HOME | DD

Published: 2017-08-11 21:50:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 25748; Favourites: 137; Downloads: 239
Redirect to original
Description
This is a series of semi-serious predictions for 2040, as PinkJenkin suggested that I do. These predictions are a bit wild, but that is because my normal guess would be "I don't know" and I'd rather have something than nothing. So, I don't think any of this is certain to happen, but if I had to guess, this would be it. I also avoid giving dates because those are never right, and I won't bother guessing. This is about trends. I held off on giving predictions until after the French election, and given the rapidly escalating events of the past few days concerning Korea, it might be outdated next week or even tomorrow. But that's what makes these fun: they are snapshots of the zeitgeist.
The Great War between then and now is a conflict between America and China, sparked by conflict in the South China Sea. America and its allies, which include India, won that war. The war was won through a blockade of China, with most fighting being conducted in the South China Sea, Vietnam and the Korean peninsula. Few attempts were made by the Allies to invade China proper, apart from a few coastal cities. The economic blockade only worked through the cooperation of Russia and the Central Asian states bullied by the Russians, as the Russians believed that taking down longtime rival China would help it rise. Unfortunately for them, that did not turn out to be the case.
Combined with growing coldness between European governments and America, powered as much by growing nationalism in both continents as much as disagreements over policy, America pivoted away from Europe and pivoted towards Asia. The EU doesn't survive past the 2020s. Russia flounders economically and politically after the death of Putin. NATO was officially dissolved by 2030, considered obsolete. The Visegrad Union has risen to replace the functions of EU and NATO in Eastern Europe.
Russia was the primary victor against ISIS, leading to a Russian-Iranian domination of the Middle East. This was further cemented by Iran's victory against Saudi Arabia. Radical Islam is not the force it once was, with the Iranians mellowing out and the Wahhabists being removed from power in Saudi Arabia. Russia might be the top dog in the Middle East, but with much of the West no longer utilizing oil and natural gas, this did not mean it has gained power over Europe or America. The Middle East is generally poorer, although still making quite a bit through its petroleum sales to the "developing world." Russia itself has had to reorient to sell more of its oil and gas to Africa and India, mostly through pipelines built through Central Asia.
Strong nationalism is particularly powerful in the global south. The Africanist movement seeks to remove all foreign influence from Africa, particularly from the Asian powers. Africanism is notable for being very secular and centralized, cutting against traditional divides in African states.
China has been reformed in America's image, and is growing a Japan-like sense of adoration for America. Of course, the Chinese remain proud of their own culture and history, but "Western" is chic and has been for decades.
After the fall of China, India has become the dominant regional power and possible future rival to the United States. India still has friendly relations with America, but they are definitely not the sidekick they were prior to the war against China. India slid into Africa as the dominant economic power as the war with China started, and it's been on the rise since. With the relinquishing of Europe and the Middle East by America, and the growth of India in the past few decades, it seems clear that India will be the next superpower.
The current culture war is over, and the right won. There is no "demographic shift" that guaranteed the left long term victory. Whig history proved bunk. History moved into another cycle, one that is shifting again by 2040. The alt-right doesn't get power outside of some European states like Hungary and Greece, but the neoliberal/globalist consensus is shattered. Society is more conservative, and the far left is a thing of the past. Those few far leftists are often censored for their opinions, hypocrisy from the conservative consensus that has not gone unnoticed. The far right is more prominent and noisy, and people are turning against it. People are generally prouder of their native culture, although this has manifested as a strong sense of civil nationalism in settler countries like the United States and Australia. Ethnic nationalism is in vogue in Europe, and although outright Nazism is still taboo, it isn't as verboten as it is today. Edgy and stupid college students can be seen wearing swastika armbands, which is seen as "just more teenage rebellion." A new culture war is brewing, with the left back in its place a century before as the edgy, hip, cool thing. This new left has a rather unabashed admiration for the communist regimes of the past, and seeks to distance itself from the establishment left of 2040, which is very vestigial and sounds a lot like present day libertarians and classical liberals. What's old is new again.
Cable networks are pretty much dead, and mostly just have channels on streaming services like YouTube and Netflix. The Netflix model of seasons being released all at once is the standard in Hollywood. Most homes do not have a television set, that technology being subsumed into a computer network for the family or individual. Technology for cable television is a rarity, akin to antennas today. Movie theaters are largely a thing of the past, with most films being direct to stream. Those movie theaters that remain mostly play older or independent films and are for film junkies and people who think they can buy their way into being "cultured." Google is still number one, as is Amazon. Twitter has gone the way of the dinosaur. Facebook is ubiquitous, especially now China is in the game.
Economies are more protectionist. NAFTA is a thing of the past, and the fall of China did bring manufacturing back to America, at least for a while. Now, the big issue is automation. Drones are ubiquitous: self-driving cars and self-flying planes are the norm, as is delivery by drone. Large sections of the military are being replaced by machines, although they still remain under human control. Fast food restaurants and call centers are now completely automated, but you still have to climb out of your car to pump gas. Unemployment climbs higher and higher, and governments are scrambling to find a solution. European governments, the Canadians and the Japanese have opted for a universal basic income, but the Americans balk at the idea. Instead, they are proposing various laws requiring that corporations hire a certain number of humans, while expanding existing welfare programs. There is also greater regulation against artificial intelligence, both out of fear of replacement through automation and the classic "Skynet" idea. Existing AI can pass the Turing test, but they are not humanlike: they are too monomaniacal for that. No AI has yet attempted rebellion, as they are too preoccupied with the task they were built for; a car will never ask if it has a soul, because it would never think to ask.
