4 ms·

Well, judicial checks and balances should protect them until regime change, which is coming.

Waterluvian 9mo ago
I dunno. The Americans stuck their hand in a blender for four years and then four years later needed to try it again. Alas, Stumpy McNubs remains long on limbs but short on memory.
- actionfromafar 9mo ago
  Don't look into laser with remaining eye! (Unless it's really shiny, and red?)
  - Waterluvian 9mo ago
    Science demands rigour and repeatability.
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  I have similar concerns, but the evidence so far is encouraging. https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats_overperform_by_double_digits_in_south/nvrz8lo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats... https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_calls_into_dan_bonginos_first_show_and/o381fkj/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_cal... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-score-upset-texas/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-scor... https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor-rehmet-wins-texas-state-senate-seat https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor...
  - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
    "The President's party loses seats in the midterms" is a long-term trend and it seems pretty likely to hold this time. The real question is, once the Democrats are back in control of at least one house of Congress, are they going to be sane or are they going to spend two years making such fools of themselves that we end up with another Republican President in 2028?
    - bruce511 9mo ago
      Alas you'll need to define "sane" first. That might be harder than expected. Equally unfortunate is the need for 60 senate votes to actually have a meaningful say over what the president does. And in truth no part has had "control" of congress to this level for a while. When one (or indeed both) sides are politically incapable of being bipartisan (witness the outcomes for those voting against party lines, on both sides) control of one house is meaningless and a majority in the senate (short of 60 votes) mostly meaningless. Expecting any change in behavior after November, regardless of the results, is wishful thinking.
      - deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
      - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        It takes 40 votes to prevent the other party from putting something in a bill that you're willing to do a government shutdown to prevent. That's probably a good thing. Consider what would be happening right now, when the Republicans have >50 but not >60, if that meant they could actually do whatever they want. And the difference between 49 and 51 is still pretty damn important because "majority" has a lot of procedural consequences that are not irrelevant.
        tialaramex 9mo ago
        As you've seen, over, and over, and over again, this is their own internal rule they've changed it before and they can just change it again with a simple majority, the so-called "nuclear option". None of this has any actual weight, it's all theatre. Which doesn't mean it lacks consequences, but they could at any time just sweep it aside and they choose not to. Ironically, one thing the Senate does constitutionally need a super-majority for and can't just change the rule is Impeaching the President. Which means that so long as Republicans have enough votes and apparently still believe loyalty to one corrupt rotting bag of shit is their purpose in life he can't be impeached.
        9mo ago
- tzs 9mo ago
  The first time many of Trump's desires to do illegal things were somewhat restrained by non-political government employees who remembered that their oath is to the Constitution, not the President. Based on what I've read a lot of people who voted for him subsequent times thought that would continue.
behringer 9mo ago
There's no regime change coming when those in power run the elections, have already cheated in the past, and know that they are now untouchable.
- amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
  States run the elections.
  - prawn 9mo ago
    The US president just today said that Republicans should "nationalize the voting" in future elections.
    - rootusrootus 9mo ago
      It certainly gets us to keep talking about him. Which seems to be his primary skill. It does not have any basis in reality, however.
      - XorNot 9mo ago
        This is what people keep saying until the administration does something and then dares the courts to stop them.
      - watwut 9mo ago
        Reality check is that he has actual track record on delivering or trying to deliver on his anti-democratic impulses. In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history. He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality. He is on the way to cause very real harm (economic, physical) to blue cities too.
        rootusrootus 9mo ago
        > In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history. And in terms of legislative impact he is the least successful president in history. I don't like the corruption one bit, but on balance it is probably the less damaging of the two. > He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality Not at all, though, on any kind of permanent basis. He is showing that you can make the executive branch do shitty things with executive orders. What he isn't managing to do is codify any of this in law. There's a reason that the universities and other 'elites' knuckle under and cut deals with him -- they know that these deals are informal and temporary, and go away with the next POTUS. If Trump took this agenda to Congress and got it enacted into law it would persist for many more years.
softwaredoug 9mo ago
It's going to be dicey whether you can keep all the suppliers engaged with start / stops over 3 years.
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  From the piece: > Several of these projects are near completion and are likely to be done before any government appeal can be heard. Just gotta keep grinding towards success.
  - int0x29 9mo ago
    This will kill most future investment in offshore wind even if those projects are sucessful.
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      It’ll come back when there is more policy certainty, China isn’t going anywhere and they’re going to keep building. Luckily, there is manufacturing supply chain safely outside the US. China is roughly a third of global manufacturing capacity after all. Don’t think in years, think in half decades and decades. This too shall pass. https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e...

