhower administration. This is because there is so much decision making going through the White House all the time. Yet some administration are more chaotic than others. And Trump belongs to the "more chaotic" ones. This is simply because of the man himself. To assume that Trump is a figurehead, then the question is whose figurehead is he? What is the real committee here? Trump holds power in the GOP. At least still.

14th amendment precludes it. It puts into question the validity of my claim compared to your claim either because of the identity of the holder or the type of instrument. But also, it would breach the terms of the issuance itself and therefore result in a contractual breach. — Benkei

Thank's! Learn something new every day.

And naturally it would have a devastating effect even without the legal breaches. Trust in the US would be shaken, even if I'm of the opinion that the US could genuinely default some day and the present monetary system would be abandoned. Then the story about the trustworthiness would be change that US is credible, because it defaults only in few hundred years. And the lenders would come again, after licking their wounds. And if we call the going off the gold standard what it really was, a default, then the US does these defaults only in +50 years or so.

Question: does anyone think that Trump knows what a tariff is or how it works? — tim wood

I think he doesn't understand it. A political leader who thinks that enlarging the territory of the USA is a great idea at this time of age isn't the brightest one around, even if he can communicate so well with his base. People shouldn't themselves go down the rabbit hole and believe some deep conspiracy here.

The question: given what he is doing and has done, and what he says and how he says it, and the company he surrounds himself with and what they say and do, what makes sense as to what is ultimately intended? Putting all the parts together, what is the most likely structure that they all fit? — tim wood

I think we are witnessing a story of a quite ignorant yet great populist orator with ardent followers, who is unfit for the positions he is in now. And power has simply gone to his head, because of the acolytes and the yes men around him, who follow every whim he makes.

As a lawyer with experience with government bond issuance I don't see how this is possible under US law. There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

And when have existing laws have limited the actions of Trump? He already has the idea of ruling by executive decree and then fighting in courts, if it comes to that.

There are no laws that provide for prioritsing or selectively paying only some holders or issues. — Benkei

If there is the ability to have sanctions, to freeze assets, why not this then? If there's no law specifically against it.

Now at this point this is just theoretical (thank God), but with Trump, these things can happen. In an economic crisis, the US President does have a lot power.

My only suggestion to require that a prospective voter show he can function as an adult, either through education, service, or work, a one-time basic test that a person can take as many times as it takes to pass, if they fail. A person needs a licence to drive a car, both the car and himself required to keep and maintain certain standards of ability and care. Is it so outrageous or difficult to have similar standards to drive the state? — tim wood

Basically in a democracy, this can be done if people really are OK with this. Far easier it is to think of this from the perspective of who can run for a political position in elections. The case of Marine Le Pen in France shows that this is a current issue.

As I noted the difference in voting rights between the US and Finland, Finnish prison inmates can vote, American inmates cannot. And both countries are basically OK with their laws on this. This basically goes back to differences in the idea of legal punishment, where in the US you have this history of punishing criminals, where the Nordic approach is much more liberal in also "helping" the felon to get out of crime, even if both countries do naturally detain criminals for the security of other people and the society. Trump's evictions of immigrants into prisons in El Salvador is the case point of punishment and threat of punishment being far more important in American politics.

Another issues (already mentioned by others). Because the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, there is enormous global demand for it. Central banks, companies and investors across the planet use the dollar for trade, savings and investment. That demand for dollars drives up the value of the dollar and keeps capital flowing into US markets. In this context, the trade deficit is not a sign of weakness but a reflection of global trust in the US economy. — Benkei

This might be changing now. Saudi-Arabia's financial minister said already in 2023 that the Kingdom was open for selling oil in other currencies than the dollar. Note that the Saudi currency Rial, as the other currencies are pegged to the dollar.

A further question is if Trump would not simply pay China the treasuries it's holds. It's an incredible stupid idea, but note what Trump has earlier stated about this, even if then the issue was walked back:

(the Guardian, Feb 16th 2025) “We’re even looking at Treasuries,” the president told reporters. “There could be a problem … It could be that a lot of those things don’t count. In other words, that some of that stuff that we’re finding is very fraudulent, therefore maybe we have less debt than we thought.”

The suggestion was that opening up the US Treasury’s data to Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” team had identified a money-saving wheeze: why not walk away from some of America’s debt obligations – a “selective default”, as economists call it.

Selective default could be an option. As now China has raised it's tariff's to 84% to US exports, another issue could be that it starts selling it's 1 trillion holdings of US treasuries. Of course it will take also itself a hit, but then if this is a security threat (which it is, actually), countries are totally fine with seeing their economies taking a hit. The people will understand.