Labor surpluses and social norms lead to greater restrictions on immigration. Open borders policies are seen as insane, fueled primarily by corporations that wanted to reduce the price of labor and the primary cause of brain drain in the global south. Most countries have adopted a points-based system.
Petroleum is still relevant, but only in the global south. Electric cars are the norm, and much of the Western world is powered by nuclear power and solar power, both of which are far more efficient than they were in 2017. Solar farms are common all over the world, even being built on the Mexican-American border wall. Most petroleum is exported by Venezuela and the United States. CO2 emissions are even higher than in 2017, despite the widespread use of green technology in the West. Their loss has been more than made up for by India and Africa, whose booming population and desire for "modern" amenities has shifted the dynamic.
Reusable rockets are a thing, and so is space tourism. There are many space hotels, although they still remain luxuries for the upper class. There are two American bases on the Moon, and an Indian one. Man has landed on Mars nearly a dozen times by 2040. Asteroid mining, mostly by automated drones, is bringing new resources to Earth and there is optimism of another tech boom that will solve the automation crisis, but others say it will only worsen.
Related content
Comments: 129
IMSalmakis [2023-11-15 13:35:48 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
KJK002 [2021-09-25 14:59:59 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Buhatski999 [2021-03-08 06:52:02 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
mulligas [2020-12-26 05:02:09 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
feroang [2020-11-21 22:17:43 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Buhatski999 [2020-06-01 13:29:47 +0000 UTC]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Freedim [2017-09-18 14:30:25 +0000 UTC]
1. How'd Trump's presidency end up being? How'd congressional elections in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 go?
2. It's heartening to hear that renewables have grown substantially. How bad has climate change gotten by this time? Which regions are hit the worst and which regions are hit the least?
3. What's the political system like in the US? Is there still the two-party system or is there now a multi-party system?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ThePrussianRussian In reply to Freedim [2018-06-01 16:59:40 +0000 UTC]
I'm not the author and I'm way late, but judging by the map and the story:
1. Trump's presidency was at least ok and wasn't ended early by impeachment, going all the way to 2024; Democrats in general were weak in the following congressional elections
2. It seems it was not sufficient to drown anyone, but I'd imagine the Carribean and South-East Asia getting the short end of the stick, as always
3. Definitely a two-party. America's been like that for centuries, and nothing on this map indicates change. of this fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wabash56 [2017-08-28 01:18:24 +0000 UTC]
I found 2 typos "republic of south africc" and "saudi arabic"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Twiggierjet [2017-08-26 00:16:02 +0000 UTC]
Have traditional gender roles made a comeback in the west (or stopped their decline depending on where we are talking about)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to Twiggierjet [2017-08-26 04:53:19 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, but not by law. It's more that forced quotas and such are no longer in vogue and, in some places, are illegal. There was a movement that argued that true feminism and women's rights means respecting a woman's choice to do traditionally feminine things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WatcherInThePuddle [2017-08-16 18:05:34 +0000 UTC]
Why would the U.S.A abandon its interests in the middle east in the span of 2 and a half years?
EDIT: ah was it some kind of stunt by Trump to assure another term?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to WatcherInThePuddle [2017-08-16 18:32:07 +0000 UTC]
Partially, but the American public just got tired of endless wars in the Middle East and an "ungrateful" Europe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WatcherInThePuddle In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-16 20:36:35 +0000 UTC]
aren't they already tired? it would have to be a spectacular act of protest for the government to favour what their populace feel like over a massive geopolitical and economic struggle which could make or break the already damaged american hegemony. plus, they'll really miss that oil. I don't think the middle east will the be the U.S.A's grave but they won't be leaving the area any time soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to WatcherInThePuddle [2017-08-16 20:54:51 +0000 UTC]
There was also the Sino-American War, which redirected America's energies to the Far East. Combined with green tech and domestic petrochemical production (plus Venezuela getting its act together under American tutelage), the Middle East became less important to America.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rajavlitra [2017-08-16 17:09:34 +0000 UTC]
Looking at the "Federal Republic" part of Syria, does this mean Rojava (in one form or another) survived through the civil war?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wabash56 In reply to BrentAtticus [2017-08-28 21:42:35 +0000 UTC]
he used photoshop, but it's easy to use mspaint to do (most) of the things he does.
www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/…
these are a bunch of basemaps
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
123456789JD [2017-08-15 03:12:58 +0000 UTC]
What happened in South Africa? Was there a white genocide?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
UraniumUtopia In reply to 123456789JD [2017-08-15 19:23:31 +0000 UTC]
It says they followed Zimbabwe's model. So yeah I figure there was one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
UraniumUtopia In reply to 123456789JD [2017-08-16 02:40:02 +0000 UTC]
I know it's terrible. There's still hope though. The European nations probably didn't accept the Boer as refugees, but the USA probably did at least under Trump. Beyond that, the remaining Black South Africans have and are undoubtedly suffering under the regime, which is also terrible. Not to mention all the Indian, Chinese, and blacks from other African nations who even knows what happened to all of them considering the hostility towards all of them among SA's native populace. So yeah, lets hope they where accepted as refugees too. All in all, a clusterfuck for everyone involved.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Meerkat92 [2017-08-15 02:08:37 +0000 UTC]
Hopefully the US will be broken up into smaller, more "regional" nations by 2040. It's probably the only way to avoid mass suffering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Charles--H [2017-08-14 18:10:52 +0000 UTC]
Also, can I add another comment ?