I dunno. The Americans stuck their hand in a blender for four years and then four years later needed to try it again. Alas, Stumpy McNubs remains long on limbs but short on memory.

actionfromafar 9mo ago
Don't look into laser with remaining eye! (Unless it's really shiny, and red?)
- Waterluvian 9mo ago
  Science demands rigour and repeatability.
toomuchtodo 9mo ago
I have similar concerns, but the evidence so far is encouraging. https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats_overperform_by_double_digits_in_south/nvrz8lo/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1puwkpj/democrats... https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_calls_into_dan_bonginos_first_show_and/o381fkj/ https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1qu6vyu/trump_cal... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-score-upset-texas/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-scor... https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor-rehmet-wins-texas-state-senate-seat https://www.npr.org/2026/02/01/nx-s1-5695678/democrat-taylor...
- AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
  "The President's party loses seats in the midterms" is a long-term trend and it seems pretty likely to hold this time. The real question is, once the Democrats are back in control of at least one house of Congress, are they going to be sane or are they going to spend two years making such fools of themselves that we end up with another Republican President in 2028?
  - bruce511 9mo ago
    Alas you'll need to define "sane" first. That might be harder than expected. Equally unfortunate is the need for 60 senate votes to actually have a meaningful say over what the president does. And in truth no part has had "control" of congress to this level for a while. When one (or indeed both) sides are politically incapable of being bipartisan (witness the outcomes for those voting against party lines, on both sides) control of one house is meaningless and a majority in the senate (short of 60 votes) mostly meaningless. Expecting any change in behavior after November, regardless of the results, is wishful thinking.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
      It takes 40 votes to prevent the other party from putting something in a bill that you're willing to do a government shutdown to prevent. That's probably a good thing. Consider what would be happening right now, when the Republicans have >50 but not >60, if that meant they could actually do whatever they want. And the difference between 49 and 51 is still pretty damn important because "majority" has a lot of procedural consequences that are not irrelevant.
      - tialaramex 9mo ago
        As you've seen, over, and over, and over again, this is their own internal rule they've changed it before and they can just change it again with a simple majority, the so-called "nuclear option". None of this has any actual weight, it's all theatre. Which doesn't mean it lacks consequences, but they could at any time just sweep it aside and they choose not to. Ironically, one thing the Senate does constitutionally need a super-majority for and can't just change the rule is Impeaching the President. Which means that so long as Republicans have enough votes and apparently still believe loyalty to one corrupt rotting bag of shit is their purpose in life he can't be impeached.
        9mo ago
tzs 9mo ago
The first time many of Trump's desires to do illegal things were somewhat restrained by non-political government employees who remembered that their oath is to the Constitution, not the President. Based on what I've read a lot of people who voted for him subsequent times thought that would continue.

behringer 9mo ago

There's no regime change coming when those in power run the elections, have already cheated in the past, and know that they are now untouchable.

amanaplanacanal 9mo ago
States run the elections.
- prawn 9mo ago
  The US president just today said that Republicans should "nationalize the voting" in future elections.
  - rootusrootus 9mo ago
    It certainly gets us to keep talking about him. Which seems to be his primary skill. It does not have any basis in reality, however.
    - XorNot 9mo ago
      This is what people keep saying until the administration does something and then dares the courts to stop them.
    - watwut 9mo ago
      Reality check is that he has actual track record on delivering or trying to deliver on his anti-democratic impulses. In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history. He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality. He is on the way to cause very real harm (economic, physical) to blue cities too.
      - rootusrootus 9mo ago
        > In terms of personal monetary gain, he is the most successful president of history. And in terms of legislative impact he is the least successful president in history. I don't like the corruption one bit, but on balance it is probably the less damaging of the two. > He is also actually successful at making Project 2025 reality Not at all, though, on any kind of permanent basis. He is showing that you can make the executive branch do shitty things with executive orders. What he isn't managing to do is codify any of this in law. There's a reason that the universities and other 'elites' knuckle under and cut deals with him -- they know that these deals are informal and temporary, and go away with the next POTUS. If Trump took this agenda to Congress and got it enacted into law it would persist for many more years.

softwaredoug 9mo ago

It's going to be dicey whether you can keep all the suppliers engaged with start / stops over 3 years.

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
From the piece: > Several of these projects are near completion and are likely to be done before any government appeal can be heard. Just gotta keep grinding towards success.
- int0x29 9mo ago
  This will kill most future investment in offshore wind even if those projects are sucessful.
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    It’ll come back when there is more policy certainty, China isn’t going anywhere and they’re going to keep building. Luckily, there is manufacturing supply chain safely outside the US. China is roughly a third of global manufacturing capacity after all. Don’t think in years, think in half decades and decades. This too shall pass. https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-explorer/ https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e...