Putin must go to bed and wonder how on earth he got this lucky
Putin has put in a huge amount of time and money to get this lucky.
I wonder if there's an upside to Trump choosing Vance. Scaramucci has said that Trump bristled at suggestions that he needed a black or Hispanic VP to bring in "minority" votes to get Trump elected, and would be resentful of a suggestion that he didn't win everything himself.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump has chosen Vance, a "hillbilly" White guy from Ohio. Will that mean Trump will connect less effectively with black and Latino voters who have been drifting towards him, particularly in the South, and strengthen Biden's position just enough to win?
It's the only shred of hope from this last uninspiring week.
It’s the only shred of hope from this last uninspiring week
Not improved by the news that Nikki Haley has "released" her delegates and endorsed Trump's campaign. She originally refused to endorse him and said, "It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the vote..."
She will now speak at the Republican Convention, again a short-notice about face, in a display of Republican unity that contrasts favourably with the Democratic Party sniping and in-fighting over Biden for President.
Trump seems to be dialling back on his nonsense as well. Still, November is a way off...
Its bloody scary
It's 4 years of what will be mostly performative politics with not much substance. In reality he only has 2 years to do stuff and he'll have the entire machinery of the state allied against him just like the last time. The major impact will be in foreign affairs. Ukraine will have to make a deal with Putin, Israel will be given carte blanche to wipe out the Palestinians, and Europe will have to spend more on defence. That's not that much different to what most European govts (including our own) want anyway.
And of course climate change action will be put back another 4 years (at least). That's not great but the net zero effort is a multi-decade project so 4 years of inaction shouldn't be too problematic. That's if you're optimistic about it working, if you're pessimistic then it won't make any difference anyway.
Other than pissing everyone off I'm trying hard to think what he did last time and I'm struggling so maybe we don't need to worry too much?
I'm extremely disappointed in Haley - She was one of the few remaining Republicans who seemed to put Country above Party. She's now flipped
It’s 4 years of what will be mostly performative politics with not much substance. In reality he only has 2 years to do stuff and he’ll have the entire machinery of the state allied against him just like the last time.
Probably true, I think the worst thing he did was the Supreme Court appointments, plenty of crazy things coming from them now, Presidential immunity and abortion rulings come to mind.
@dazh I mostly agree. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he'll lob in another insurrection or attempt to subvert the democratic process at the end of his term again. Maybe successfully this time. Making him president for life like his bezzy mucker in the Kremlin. Far fetched? Maybe. Maybe not.
It’s 4 years of what will be mostly performative politics with not much substance.
I think you could make that claim about 2016-2020, but this time around, the Republicans are much more focussed on things like Project 2025. JD Vance has already suggested using 'extra-legal' methods of grabbing money from organisations that he thinks don't think the right way, Harvard was mentioned. Other Republican politicians have said (I can't find the quote, so I'm paraphrasing) "We intend to roll out a set of legislations that's designed to make America into a Christian Nationalist nation, the Democrats can either agree to it, or start a war, it's up to them to decide which"
I think last time, there was a group of Republicans in the White House who were active in taking the edge of most of what Trump wanted, those folks have been removed, and Vance has suggested that the very first action on entering the White House in 2025 will be to sack Federal employees and replace them with Trump supporters.
I think that this group of Republicans think that either 1. this is probs the last chance they'll get to cling on to power, so they better do a decent job of it, or 2. Actually plan on keeping power and it'll be like Sulla in Ancient Rome
So... he's accusing Democrats of instigating the assassination attempt by likening him to past right wing autocrats... and then appoints a running mate that said that he was "the new Hitler".
I doubt he'd want to stay on, he might want to fix it so he effectively names his successor, perhaps even a family member, even though the gene pool is pretty shallow there.
He really doesn't want the job except as an exercise in spite and self-validation following his election loss in 2020. Revenge as a solution to the narcissistic injury from being beaten by Biden is what motivates him. He doesn't give a shit about Ukraine, NATO, or any of the issues that trouble the US domestically.
Some people have suggested that his candidacy in 2016 was partly driven by narcissistic injury from Obama mocking him to his face at the WH Correspondents' Dinner...
His backers and courtiers, on the other hand, have more far-reaching aims.
he’ll have the entire machinery of the state allied against him just like the last time.
All those "professionals" in government service have quit or been driven out. I don't place much faith in the machinery of the state to moderate Presidents considering various other disasters they've been happy to deliver in the past.
Trump was a shambles last time, half of the Party rebelled against him, and COVID obstructed him greatly. This time around there is an aggressive, shadow government that knows how to get what it (well, the Kochs and others) want, opposition within the party has been crushed, the Supreme Court has been "aligned", and Trump is out for revenge at all costs.
@kelvin Surely that’s the stuff that fires up his base but does absolutely nothing for floating voters?