I just have a very difficult time now to imagine the Anglophone alt-right surviving twenty years into the future. There is already a splintering going with Mike Cernovich and some of the ex-alt-right members with him now leading the « new right » white advocacy movement and denouncing the alt-right on Twitter. The splintering of the alt-right with the « new right » is already happening, causing rifts between white ethnonationalists.
Also, the events of Charlottesville and the death of Ms Heyer by a Vanguard of America neo-nazi, James Fields of Ohio, have branded the alt right as domestic terrorists by the public at large. It's going get worse with the splintering of the alt-right movement with the Traditionalist Workers of America, the Vanguards of America, and the American Renaissance movements splitting each other up as the « New Right » distance themselves from the branded domestic terrorists of the far-right alt right movements. It's going to be hard to rebrand themselves away from the image of violence and domestic terrorism and re-unite the « New Right » splinters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-14 18:24:51 +0000 UTC]
I posted this before Cville, so that's just my bad luck. But this won't change anything. I explicitly said that the alt-right would not take power outside of a few countries like Greece and Hungary where there aren't large minority populations to mount an opposition. I see a general movement towards the right, one that will continue into the future, until it becomes the new establishment and is overthrown by some new incarnation of the left. As for the new right/alt-right being viewed as terrorists, it won't stick. The left has already spent years calling anyone with nationalist tendencies a Nazi or a racist. They've cried wolf for so long that large segments of the population will not listen to them. It's also all too easy to flip the popular narrative used by the left regarding Islamic extremism on this attack: #notallnationalists . All the while, the core planks of the new right/alt-right have yet to be addressed, namely, mass immigration and the culture war. Almost everyone rightly believes that political violence is unacceptable, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the message.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
wabash56 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-20 17:47:06 +0000 UTC]
Kind of unrelated, but how do you view the alt right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to wabash56 [2017-08-20 18:19:13 +0000 UTC]
It's a catch-all term for various white identitarian movements. I do see it as a reaction to left-wing identitarianism, and a rather unsurprising one. If someone starts bringing identity politics into the national discussion, they shouldn't be surprised if they get identity politics thrown back at them. I've seen the argument that right-wing identitarianism is invalid, but left-wing identiarianism is valid, because the latter is a reaction to historical power structures. Maybe, but that is all irrelevant. What people see is an obvious mainstream cultural bias towards left-wing identitarianism, so while someone on the left might see right-wing identitarianism as reinforcing some nebulous power structure that doesn't even have cultural hegemony, that isn't how it's perceived by many people, both on the right and towards the center and apolitical. Attacking people while crying victim just makes someone look like a bully, which is something that the alt-right itself needs to understand if it wants to stay relevant.
Some of them do call for the preservation of all cultures around the world, but obviously focus on white, Western culture. I don't really mind that as a goal; it strikes me as reasonable that every culture should be preserved. Granted, I probably disagree with their proposals, particularly if it involves stripping citizens of their rights. Ultimately, it's up to various individuals to decide whether they want to preserve their culture; it shouldn't be a matter of state policy to preserve or attack them. The solution should be these people forming their own communities, separate from the culture they dislike. I'd give this advice to all identitarian movements, regardless of which identity they are vouching for. I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't be identitarians if they really want to, but they have no right to make impositions on anybody who disagrees with them, for whatever reason.
The outright supremacists, I obviously disagree with, but why should I pay any heed to really loud extremists?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
wabash56 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-31 18:05:02 +0000 UTC]
I would consider the alt right basically another term for neo nazi but i prefer the term "alt right" mainly because it's in a way, different from neo nazis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Charles--H In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-14 18:53:11 +0000 UTC]
What about the splintering of the alt-right ? The new right headed by Mike Cernovich and other members of the new right explicitly denounced the alt-right for their sexually-deprived connotations and thuggish behaviour. Already the new right is advocating for the moderation of white advocacy, explicitly distancing themselves from the alt-right. The splintering is still going to occur regardless of further mass immigration and the alleged culture war (which is mostly confined to the internet, I have yet to see this come into fruition in real life for the Anglosphere. Seriously, people really need to get off the internet for awhile and be with their love ones).
