Nah, people have short attention spans.

You cite the dismal perception from 2006-2008, but what changed? In 2008 Obama was elected and everything is new again and he won the Nobel. Did the country completely change in 2 years? Has it changed that much in 8?

Not really, that's why getting so riled up over singular negative events isn't worth your time. Things change fast, and countries have long histories. Germany and Japan were ruled by jingoist elites for centuries and just 80 years ago they were culling populations. Today they are examples of doing it right. Do we really believe 4 years of a bad leader is gonna flip centuries of progress?

It's an issue, yeah, but let's not overstate it because that' s not being honest with ourselves.

Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long.

And you're right, in the grand scheme of things, it may not matter. But four years is a pretty long time in tech-timelines for other countries to start catching up to Silicon Valley's vibrancy.

In order to be impeached, you have to actually have committed a crime, no?

So far as I know, tweeting dumb shit is not yet a criminal offense.

I've suspected from the outset that four years of Trump would effectively amount to four years of stasis, with perhaps a chance of getting a conservative majority in the supreme court for the foreseeable future.

> Assuming Trump stays for the full term (all signs point that way right now, no matter what impeachment hopes and dreams people have), four years of damage is pretty long

Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover. For entrepreneurs and talents, Canada, Germany or France just can't compete, especially France with a bureaucracy that will crush one's bones.

>"Bush damaged US reputation way more than Trump, USA did recover"

George W. Bush was in office for 8 years, Trump has been in office for 6 months. How can you realistically compare the two? I also don't understand the past tense. Trump is still a sitting President.

>USA did recover

Has it? I'm pretty sure most of the country's (and let's be real, many other nations) currents problems are directly related to actions undertaken by Dubya and his despicable administration.

I started out this post by attempting to defend G.W. Bush, but considering the Iraq War and his handling of the Afghanistan War, the worldwide consequences have been catastrophic beyond that of the Vietnam War.

Let's say it's an open question.

If we ignore illegal wars, Bush comes out ahead.

If we ignore the majority of what Trump says or Tweets, Trump comes out ahead.

I wish there were a metric for ignoramus, I suspect Trump would be fully one or two orders magnitude a bigger moron than Bush except when it comes to how to handle fellow con artists. He was apparently adept at handling the mob.

Germany hasn't even existed for "centuries", it wasn't unified until the late 19th century.

Right, never said otherwise. Prussia was militaristic and did lead the German states.

I hope no one thinks that Trump is emblematic of a country that elected Obama 4 and 8 years prior. I can only imagine Trump is a passing fad; then again, I said that at every stage of his campaign...

He was elected, despite his numerous faults - so he and his policies are emblematic of at least enough of the country to be politically relevant.

What does "political relevance" have to do with political longevity? We're not a fundamentally different country now than we were last year, and policies created with a pen stroker can be struck down just as easily. Anyone who thinks that Trump's policies are a good predictor of future US policy need to explain their rationale because it doesn't follow reason.

The rationale: we aren't a fundamentally different country now, and won't be fundamentally different after Trump's term is over.

Thus, no matter how progressive or good-neighborly future administration policies are, allies now have to build in the risk that every 4 years there will be a 50:50 chance that those policies will be reversed and any agreements voided.

How do you suppose one Trump election drives those odds up so high? And what percentage of international agreements has Trump actually voided? As bad as things may be, the sky isn't actually falling, and it does us no good to pretend otherwise.

Well, it's more like with each president over the past two decades, everyone became more aware that the US is not the benevolent/welcoming/whatever democracy it said it was.

And with Trump's open imbecilic statements, it's like a switch went off in people's heads - "hey, they US is really not the benevolent/welcoming/whatever democracy it said it was!"

It will reduce it's importance a bit for the next decade. Leave it to Trump's successors to strike the final blows.

I don't know why the fuck you guys are talking about the US and Trump in this thread, btw.

At least from my perspective so far he is not significantly worse so far than say George W. Bush, he might be if he starts new wars, but that seems unlikely. Pretty much all the previous presidents screwed over the rest of the world in some way or another. Just to give you an example in 2013 in 35% of Germans believed the US government to be trustworthy (Snowden NSA spying revelations) according to infratest dimap, now that value is at 22%, only slightly higher than that of Russia (20%).

People were convinced Trump was going to turn the US into an authoritarian/fascist state well before he even proposed any actual practical policies. They continue to despite the fact he has failed to pass any meaningful legislation beyond congress/courts months after getting into office. With the exception of dropping out of the largely non-binding Paris accord.

Sadly I doubt this will be dependent on what he actually does vs other politicians. It's entirely about perception.

This Russia congressional hearing is getting 10x the amount of coverage than the CIA torture hearing - if that's any indication of perception vs national priorities.

The blatant criminality and anti-American behaviour by the CIA and the executive branch was far more obvious in that case going into the hearing. They openly destroyed 92 videos tapes of interrogations at a black site which would have provided direct evidence of abuse [1] which not a single person got punished for.

Yet Jeff Session refusing to answer a few questions about private conversations with Trump got more scrutiny than the CIA did when they refused to release a 10,000 page report on their torture practices, using the same legal basis as Sessions did citing executive privilege during Obama's administration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_tapes_d...

I agree that critics are far more shrill than they should be. However, there is some basis for their fears of an authoritarian push: significantly high proportions of his campaign speeches used authoritarian imagery and themes. His closest advisors were outspoken for advocating authoritarian viewpoints. In hindsight, he was using that rhetoric aspirationally with no intention of doing the intensely hard work and dedication involved in actually bringing about an authoritarian state.

Indeed, almost nothing authoritarian has emerged; he uses executive orders to implement policies because he doesn't have the votes to legislate it.

