Trump is speaking via screen to Davos today. This should give us a look at what he intends to do about business with other countries. I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community. Let’s see what he says
Trump is speaking via screen to Davos today. This should give us a look at what he intends to do about business with other countries. I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community. Let’s see what he says
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
But governments that are following similar strategies to Trump are going to - ironically - find China a better deal than Trump's America, purely because it is more predictable.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
But governments that are following similar strategies to Trump are going to - ironically - find China a better deal than Trump's America, purely because it is more predictable.
That may well be one reason why the UK government (which, despite criticisms, doesn't really follow Trump's strategies) is cosying up to China.
Predictability may well be a slightly better option than the volatility of the new US regime - Starmer and Reeves may not exactly relish this, but it may well be a case of pragmatically choosing the lesser of two evils.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
But governments that are following similar strategies to Trump are going to - ironically - find China a better deal than Trump's America, purely because it is more predictable.
That may well be one reason why the UK government (which, despite criticisms, doesn't really follow Trump's strategies) is cosying up to China.
I don't think the UK government is particularly cosying up to China.
I thought I'd read fairly recently that it was thought they were cosying up to China...
My recollection might well be (and probably is) wrong. I've deleted my link to the Guardian news website (because Trump and Musk), but that's probably where I saw something.
I thought I'd read fairly recently that it was thought they were cosying up to China...
My recollection might well be (and probably is) wrong. I've deleted my link to the Guardian news website (because Trump and Musk), but that's probably where I saw something.
The tories (and the Trumpists) are accusing them of cosying up to China. If it's true it's coincidentally so.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
Trump is speaking via screen to Davos today. This should give us a look at what he intends to do about business with other countries. I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community. Let’s see what he says
Do Trump told Davos that any business that doesn’t manufacture in the US will pay high tariffs. There was apparently a gasp in the hall when he said Canada could become the 51 state to get rid of the deficit with Canada. He said Putin is happy to talk re the war as Trump promised to make things worse financially for Russia. He want the EU to cut tariffs for the US.
We wait for reactions from other countries
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
OK. So let's look at the most prominent example: India. Over 80% of Indian respondents said they thought a Trump presidency would be good for their country. Is this level of support explained by Marvin's list? Maybe... but I'm not quite seeing it. How exactly is Trump going to benefit India?
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
OK. So let's look at the most prominent example: India. Over 80% of Indian respondents said they thought a Trump presidency would be good for their country. Is this level of support explained by Marvin's list? Maybe... but I'm not quite seeing it. How exactly is Trump going to benefit India?
Well, India has a geopolitical rivalry with China, I believe, and Trump is known to be more anti-China than average. Just one possibility.
But on the other hand Chinese respondents were also pro-Trump with 46% seeing him as "good for China" and only 14% as "bad for China".
BTW I was also surprised by the strong Indian support for Russia with 61% seeing it as "an ally sharing our interests and values" and a further 18% seeing it as "a necessary partner" as against only 13% seeing it as a rival or adversary.
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
OK. So let's look at the most prominent example: India. Over 80% of Indian respondents said they thought a Trump presidency would be good for their country. Is this level of support explained by Marvin's list? Maybe... but I'm not quite seeing it. How exactly is Trump going to benefit India?
That last one, significantly, points out that India did well during the last Trump administration, but was less happy with Biden:
While [trade and migration issues] were irritants, none of the Trump administration’s policies were perceived as challenging India’s sovereignty or overtly working against its strategic interests in the Indian Ocean region as the Biden administration’s policies have on more than one occasion.
From the Biden administration’s recognition of the government formed in Bangladesh after the ouster of their prime minister Sheikh Hasina, to its diplomats engaging in virtue signaling on India’s domestic politics, the administration has practiced, in the words of Prof. John Mearsheimer, “liberal hegemony.” On the other hand, President-elect Trump expressed concerns and solidarity with religious minorities, including Hindus in Bangladesh.
From Vietnam to India to Mexico, Global South nations will have issues with Trump over trade and immigration. However, interestingly, they have been more perturbed by the Biden administration’s involvement in their domestic affairs. India is just one among many nations in the Global South constantly challenged on their democratic credentials by Westerners. Paradoxically, Westerners championing liberalism and democracy tend to evoke greater anti-imperialist sentiments in former colonies than the Westerners that advocate restraint and realism in foreign policy.
OK interesting. As far as I can see it boils down to:
They think Trump is a strong man who can bring peace.
They see him as a friend, ally and emulator of Modi, who remains popular.