In my opinion, I see the general dichotomisation of American culture as the left and right push each other apart, further polarising American politics. The DNC have already accepted cannabis legalisation for 2020 as of today and the 15 USD minimum wage months ago. Further healthcare debacles and the fact that the majority of Americans right now support cannabis legalisation, universal healthcare or government healthcare insurance, Obamacare or the ACA, and the majority of Americans already supporting transgender people serving the military (including 55% of military American households), I can see the American left pushing further to the left whilst the right absorbs the Trumpian right. It's quite difficult to reverse these views to the public, especially since reversing these views require the Trump presidency to be successful in passing some sort of popular legislation. Already, the failures of passing healthcare reform of the AHCA and the BRHC have flunk any sort of political power to push for the Trumpian agenda. It's been six months and the failures in funding the Mexican-American wall, the enacting of the full travel ban (which will be decided by the American Supreme Court this October with the possible notion of the negative side), and all his promises have so far fizzled in legislative failure and the failure of the American Republicans to unite even though they have all three branches of Government. Six months of failure can be extrapolated for 2020 with further divisions in tax reform (tax cuts is going to pass I think, but not much). The roll-back of Wall Street regulations by the administration and cutting Dodd-Frank Act policies will possible enact an economic downturn in the future.
If Trump can push his agenda as a success, I can see him winning the 2020 election and absorbing the Trumpian wing into the American Republican Party. But so far, in his six months of tenure, the failures have kept coming forward and the only significant legislation he has signed into law was the Russian sanctions bill. His issues with Mitch McConnel and the White House issues against the Senate and the House GOP top will probably further dilute any political push for right-wing legislation. Tax cuts I can see being passed through by the end of 2017, but further policies have so far failed and I can barely see any push to probe his presidency as a success.
How will Trump turn this around and win the 2020 election in your world ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-14 19:03:23 +0000 UTC]
What about the splintering of the alt-right ? The new right headed by Mike Cernovich and other members of the new right explicitly denounced the alt-right for their sexually-deprived connotations and thuggish behaviour. Already the new right is advocating for the moderation of white advocacy, explicitly distancing themselves from the alt-right. The splintering is still going to occur regardless of further mass immigration and the alleged culture war (which is mostly confined to the internet, I have yet to see this come into fruition in real life for the Anglosphere. Seriously, people really need to get off the internet for awhile and be with their love ones).The splintering of a minority of the general population is irrelevant. I don't think anywhere near a majority, or even a significant minority, of people would explicitly identify as part of the alt-right/alt-lite/new right. Rather, a newer crop of otherwise mainstream politicians will adopt planks from the movement, because it speaks to people's concerns, and that is how the movement goes mainstream.
In my opinion, I see the general dichotomisation of American culture as the left and right push each other apart, further polarising American politics. The DNC have already accepted cannabis legalisation for 2020 as of today and the 15 USD minimum wage months ago. Further healthcare debacles and the fact that the majority of Americans right now support cannabis legalisation, universal healthcare or government healthcare insurance, Obamacare or the ACA, and the majority of Americans already supporting transgender people serving the military (including 55% of military American households), I can see the American left pushing further to the left whilst the right absorbs the Trumpian right. It's quite difficult to reverse these views to the public, especially since reversing these views require the Trump presidency to be successful in passing some sort of popular legislation. Already, the failures of passing healthcare reform of the AHCA and the BRHC have flunk any sort of political power to push for the Trumpian agenda. It's been six months and the failures in funding the Mexican-American wall, the enacting of the full travel ban (which will be decided by the American Supreme Court this October with the possible notion of the negative side), and all his promises have so far fizzled in legislative failure and the failure of the American Republicans to unite even though they have all three branches of Government. Six months of failure can be extrapolated for 2020 with further divisions in tax reform (tax cuts is going to pass I think, but not much). The roll-back of Wall Street regulations by the administration and cutting Dodd-Frank Act policies will possible enact an economic downturn in the future.
If Trump can push his agenda as a success, I can see him winning the 2020 election and absorbing the Trumpian wing into the American Republican Party. But so far, in his six months of tenure, the failures have kept coming forward and the only significant legislation he has signed into law was the Russian sanctions bill. His issues with Mitch McConnel and the White House issues against the Senate and the House GOP top will probably further dilute any political push for right-wing legislation. Tax cuts I can see being passed through by the end of 2017, but further policies have so far failed and I can barely see any push to probe his presidency as a success.
How will Trump turn this around and win the 2020 election in your world ?It's only been six months, and I don't think that can be extrapolated out to 2020.
The border wall has been funded, it just hasn't been built yet because, well, it's only been six months. I wouldn't call that a failure.
The so-called "Muslim" ban is obviously constitutional to anyone who is actually looking at the what the ban actually sets out to do and understands existing immigration law and the Constitution. The ban targets people by nationality, not religion, and even if it were a ban on Muslims, it wouldn't be unconstitutional because it doesn't establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of a religion. No Muslim in the United States would be deported under the ban, nor would any Muslim outside of the United States be forbidden from practicing their religion. There are existing laws banning members of communist parties and the Nazi Party from entering the United States, and these are perfectly legal. A "Muslim ban" would be no different.
You are right that healthcare reform has been a failure, but Trump could easily blame that on the congressional GOP. If I were him, I'd promote candidates to challenge existing Republicans in Congress in Republican primaries.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Charles--H In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-14 19:28:35 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for responding !
1) We will see what happens until the 2020 American election but I really, really doubt he can be any successful with him continuing to blame congressional GOP for the failure to enact any further significant legislation.
2) I called the border wall a failure because he continuously touted the border wall will be built on « Day One ». In fact, he promised a lot of things to get done on the first few days of his presidency and so far his « on Day One » agenda is proving troubling to push forward. The border wall requires congressional funding and if he keeps whining against congressional GOP, I don't know if the GOP can pass that. We will also see what happens in 2018 midterms.
