You're being fooled by the public platforms and the communication stunts. Yes the world stage would be pretty much the same with a different administration.

The parties are basically lighting rods at this point. They claim that they're for this or against that, they would do this, we should do that, and if only we... blablabla. But in the end, nothing concrete ever changes. Sure there are adjustments here or there that quickly get canceled by the next administration, but nothing systemic is ever really changing.

▲

softwaredoug 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't see how you can back that up with actual data.

- SCOTUS would be radically different in composition without a GOP President being elected in 2016. That would have preserved post-Watergate reforms that prevented broad, sweeping executive actions that go against Congress's wishes. So at best Trump II could only look like a Trump I

- We wouldn't have attacked Iran. Continued closing of Hormuz has pretty far-reaching consequences

- EU might not be trying as hard to be as independent on defense matters, and the US would be active in Ukraine

- US would not be as ambivalent about Taiwan under a non-Trump administration

There are many places where things wouldn't have changed much. But electing Trump has had far reaching consequences to the constitutional system.

▲

dudul 2 days ago | parent [-]

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump.

As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capabilities have not moved at all. These are just the thing the EU has been doing for a long time with never any result.

Again, do you have actual data to predict what the US position vis a vis Taiwan/China would be with a different administration?

What I will give you is that yes, Trump is way more disruptive than the previous tag team game the blues and the reds were playing before. I still don't think it will change much. Trump has not done anything truly radical.

▲

softwaredoug 2 days ago | parent [-]

To win your argument, you need to enumerate every major outcome in the last few decades, and argue how it would still happen under the other party's president. Here's a few:

1. Iraq War (how does President Al Gore convince us to go to war in Iraq?!?)

2. ACA (President McCain passes the Affordable Care Act or something like it)

3. SCOTUS and downstream consequences (How does a President Hillary Clinton appoint a SCOTUS that overturns Roe v. Wade, to name a few)

Those are fairly preposterous, so I don't know how you can hold "it doesn't matter"

On Iran War itself, we didn't attack Iran for decades :) Past Presidents knew about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, and this president clearly ignored numerous warnings.

(a) Past Presidents did not ignore these warnings, it's well known this would be a move from Iran from military planners (b) Current president clearly did (c) "It never matters" doesn't hold, because clearly

Hormuz being a known / ignored risk is well known

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/13/goal-plan-ir...

▲

dudul a day ago | parent [-]

Oh I think I understand the source of the confusion: you think that whoever is in the White House makes the decisions, I don't. I know: "ooh conspiracy theory blaba!" yeah. The thing is I think people who've been in place for 20/30 years in core power positions actually have more power than people who are elected and replaced every 4 to 5 years.

ACA didn't happen because of Obama for example.

	▲	softwaredoug a day ago \| parent [-]
		Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.