They think he will stay out of Indian domestic and regional politics, whereas they felt Biden tried to promote liberal values in India and its neighbours like Bangladesh.
They think Trump's US will work with them to limit China's influence
They are a bit worried about his stance on immigration to the US, but they are hoping he will ultimately take the Musk line that high-skilled immigration is good.
I wonder do similar things apply to other countries on the list? You'd think, for example, that South Africa would have rather different priorities, but they seem pretty keen on Trump too (36% favourable versus 24% against).
Maybe the conclusion is that "Great Power" politics is back, and that's what many countries in the world think they prefer?
But what I am interested in is that fact that people in a lot of countries around the world are not at all apprehensive about Trump, in fact they are looking forward to his second presidency...
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
Right, and to a degree I'm alive to all of these things as per my previous post on the subject. I just think they'll actually be hard to realise in practice. Tariffs hit consumers in the importing country and only indirectly on the exporter, but the kinds of things the US imports are generally fairly fungible. The flip side of US Carriers not turning up is that they also play a role in keeping the sea lanes safe in places like the Malacca Straits and East Africa. Even in the example you quote, while there's a geopolitical reason the Indian Armed Forces might be pleased, the population are going to kvetch if access to things like jobs and remittances are restricted.
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
Oh, I can think of some other words.
Despicable? Craven? Groucho Marxist? Seriously, does the Labour right have any principles at all, any value they won't slaughter on the altar of short term expediency?
Trump is speaking via screen to Davos today. This should give us a look at what he intends to do about business with other countries. I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community. Let’s see what he says
Why does he need to do that?
Not clear what you mean
'I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community.' why would he have needed to do that?
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
Oh, I can think of some other words.
What else is a government minister supposed to say?
Trump is speaking via screen to Davos today. This should give us a look at what he intends to do about business with other countries. I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community. Let’s see what he says
Why does he need to do that?
Not clear what you mean
'I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community.' why would he have needed to do that?
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
Oh, I can think of some other words.
What else is a government minister supposed to say?
If he wants them to reduce tariffs on US goods he needs to have them on side. If he wants business to manufacture in the US then he needs to have a good relationship with them. Threatening them with high tariffs and insisting Canada can become the 51st state is not going to make things better
I have just watched Lucy Powell (UK government minister) on the panel of the BBC Question Time. She repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?) - she even implied it was OK for him to cut the DEI stuff whereas here in the UK we need it because we have lots of inequalities. I think the word for this spinelessness is appeasement.
I'm not sure that it's any more proper for British politicians to be commenting on the policies of duly-elected American leaders than it is for those American politicians to be commenting on the policies of the duly-elected British government.
I'm not sure that it's any more proper for British politicians to be commenting on the policies of duly-elected American leaders than it is for those American politicians to be commenting on the policies of the duly-elected British government.
In which case she could have said less. But while I agree with you in principle, what should they do when the other nation is acting in ways that hurt their own citizens? The parallels with the 1930's seem inescapable to me.
Minister Powell repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?)
I had already shown in the Trump hell thread he only got 33% of all eligible votes in the US, Not a clear majority at all.
Short formulation. 1/3 of all eligible voters did not vote in the election. Of the remaining 2/3 that did vote, Trump got less 49.9%; therefore, he only got 33% of all eligible voters.
If Sccotch whisky has to be made in the USA to avoid tariffs how is it Scotch?
As has been said The US manufacturers don’t follow regional classification. Champagne is a big one. Under regional classification it can only be called champagne if it is made in a certain region of France. The trouble is sparkling wine doesn’t sound as classy even if it made in exactly the same way as champagne. Hence you have French and Domestic champagne in the US
Minister Powell repeatedly said that Trump should be free to do what he wants as he won a clear majority in the election (is that actually true?)
I had already shown in the Trump hell thread he only got 33% of all eligible votes in the US, Not a clear majority at all.
Short formulation. 1/3 of all eligible voters did not vote in the election. Of the remaining 2/3 that did vote, Trump got less 49.9%; therefore, he only got 33% of all eligible voters.
Yes. But that is no way weakens his moral mandate to govern as he wishes. Any more than it weakened the mandate of any other president(and their name is Legion) who due to turnout numbers didn't get a majority of all eligible voters.
The better argument against the idea that Trump doesn't have a majority is that...he doesn't. Even just counting the votes cast, what he has is a plurality, not a majority. But that also imposes no moral restraint on him to alter his policies, any more than it imposed any such restraint on Bill Clinton, who only ever got pluralities as well. You count the votes that were actually cast, not the hypothetical ones of the people who stayed home.