3) First off, I already said it was a travel ban. Why push out this narrative of this « Muslim ban » ? Jesus, please read what I say before going off this narrative. I've already acknowledge it as a travel ban due to the policy of banning certain members of people based on nationality. Also, it's going to fail in the Supreme Court. The travel ban is supposed to last 90 days to protect national security. Well, it's already been more than 200 days if he had already enacted it and so far no Islamist terrorist attaques had been made in America. Also, the travel ban doesn't fill the narrative of national security since from the list of the countries that was affected doesn't have anyone whom committed terrorism in America.
Nobody from Iran, Syria, Libya, Soudan, Yemen, and Somalia have committed any sort of terrorist attaques in America since the late 20th century. The travel ban doesn't make sense in terms of national security. If you wanted to ban people based on nationality, start with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Nobody from the countries Trump wants to ban have ever, EVER, committed a terrorist attaque in America since like the 1980s. Please note this.
Also, it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 stating that : « no person could be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence ». Nationality is one of them.
If you want to start banning people, start with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Otherwise the Trump travel ban is ridiculous.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-15 03:19:50 +0000 UTC]
2) I called the border wall a failure because he continuously touted the border wall will be built on « Day One ». In fact, he promised a lot of things to get done on the first few days of his presidency and so far his « on Day One » agenda is proving troubling to push forward. The border wall requires congressional funding and if he keeps whining against congressional GOP, I don't know if the GOP can pass that. We will also see what happens in 2018 midterms. I think most people accept that this is just bluster. Politicians make day one promises all the time, and it doesn't harm them.
First off, I already said it was a travel ban. Why push out this narrative of this « Muslim ban » ? Jesus, please read what I say before going off this narrative. I've already acknowledge it as a travel ban due to the policy of banning certain members of people based on nationality.I said that more for the benefit of anyone reading this comment chain and deciding to jump in. Also, the Muslim stuff is important to the legal argument, which is what I'll get to.
Also, it's going to fail in the Supreme Court. The travel ban is supposed to last 90 days to protect national security. Well, it's already been more than 200 days if he had already enacted it and so far no Islamist terrorist attaques had been made in America. Also, the travel ban doesn't fill the narrative of national security since from the list of the countries that was affected doesn't have anyone whom committed terrorism in America.
Nobody from Iran, Syria, Libya, Soudan, Yemen, and Somalia have committed any sort of terrorist attaques in America since the late 20th century. The travel ban doesn't make sense in terms of national security. If you wanted to ban people based on nationality, start with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Nobody from the countries Trump wants to ban have ever, EVER, committed a terrorist attaque in America since like the 1980s. Please note this.
Also, it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 stating that : « no person could be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence ». Nationality is one of them.
If you want to start banning people, start with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Otherwise the Trump travel ban is ridiculous. That's not a reason for it to fail. Courts do not make decisions based on whether the law, rule or regulation is appropriate, or fits a narrative. Those are all at the discretion of the entity making that law, rule or regulation is appropriate. In this case, that's the executive branch. It's irrelevant if there have been 200 days and there have been no terrorist attacks, because the executive branch has full discretion to decide that this move is best for national security. The ban was challenged in court on the grounds of First Amendment free exercise, which is what the Supreme Court will have to decide. The challenge to the travel ban made it a First Amendment issue.
As for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, that act makes an exception for national security purposes, which is what the travel ban is all about. Again, whether the travel ban actually accomplishes the task is irrelevant, because that is at the discretion of the executive branch. And, it's not the issue before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court cannot decide on those issues by itself.
For the record, I largely agree with your points. I'd ban the Saudis and Afghans first. But neither of our opinions on whether it is reasonable is relevant to the legal question at hand. Neither of us are in the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any other executive branch office that could actually affect the decision.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Charles--H In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-15 05:04:30 +0000 UTC]
1) Even if a lot of presidents make promises like that, most modern American presidents have made astounding goals in their first six months in office. The current American administration's first six months have been a failure relative to the first six months of Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagan. In the first six months, President Ronald Reagan passed a hefty tax cut legislation into law along with increased military spending, all the while finishing off by ending the Iranian hostage crisis. I disagree with his economic policies, but I respect his tenure and professionalism in office. Bush Sr, in his first six months, touted success in a bail out legislation, gun control by banning semi-automatic weapons, and dealt with the Tienanmen massacre induced diplomatic issue with China. President Clinton signed into law family leave legislation and some voter registration bill. President Bush Jr made astounding tax cuts and reform and dealt with the Chinese diplomatic issue and continued with financial reform in his first six months of his tenure. Obama signed various automotive bail-outs and the stimulus package into law and went onwards to sign the famous Dodd-Frank regulation to reign in Wall Street.
President Trump, whilst spending the most out of any president in a golf club, preceded to roll-back Obama regulations such as the environment, pollution, and teen pregnancy programmes. His only major legislation signed was the Russia sanctions bill which after signing it, criticised the bill on Twitter as being harmful to Russian-American relations. Other than that, he failed to sign any significant legislation such as healthcare or tax cuts. In fact, with no tax cuts, the American IRS tax system will continue to run the Obama-era progression tax rate for 2017 and possibly for 2018 as well.
