Peterkin

All investigations will be of late-night talk show hosts, high-ranking law-enforcement officers and relatives of Democratic office-holders, past and present. All investigations will find grounds for criminal charges and proof of guilt. I've lived in a country where that was the norm. I, too, would have pardoned my son in time to seek asylum elsewhere.

Global capitalism.

Among many other symptoms. Because modern democratic governments cannot make long-term decisions, they cannot take decisive large-scale action, cannot tackle large problems, and cannot enforce their own legislation. Which means that the large problems keep getting larger, and the people are vaguely, dimly aware of this - or some aspect of it. But nobody in charge, or running for office has the the courage to tell them: It's going to keep getting worse, unless we understand the causes, figure out the priorities and make the necessary sacrifices. All of us, not just the scapegoated underclass. So the people grow more and more anxious, until somebody comes along and simplifies it for them: They are the problem, and I have the solution: punish them!!

I did. I stand by my prediction that the first casualty will be Trump - I'm thinking March 15 - shortly followed by all of his appointees, to be replaced by the understudy and his appointments. And that storm can't readily be extrapolated from precedent. Johnson was a well-known quantity; Vance is a cypher.

Because it's expensive and time-consuming. The entire system if twisted, error- and corruption-prone. It's been rigged by state governments in all kinds of legal ways, while outside influences also play a role. In this instance, there seems to have been no more than the usual Republican gerrymandering, voter suppression and tampering than usual, so they probably didn't steal it in the illegal sense. I think the bigot vote decided it.

That wouldn't be fair. The race shouldn't start until they're all in the gate.

Well, all right then; the thread's been changed to a weather forecast. I'm old and have seen storms enough to know this one has never happened before.

....what?

Are you keeping a tally of predictions? Mine is Trump, followed by all of his cabinet and advisors.

They'll buy shares in it if you promise to make their wife compliant and your next-door neighbour white.

Not these threats, on this magnitude, everywhere, all the time, with no solutions in sight. Governments on the 20th century democratic model are unable to take decisive action. That's not a perception; that is a well documented reality. There have been international summits on climate change since the 1970's - and yet, the problem keeps growing; the causes of the problem keep escalating. Those slow, feeble efforts at reversing the damage are opposed on the grounds of "the economy! the economy!" and almost immediately undone by a change of administration. You know Carter had solar panels installed on the White House, right? Guess what Reagan did! They never did reach the masses. Nobody applied statistics to the Inquisition. You can compile all the stats you want on the correlation between gun deaths and the ease of owning firearms, but it makes not a dent on US legislation: it's a very lucrative business. You can demonstrate all the social benefits of UBI, but capitalists find it repugnant. These decisions are not based on factual knowledge, but self-interest and sentiment. I'm very well aware that mass communication media have increasingly failed to convey useful information to the masses they serve. But, at this juncture, reinstating responsible journalism would make no difference. And the farther right a society shifts, the harder that is even to contemplate. When you consider improvements, you're looking at a big - but not global - picture. They don't benefit everyone equally, not even in the most advanced and prosperous nations. And they are always perceived negatively by a substantial part of the population. None of those things are guaranteed. Meanwhile, income disparity grows, the power and value of labour is eroded, traditional social and familial roles are upset, automation makes people redundant; millennials have a very dim outlook. The recent past and present may look fine; the future is flapping in the wind. It's not any particular threat; it's a convergence of a dozen looming threats, at least three of them existential. The Doomsday clock, set by people with access to all the accurate information in the world, is 90 seconds from midnight. A clear picture would only freak people out more than they already are.

