The 2024 US presidential election.

[brad465]

This election is another timely reminder to those of us outside of the US that global opinions about its democratic process and outcome have zero impact. The country will do its own thing as it has always done and once climate change starts to affect the US economy only then real action will start. By them avoidance will be impossible so such actions will be inevitably centered on large geoengineering projects.

You could argue this is already starting to happen, as seen with the two hurricanes this autumn. For the US to be convinced, there will probably need to be a more severe hurricane season than 2005 combined with some other extreme events, such as a few very damaging tornadoes and deadly heatwaves.

 

[eldomtom2]

You could argue this is already starting to happen, as seen with the two hurricanes this autumn. For the US to be convinced, there will probably need to be a more severe hurricane season than 2005 combined with some other extreme events, such as a few very damaging tornadoes and deadly heatwaves.

I doubt that will convince anyone unfortunately - it'll be all too easy for climate deniers to say that no linkage has been definitively proven or equivocate about other factors affecting weather severity and scale of destruction.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Do you think Putin will stop at Ukraine once Trump hands it over to him?

One potentially dangerous situation lies in Hungary. Orban is facing a serious threat from Péter Magyar and Tisza, and the next election there is due in April 2026. If Fidesz start seriously falling behind in the polls, there is a real danger that Ukraine will get attacked from the direction of Hungary. The Hungarian forces aren't particularly strong, but the Ukrainian border is practically undefended there and Orban may well be reassured by Trump that he won't do anything about a Hungarian invasion to "protect the Hungarian minority".

Hungary would almost immediately be thrown out of NATO and the EU, but Fidesz have done so much wrong that they will be absolutely terrified of the consequences of losing power. For Orban, invading Ukraine would meet with immense popularity domestically, especially if there was a quick victory in Zakarpattia.

 

[trainswitheddy]

One potentially dangerous situation lies in Hungary. Orban is facing a serious threat from Péter Magyar and Tisza, and the next election there is due in April 2026. If Fidesz start seriously falling behind in the polls, there is a real danger that Ukraine will get attacked from the direction of Hungary. The Hungarian forces aren't particularly strong, but the Ukrainian border is practically undefended there and Orban may well be reassured by Trump that he won't do anything about a Hungarian invasion to "protect the Hungarian minority".

Hungary would almost immediately be thrown out of NATO and the EU, but Fidesz have done so much wrong that they will be absolutely terrified of the consequences of losing power. For Orban, invading Ukraine would meet with immense popularity domestically, especially if there was a quick victory in Zakarpattia.

Surely not? Allowing such a move would be geopolitcally disastrous for the US and would no doubt cause their allies in Europe to have a serious sit down about whether or not their continued relationship is beneficial.
Americans will need to realise sooner or later that isolationism simply won't work anymore - so much of their goods are imported and it'd take a heck of a long time to bring them back to the nation (semiconductors etc).
If what you have described does end up happening I suspect we would be going down a very, very dark path globally.

 

[DarloRich]

One potentially dangerous situation lies in Hungary. Orban is facing a serious threat from Péter Magyar and Tisza, and the next election there is due in April 2026. If Fidesz start seriously falling behind in the polls, there is a real danger that Ukraine will get attacked from the direction of Hungary. The Hungarian forces aren't particularly strong, but the Ukrainian border is practically undefended there and Orban may well be reassured by Trump that he won't do anything about a Hungarian invasion to "protect the Hungarian minority".

Hungary would almost immediately be thrown out of NATO and the EU, but Fidesz have done so much wrong that they will be absolutely terrified of the consequences of losing power. For Orban, invading Ukraine would meet with immense popularity domestically, especially if there was a quick victory in Zakarpattia.

that isn't going to happen surely. By then Ukraine will be a Soviet client state. Why would Orban upset his mate Putin?

I thought you were going to say Orban would Trumpify the Hungarian constitution to stop them standing!