(Now, while having only a plurality does not make Trump into a pretender or an usurper, it DOES make him into a president of debatable popularity, and that is something he may or may not wish to take into account in deciding how far he can push his agenda without pissing off swing voters with hard-right policies. But whether he takes that more politically prudent course is completely up to him, just as it was completely up to Bill Clinton.)
There’s a question mark over how far he minds offending swing voters (at least after the next legislature elections) given that he can’t seek re-election.
There’s a question mark over how far he minds offending swing voters (at least after the next legislature elections) given that he can’t seek re-election.
Even after the midterms congress will have an eye on re-election (assuming nothing changes the election timetable between now and then) and will have to decide, if/when Trump does something particularly egregious, whether the stink from it will cling to them unless they do something to wash it off.
Trump has a moral mandate? On what basis? With only 33% of the vote, that is not even a plurality. Does he have some short of altruistic authority? Not when his reported bedside reading material was Mein Kampf . Is it based on a particular religious construct? As @Nick Tamen and I have been discussing, he does not appear to have any religious base. No he appears to fit the profile of a narcissist who only his own interests at heart. He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
BTW, what year is this? 2025? That means Congress may just change
Trump has a moral mandate? On what basis? With only 33% of the vote, that is not even a plurality.
Let me put it this way. His right to govern has the same legitimacy as that
of any other president who won the Electoral College. The popular vote isn't even really an issue, but even if it is, lots of presidents have won the office without getting a majority of all the people who were eligible to vote.
He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
With certain caveats about Republican voter suppression tactics, which have only got worse in the last 4 years.
He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
Trump has never played by the rules. He feels they do not apply to him. That's why he has been impeached twice in his first term. Any other convict would have had to serve out his sentence before he can even regain the right to vote.
I am even wondering if one reason he did not personally go to Davos this year is because he could not get a visa because of his convictions.
He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
Trump has never played by the rules. He feels they do not apply to him. That's why he has been impeached twice in his first term. Any other convict would have had to serve out his sentence before he can even regain the right to vote.
I am even wondering if one reason he did not personally go to Davos this year is because he could not get a visa because of his convictions.
I never said Trump always plays by the rules. I'm saying that the rules, as written, allow him to be be president now, so there's not much point in complaining about it with reference to constitutionally irrelevant points about how many people voted.
But since we're on the subject of rules, one of the reasons Trump is not in prison is that a president cannot be charged with crimes the way an average citizen can, but instead has to be impeached by a partisan congress. So if you're mad that Trump's not a jailbird right now, maybe do something about that RULE which has allowed a pretty obvious criminal to remain a free man.
He is a grifter and a two time loser and a felon on top of that--which may be a grounds for impeachment if the Democrats can gain control of Congress--a majority in the House and, and a supermajority in the Senate in 2026.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
With certain caveats about Republican voter suppression tactics, which have only got worse in the last 4 years.
Quite likely. But that wasn't the basis of @Gramps49's particular argument.
You nearly had me, but Elon had the decency to use a SuperPAC. He's off the hook.
No, he is not off the hook. SuperPacs are a rich man's way of skirting the law. Musk allegedly used that money to bribe voters in Pennsylvania according to Slate magazine. But, do you think Trump's DOJ will investigate it?
Talking of Elon - I read recently that he was named after a character in a 1940s sci-fi book by none other than Wernher von Braun (yes, the V1/V2 one). And that character was the president of Mars. He really is a Bond villain.
I found this rather funny, but perhaps you have to like the original to enjoy it.
Talking of Elon - I read recently that he was named after a character in a 1940s sci-fi book by none other than Wernher von Braun (yes, the V1/V2 one). And that character was the president of Mars. He really is a Bond villain.
I found this rather funny, but perhaps you have to like the original to enjoy it.
I expect I'm not the only person who wishes that Musk would become president of Mars, and leave this sad planet alone.
Not that I wish the Martians any harm, but hopefully they'll be like the incorporeal blue fire globes in that wonderful short story by Ray Bradbury.
You nearly had me, but Elon had the decency to use a SuperPAC. He's off the hook.
No, he is not off the hook. SuperPacs are a rich man's way of skirting the law. Musk allegedly used that money to bribe voters in Pennsylvania according to Slate magazine. But, do you think Trump's DOJ will investigate it?
I know what SuperPACs are, I know what they do and thanks to the US Supreme Court's uninspired jurisprudence, they are legal, hence off the hook.
