> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future.

For sure. Question is what would be enough to regain trust? I don't really see it happening

Genuinely, I think the US is pretty doomed if the Trump family and administration cronies aren't stripped of their wealth, tarred and feathered. If it is known that being president is a great way to make a bunch of money through corruption and there are no consequences then we'll be in the same situation as the Roman Republic in the waning days before Caesar. Caesar himself was funded by Crassus to make sure Crassus wealth making tactics stayed legal and grant him a big payout in the form of a rich governorship. Towards the end of the republic that sort of quid pro quo was standard operating procedure and if it happens and goes unpunished - if those benefiting see any positive RoI - then it'll just happen more and more.

▲

rjrjrjrj 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Dunno. More than half the country was either enthusiastically in favor of electing a convicted criminal pathological liar or too apathetic to do anything about it. How do you fix that?

▲

k1ko 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds like an enormous indictment of the Democrat party. Public views of their policies was so bad that the alternative you outlined was preferred.

	▲	rjrjrjrj an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, America chose adjudicated rape, tax fraud, conspiracy theories, serial dishonesty, and a track record of being the worst President in living memory over Kamala’s “policies” of being non-white and a woman. That’s the problem.
	▲	anthonypasq 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		yes thats right, the rise of Hitler was probably justified because the Jews were admittedly very annoying... I mean if I had to choose between being ok with Jews or supporting Hitler, i can understand why people would pick Hitler. The election of Hitler was really quite an indictment of the Jews. (I am not saying Trump is Hitler)

▲

toomuchtodo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can't change or fix people who have their vote. Mental models are rigid, and people are, broadly speaking, emotional and irrational. They vote vibes, not facts. So, "what do?" as the kids would say. You keep folks who want to come to the US who might be vulnerable once in the US out of the US to protect them (which this administration is assisting with through their anti immigration efforts). The people who want to leave [1]? You help them leave for developed countries, which there are many. The people who will remain and should be protected? You protect them if you have the resources or network to do so. The global economy continues to reconfigure to decouple from the US [2]. Time marches on. These are harm reduction and risk mitigation mechanisms, perfect is not possible nor the target.

These are system problems. Think in systems. No different than having an abusive family you have to decouple from for self preservation, just at geopolitical scale. Capital, people, information are all mobile, and can relocate as needed. There is nothing on US soil that cannot be replaced or replicated elsewhere on the globe (besides perhaps national parks and other similar public goods, which can hopefully be protected until improved governance emerges). Please, challenge me on this if you think it's wrong, I've put much thought into it to provide guidance to others.

The only thing we had of value was trust (value of US treasuries and the dollar) in the rule of law and stability, and we burned it up. Humans are tricky. Get as far away as you can from harmful humans.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/697382/record-numbers-younger-w... ("In 2025, 40% of women aged 15 to 44 say they would move abroad permanently if they had the opportunity. The current figure is four times higher than the 10% who shared this desire in 2014, when it was generally in line with other age and gender groups.")

[2] Global Trade Is Leaving the US Behind - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-02-12/on-tra... | https://archive.today/dsI9R - February 12th, 2026

	▲	Jensson 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You can't change or fix people who have their vote. Mental models are rigid, and people are, broadly speaking, emotional and irrational. They vote vibes, not facts. So, "what do?" as the kids would say. So don't present a candidate with shit vibes that people wont vote for? Democrats lost this election, if they got as many votes as they usually do they would have won. Democrats in power would rather lose the election than break down their own power structure, that is the main reason Trump could get re-elected.

▲

fuzzfactor 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's going to take a Constitutional Convention just for the states in North America to be able to regain their trust in Washington any time soon.

States' Rights have been slaughtered by these false patriots.

▲

ycsux 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For sure, massive damage has been done to Brand USA. Remember the 'Allegory of Good and Bad Government" in the Siena public palazzo since the 14th Century? Everyone knows USA is just a bunch of grifters

▲

kojacklives 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

mamonster 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>In 2021 the US had the its best opportunity to date to assemble a military tribunal to try and then execute a President

It's completely foreign to the US or the Anglo-Saxon world in general. The military as the final guarantor of state security is a continental European thing (and removing this has been the goal of many army reforms in Europe since the end of WW2).

▲

munk-a 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The modern anglo-saxon world has been pretty limited in this respect - but Charles I of England is an excellent example of pretty much just this playing out and being solved with a national razor.

▲

mamonster 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree with you - I should've caveated that the Anglo-Saxon aversion to military coups comes precisely from Cromwell IMO.

	▲	kojacklives 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This sounds similar to holding up Ghandi as proof that violent rebellion is not necessary. Treating these incidents as proof about the current world presumes people in power lack the agency to examine history like the rest of us.

▲

kojacklives 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a nonsensical reform. Every check and balance is itself a risk, nonetheless one can not build a safe Republic by removing them.

The US thinks it is the check for Europe but this offers no check for the leader of a superpower such as the US.

(It's apparently a flaggable offense to believe a legitimate republic is measured by making sense even if making sense goes against Anglo Saxon sensibilities since Cromwell.. I guess we can call time of death on the city on a hill.)

▲

mamonster 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Well if you want the possibility of military tribunals you have to accept the risks of something like the 1962 Algiers coup, the 27 May revolution or (if you want a more recent example) the Wagner rebellion. I'm not certain that would be palatable to Americans but I'm not American myself so wouldn't know.

	▲	kojacklives 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I grew up in an America that spent a lot to explain what it was willing to do for a Republic and ideals. The people who will quietly give a traitor an illegal 3rd term to avoid a more upsetting crises that could either save the Republic or just make it clearer it is over are apparently what the US actually is.

▲

jjtwixman 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]