In addition to what others have written about project 25, the replacement of large swathes of civil servants with those loyal to the cause, and the retaliation set out to fall on those who are deemed to have inflicted some slight to the maga movement, the republican's manifesto sets out new trade tariffs. 60% on all goods from China, (EVs already rated at 100%), 10% on anything from anywhere else. That's going to have a massive impact on the cost of living for US citizens and their economy as a whole. When the US sneezes ...
However, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that he’ll lob in another insurrection or attempt to subvert the democratic process at the end of his term again. Maybe successfully this time.
I think there is zero chance of it being successful, it wasn't even vaguely close last time. There is nothing in the Trump camp that could take on the might of the US army, even if some delusionary far-right militias think that they could.
The overthrow of the existing democratic structures would require nothing less than a military coup, I can't see any plausible scenario under a Trump presidency for that to happen.
And I tend to agree with Daz. A second Trump presidency might well be very bad news for Americans as he sows so much division in an already deeply divided and polarised society, but with possibly the obvious exception of Ukraine it isn't necessary very bad news for the rest of the world.
Anything that diminishes the overbearing global dominance and influence of the United States is a good thing imo. The last Trump presidency was a wake-up call for European governments as they realised that the US couldn't be always trusted to take a leading international role and they reduced their reliance on a country over which they had very little control.
And as someone who has strong backing from the isolationist wing of the Republican party Trump is less likely imo to start wars compared to a strongly interventionist Democratic president. Afghanistan and Iraq has completely discredited the former neo-cons.
The overthrow of the existing democratic structures would require nothing less than a military coup, I can’t see any plausible scenario under a Trump presidency for that to happen.
The billionaire oligarchs who back Trump already have all the power and influence they need so there's no reason to try to overthrow the constitution. All that would do is unite the Democrats and others against them so there's really no point. I think some people on this forum have been watching The Handmaid's Tale a bit too much. My bet is that you could stop watching or reading the news in November and come back 4 years later and not see much difference. That might not be a bad idea for many who are catastrophising the outcome of the election.
Anything that diminishes the overbearing global dominance and influence of the United States is a good thing imo.
This is really interesting, I see where you are coming from but commentators like Peter Zeihan make a strong case for the opposite, the USA currently does an enormous amount to facilitate free trade around the world, and if it becomes more isolationist then it would hurt every else (very dependent) a lot more than it would hurt the USA (who are self-sufficient in food, energy, and basically most things).
You wouldn’t want to be outside the major trading blocks if it comes to… oh, shit.
That might not be a bad idea for many who are catastrophising the outcome of the election.
The no dount increased number of dead and raped Ukrainians might not agree.
I think the risk of a civil war (depending on your definition) is extremely unlikely. It almost never happens in well developed rich Western countries, I don't think it's going to happen to the US. Having said that, there's no doubt that the Republican party has been radicalised, both in terms of the political ideas it’s putting forward, but also, its embrace of violence as a legitimate means to achieve those ends. The rhetoric coming from them — “Watering the tree of liberty with blood,” “It’s back to 1776” and so on is a reflection of that. I think there's more than minority of people who're willing to (like Timothy McVey) commit acts of terrorism that cause many hundreds of deaths, and there will be an equally violent backlash to that. But still, I think that will be below a threshold of Civil War.
This isn't in the gift of the Democrats to resolve. There's a lot of “If the Democrats could just push forward on certain kinds of social welfare policies that would help the vulnerable people who are susceptible to radicalization on the right, that would solve the problem.” IMO the causal arrow's going the wrong way. The radicalisation is driving people’s response to these things. Even if you could get those policies passed, I’m very sceptical that people would suddenly start thinking differently about those things. They would just move on to the next issue in that “us versus them” narrative that they’re already stuck in.
America's Power is concentrated in parts of the country that are most keen to preserve a white, Christian, patriarchal order that they think of as the “real America.” Until a conversation happens to shift that, while I don't see all out war or political violence, I do see a weird widening gap between how democratic things are, but at the same time, increasingly bloody.
Whether Trump or the Republican party try to hold on beyond the end of the second term? I think their supporters would be more than content to live under the right sort of autocracy and I don't think the US Army would be in much of rush get involved to stop it.
The no dount increased number of dead and raped Ukrainians might not agree.
Interesting question. Will the end of the war in Ukraine result in fewer dead Ukranians or more?
Definitely you can trust Putin not to invade anywhere else if Ukraine capitulates. Absolutely, definitely Russia won't repeat what he did in Ukraine. And Georgia. And Moldova. And he certainly won't interfere in Ukraine again.
I think some people on this forum have been watching The Handmaid’s Tale a bit too much
You mean that story about a reactionary government that doesn't allow women to control their own reproductive functions?
The U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists...The decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn
lol horseshoe
Interesting question. Will the end of the war in Ukraine result in fewer dead Ukranians or more?
Oh so as long as they do what Vlad says things will be better? Why didn't anyone tell them that 10 years ago, we could have saved a lot more lives.
Maybe the Jews should have marched east back in 1936, a lot of lives would have been saved there too.