Besides, allegations of voter bribery seem to be a Pennsylvania matter.
You nearly had me, but Elon had the decency to use a SuperPAC. He's off the hook.
No, he is not off the hook. SuperPacs are a rich man's way of skirting the law. Musk allegedly used that money to bribe voters in Pennsylvania according to Slate magazine. But, do you think Trump's DOJ will investigate it?
I know what SuperPACs are, I know what they do and thanks to the US Supreme Court's uninspired jurisprudence, they are legal, hence off the hook.
Besides, allegations of voter bribery seem to be a Pennsylvania matter.
Just because something is "legal," it does not make it ethical.
Regards voter bribery, it is both a federal crime and a state crime. While Trumps DOJ will not look at it, I do hope Penn state will do something about it.
But the actions ofMusk’s SuperPAC have already been brought before a court which found them to be legal. In those circumstances it’s hard to see what the DoJ or Penn state might do,
Other countries need to talk with the Trump government. Sensible discussions are best. Trump, however is just a bigger version of a school bully. You deal with bullies in one of two ways. Ignore them or fight back. I don’t think ignoring him is possible. So if he threatens tariff threaten back. If he threatens to invade, dare him. Be ready with a group of friends to push him back.
Comments
Why is that so hard to believe?
Because - in a slight reversal of my previous post - there's the question of what's in it for them. With some governments it's easier to see than others.
But governments that are following similar strategies to Trump are going to - ironically - find China a better deal than Trump's America, purely because it is more predictable.
That may well be one reason why the UK government (which, despite criticisms, doesn't really follow Trump's strategies) is cosying up to China.
Predictability may well be a slightly better option than the volatility of the new US regime - Starmer and Reeves may not exactly relish this, but it may well be a case of pragmatically choosing the lesser of two evils.
I don't think the UK government is particularly cosying up to China.
My recollection might well be (and probably is) wrong. I've deleted my link to the Guardian news website (because Trump and Musk), but that's probably where I saw something.
The tories (and the Trumpists) are accusing them of cosying up to China. If it's true it's coincidentally so.
Maybe they see opportunities to increase their trade links with countries that will be less able to trade with America due to Trump's tariffs. Maybe they see Trump's isolationism as creating a power vacuum, and thus an opportunity for their country to gain regional or even global influence. Maybe they see the potential weakening of NATO as a reduction in threat to their own nation, or even as an opportunity for their nation to finally do something about that pesky neighbour without having to worry about a US Aircraft Carrier turning up to "keep the peace".
Not clear what you mean
We wait for reactions from other countries
OK. So let's look at the most prominent example: India. Over 80% of Indian respondents said they thought a Trump presidency would be good for their country. Is this level of support explained by Marvin's list? Maybe... but I'm not quite seeing it. How exactly is Trump going to benefit India?
Well, India has a geopolitical rivalry with China, I believe, and Trump is known to be more anti-China than average. Just one possibility.
BTW I was also surprised by the strong Indian support for Russia with 61% seeing it as "an ally sharing our interests and values" and a further 18% seeing it as "a necessary partner" as against only 13% seeing it as a rival or adversary.
One view is here: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/why-trumps-win-is-good-for-india-a-strategic-shift/3658501/lite/
Another: https://www.npr.org/2024/11/15/g-s1-34174/trump-election-india-peace
And another: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5010315-trump-india-relationship/amp/
That last one, significantly, points out that India did well during the last Trump administration, but was less happy with Biden:
I wonder do similar things apply to other countries on the list? You'd think, for example, that South Africa would have rather different priorities, but they seem pretty keen on Trump too (36% favourable versus 24% against).
Maybe the conclusion is that "Great Power" politics is back, and that's what many countries in the world think they prefer?
Right, and to a degree I'm alive to all of these things as per my previous post on the subject. I just think they'll actually be hard to realise in practice. Tariffs hit consumers in the importing country and only indirectly on the exporter, but the kinds of things the US imports are generally fairly fungible. The flip side of US Carriers not turning up is that they also play a role in keeping the sea lanes safe in places like the Malacca Straits and East Africa. Even in the example you quote, while there's a geopolitical reason the Indian Armed Forces might be pleased, the population are going to kvetch if access to things like jobs and remittances are restricted.
Despicable? Craven? Groucho Marxist? Seriously, does the Labour right have any principles at all, any value they won't slaughter on the altar of short term expediency?
'I think he needs to smooth over some things with the international business community.' why would he have needed to do that?
What else is a government minister supposed to say?
