The 2024 US presidential election.

[brad465]

Wonder if there is any truth to the theory just floated on Newsnight that these 2 nominations aren't actually who he wants in those posts, and is a loyalty test to see who [out of Republicans] will and won't vote for them in congress.

Possible, the most logical theory I've seen regarding Gaetz's nomination is to try and prevent the Ethic's investigation reporting: he's resigned from Congress to supposedly take this role up, and Committee's in Congress apparently can't publish reports concerning individuals no longer sat in it.

 

[Cowley]

Almost a dark comedy where the person in charge looks for the most inappropriate person for each position.

I think Trumps Republicans should be renamed the “How Hard Can it Be!” Party.

 

[DarloRich]

I think Trumps Republicans should be renamed the “How Hard Can it Be!” Party.

or: one flew over the cuckoos nest!

 

[nw1]

Anyone who has been following Trump picking his top team will see what an absolute popcorn-fest it's been so far. It's included Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, who's been under an Ethics' investigation, and Robert Kennedy Jnr as Health Secretary, who has had a fair few controversial views on health matters, particularly vaccines:

House speaker 'strongly' advises against releasing ethics report on Gaetz

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says releasing the ethics committee report on the Florida lawmaker would set "a terrible precedent".

www.bbc.co.uk

And Kennedy Jr had a go at Trump in 2020 for being anti-environmentalist !

But I guess that's populism for you. I tend to find that the trait of populism overrides whether you are left-wing or right-wing, and populists stick together whatever their views on economic issues. So Kennedy and Trump are a perfect fit for each other. See also: Galloway and Farage; Fico and Orban.

 

[nlogax]

While you have to take the positives where you can from this situation (popcorn moments forever, leopards eating faces across the country) there's going to come a point where this all gets too exhausting for words. The US is in a bad enough state now and I dread to think where it'll end up in four years time.

 

[DarloRich]

The US is in a bad enough state now and I dread to think where it'll end up in four years time.

These decisions are about three things:

• Revenge
• Wiping the criminal slate clean
• owning the libs/anti woke agenda

 

[nw1]

While you have to take the positives where you can from this situation (popcorn moments forever, leopards eating faces across the country) there's going to come a point where this all gets too exhausting for words. The US is in a bad enough state now and I dread to think where it'll end up in four years time.

An authoritarian country with severe financial problems, I suspect.

Still trying to push the positive - that Trump II might be a "lesson" for the rest of the world and shock people out of voting for populists - though.

I'm not a believer in God but if I was, I'd like to think that the "God moves in mysterious ways" theory applies here, using the logic that four years of Trump might be less bad for the world as a whole than forty years of pan-Western populism and perhaps the end of the post-WWII democracy that we've been used to.

I suspect on November 8th, 2028, we'll be waking up to a Dem landslide. Also I suspect the Dems will win back the House and Senate in 2026, making the second half of the Trump presidency less dangerous than the first.

 

[nlogax]

These decisions are about three things:

• Revenge
• Wiping the criminal slate clean
• owning the libs/anti woke agenda

I still find 'owning the libs' to be the weirdest, most self-defeating driver of any democratic action.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Wonder if there is any truth to the theory just floated on Newsnight that these 2 nominations aren't actually who he wants in those posts, and is a loyalty test to see who [out of Republicans] will and won't vote for them in congress.

It's quite possible, as it's pretty clear that neither of them will get through the Senate. While I don't go for the "big pharma" conspiracies, it's pretty clear that the pharmaceutical companies who spend big on lobbying in the US are going to make it very clear to members of Congress that RFK Jr is not acceptable. It's the same with Gabbard too.

 

[nw1]

I still find 'owning the libs' to be the weirdest, most self-defeating driver of any democratic action.

It does seem to be some kind of cult. The followers of Trump and other populist leaders seem to want to wage war on "libs", not for any rational reason, but just because it's been ingrained into them - initially via their leaders and now via groupthink.

 

[Acfb]

It does seem to be some kind of cult. The followers of Trump and other populist leaders seem to want to wage war on "libs", not for any rational reason, but just because it's been ingrained into them - initially via their leaders and now via groupthink.

Seems bizarrely unique to Trump. A lot of people who voted for Trump also voted for Democrats in the congressional races, while some people who tried to emulate Trump such as Kari Lake did not win.

 

[Welly]

I suspect on November 8th, 2028, we'll be waking up to a Dem landslide. Also I suspect the Dems will win back the House and Senate in 2026, making the second half of the Trump presidency less dangerous than the first.

Assuming that these future elections actually go ahead.

 

[Strathclyder]

I still find 'owning the libs' to be the weirdest, most self-defeating driver of any democratic action.

It gives me cluster migraines if I think about it for too long. Sheer, self-defeating stupidity.