We've already seen that imposing sanctions toward Russia (which I deem justified), has already made a lot of countries unsure about the international finance system as they fear they might also be put up with sanctions or excluded from the system. Now, if the US goes and attacks China by a selective default, that would have monumental effects. Yet perhaps Trump would like the dollar to cost less.

Yet, the only way to get rid of it, seems to be to destroy trust. Then why do it through tariffs? Why not simply default on debt? — Benkei

Because I genuinely think that Trump believes in the false idea of trade being a bad thing, when the US has a trade deficit. He truly believes in tariffs having the effect of luring in manufacturing into the US. With a default, it might be that even the fringe thinkers like Peter Navarro see it as a bad idea. But who knows. It can be the next thing Trump does after this.

We ought to assume that Trump is informed, and actually knows this. Therefore we can ask what is his real intention behind the use of tariffs. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we ought to assume this? What could you give evidence for this. This doesn't seem like a bluff or only a negotiating tactic. If countries want to make deals, Trump might go with those, but he looks to be perfectly happy having the tariffs and truly assumes that the tariffs will lure manufacturing back to the US.

One person, one vote. Fair enough. Why not give the vote to infants, then? The idea is that a minimum competency is required to vote. I'm suggesting that age is not enough. In a society where pretty much everyone receives a standard education, I think it's reasonable to require some mastery of that education, and a relatively easy test. — tim wood

In my country, age is actually enough because for any adult citizen of the country voting is a Constitutional right. How severely handicapped a person is doesn't limit this at all.

Here's the real issue: there are many cases, where basically the court decides that someone is incapable of taking care of themselves and for their own protection, they are put under a guardian (I don't know what the legal terms in UK or US is for this), even in adulthood. Multitude of examples of this. Now of being under custody of a guardian/trustee (like a child), of course goes against human rights, like having the right to own property and decide oneself about it.

Yet it's a totally different issue if everybody has to show that they are able to own property. That there is like a driver's exam if you think of driving a car or a motorcycle, there's an obvious need to check one's abilities as one can do enormous damage with them. Yet we don't to have to get a permit or have an exam to buy a kitchen knife.

With your thinking, it would be similar to argue that in order for us to own property, we first have to show that we are capable of owning property, eligible to take care of that property. And only then do we have the right to own property. In my country the only limitation is that a person who has a guardian cannot be a candidate. But for example dementia etc doesn't limit the right to vote.

And I think that in truth, far more easier to have everybody to have the right to vote. Keep it simple.

Either that or the incompetents get to vote, and may even get to run the asylum. Which is happening as we speak in the USA! — tim wood

Look, this is simply a problem with all democracies. It does ask a lot from it's citizens. End of story. In my country the Parliament can change the Constitution, so basically there is no limitation on the laws they can make. They can decide that all naturally redhead women and witches and thus are a threat to the security of the nation, thus they have to be imprisoned.

We have only the common sense of the people as the true safety valve here.

But even on this humble forum, authors are promoting or are otherwise cheerleading for the ostracism of human beings on the basis of whom they voted for. — NOS4A2

Assassination culture? Sorry, but sounds quite similar to the "rape culture" that suddenly had become so widespread when we had the "the woke" saying earlier.

After saying that, I think that the US is in deep trouble as it's losing it's ability to come together in any issue and on any occasion. This issue is really serious, actually. Americans are truly losing the so important social cohesion of coming together as a nation. Just for comparison, my country actually came together when the COVID-pandemic hit. And the people and the political parties came together in a dramatic way when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022. It was Social-Democrat lead administrations both in Finland and Sweden that pushed for NATO membership, even if the left has been traditionally against NATO membership.

Yet in the US Covid seems to just have divided the country. Now the incoming recession and the stagflation is clearly the result of a political decision of the US President. We would not face this incoming global recession as we do now otherwise.

This just energizes the polarization onto a higher level. To think that everything imported from China has an over 100% tariff is going to immediately hurt. Breakups of supply chains can even happen.

The worst thing here is that I don't see any way of the tensions easing here.

I think he truly think what he says.

Once you have trade barriers, factories will sprout in the US to take care of the demand. You simply cannot turn his head on this.

Again we think that in the end we will get a result that we got in Trump's first administration, the follower to NAFTA, the USMCA. Believing the end result like that is to believe that after everything, the Hail Mary pass will give Trump (and the World, actually) a touchdown.

A couple of ideas I have are for the requirement to pass a one-time test to earn the right to vote. And it would have to be difficult enough to fail, at least at first, a lot of people. Perhaps requiring the equivalent of a very good high-school education to pass. Or four years' military service. Or four years' college plus two years' full-time employment. Or just a term of full-time employment, maybe six years. — tim wood

Perhaps not.

Just imagine how that "earned right" could and would be abused.