 

[brad465]

One potentially dangerous situation lies in Hungary. Orban is facing a serious threat from Péter Magyar and Tisza, and the next election there is due in April 2026. If Fidesz start seriously falling behind in the polls, there is a real danger that Ukraine will get attacked from the direction of Hungary. The Hungarian forces aren't particularly strong, but the Ukrainian border is practically undefended there and Orban may well be reassured by Trump that he won't do anything about a Hungarian invasion to "protect the Hungarian minority".

Hungary would almost immediately be thrown out of NATO and the EU, but Fidesz have done so much wrong that they will be absolutely terrified of the consequences of losing power. For Orban, invading Ukraine would meet with immense popularity domestically, especially if there was a quick victory in Zakarpattia.

How strong are Slovakia's forces? Robert Fico has a lot in common with Orban (via the Horseshoe theory) and could potentially aid him. This would also get them kicked out of both organisations, and I would strongly expect NATO members in Europe would go further in such a scenario and get troops on the ground to at least kick Hungary out of whatever they take.

Surely not? Allowing such a move would be geopolitcally disastrous for the US and would no doubt cause their allies in Europe to have a serious sit down about whether or not their continued relationship is beneficial.
Americans will need to realise sooner or later that isolationism simply won't work anymore - so much of their goods are imported and it'd take a heck of a long time to bring them back to the nation (semiconductors etc).
If what you have described does end up happening I suspect we would be going down a very, very dark path globally.

I think the chance is low, but never underestimate a dictator/leader when they are in serious trouble.

 

[trainswitheddy]

I think the chance is low, but never underestimate a dictator/leader when they are in serious trouble.

Absolutely. Let's just hope the Hungarian population see straight through any such lunatic attempt.

 

[Noddy]

This is the US we're talking about. A sizeable number of people haven't left their own state, let alone travelled internationally. Working hours are also incredibly long (a factor cited in why opinion polling wasn't catching Trump voters), so many people (particularly in some sectors) haven't got the time to be keeping up on current affairs.


He could still do a lot of damage in the interregnum if Trump loses the plot.

Yes I think sometimes people forget that the US is a continental sized country and many of the states within are as large as nation states. California for example has a population larger than say Poland, Australia or Ukraine and would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Florida has a population larger than the Netherlands, Chile or Romanian and would be the fifteenth largest economy in the world.

The is Big with a capital 'B'. It's hardly surprising that many people haven't travelled internationally, nor indeed have ever left their state, when you looking at a nation the size of the US.

It therefore really shouldn't be at all surprising that they just don't care all that much about what people think about the US internationally. Why would they when their country is as large as it is and as physically isolated from the world as it is?

Heck, even here in the UK our General Elections never really feature foreign policy that much. It's far more about domestic matters and concerns and we have none of the advantages that the US.

Off topic but I wonder how many folk in the UK have actually travelled to different parts of the UK? In terms of this forum (being transport related) I imagine most of us have travelled to at least one other of the four nations (and those in the industry may do it everyday) but in the wider population I’m not so sure…

 

[Acfb]

We may be saying the same thing from different sides.

I think Trump will pull all support from Ukraine and so the Ukrainians will be forced into choosing to continue the war or settling a peace that’s very much in Russia’s interests. Ands if they continue the war then sheer numbers means Russia would eventually win.

Same as with Brexit, poor struggling people use their vote as a protest against “the elites” by *checks notes* voting for the party of Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel.

Actually, it looks as though this time the Democrat vote protested by staying at home. Trump’s vote hasn’t increased since 2020, but the Dems have lost somewhere between 10m and 15m votes. A chunk of that will be accounted for by increasingly aggressive Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics, but not all of it will. I also find it odd that in several states the people have voted pro-abortion rights and pro-Democrat further down the ticket but then voted for Trump. But the fundamental underlying issue is that Democrat voters stayed at home in the presidential election.

I'd wait until they've counted all the votes but it appears to be a lot more like 2004 than 2016. The swing states were at least relatively close TBF but Trump has clearly made large inroads in blue states such as New York and New Jersey. Also it appears that the only states where Harris did better than Biden were Washington and Utah.