Interesting question. Will the end of the war in Ukraine result in fewer dead Ukranians or more?
I think that if that was the question then Ukraine wouldn't be fighting now. There will be Ukrainians alive today who remember the Holodomor, a famine that killed millions under Stalin in the early 1930s.
More than 30 countries now recognise the Holodomor as Soviet genocide against Ukrainians
declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists
Can you point to that bit of the constitution? Nope, thought not.
Abortion has always been an issue for either state legislatures or Congress to write the law, not for the Supreme Court to make up its own rules. That’s how laws are made in a democracy, and thats why Roe vs Wade was overturned.
If the democrats really cared about this they should have changed the law
I think we could see the US becoming a far more powerful analogue of Hungary if Trump wins. Hell, you could almost say Hungary is the inspiration given Project 2025 etc. Not full on dictatorship but nudging the whole country in that general direction.
Can you point to that bit of the constitution? Nope, thought not.
Im going to go with
“In its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to abortion is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Over the decades since the Court first held that the Constitution encompasses protection for the right to abortion, including its most recent decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136S. Ct. 2292 (2016), as revised (June 27, 2016), it has also recognized that without access to abortion, the right is meaningless.”
So, it’s not in the constitution - there you go.
(suggest you go and read the judgments rather than relying on Wikipedia)
Can you point to that bit of the constitution? Nope, thought not.
This is such a specious, stupid-trying-to-sound-smart comment. Of course abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Neither are Twitter, bump stocks or warnings on the right to silence. That doesn't mean that none of those things are constitutionally protected.
The US Constitution and its amendments is not an exhaustive shopping list of particularised rights. (I can't think of any that are). It is (relevantly) a series of restraints on the government. Of course it's up to the courts to determine whether and how those restraints operate in particular circumstances and say whether things are or are not constitutionally guaranteed. That's the whole point of Art III of the Constitution giving jurisdiction to the federal judiciary to hear constitutional cases!
If you want to understand the constitutional origin of a right to abortion in federal law, then all you need to do is read the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade - or even the dissent in Dobbs. I'm sure you'll find it very insightful!
This bit of Dobbs, you mean?
the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages.
This bit of Dobbs, you mean?
the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages.
Somebody stated that a constitutional right was overturned.
You argued that it was not a constitutional right and to do so have quoted the SC ruling which shows that up until Dobbs it was taken as a constitutional right, hence them overturning it“ Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. ”
They re literally saying they don’t believe the previous protection under the 14th amendment (ie making it a constitutional right)was correct , so up, until Dobbs it was a constitutional right. Well done on refuting your own trolling.
This bit of Dobbs, you mean?
At the risk of returning you to your own confusion: your suggestion was that "if you can't point to the bit in the Constitution that protects abortion, it isn't protected". That's self-evidently a load of toss, as constitutional scholars call it. Roe v Wade and the dissent in Dobbs cogently explain why that's a load of toss, and where such a protection can be found in the Constitution - in much the same way that bump stocks have constitutional protection even though you can't point to the bit in the Constitution that mentions bump stocks.
Obviously the majority in Dobbs disagreed with the proposition that abortion was worthy of protection under the (federal) constitution. That much is obvious - it's why the case is of any interest and why the law has changed. But even Alito and Thomas, who would love to agree with your proposition (if it weren't, as previously mentioned, a load of toss), take a more nuanced approach than "can you point to that bit of the constitution? Nope, thought not".
I'd like to apologise to @kevog for being rude to them personally. It should be possible to talk about ideas without being insulting or snotty. Sorry.
Dear lord, this Republican Convention really is like a magnet to the UK’s grifting detritus.
I wonder what it was that drew a conspiracy-theory-peddling rapist with a messiah complex, who claims to have been ‘saved’ by discovering god, to fly to to Milwaukee to support Trump?
https://Twitter.com/rustyrockets/status/1813272453323628561?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
I’m going with god stopped the bullet from hitting Trump and then spoke to Brand in a dream telling him to go, be with the orange messiah.
Talking of messiahs (and I’ve followed a few, etc, etc…) It’s now gone full ‘Life of Brian’ in Milwaukee.
I think we may have hit peak stupid.
https://Twitter.com/guardian/status/1813784384794660874?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
That’s nothing, Trump supporters have been wearing massive diapers on the outside of their trousers ?♂️??♂️
Emoji’s no longer working ?
Wearing bandages on their ears isn't as stupid as thinking Trump has their best interests at heart.
I think we may have hit peak stupid.
not a ****ing chance.
Surely wearing a ginger syrup would be more appropriate
WTF ? bandaged ears! What a bunch of idiots. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the movie Idiocracy is becoming more and more of a reality with each passing day. It wouldn’t be as bad if Terry Crews actually became President.
Who knew MTG and Russell Brand shared the same hairdresser?
As an act of Trumpian solidarity I’m off to shag a porn star, seems more fun than elastoplasting my ear.
It’s ok the bandages will magically disappear when they play golf.