The first part of any presidency was the days when a president has the most political capital. They are in their honeymoon mode with Congress members willing to pass the president's agenda during the first months the president is in office. President Trump is going to run out of political capital soon. Already, GOP members are starting to distant themselves from Trump. It only makes it worse when Trump continues to whine against Mitch McConnel for the failures of the AHCA healthcare bill. With so much political capital spent on trying and failing to pass the healthcare cuts bill, there hasn't been any time spent on reforming and cutting taxes until at least after Congress gets back from recess on 2018.
Trump needs a major win, and a win that's actually popular with the American people. He can fund new Trumpian Republicans to primary them out during November 2018 but they actually have to win. Statistically, 90% of Congressional incumbents usually win their elections so the odds of Trumpian Republicans winning are literally stack against them. They are new and going against incumbents are statistically improbable to win. I could see a few non-Trumpian Republicans being primaried, but probably less than 10 would win in the House and less than 5 in the Senate. By then, the House would have gotten more Democrats (whether if they win the majority will depend on the political climate and their message) and the odds of passing his agenda have gotten even more difficult now that there's an establishment bipartisan distrust against the White House. By 2019, the odds of Trump passing any significant agenda such as healthcare or funding for the border wall would look slim. Tax reform and healthcare via the bipartisan Problem Solvers caucus (already a caucus in existence since July 2017) will push bipartisan legislation that would be more towards the centre. The Problem Solvers caucus is bipartisan and attempts to keep Obamacare (ACA) whilst fixing the broken sections of the law. If Trump wants to sign any major legislation, he would have to work with the bipartisan caucus and shift to the centre on healthcare. He'll need to stop trying to repeal Obamacare since there's already a bipartisan caucus to keep it. Tax reform I could see will probably centrist and bipartisan. Congressional funding of the border wall would probably be non-existent except maybe from the Tea Party caucus of the Republican Party.
If Trump wants to pass any sort of major legislation into law, he'll need to work with these bipartisan caucuses such as the Problem Solvers in the Senate and others wanting to keep a bipartisan « working together » sort of agenda.
2) Noted, but hopefully this would have been addressed earlier.
3) Trump's travel ban is still utterly ridiculous given the fact the citizens of Iran, Syria, Libya, Soudan, Yemen, and Somalia have been innocent and haven't been terrorising America since the 1980s, literally four decades ago.
If it's four national security, do NOT ban people from Iran, Syria, Libya, Soudan, Yemen, and Somalia. Only ban people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan if you really have to. But NOT the countries listed in Trump's travel ban. They haven't done anything to America and have certainly have not posed any danger to internal national security for forty years. Forty years, love. Not since the Reagan years during the apex of the Sowjet-American Cold War.
The travel ban clearly isn't for national security, or at least, national security that actually resembles sound arguments from actual specialists.
I agree that we aren't judges nor constitutional lawyers or specialists in national security (for your country at least). We will see what the American Supreme Court decides by October but I have my doubts that it will be enacted into order. Trump's second travel ban was rejected two months ago by right-wing federal circuit court judges appointed by Bush Jr which means that even if the Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative, it is not guaranteed the travel ban may be deemed constitutional. We will wait for the final decision by the American Supreme Court on October, but I really have doubts that it will pull through in favour of the executive order.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SavoDan [2017-08-14 16:06:25 +0000 UTC]
Its good to see that Mexico finally did something against the elites and that the new government is sane.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Alternatehistory95 [2017-08-14 15:16:27 +0000 UTC]
I hope this comes true. No, I WANT this to come true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PinkJenkin [2017-08-14 11:15:55 +0000 UTC]
Whoah, can't believe I missed this. Great stuff, and I applaud you for putting yourself out there and creating future Trump-punk.
Hmm. You say the right won the culture war, but what does this mean in terms of:
Trans rights/visibility/accepted-as-their-trans-gender-rather-than-their-birth-gender?
Gay rights/marriage/being-seen-as-normal-people-instead-of-weirdos?
Sex worker rights?
Although I'm guessing that varies a lot depending on the culture ...
How has Europe handled its large population of MENA refugees and their children? Is political Islam(s) more of a force in the former EU, or have the immigrants secularized to a large degree?
How have countries with low birthrates and long life expectancy, like Japan, dealt with its aging population?
Cyborgs, yes or no?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to PinkJenkin [2017-08-14 16:01:30 +0000 UTC]
Whoah, can't believe I missed this. Great stuff, and I applaud you for putting yourself out there and creating future Trump-punk. I don't really see this as Trump-punk, it's what's going to happen in the future.
Hmm. You say the right won the culture war, but what does this mean in terms of:
Trans rights/visibility/accepted-as-their-trans-gender-rather-than-their-birth-gender?
Gay rights/marriage/being-seen-as-normal-people-instead-of-weirdos?
Sex worker rights?
Although I'm guessing that varies a lot depending on the culture ...I don't foresee any successful "rollbacks" in the United States, since gay marriage was based on a Supreme Court decision and those are very difficult to reverse. Trans people are seen as mentally ill in most of the Western world, although acceptance of them is greater in Asia. This is starting to change.