 

[Krokodil]

Off topic but I wonder how many folk in the UK have actually travelled to different parts of the UK? In terms of this forum (being transport related) I imagine most of us have travelled to at least one other of the four nations (and those in the industry may do it everyday) but in the wider population I’m not so sure…

Plenty of low income families in the North West or the West Midlands decamp to Rhyl or Barmouth every summer. Even Pontins must have been better than no holiday at all. There will be many who haven't been to Scotland or Wales, for sure (never mind NI). But few haven't left England ever, even if only camping in France or an all-inclusive in Spain.

 

[nw1]

Plenty of low income families in the North West or the West Midlands decamp to Rhyl or Barmouth every summer. Even Pontins must have been better than no holiday at all. There will be many who haven't been to Scotland or Wales, for sure (never mind NI). But few haven't left England ever, even if only camping in France or an all-inclusive in Spain

Have been to all four nations (though I first visited NI many years later than the others) but there are still three English ceremonial counties I've never set foot in or even passed through on the train: Norfolk, Suffolk and East Yorkshire. Lincs I've only passed through and Beds the same, unless you count travelling to Luton Airport.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don't think that even the Democrats would have been prepared to do nearly enough to wean the US from fossil fuels.

No, and even though wind turbines and solar is becoming a little more prevalent, there is a definite aversion to nuclear.

 

[nw1]

One potentially dangerous situation lies in Hungary. Orban is facing a serious threat from Péter Magyar and Tisza, and the next election there is due in April 2026. If Fidesz start seriously falling behind in the polls, there is a real danger that Ukraine will get attacked from the direction of Hungary. The Hungarian forces aren't particularly strong, but the Ukrainian border is practically undefended there and Orban may well be reassured by Trump that he won't do anything about a Hungarian invasion to "protect the Hungarian minority".

Hungary would almost immediately be thrown out of NATO and the EU, but Fidesz have done so much wrong that they will be absolutely terrified of the consequences of losing power. For Orban, invading Ukraine would meet with immense popularity domestically, especially if there was a quick victory in Zakarpattia.

I knew Orban was far-right but is he such an irrational lunatic that he would do that? (I don't know - just asking).

He would surely lose catastrophically in said election if he tried that on, and would then be probably hauled off to the Hague to face a life sentence for war crimes never mind anything else.

 

[brad465]

No, and even though wind turbines and solar is becoming a little more prevalent, there is a definite aversion to nuclear.

I recall reading Texas is accelerating wind and solar power quite strongly, and either is, or will soon be, ahead of California. While the US has a long way to go relative to other countries, I doubt Trump or anyone else will be able to do much as the market tips in favour of renewable power more.

 

[nw1]

I'd wait until they've counted all the votes but it appears to be a lot more like 2004 than 2016. The swing states were at least relatively close TBF but Trump has clearly made large inroads in blue states such as New York and New Jersey. Also it appears that the only states where Harris did better than Biden were Washington and Utah.

A change in the actual states compared to 2004, PennWisMich (which, in true triumphalist style, he'll probably rename Trumpsylvania, Trumpsconsin and Trumpigan) have become much more right-wing compared to 2004 while Colorado and New Mexico have become considerably more liberal. Presumably changing demographics in said states.

 

[Krokodil]

I recall reading Texas is accelerating wind and solar power quite strongly, and either is, or will soon be, ahead of California. While the US has a long way to go relative to other countries, I doubt Trump or anyone else will be able to do much as the market tips in favour of renewable power more.

Electricity generation only makes up a quarter of US emissions. Transport is a larger sector, and there is no sign of any change on that score. Apart from anything else, the car lobby is very powerful there and will fight any regulation which is not in its favour. Oversized pickup trucks are so popular because there is a loophole in emissions laws which makes them more profitable to build than normal cars (which must conform to the standards).

 

[nw1]

Meanwhile the Telegraph crowing about it and how Trump contrasts with the imaginary "liberal elite":

Access Restricted

The Telegraph is nothing more than gutter journalism by reactionary right-wingers masquerading as something serious.
Despite its brazen self-importance, the Telegraph is really no better than the Mail or the Express.