There is the fatal error. From way out in space, using statistics and recent trends as a measure, this may look like the best period of recorded human history. That's not how the people on Earth experience it. Globally, this is probably the most anxious and uncertain period - even including the world wars. There is no such thing as 'local' anymore; not in received information, or economy, or social stability, or personal security. We're under constant threat by climate change, robotics, large-scale human migration due to the small, incomprehensible wars that have replaced the ones in which people could see the conflict between good and evil. Over a mere fifty years - two generations - western nations have undergone major shifts in world-view and belief-systems, culture and lifestyle, work, mores and family dynamics. Are any of these voters turning hard left? I don't see it. When people are prosperous, secure and optimistic about the future, their thinking expands. They can afford to feel tolerant and accepting; they want to spread the sunlight. (Not everyone, of course; there are always some busily stirring the embers of ancient enmities and nurturing new ones.) When people are insecure and afraid of the future, they close in around their most valued interests and familiar ideas. They look for a father figure to take charge and fix everything in a way that will benefit them - regardless of the cost to outsiders. Folk, en masse, have never had perspective and have always been susceptible to unfounded claims and implausible narratives emanating from a position of authority. Look back at what-all people have believed - absolutely, fervently, to the point of killing and dying for - throughout the history of civilization. It's simply that the narrative changes tone and purpose according to who is in charge and who aspires to be in charge.

He has no power at all. Now. Putting his people in key positions and having an invertebrate house of 'representatives' and a pocket supreme court will give him all the power he's always craved. Remember, none of this is his own plan; he only has grudges, fancies and whims. He's just a door-stop. It's the long-range plan of very much more intelligent and evil men. They will find a way to silence everyone who disagrees with their agenda.

Yes, that's one spark of hope. If the effects are felt at grass roots quickly enough (which means if enough damage is done to enough people - not a pretty basis for hope) and attributed correctly, in spite of the Trumpites' stranglehold on communication media. Both are uncertain if's, especially the second: public tv and radio will have been shut down - sold off as scrap to Bezos and Musk; outlets with a modicum of objectivity will have their licenses yanked. And scapegoats aplenty will be offered to the angry mob.

I'm taking the long view, yes; four or five years down the road. I don't assume that, with all four branches of federal and at least 23 state governments under his thumb, anything much will be beyond his power by the end of the first year. (assuming he survives that long) Most of the agencies capable of blocking swift implementation of his policies will soon be run by the people best equipped and motivated to wreck them. Where is the push-back to come from? Possibly big business, if they find the Trump legislations so onerous as to outweigh the tax breaks and deregulation. Not small business, which will be in financial free-fall within a few months. Not the population at large: they're badly outgunned... unless the armed forces side with the constitution. Hope springs eternal in the human breast... but in the end, everything ends. I see that, or some attempts thereat, as all but inevitable. There are three sparks of hope that the American Bloodbath II can be avoided - all of them faint and far away. I haven't tried to find any statistics this early, but I'm willing to bet violence at the domestic and community level has already surged; I expect more grassroots level resistance and payback after January.

American businesses will have to try sourcing raw materials and parts from countries not affected by the ridiculous tariffs. Soon enough, a system of diversions and grey markets will grow around this problem; US importers getting Chinese goods through Indonesia or some port of convenience - but that will still result in higher prices for consumers. The Canadian imports will have to come from somewhere else too; at least the bulky ones, like nuclear reactors. Small things like electronic components and medicine can be diverted through a third party. For copper, they'll have to look to South America, where many of the illegal immigrants are to be deported, so those countries might not co-operate. For lumber, once the Canadian product becomes unaffordable, I suppose, he'll open the national parks to clear-cutting, since he already intends to drill them for oil. The wildlife will try to escape northward, as will many of the people. As for paper and pulp, he can simply prohibit the publishing of newspapers, magazines and books. Once he's closed the public schools, there won't be so much demand for blank paper. Of course, none of this will affect the availability of street drugs, except insofar as it drives up illegal prescriptions. And wrecking the economy in the process, but you won't be able to tell what part of the regime's policy causes how much of the damage, since their whole agenda seems to be aimed at destruction.

Did you know that Nixon's strategists brought the Southern white vote over to the Republican party through their opposition to Johnson's desegregation policies? I don't suppose you did. It was already working for Goldwater, and it's continued to work right up to the present. Over time and election molesting by state legislations, it expanded to include the anti-immigrant factions, the religious right, misogynists, anti-intellectuals, gun nuts and haters-at-large. All Trump's people had to do was dip into that deep dark well of carefully nurtured bigotry. They don't care what he's done or what he will do, as long as he socks it to whomever they most fear. In this instance, independent women topped the list.