Universal suffrage and one man (or woman) and one vote, is quite simple to understand. Full-time employment? Military service? How about the old fashioned way for example Prussia had it: the amount of taxes you pay, the amount of votes you get. Would that be good? I don't think so. Requirements for voting other than being a citizen are difficult. With other requirements, you easily lose credibility and invite corruption.

I can think of a multitude of ways the system of voting requirements would be abused. Above all, there would be then the caste of those "not eligible" to vote. What would that do for the credibility of whole system? Now, in many US states felons lose their voting rights while incarcerated, and this isn't seen as problem. Even if the US has huge inmate population (while in my country also the prison inmates can vote). But something else?

This has the same problem as with Plato's society. There are no safety valves.

To assume that the system is thought to somehow work without a glitch is fatally and quite dangerously wrong. As if the "philosopher kings" making the decisions would be really chosen from the "most capable". Even the term aristocracy, which means that power is vested in a minority of those believed to be best qualified, and what aristocracy means in reality and has historically meant, shows us how the idea of "most capable" doesn't work. Not only Plato's ideas like raising children apart from their biological parents is unrealistic (and bad), it simply is bad when you have to make such assumptions for the society to work. That we would need better humans in the future for the system to work show that the idea is dangerous. A real life experiment close to Plato's system is the story of Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. Once Janissaries didn't have to be in celibacy and were allowed to have children, guess from whose children came the next generation of elite troops? Hint: not from orphans taken from Christian families and brought up only to serve the Sultan. Hence the corruption went so far that one Sultan in 1826 easily wiped away and killed the Janissaries with a new army copied from the West.

What's the answer then?

We just have to hope that people are reasonable. Yet there is a minority who would go with the radicals. For them the system doesn't work and they feel it's against them. Hence many will opt for radical options as if "anything would be better than this". And if they elect the "totally something else" option, it's bad thing.

How do they loose power and how are these people out who voted for them made a tiny fringe?

Only by failure.

Failure creates shame and guilt. At worst, fear of punishment could be added to that when the failure has been especially bad and deadly.

Just ask yourself, how many of all those that voted for Mussolini or Hitler continued after WW2 to enthusiastically support their former leaders and ideology? Hardly any. The fascists of Italy and the "Werewolves" continuing the fight for the Third Reich in Germany simply vanished. We can see this even in the rules of this forum.

The unfortunate reality is that once people with bad ideas are voted into power, the only way for them to lose their power and their support is after everybody has to seen how utterly bad the ideas were.

I think we should talk to Trump. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and the new US administration. — ChatteringMonkey

There's no misunderstanding. Or the misunderstanding won't be erased by talk, but only by actions.

Trump is his own reality show that where he plays the center stage, which he just loves.

What he basically can do is make a lousy deal to the US, if he looks like a winner at first. I'm not sure there's going to be Hail Mary passes.

That this whole "Liberation Liquidation day" would indeed be "a negiotiation tactic" is simply too much of a Hail Mary even to imagine, hence Musk is trying to resurrect his totally collapsed popularity / credibility.

Still the stagflation hasn't gripped the global economy. Still this could be fixed, but with every day the window of opportunity get's smaller.

Likely Trump will stop like a deer in headlights and think that he portrays credibility and determination by sticking with his much beloved tariffs and simply thinks that the "green chutes" of his brilliant trade policy will emerge later.

Beginning of the end for Musk?

US President Donald Trump's billionaire advisor Elon Musk said on Saturday he hopes in the US and Europe could eventually establish “a very close, stronger partnership” and reach a “zero-tariff zone situation.”

Musk was speaking via video link the party congress of Italian far-right party League, which is in a ruling coalition led by Premier Giorgia Meloni.

"I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America," Musk told Matteo Salvini, the LEGA party leader, via video conference.

Where did all the bellicose MAGA rhetoric go? Assuming Trump would be logical, this is totally against what the US President wants. After all, according to the Trump, the EU was formed to screw the US.

These corporate types, who could care less about making things in America again and just wanted to free themselves from high taxes and Biden’s regulatory crusade (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk, etc) had every reason to believe Trump’s second term would be a repeat of the first. I certainly thought it would be, and like many was stunned to find out that he actually took his half-assed 19th century mercantilism seriously and was willing got to go the distance with it (at least so far). His current all-out tariff war may not have been a surprise to North Carolina MAGA supporters, but it sure as hell was to many wealthy businesspeople who voted for him, and are now regretting it mightily. — Joshs

Many took the wrong lessons from Trump's first administration.