Seems bizarrely unique to Trump. A lot of people who voted for Trump also voted for Democrats in the congressional races, while some people who tried to emulate Trump such as Kari Lake did not win.

Every cult needs a charasmatic leader. As much as uttering any praise or anything even remotely positive in the context of Trump makes me feel unclean, he at the very least has that going for him.

 

[nw1]

Seems bizarrely unique to Trump. A lot of people who voted for Trump also voted for Democrats in the congressional races, while some people who tried to emulate Trump such as Kari Lake did not win.

Mind you that's probably only partly true, otherwise the Dems would have presumably won the Senate and House.

 

[Acfb]

Mind you that's probably only partly true, otherwise the Dems would have presumably won the Senate and House.

Yes, the Dems definitely underperformed. I was surprised they didn't get Colorado's 3rd this time for example.

 

[Strathclyder]

Assuming that these future elections actually go ahead.

Yes. Assuming he hasn't gone full Hitler or just popped his clogs by then.

On that note, I'd be very surprised if they don't try to find and enact a way to get around the 22nd Amendment, either by way of this 'non-applicable to non-consecutive term presidents' BS (aka the Grover Cleveland arguement) I've seen them float or any other illicit means they cook up.

These decisions are about three things:

• Revenge
• Wiping the criminal slate clean
• owning the libs/anti woke agenda

All very true (as utterly moronic as I think 'owning the libs' is generally), though AG Merrick Garland's dithering and not immediately going after Trump and his henchmen for January 6th as soon as he got into office definitely helped as much as the stacked Supreme Court and Judge Cannon (the one overseeing and the one who initially threw out the secret docs case on the most dubious of grounds) did.

 

[ainsworth74]

Assuming that these future elections actually go ahead.

I'm fairly confident that the elections of 2026 and 2028 will happen. They don't have sufficient votes to amend the Constitution as that requires 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate, or a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rds of the States. Any amendment then has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. The Republicans only have slim majorities in the House and Senate and whilst they have 28 State Legislatures at the moment this falls short of being able to call for a Constitutional Convention and even further away from ratifying any amendment passed.

The only way they don't is if they go full on fascist coup against the State which, to be fair, I'm not ruling out but I don't rate as being particularly likely and even if they tried I reckon a Second Civil War is more likely than successfully assuming total control of the United States. Who doesn't love the idea of a civil war in a nuclear armed state...

Personally I think the bigger worry is whether future elections will be free and, in particular, fair. Now that the Republican's have control of the entire Federal Government and a supine Federal judiciary in many places (particularly the Supreme Court) I worry more about how they might try to use that power to put their finger on the scales in their favour. Now, for now at least, elections are primarily run by the States so Democrats held states are likely to continue running fair elections but in Republican States with the backing of the Federal Government? With Twitter and the right wing media space in general all having direct links to the Republicans? With a Federal Communications Commission which deals with public airwaves licencing held by the Republicans? There's a lot they can do to make elections unfair even if the votes are counted and declared properly.

Plus they could also just do their usual trick of deciding that States Rights are only important when it's the evil Democrats in control of the Federal Government and when they're in control suddenly States Rights just aren't a relevant principle anymore and pass a Voting Rights Act (or similar) to infringe on the States ability to run their own elections.

Again, the elections may well still be free (in that the candidate with the most votes will win, and there will be no ballot stuffing or similar) but if the Federal Government bans the states from being able to do say early voting, toughen voter ID rules, make mail-in voting highly restricted, etc etc they might not be fair anymore.

To me that's the big worry. That the United States on that path where it still holds elections but they are no longer fair elections. See Hungary and Türkiye who are both on that path whilst Russia has reached the terminal phase of that journey.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Assuming that these future elections actually go ahead.

Oh come off it. We're not talking about thirties Germany.

 

[nw1]

Moving on to trivialities - I've just noticed that there is a Trump Street in London which halfway along its length becomes Russia Row (yes, really)

Is there something we need to be told?

 

[trainswitheddy]

The thing that boggles my mind is how even the most ardent supporters of Trump can't at least see the blatant corruption in putting someone with investments in oil (or head of an oil company?) in charge of energy strategy - to those on here who have said previously that a Trump win is something they feel positive about, please explain/justify this to me as I'm struggling to see the logic other than the oil execs enriching themself further.

 

[AM9]

The thing that boggles my mind is how even the most ardent supporters of Trump can't at least see the blatant corruption in putting someone with investments in oil (or head of an oil company?) in charge of energy strategy - to those on here who have said previously that a Trump win is something they feel positive about, please explain/justify this to me as I'm struggling to see the logic other than the oil execs enriching themself further.

Maybe because they are climate-denying IC vehicle fossil fuel burners and the conspiracy theory lies say it won't affect them. Their 'American dream' tells them that the recent extreme weather can be fixed by being wealthier.