The whole tone of this article perfectly explains how, as I get older, I dislike the contemporary flavour of right-wing politics more and more with each passing year. "Smug global elites" and "self-regarding, virtue-signalling elites" indeed. Such phrases do nothing other than to make many of us despise the contemporary Right.

The whole article has doubtless been concocted to deflect people's anger away from right-wing politicians and tax-shy fatcats. The only smug global elites right now are the likes of Trump and Musk and their supporters, together with the rich multinational CEOs who will doubtless get tax breaks under Trump. But the Right are worryingly good at convincing people that the real source of their problems are the imaginary "global elites" of Madonna, Bruce Springsteen and Michael Stipe, none of whom were politicians or heads of multinational companies last time I looked. Or, in the UK, Gary Lineker and Carol Vorderman.

And it's probably not "cataclysmic" for Labour. After four years of Trump chaos and right-wing authoritarianism, I suspect the UK will be keen not to inflict the same fate on itself in 2029 (post-Trump) by electing in Badenoch or worse, Farage. That's the one silver lining of the Trump win - it means that other countries might be less inclined to vote in reactionary governments in the period 2-5 years from now having seen what a toxic mix of right-wing populism and faux-Christian fundamentalism will doubtless do to the USA. My hope is that Trump II is the final act in the 2010s and 2020s fad for populist-right politics.

 

[dangie]

Foreign Secretary David Lammy is being questioned on his previous remarks back in 2018/19 stating Donald Trump as:

From the BBC:
’a tyrant, a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath, deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic and no friend of Britain’.

Rather than the media challenging Lammy on those remarks, shouldn’t they just be saying ‘yes, that just about sums him up’

David Lammy dismisses past criticism of Donald Trump as 'old news'

The foreign secretary previously called Trump a "tyrant" and "xenophobic" when he was a backbench MP.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

Foreign Secretary David Lammy is being questioned on his previous remarks back in 2018/19 stating Donald Trump as:

From the BBC:
’a tyrant, a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath, deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic and no friend of Britain’.

Rather than the media challenging Lammy on those remarks, shouldn’t they just be saying ‘yes, that just about sums him up’

David Lammy dismisses past criticism of Donald Trump as 'old news'

The foreign secretary previously called Trump a "tyrant" and "xenophobic" when he was a backbench MP.

www.bbc.co.uk

Well it's the news, they report the news.

I think it's quite appropriate for journalists to challenge the Foreign Secretary about his previous remarks given he will now be responsible for dealing with a potentially volatile new administration. I think it's in our interest to hear what he has to say about that.

 

[nw1]

Well it's the news, they report the news.

I think it's quite appropriate for journalists to challenge the Foreign Secretary about his previous remarks given he will now be responsible for dealing with a potentially volatile new administration. I think it's in our interest to hear what he has to say about that.

Is it though? He was not Foreign Secretary then, but an opposition MP saying what he thought. He had no responsibility to be diplomatic then. Not exactly a cardinal sin; I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think at any time in their lives lest they obtain a position of responsibility later.

It's obvious that probably no-one in Labour, and indeed in the sane half of the Tories, likes Trump. It's obvious that they just have to put on a diplomatic show, just like they do with authoritarian pseudo-democrats from any other country in the world.

I would agree that Lammy's assessment in 2018/19 was pretty spot on, and probably matches the views of well over half of non-American Westerners. He is a nativist isolationist and no friend of any country which is not the USA. He doesn't give two hoots about the UK other than as a country to be manipulated and extorted. He does, IMO, have far-right views, he has authoritarian, xenophobic and misogynist tendencies.

UK politicians of all colours must have said some pretty strong things about Russian and Iranian leaders in the past yet it presumably does not bar them from becoming foreign secretary and dealing with politicians from said countries. And more recently, half the Tory party have ranted on about the EU (an infinitely more benign entity than Trump's USA), yet it didn't stop them being in Government.