First time Trump came to office totally unprepared (as he didn't think he would win) and chose to his administration a lot of "ordinary" Republicans and people that weren't at all MAGA-people, starting from secretary of state Rex Tillerson or secretary of defense general Mattis, just to give two examples. Rex Tillerson might have dealt with a lot with Russians, but he naturally took his job as serving the US government. Generals like Mattis, Kelly, McMaster were basically from the same mold as the joint chiefs of staff in the military are made from. Hence you had "the adults in the room" that wouldn't go to attack the NATO alliance or cozy up with the Russians.

Now there is nothing like that at all. The current administration truly listens to what Trump wants and tries to fulfill his ideas. This is what people should start to understand here. Republicans are literally afraid of Trump and don't want to be seen as foes of the President. With other Presidents, the own party might have been quite critical and sometimes against the administration, but not now in MAGA-land.

Trump might have been following the stock market at first when it was going up, but now any fears he would have of the stock market going down doesn't matter. Because the stock market has plummeted. Just like Trump won't budge now when the US economic indicators turn negative and we can talk about a real recession. The reason is that Trump will likely believe that this is the "Detox"-period, the pain that has to be passed before the it comes better.

Trump can (and likely will) live inside his White House cocoon and not turn away from his beloved tariffs even if no investments are made in the US domestic sector, if the economy turns into a recession and even if all prices end up increasing and not only "the imports". This is why the US can continue make similar decisions like it did on "Liberation Day".

The problem I see with the Trump plan is more that it, like everything his administrations do, doesn't seem well thought out, is implemented chaotically, and will likely be subject to all sorts of favoritism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or the thoughts themselves are absurd and chaotic, but nobody dares to say to the Donald if something is genuinely a terrible counterproductive idea.

What could you say about the plan of Canada becoming the 51st state of the US? Is it just a plan implemented chaotically? No, it's totally absurd and ludicrous plan. Canadians don't want that. What else would there be than the solution that Putin had for Ukraine? To think it's just a jab at Trudeau won't fly.

Yet nobody is willing to say this to the President, so he can always ramble about it if asked about it. At first we thought it was just brilliant marketing of simple slogans like "Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it". We are used to have "election rhetoric" and promises that aren't kept. But Trump did ask and pleaded the Mexican president to do it and pay at least something. Hence Trump really means what he says.

It should be obvious after the "Day of Liberation" now. He isn't playing some 4D Chess some people think he is doing. The tariffs were not a negotiating tactic, just like he didn't write the "Art of the Deal". No American politician has ever been so straight forward in telling what he wants. He truly wants trade barriers to grow domestic production because international trade is bad. He wants the territory of the US to be larger.

We make a mistake when we think Trump isn't for real and isn't meaning what he says.

F) Not likely. A nation's stability is also proportional to its size. A nation as large as the US takes longer to "fall" than smaller nations. — Christoffer

This isn't about a fall like let's say Yugoslavia. What I mean is the similar kind of political instability that Latin America can have. Latin America has had it's share of political instability, but no Latin American country has become a failed state, even if Venezuela could be said to be on the way. Above all, Latin American countries do work... somehow fairly OK. It's not the kind of political instability that you find in Africa. For a long time we haven't seen something comparable to a real revolution in Latin America.This is just an observation, when you just look at what has happened in the US already, even if it has been the richest country in the World, it has been prone to political violence, riots and so on.

As a young boy, I've seen the huge smokestacks what widespread burning and arson do in an American riot. I witnessed myself the 1980 Miami riots, a not so well known incident anymore.
(Miami riots, 1980)


Yet the fact is that the US has a very violent past with it's presidential assassination attempts and political violence, it's lynchings and riots. Things can get indeed out of hand in the US, even if it's a prosperous country. Not everywhere, but in many cities the tensions that could spark off something are there. Add to this what Trump can do.. and has done. There are simply too many guns that deadly accidents can happen. You already had close calls during the George Floyd riots, and deaths. Add to this an administration that goes down hard on "criminals" or "terrorists" without due process, and the end result can be a real tragedy. And I call it tragedy, because a lot of it might be at first unintentional. Yet we have to contemplate how Trump would react to large scale protests or riots. It might be different than last time.

This doesn't at all mean that the US is going to anarchy or a true revolution such like the Russian revolution or the French revolution. But political instability? Yes. It's economy will be just hurt, but will endure even the Trump tariffs easily. And the fall from being the sole Superpower to being the largest Great power isn't so huge either, even if it is dramatic.

What's the probability of:

a) The World economy tanking, but especially the US economy going down
b) US prices going up (with "a" above that's stagflation)
c) Democrats winning the midterms, but Trump totally disregarding then the Congress
d) People protesting in large numbers against Trump
e) Trump using force against these protesters and MAGA-supporters clashing with demonstators
f) The US ending up with political instability like a country in Latin America.

Just asking... of course it might not happen, but one scenario.