As for the lack of zeal for investigating the CIA, the reason should be obvious: very few Americans were the direct victims of it. That scandal would only be zealously pursued if there were no other noteworthy events happening.

It is "whataboutism" for me to point out the lack of Republican interest in the CIA case is similar to the lack of Republican interest in the Russian election interference investigation. I only make that point to underscore the lack of lawmaker interest in pursuing a mostly "suspicious foreigner" set of victims, not to claim some difference of virtue between the two political parties.

I agree with you that the CIA scandal is shocking and unacceptable. It is 1) morally wrong; 2) directly results in terrorist organization recruitment; 3) disrupts trade and political cooperation with other countries.

Even with "authoritarian undertones", it's never been clear to me what sort of Very Bad Things Trump might do to warrant the hysterics. What is a realistic worst-case scenario? Do we really think he's going to make himself dictator or implement some soviet-esque authoritarian government? I don't see a scenario where he does more than temporarily obstruct progress for a few years. I guess it's just odd that everyone is terrified about "authoritarianism" without starting so much as a realistic concrete scenario.

From this point, yes. During the campaign, it appeared that Republican leadership were acquiescing to most of his demands. It's clear now that he has little political support for most of his policies. The Republicans are using him as a vehicle to sign bills into law and little else.

The things he wanted to do during his campaign that may have seemed credible: 1) Muslim ban, 2) Libel law strengthening, 3) Increased law enforcement action, "stop and frisk" policies. None of these lead to an authoritarian state, they just erode the Democratic norms of the Republic.

That's not cause for alarm; our government is designed to endure short terms of such "erosion". Checks and balances and term limits and all that.

Firing the head of the FBI for investigating his campaign was an authoritarian move. It remains to be seen if he gets away with it. If he does, America has become Authoritarian (i.e. when the law no longer applies to the leader).

Comey himself stated under oath that Trump was not under investigation.

The person, not the campaign. Besides, he's under investigation now for firing Comey… although not much to investigate when you admit committing crimes on TV.

> committing crimes

No laws have been broken by Trump. Hillary Clinton & co. on the other hand have broken _many_ at an egregious level. Lynch and Mueller should similarly be under investigation for covering up crimes as well.

Let me remind you that you know of this from the same sources which, until Comey's testimony, swore on a stack of bibles that Trump is under investigation.

Is this a primary source?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/87570147199986483...

Different investigation

But they did so covertly. Which is very important, since this is how the USA operates - "we help you guys" while getting benefits for themselves.

Trump just openly bashes everyone, like a complete moron.

It's going to be devastating over the long term.

Those of us even in Australia are wary now of travelling to the US because of (a) fear they maybe mistakenly detained, (b) having to turn over social media information and (c) visa problems at the arrival gate.

Places like Berlin, Amsterdam etc are looking far more interesting for startups because of the access to the European market and the sensible policies that seem to be enacted e.g. roaming.

Exactly. Countries definitely lose out because of these policies.

I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't​ require me to get a visa.

Likewise, I can't see myself ever living in the US as long as I have access to free movement in Europe.

>"I intended to visit China in the near future -- but I've booked a trip to Taiwan instead, almost entirely because Taiwan doesn't​ require me to get a visa."

You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel. Visa policies are reciprocal between countries. China and the US both charge citizens from each other's countries to visit for tourist purposes and that must be paid prior to travel. Tourist visa policies and immigrations polices have very little if anything to do with each other.

I think you might be short changing yourself if your only reason for not visiting mainland China is solely because they require a visa. It's less than a hundred bucks, it's basically a tourist tax. You likely won't regret it.

>You still get a visa to enter Taiwan. It's just a "visa on arrival" as opposed to needing to obtain a visa prior to travel.

Sure -- 'doesn't require me to get a visa' as in I don't have to make a trip to an embassy or pay a fee.

I'm sure I'll visit China eventually, but for the sort of low-budget travelling I'm doing, an entry visa represents a not-insignificant amount of the total cost. It also makes things less flexible: as I understand, authorities must be notified of exact travel plans before you depart.

>" It also makes things less flexible: as I understand, authorities must be notified of exact travel plans before you depart."

This isn't true. You are free to travel wherever and whenever you want in China provided you have a visa. Tibet might require a special approval but nowhere else. The visa is also good for 10 years. Also if you are a Westerner, hotels and taxis are a really good value in China. Lastly there are much better flight options into Beijing than there are into Taipei and so would more than offset the cost of the visa.

It appears to be worth it to pay the entry visa to (PRC) China; Taipei is certainly an amazing city, but the mainland has much more history and tourist opportunities. I hope to visit it one day.

I'm from Australia and agree with this. A colleague and I with travel plans to the US this year have discussed your three concerns at length over recent months. I'm a reasonably regular traveller to the US, and the colleague is exactly the sort of tech talent that any country should be trying to attract.

It's been great for my 401k, though. The best months in the past ten years were November 2016 and January 2017.

Those gains were most likely based on the anticipation of tax cuts (increasing consumer spending and the supply of investable capital), deregulation (allowing higher profits, most notably by banks), and repatriation (allowing share buy backs).

So far, none of those has happened and it remains to be seen if they will. If they don't, I don't expect a market decline, but just a smaller total cumulative growth since November that has nothing to do with Trump's election or the general agenda I outlined above.

Tax cuts on the rich don't increase consumer spending, since rich people don't spend all their money (proof: they're rich).

Although this is a popular theory, mostly promoted by the people who don't want to pay taxes.

Tax cuts to the rich increase investable capital, as I said. Trump also proposed tax cuts for everyone else, too, which would increase consumer spending.