Biden has a far better job, with 'medical problems' than the last three Republican presidents did with clean bills of health (at least one from a questionable physician, but still). She was on #2 on the winning ticket in 2020, so a whole lot people voted for her, and the convention was unanimously in favour. She was chosen, all right. I can't think of a single thing they have in common. Do you happen to know who faked it?

To what do either the method or its prediction make any difference whatsoever? Seems to me like a lump of grey, non-functional goo for people to hand off one to another and chatter about.

The crucial difference is: secular laws are devised and enacted through human agencies, which give a rationale for what is forbidden to whom and prescribe punishments for disobedience. Over time, as the society evolves, economies, social structure and regimes change, the laws are adapted to the changing reality of human interactions and convictions. Religious laws are set down in edicts carved in stone, a scroll, a wall of pictographs or a holy book, ostensibly given by an infallible deity and interpreted by an ordained elite, never to be questioned, never to be altered, never to be disobeyed on penalty of eternal damnation. If the early patriarchs in that holy narrative married their sisters or sold their daughters or murdered the people with whom they had just made peace, then, as far as the religion is concerned, those practices remain acceptable forever. Which is why secular laws had to override them. It could be said, but it wouldn't be true. If money is made in any class of endeavours, it's certainly made with least effort by churches and money-lenders. That's not a criticism of religion but of religious organizations' role in materialism.

It doesn't. Consciousness and conscience are not synonymous. No: that's a sadist, possibly. A sociopath simply doesn't care what damage he does while getting what he wants. Regrets may be applied to anything that goes wrong, whether it's your fault or not. Guilt is for something you deliberately did, caused or allowed to happen when you could have prevented it. Remorse is for harm you caused carelessly, unaware of or indifferent to how it might affect someone else. Fine. If it makes you happy, believe that.

Of course; everyone except sociopaths have a conscience. Rejecting the idea of free will is a purely intellectual exercise - theoretical. In practice, we act and think as if we did control our actions; feel and are affected as if we were responsible for what we had done. And since we know only what we can do, not what we will do, we think as if we had meaningful decisions to make. We may be intellectually aware of how all the billions and trillions or past events led inevitably to the present moment, but we don't experience life that way. We are formed by our biology, animal instincts and early nurture and all that we learn through life through interaction with members of our society and the environment. We absorb the world-view, morals and values of our culture. While we may be able to put all that aside in favour of pure logic in an essay, we can't do it in our living rooms, public squares and work-places. You live as if you had a will and a conscience, whatever words you substitute.

A stroke or fall downstairs can render you helpless in a second, at any age. In that case, if you don't want to live in that condition, you'd need assistance. Governments Countries that allow medical assistance generally set conditions and limits.

I doubt it. While I absolutely believe that neither church nor state should have the power to take away people's control of their on bodies, their own lives, there is only so much we can control. Our circumstances are affected by so many external factors, we have only a limited range of choices. We don't decide whether we're born healthy or compromised, talented or dull, rich or poor, into the dominant or a minority ethnic/religious group. We don't decide our formative environment or early education. Even in the most fortunate circumstances, external conditions may change from one day to the next: a political coup, a tornado, an inflamed appendix, a traffic accident, a wrongful conviction or frustrated mugger can take the power of decision out of our hands. Deciding that you will shoot yourself on a certain date in the future may give you an illusion of control. If that makes you happy, sure, make the decision - you or your neighbour or your government or a random tile falling off a roof can always change your mind.

Until the regime takes absolute control of social media - which they're half-way to accomplishing already. In the US, too, mobility is more of an issue than in the Arab countries: trucks laden with flags and machine guns can patrol the highways and prevent planned gatherings. Much depends, too, on which side local police forces and state militias take. Without them, the revolution has very poor odds.