If he wants them to reduce tariffs on US goods he needs to have them on side. If he wants business to manufacture in the US then he needs to have a good relationship with them. Threatening them with high tariffs and insisting Canada can become the 51st state is not going to make things better
It isn't, but the US has never respected geographical food and drink identities in the way that the EU and UK have.
I'm not sure that it's any more proper for British politicians to be commenting on the policies of duly-elected American leaders than it is for those American politicians to be commenting on the policies of the duly-elected British government.
In which case she could have said less. But while I agree with you in principle, what should they do when the other nation is acting in ways that hurt their own citizens? The parallels with the 1930's seem inescapable to me.
You said:
I had already shown in the Trump hell thread he only got 33% of all eligible votes in the US, Not a clear majority at all.
Short formulation. 1/3 of all eligible voters did not vote in the election. Of the remaining 2/3 that did vote, Trump got less 49.9%; therefore, he only got 33% of all eligible voters.
A hard and rocky road...
As has been said The US manufacturers don’t follow regional classification. Champagne is a big one. Under regional classification it can only be called champagne if it is made in a certain region of France. The trouble is sparkling wine doesn’t sound as classy even if it made in exactly the same way as champagne. Hence you have French and Domestic champagne in the US
Yes. But that is no way weakens his moral mandate to govern as he wishes. Any more than it weakened the mandate of any other president(and their name is Legion) who due to turnout numbers didn't get a majority of all eligible voters.
The better argument against the idea that Trump doesn't have a majority is that...he doesn't. Even just counting the votes cast, what he has is a plurality, not a majority. But that also imposes no moral restraint on him to alter his policies, any more than it imposed any such restraint on Bill Clinton, who only ever got pluralities as well. You count the votes that were actually cast, not the hypothetical ones of the people who stayed home.
(Now, while having only a plurality does not make Trump into a pretender or an usurper, it DOES make him into a president of debatable popularity, and that is something he may or may not wish to take into account in deciding how far he can push his agenda without pissing off swing voters with hard-right policies. But whether he takes that more politically prudent course is completely up to him, just as it was completely up to Bill Clinton.)
Even after the midterms congress will have an eye on re-election (assuming nothing changes the election timetable between now and then) and will have to decide, if/when Trump does something particularly egregious, whether the stink from it will cling to them unless they do something to wash it off.
BTW, what year is this? 2025? That means Congress may just change
Let me put it this way. His right to govern has the same legitimacy as that
of any other president who won the Electoral College. The popular vote isn't even really an issue, but even if it is, lots of presidents have won the office without getting a majority of all the people who were eligible to vote.
Indeed. I would never deny that, and in fact, I hope it comes to pass. Doesn't change the fact that, for now, he won the election by the same rules that every other president won.
With certain caveats about Republican voter suppression tactics, which have only got worse in the last 4 years.
Trump has never played by the rules. He feels they do not apply to him. That's why he has been impeached twice in his first term. Any other convict would have had to serve out his sentence before he can even regain the right to vote.
I am even wondering if one reason he did not personally go to Davos this year is because he could not get a visa because of his convictions.
I never said Trump always plays by the rules. I'm saying that the rules, as written, allow him to be be president now, so there's not much point in complaining about it with reference to constitutionally irrelevant points about how many people voted.
But since we're on the subject of rules, one of the reasons Trump is not in prison is that a president cannot be charged with crimes the way an average citizen can, but instead has to be impeached by a partisan congress. So if you're mad that Trump's not a jailbird right now, maybe do something about that RULE which has allowed a pretty obvious criminal to remain a free man.
Quite likely. But that wasn't the basis of @Gramps49's particular argument.
No, he is not off the hook. SuperPacs are a rich man's way of skirting the law. Musk allegedly used that money to bribe voters in Pennsylvania according to Slate magazine. But, do you think Trump's DOJ will investigate it?
I found this rather funny, but perhaps you have to like the original to enjoy it.
I expect I'm not the only person who wishes that Musk would become president of Mars, and leave this sad planet alone.
Not that I wish the Martians any harm, but hopefully they'll be like the incorporeal blue fire globes in that wonderful short story by Ray Bradbury.
I know what SuperPACs are, I know what they do and thanks to the US Supreme Court's uninspired jurisprudence, they are legal, hence off the hook.
Besides, allegations of voter bribery seem to be a Pennsylvania matter.
No comment.
Just because something is "legal," it does not make it ethical.
Regards voter bribery, it is both a federal crime and a state crime. While Trumps DOJ will not look at it, I do hope Penn state will do something about it.