Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (52) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84353 
Subject: Re: Step one, complete
Date: 01/19/26 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 10
So what we're seeing here in Game Theory: pay the other side back until the cry 'uncle' and then things can go back to normal again.

You can't see the difference between a President deciding that a specific individual should be prosecuted versus presidents deciding that certain broad positions were what they wanted to prioritize. Obama and Biden, vs. Trump, decided they wanted different types of civil rights violations to be the top priorities for criminal prosecution. Democrats cared about the abortion clinic side of the FACE act, Republicans the religious institution side. This is something that has always happened with nearly all federal programs that have multiple prongs and aspects - if the Clean Air Act (for example) has EPA doing both permitting and environmental enforcement, different Administrations will think one of those functions is more important to stress than the other. But no President has ever gone so far as to say that the President should be able to point a finger at a specific person or persons and call them out for prosecution.

But it doesn't matter whether you believe that's new or business as usual. Regardless of whether you think that the current level of DOJ weaponization is new to Trump or is the same thing as what Obama, Trump1, and Biden did, there's no "going back to normal again." This is the new baseline. So Trump will very much care about whether a Republican is elected President after he leaves office, because he has to know that he's likely to be treated by the next Democratic President's DOJ the way he has his DOJ treat everyone today.

So, now - he doesn't want to precipitate a spike in gas prices.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (52) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community