 

[Peterthegreat]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is covid. Or rather the perceived effects of covid.
Although there are obviously many reasons for voters choosing candidates one of the main reasons is usually the economy. I think at the moment most of the western world feels financially worse off than they did five years ago.
In virtually every election that has taken place since 2021 the party which was incumbent during the pandemic has either been booted out or had it's majority severely reduced.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the party was to the left or right or what their response was to covid they were punished by voters. This has happened in Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands and the UK (amongst others).
The US is an interesting one because Trump was in power during the first phase (lost in 2020) and Biden during the second (and subsequent) phases.
Obviously there are other factors in play but covid seems to have had a negative effect on parties governing at the time.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it though? He was not Foreign Secretary then, but an opposition MP saying what he thought. He had no responsibility to be diplomatic then

So? It's what he thinks, and he is now the Foreign Secretary. I think it's in the public interest to see if the Foreign Secretary thinks the President-elect of the United States - the world's most powerful man - is:

a tyrant, a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath, deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic and no friend of Britain

I would like to know the answer to that. It's going to be his job to deal with the guy and his administration. The USA is our largest strategic ally! It is in our interests to have good relations with them.

Aren't you interested in what, say, Trump has to say about Britain? Whether or not they were made under the auspices of diplomacy when he was in office or not?

I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think at any time in their lives lest they obtain a position of responsibility later.

Oh really? I can guarantee you would have taken issue with Boris Johnson's comments about Muslim women which were made before his time in office, when he was writing as a journalist.

UK politicians of all colours must have said some pretty strong things about Russian and Iranian leaders in the past yet it presumably does not bar them from becoming foreign secretary and dealing with politicians from said countries.

Are either of those our allies, yes or no?

 

[RT4038]

Is it though? He was not Foreign Secretary then, but an opposition MP saying what he thought. He had no responsibility to be diplomatic then. Not exactly a cardinal sin; I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think at any time in their lives lest they obtain a position of responsibility later.

Got to laugh. ' I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think' Might I bring your attention to your post #1243

That just seems to be capitulating to questionable ideas, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry, but we should not try and "understand" these kinds of attitudes. We need to condemn them and make them socially unacceptable, and maybe people will then think differently.

I think Brexit, Boris and "him" all came about because in the 2010s and 2020s, it's become more socially acceptable to voice hard-right opinions. People like Farage and the orange thing have encouraged them and made them acceptable.

To take a trivial example, smoking on trains is now seen as thoroughly socially unacceptable. It was not always thus. Or a less trivial example, homophobia was once socially acceptable in the UK, now it isn't. Imagine if we tried to "understand" homophobia rather than roundly condemn it. It would probably still be seen as acceptable if we did that.

If people think these kind of things (voicing hard-right opinions) then we must make it socially unacceptable.........

Free speech as long as I agree with them, eh?

 

[dcbwhaley]

Off topic but I wonder how many folk in the UK have actually travelled to different parts of the UK? In terms of this forum (being transport related) I imagine most of us have travelled to at least one other of the four nations (and those in the industry may do it everyday) but in the wider population I’m not so sure…

I have been to six of the countries in the British Isles, though NI was only a day trip

 

[nw1]

So? It's what he thinks, and he is now the Foreign Secretary. I think it's in the public interest to see if the Foreign Secretary thinks the President-elect of the United States - the world's most powerful man - is:

a tyrant, a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath, deluded, dishonest, xenophobic, narcissistic and no friend of Britain

I would like to know the answer to that. It's going to be his job to deal with the guy and his administration. The USA is our largest strategic ally! It is in our interests to have good relations with them.

As I said, he will be diplomatic and deal with him through gritted teeth. Just like all our politicians of either colour have done with questionable regimes in the past.

Aren't you interested in what, say, Trump has to say about Britain? Whether or not they were made under the auspices of diplomacy when he was in office or not?


Oh really? I can guarantee you would have taken issue with Boris Johnson's comments about Muslim women which were made before his time in office, when he was writing as a journalist.

Big, big, difference. Johnson's comments were bigoted and Islamophobic. Lammy's comments were honest and, to be quite frank, correct.

Are either of those our allies, yes or no?

Are the US really our ally now, at least for the next four years? With his tariffs, for example, he's showing he's quite prepared to screw the rest of the Western world. No friend of Britain, or anywhere else. Lammy was spot on.