 

[Harpo]

Their 'American dream' tells them that the recent extreme weather can be fixed by being wealthier.

….or that nothing needs fixing.
Except ‘fake’ news.

 

[trainswitheddy]

Maybe because they are climate-denying IC vehicle fossil fuel burners and the conspiracy theory lies say it won't affect them. Their 'American dream' tells them that the recent extreme weather can be fixed by being wealthier.

Sadly you are right. People calling climate change a hoax seems to be on the up and with a denier back in the white house I doubt things will get any better.

 

[DerekC]

Sadly you are right. People calling climate change a hoax seems to be on the up and with a denier back in the white house I doubt things will get any better.

Yes, and unfortunately Kemi Badenough and Nigel Fartoomuch are getting in on the act. The climate crisis can look after itself if you might get votes by saying there isn't one.

 

[Krokodil]

Sadly you are right. People calling climate change a hoax seems to be on the up and with a denier back in the white house I doubt things will get any better.

The states that voted them in will suffer the most. They'll get hit by the hurricanes and see extreme heat. Though so too will blue-voting states like California.

 

[Shrop]

The states that voted them in will suffer the most. They'll get hit by the hurricanes and see extreme heat. Though so too will blue-voting states like California.

You think the vast red-voting swathes of central USA will suffer much climate change? Surely they'll just keep burning more and more fuel to keep themselves protected from whatever the climate throws at them, and wave two fingers at everyone else who is really suffering, all whilst adding more damage to the environment.

 

[Krokodil]

You think the vast red-voting swathes of central USA will suffer much climate change? Surely they'll just keep burning more and more fuel to keep themselves protected from whatever the climate throws at them, and wave two fingers at everyone else who is really suffering, all whilst adding more damage to the environment.

They'll crank up the aircon of course and drain the aquifers, but that won't save them from hurricanes or wildfires. They're going to get hit far harder than voters in Massachusetts.

I'm just watching an ABC News broadcast where a Trump voter (who arrived in the US from Canada at the age of two many decades ago) has discovered that he's technically an "illegal alien" as his birth to an American father wasn't registered in the US. So leaving aside the fact that he has been refused a state pension and has inadvertently been voting illegally for 50 years, he's at risk of deportation because of policies he voted for.

Then there were the workers in Pennsylvanian factories who voted for protectionist tariffs and got called into a meeting where they were told that Christmas bonuses would be cancelled this year so that their employers could prepare for the increased cost of raw materials.

 

[zero]

I'm just watching an ABC News broadcast where a Trump voter (who arrived in the US from Canada at the age of two many decades ago) has discovered that he's technically an "illegal alien" as his birth to an American father wasn't registered in the US. So leaving aside the fact that he has been refused a state pension and has inadvertently been voting illegally for 50 years, he's at risk of deportation because of policies he voted for.

This man's name is James R. Klass. The story is a bit confusing, but American journalists rarely understand US immigration rules, and for that matter British journalists don't understand UK immigration either.

Under the law at the time of his birth (https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=66&page=236), children born outside the US to one parent who is a US citizen, are automatically US citizens provided that the parent has been present in American territory for not less than ten years, at least five of which were after [the parent] attained the age of 14.

So as long as his dad grew up in the US, he would have been a US citizen from birth. He was just unable to prove it, because the first time he was asked to prove it was when he was in his 60s. This is similar to the Windrush people in the UK.

(If his dad did not grow up in the US, there is no way for him to get US citizenship except under the provisions that would apply to any foreigner. In that case, his parents should have obtained a US visa for him when they came from Canada, but they were probably not asked for anything to cross the border. Children born after 2001 to US parent(s) who haven't grown up in the US, can now get citizenship after moving to the US legally.)

According to one news article, he hired a genealogist with the help of Senator Marco Rubio, and documents showing his dad's presence in the US were found. This would mean that he is now able to prove his US citizenship. However he apparently had to go back to work to pay the genealogist, which would have been illegal if he turned out to not be a citizen.

Registering the birth is only something you need to do now, in order to get a US passport for your child so they can travel to the US. It doesn't affect whether your child is automatically a US citizen at birth or not.

 

[brad465]

Trump now says he will immediately implement 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada, plus an extra 10% from China, in retaliation for failure to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling. If it were anyone else you'd wonder if he was on the drugs being smuggled while thinking that, as this is more likely to increase smuggling:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Donald Trump has said he will impose tariffs of 25 per cent on all imports from Canada and Mexico, and an extra 10 per cent on Chinese goods, accusing the countries of permitting illegal migration and drug trafficking.

 

[gg1]

Trump now says he will immediately implement 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada, plus an extra 10% from China, in retaliation for failure to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Illegal immigration and drug smuggling from Canada???