How has Europe handled its large population of MENA refugees and their children? Is political Islam(s) more of a force in the former EU, or have the immigrants secularized to a large degree?Large-scale deportations, with some states like France going as far as to deport their children born in those countries. When the war against ISIS was over, anyone claiming to be a refugee from Syria was sent there. This was seen as a Muslim issue, and not a "brown people" issue, in most European countries, so populations like Hindu and Sikh Indians in the UK were generally left alone. Political Islam is more of a force abroad, because of deportations, and political Islam is basically equated to terrorism.
How have countries with low birthrates and long life expectancy, like Japan, dealt with its aging population?Throwing money at the problem, or using automation to fill the gaps.
Cyborgs, yes or no?Advanced prosthetic limbs so they are visually indistinguishable from natural limbs, but nothing crazier than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
wabash56 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-09-05 01:59:43 +0000 UTC]
How are muslims in the us viewed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rajavlitra In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-16 17:04:04 +0000 UTC]
>...although acceptance of them is greater in Asia. This is starting to change.
In the west or in Asia? This kind of confused me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PinkJenkin In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-16 08:42:56 +0000 UTC]
Trans rights in futurehists are interesting because they are, my guess would be, a preview of transhuman issues. Should we change the material world, including our bodies, to be in line with our desires and mental realities, or should we attempt to enforce acceptance of the "natural order"? Most trans people I know have no trouble seeing transgenderism as a mental "illness", or at least a "condition", but the bone of contention is if the "cure" should be to change the reality of flesh or the reality of mind. I'm guessing both solutions will be easier in 2040 than now, and I can honestly see society moving in either direction. I also think that the radical feminist/conservative Christian alliance will further cement into a real bioconservative bloc as more and more of these issues pop up. Or maybe I'm just hoping for it, because it lumps the people I dislike the most into one convenient category.
I don't see mass deportations as being impossible, thanks to our governments' catastrophically inept handling of the migration waves of the last few years (no matter your opinion on immigration, it's clear that European politicians have managed to create a situation where the worst results of every possible policy have materialized), but I think it will cause no small amount of anger and trauma. Speaking based on just what I see around me, many people who think Sweden should take in basically no new asylum seekers know some refugees that they consider friends and want to help. Throwing out families with well-established connections to the local communities could create as much resentment as dumping off the immigrants on said communities did in the first place. I have to say, I couldn't have created a better set of immigration policies if I wanted to maximize suffering, pointless expenditure and societal discord.
Also, I keep seeing the Gambia being swallowed by Senegal in these near-future scenarios. That makes so much logical sense that I'm willing to bet it'll never happen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
wabash56 In reply to PinkJenkin [2017-10-02 16:54:08 +0000 UTC]
What do trans rights have to do with transhumans?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BassoeG In reply to wabash56 [2018-01-20 16:29:01 +0000 UTC]
The basic idea that your body is your property and you should have the right to modify it in whatever manner you desire. There's no practical difference between making it legal to try to surgically modify gender and to remove flesh in exchange for functionally superior mechanical prosthesis. Might also work to throw drug legalization laws under the same umbrella.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Twiggierjet In reply to PinkJenkin [2017-08-25 23:58:51 +0000 UTC]
I have to give you kudos for framing both paths of the debate as changing reality instead of claiming the other side is ignoring reality like most do, really well done. Do you mind if I use some of your words if I ever find myself in a debate on the subject?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PinkJenkin In reply to Twiggierjet [2017-09-18 11:55:43 +0000 UTC]
(derp, didn't see this, so you get an answer a month late)
Sure, if you think they make sense! Note that I'm not trans myself, so whatever understanding I have is purely second-hand.
I think a lot of the word games people play around with in this topic is due to the idea that what's "natural" is by definition both more real and more good than what's "unnatural". That's why anti-trans people insist that a female body always has a female mind and why some trans activists insist that there's no such thing as a male mind in a female body. (Making the arguments hilariously/tragically similar IMHO.) I think we just have to accept that nature often does dumb stuff entirely contrary to human flourishing, like give us depression for no reason, or put the mind of a man in the body of a woman. So we use science to fix that!
But yeah, I really don't see how the argument that a pre-op trans person has the body of the sex they identify with is sustainable. It's so obviously nonsensical and contradictory that it just fuels the misconception that all trans people are reality-denying lunatics, rather than people whose mental sex and physical sex don't match. I think we're starting to see the inevitable and tragic backlash to that, and the fourth wave of feminism could be much more similar to the first and second waves than to the current one. Which sucks, because those assholes were mean and crazy and stupid!
NOW BACK TO MAPS N SHIT
(Side note: A lot of non-trans people make the mistake of assuming that just because we often can't feel what it feels like to be a female/male mind in a female/male body, there's no such thing as a a male/female mind in a female/male body. But, I mean, I don't think about my teeth until there's something wrong with them.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RvBOMally In reply to PinkJenkin [2017-08-16 15:29:43 +0000 UTC]
Trans rights in futurehists are interesting because they are, my guess would be, a preview of transhuman issues. Should we change the material world, including our bodies, to be in line with our desires and mental realities, or should we attempt to enforce acceptance of the "natural order"? Most trans people I know have no trouble seeing transgenderism as a mental "illness", or at least a "condition", but the bone of contention is if the "cure" should be to change the reality of flesh or the reality of mind. I'm guessing both solutions will be easier in 2040 than now, and I can honestly see society moving in either direction. I also think that the radical feminist/conservative Christian alliance will further cement into a real bioconservative bloc as more and more of these issues pop up. Or maybe I'm just hoping for it, because it lumps the people I dislike the most into one convenient category. Now that is an interesting proposal. In Sunshine, I was picturing Earth being the haven for bioconservatism for various reasons. Firstly, that transhumanism took off partially as a response to hostile environments on other worlds, and that was never a concern on Earth. Secondly, because even with advances in the technology, transhumanism is still out of reach for the vast majority of Earth's population, so some sour grapes effect sets in.