If he wants to have good relations with us, he should consider the fact that his tariffs proposal is a distinctly unfriendly move. But as I said, I suspect he sees the UK (as well as other western entities) as places to be exploited, and nothing more.

 

[zero]

I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think at any time in their lives lest they obtain a position of responsibility later.

Donald Trump has always said whatever he thinks and he will soon (re)assume a position of responsibility...

 

[nw1]

Donald Trump has always said whatever he thinks and he will soon (re)assume a position of responsibility...

Indeed, that's the irony. Lammy is castigated for daring to speak the truth when he was merely an opposition MP, but Trump is quite allowed to slander all immigrants as cat-murderers, amongst other things. Again, Lammy is honest. Trump is spreading hate. Big and obvious, obvious difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2024 ==

Got to laugh. ' I hope we are not transitioning to a world in which people cannot say what they think' Might I bring your attention to your post #1243

If people think these kind of things (voicing hard-right opinions) then we must make it socially unacceptable.........

Free speech as long as I agree with them, eh?

No. Not at all. This argument - often made by the right - is completely flawed as far as I am concerned.

Hard-right opinions, whether they be directed at gay or trans people, Muslims, ethnic minorities, unemployed people, or immigrants, amongst others, can spread hate, and, if it becomes endemic, threaten the kind of democracy we have enjoyed for the past 70-odd years.
Honestly criticising a rich and very powerful man for hateful things he has actually said and done is completely different.

Intolerance of hate is quite acceptable. Intolerance of people due to the colour of their skin, their religion, their gender identity, their nationality, or anything else is not.
Big, and to me and others in the political centre or the left, blindingly obvious difference.

I should remind you that hate speech is a crime in this country. Criticising Trump is not. There is a reason for that.

Also, I consider, personally, that hard-right populism - driven, to my mind, by intolerance of the "other" plus naive people swallowing up everything that people like Trump and Farage say - poses a grave danger to Western democracy. Criticising politicians with extreme views does not, but rather helps preserve democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2024 ==

I have been to six of the countries in the British Isles, though NI was only a day trip

If Guernsey is considered a "country" then six also for me (there plus the Republic of Ireland and the four UK nations).

 

[alex397]

I understand we should be diplomatic towards the US, but Lammy’s comments do highlight the hypocrisy of politics (or human nature in general!). Having to act all fake towards another country and appease someone as vile as Trump so we can still have a “special relationship”.

 

[nw1]

I understand we should be diplomatic towards the US, but Lammy’s comments do highlight the hypocrisy of politics (or human nature in general!). Having to act all fake towards another country and appease someone as vile as Trump so we can still have a “special relationship”.

Indeed. We should absolutely not seek to have a closer relationship to the US than, say, the EU or Switzerland does.
Our relationship with the US should be equivalent to that of other Western countries with the US. The "special relationship" is, to my mind, one-way only and has done us no favours besides increasing our risk of terrorism.

 

[brad465]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is covid. Or rather the perceived effects of covid.
Although there are obviously many reasons for voters choosing candidates one of the main reasons is usually the economy. I think at the moment most of the western world feels financially worse off than they did five years ago.
In virtually every election that has taken place since 2021 the party which was incumbent during the pandemic has either been booted out or had it's majority severely reduced.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the party was to the left or right or what their response was to covid they were punished by voters. This has happened in Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands and the UK (amongst others).
The US is an interesting one because Trump was in power during the first phase (lost in 2020) and Biden during the second (and subsequent) phases.
Obviously there are other factors in play but covid seems to have had a negative effect on parties governing at the time.

Very true and while you're not the first I've seen mention this, very few seem to publicly talk about it.

I understand we should be diplomatic towards the US, but Lammy’s comments do highlight the hypocrisy of politics (or human nature in general!). Having to act all fake towards another country and appease someone as vile as Trump so we can still have a “special relationship”.

There are only two countries the US has a "special relationship" with, Ireland and Israel. The sooner the UK as a whole realises this the better.