[ExI] My prediction

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 08/01/2026 15:51, John K Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:05 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>     > I'm not sure I understand this. Not being very familiar with the american system,
>
>
> Hi Ben. I'm curious, some people on this list have suggested that most people that don't live in the USA are completely uninterested in the huge upheaval in American policies and politics that have been going on for the last few years and so we should not talk about it for fear of boring them, do you find that to be the case?
>

Normally I'd say yes, and in the past I've skimmed past the typical 'American Politics' posts that tend to heat up every four years or so, but these are not normal times, and the decisions that a certain insane megalomaniac makes affect the whole world, and that makes it a very important issue indeed.

I wish I could just say that you've brought it upon yourselves, but the sad fact is that you've brought it upon everyone else as well. I make no apology for pointing out that it's the American People that have caused this global crisis (so much for democracy. Perhaps you can see why I'm in favour of AI taking over from humans). Yes, we Brits have had our moments of madness as well, 2016 was a sad, mad year overall for both nations, but our insanity mainly affected only ourselves. Yours is affecting everyone in the world.

It pains me greatly to say this, but I'm starting to think that the best thing that can happen now (apart from some miraculous attack of sanity) would be another american civil war. A very quick, decisive one, followed immediately by the resumption of normal relations with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that Putin, Xi, Khameini and several others would love an american civil war, but a long, drawn-out one. If what I'm getting from recent posts here is true, there are a lot more generally liberal people in the US than generally authoritarian people, and it's just political trickery that gives the latter more power, which gives me some hope that any civil war would go in the favour of the more liberal faction. Obviously, I hope it doesn't come to that, but can you honestly say that it would be worse, overall, than what's happening now? (you need to think globally to answer that question. I know that tends to be discouraged in the US, especially these days, but please do try).

Fear of boring the people who read this list should be the least of your worries, believe me!

>
>     > I thought it was up to the courts to decide what is and isn't within the bounds of the constitution, and that the courts have been stacked with pro-Trump people willing to do whatever he wants.
>
>     Am I wrong on this?
>
>
> I wish I could say you're wrong but you are not, you're absolutely correct.  
>

So the constitutional safeguards that spike keeps mentioning are in fact powerless.

Spike, can you say why this might not be the case? How can the constitution be enforced when the enforcers are in collusion with the person who wants to ignore it? (I'm assuming we can all agree that Trump does want to override the constitutional safeguards imposed on the office of POTUS? If not, we need a very strong argument that this is not true)

>
>     > Another factor is that rules may exist, but mean nothing unless they are enforced. If someone co-opts the means of enforcement, the rules mean nothing any more. Example: if someone orders the National Guard to do something that the rules say they can't do, and they say "OK, we'll obey these orders, even though the rules say we can't".
>
>
> Just a few days ago one of He Who Must Not Be Named brainless minions, Secretary Of War (not defense) Pete Hegseth, cut senator Mark Kelly's retirement pay even though he's a 25 year Navy veteran and a former space shuttle pilot because Kelly had the temerity to say that members of the military are not obliged to obey your illegal orders, Hegseth insisted that Kelly was wrong, they must obey illegal orders. And as I said, the Constitution is only as strong as those that are supposed to defend and enforce it. 
>

This is one of the reasons that I said earlier that many people over here are very worried. When a national leader starts persecuting people who criticise him, we can all recognise that this is how totalitarian regimes operate, not democratic ones.

Hesgeth is factually wrong, there is no doubt of that at all. It's a long-established principle that military staff can, and should, refuse to obey illegal orders. Why is he not being prosecuted for this? I doubt that anybody in any other democratic nation would be able to keep their job after making a mistake like this. A mistake that there is no excuse for, given his position.

-- 
Ben