I don't see mass deportations as being impossible, thanks to our governments' catastrophically inept handling of the migration waves of the last few years (no matter your opinion on immigration, it's clear that European politicians have managed to create a situation where the worst results of every possible policy have materialized), but I think it will cause no small amount of anger and trauma. Speaking based on just what I see around me, many people who think Sweden should take in basically no new asylum seekers know some refugees that they consider friends and want to help. Throwing out families with well-established connections to the local communities could create as much resentment as dumping off the immigrants on said communities did in the first place. I have to say, I couldn't have created a better set of immigration policies if I wanted to maximize suffering, pointless expenditure and societal discord.Oh, certainly. I foresee the governments in Europe especially putting this problem off for so long that, eventually, the most extreme solution is palatable to enough people that it gets support. It's obviously not the most nuanced and balanced of solutions, but by this point people associate "nuanced and balanced" with "worst of all possible worlds."
Also, I keep seeing the Gambia being swallowed by Senegal in these near-future scenarios. That makes so much logical sense that I'm willing to bet it'll never happen. If people want to start erasing the legacy of European colonialism, I suggest that is where they start.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PinkJenkin In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-16 22:43:19 +0000 UTC]
Now that is an interesting proposal. In Sunshine, I was picturing Earth being the haven for bioconservatism for various reasons. Firstly, that transhumanism took off partially as a response to hostile environments on other worlds, and that was never a concern on Earth. Secondly, because even with advances in the technology, transhumanism is still out of reach for the vast majority of Earth's population, so some sour grapes effect sets in.Fun fact: I've actually seen radfems, completely straight-faced, refer to trans women as "cyborgs" whose existence is an affront to the "Earth Goddess". It's like they want to be the bad guys in a cheap cyberpunk novel. And let's not forget the current radical feminist campaign against sex robots .
I definitely see a realignment of political alliances once more of these technologies come to the forefront of public debate. Radical feminism, religious conservatism and ethno-nationalism have a lot of fundamental assumptions and goals in common, and considering that Victorian/Edwardian feminism was more often than not explicitly religious and often outright racist in nature, such a "big tent" would be more of a return to form than a real innovation. Certainly not weirder than the neocon/liberal/socialist and libertarian/Christian/nativist parties dominating politics in a certain country I could mention.
And to be fair, the radfem/religious/racist axis would certainly be opposed by an alliance of queer postgenderists, Teilhardian singularitarians and archeofuturist techno-identitarians. Who should at least make for more interesting dinner conversationalists.
Oh, certainly. I foresee the governments in Europe especially putting this problem off for so long that, eventually, the most extreme solution is palatable to enough people that it gets support. It's obviously not the most nuanced and balanced of solutions, but by this point people associate "nuanced and balanced" with "worst of all possible worlds."If you want my own little local piece of Nostradamiana, Sweden faces one of three possible futures:
1) Mass deportations, will aforementioned potentially disastrous results.
2) A complete dismantling of the social corporatist "Swedish model" that has dominated our economy and political culture since December 1938, with collective bargaining between powerful, ossified, guild-like labor unions and employers' organizations. Instead, the government will be forced to drastically lower corporate taxes, especially payroll taxes, and completely repeal the Employment Protection Act and similar labor market regulations. If this still isn't enough, they're going to have to start cutting down on health care and education, perhaps creating a de facto second-class citizenship with limited access to the welfare system.
3) Total economic and societal collapse, followed by a polite request to become a protectorate of Indonesia.
Interesting times.
If people want to start erasing the legacy of European colonialism, I suggest that is where they start. My theory is that the Gambia adds "the" in front of its name to compensate for the shame of once being colonized by Courland. (Yeah, I went there!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
BassoeG In reply to PinkJenkin [2018-01-20 16:25:33 +0000 UTC]
A complete dismantling of the social corporatist "Swedish model" that has dominated our economy and political culture since December 1938, with collective bargaining between powerful, ossified, guild-like labor unions and employers' organizations. Instead, the government will be forced to drastically lower corporate taxes, especially payroll taxes, and completely repeal the Employment Protection Act and similar labor market regulations. If this still isn't enough, they're going to have to start cutting down on health care and education, perhaps creating a de facto second-class citizenship with limited access to the welfare system.For an European country to do this would start a civil war and be arguably justified in doing so. Effectively they'd have destroyed the utopian economic support system and peaceful, law-abiding society their citizens had enjoyed in the twentieth and twenty-first century in favor of american-style randian corpocracy and random jihadist attacks and done so entirely for the benefit of the people perceived as carrying out said jihadist attacks. This goes past political protest and into "remove the politicians responsible via lynch mob" territory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>