Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[nw1]

But the point here is that having a foreign leader comment on something that many UK people would have felt was a matter for the UK and therefore none of Obama's business wouldn't have gone down well with some voters, so it was possibly counter-productive for Obama to say what he did, even though it was an honest opinion and arguably quite reasonable for him to say what he thought).

I think that partly depends on what side of the Brexit divide you were on. I would certainly have welcomed foreign leaders encouraging us to vote Remain. Having said that, while I'd have disagreed with the view of foreign leaders trying to encourage us to vote Brexit, at the end of the day, as long as they did it in an above-board manner, it was their right to do so.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that partly depends on what side of the Brexit divide you were on. I would certainly have welcomed foreign leaders encouraging us to vote Remain. I'd have disagreed with the view of foreign leaders trying to encourage us to vote Brexit, but at the end of the day, as long as they did it in an above-board manner, it was their right to do so.

But presumably you wouldn't have been happy if they threatened to impose sanctions on us if we didn't vote Remain?

 

[nw1]

But presumably you wouldn't have been happy if they threatened to impose sanctions on us if we didn't vote Remain?

No I wouldn't have agreed with that, but voting Brexit is a lot less bad than Trump regaining power. But I do see, through the posts above, that threatening sanctions would not be a good idea - I was just floating the idea to see what people thought. Partly out of sheer exasperation at some of the stuff Trump is coming out with.

 

[simonw]

I don't think Obama wanted Brexit, from what I gather. He was a sane and measured politician and realised Brexit was not the most sensible of ideas. I am fairly sure I read that he came out on the "Remain" side.

I've certainly never heard of Obama trying to convince us to vote Brexit.

Well yes, I thought that was apparent from my post, but clearly not.

 

[JKF]

I do wonder whether the rest of the world needs to somehow convince Americans to not vote for Trump, for example through threats of sanctions if he gets in.

It might sound dirty tactics, and it's not something I would normally suggest, but Trump is a special case. When you read some of the stuff Trump is coming up with, it would be very, very bad for the world if he gets in, so attempting to influence the American electorate in this way could be the lesser of two evils.

Trump supporters, and far-right movements in general feed off a sense of imagined victimhood, so this would just reinforce that notion. I can’t see it helping.

With most trump supporters there‘s not any actual way to reach them to try and change their minds, they exist in a self-curated silo, a garden walled from the truth. They won’t hear critique of Trump on CNN because they’re wired in to Fox or Newsmax. Social media will just emphasise their world view, based on what they select and what (determined by algorithm) people like them select. That’s what is truly terrifying about this, and we shouldn’t dismiss it happening here in future.

The only reason there hasn’t been a concerted effort by ‘dark money’ etc. to push a populist right wing movement in the UK is because the current U.K. government has been doing some of the things they like (scapegoating refugees, culture war nonsense). I can only imagine this game will be upped when Starmer is elected and there is a government that is easier to oppose politically.

 

[brad465]

If Trump does lose in November, the overturning of Roe v Wade and its fallout will almost certainly be the biggest reason why. Arizona is a notable swing state, both in the Presidency and Senate, so this development could have major political impacts:

Arizona Supreme Court reinstates near-total abortion ban from 1864

Arizona's top court ruled that a strict 160-year-old ban on abortion may be enforced.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Arizona Supreme court has ruled that the state can enforce a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban.
The 1864 law - which precedes Arizona becoming a state - makes abortion punishable by two to five years in prison, except when the mother's life is at risk.
The ruling could shutter all clinics in the state, and affect both women's health care and the upcoming election.
Arizona voters may be able to undo the ruling in a November referendum.
The decision follows months of legal wrangling about whether the pre-statehood law could be enforced after years of dormancy. Many argued that it had been effectively nullified by decades of state legislation, including a 2022 law that allows abortions until 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Arizona's top court agreed to review the case in August 2023 after the right-wing law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, appealed against a lower court ruling that said the more recent law should stand.

In a 4-2 ruling on Tuesday, the state supreme court overturned that decision. It said the 1864 law "is now enforceable" because there are no federal or state protections for the procedure.
The Alliance Defending Freedom joined anti-abortion activists in celebrating the decision, saying in a statement that the "significant" ruling "will protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children".
Arizona's Supreme Court delayed enforcement of the law for 14 days, and the justices sent the case back to a lower court to hear further arguments.
But it remains unclear how the law will be enforced.
Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, issued an executive order last year that placed the matter of enforcing abortion law in the hands of state attorney general Kris Mayes - a fellow Democrat who has promised that Arizonans will not be prosecuted for getting or performing an abortion.
Ms Mayes reiterated that promise in a statement on Tuesday, calling the law "draconian".
"Today's decision to reimpose a law from when Arizona wasn't a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn't even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state," she said, criticism that was soon echoed by the White House and other leading Democrats.
Some Arizona Republicans also expressed concerns about the ruling.
Kari Lake, a close ally of Donald Trump and a Republican candidate for the state's seat in the US Senate, said in a statement she opposed the decision.
She called on Governor Hobbs and the state legislature to find a "common sense solution".
Ruben Gallego, Ms Lake's Democratic opponent, noted that Ms Lake had previously supported the ban in a statement on Tuesday, pointing to a 2022 interview where she called the 1864 law "great".
"Today's ruling is devastating for Arizona women and their families," Mr Gallego added.

 

[DerekC]

With most trump supporters there‘s not any actual way to reach them to try and change their minds, they exist in a self-curated silo, a garden walled from the truth. They won’t hear critique of Trump on CNN because they’re wired in to Fox or Newsmax. Social media will just emphasise their world view, based on what they select and what (determined by algorithm) people like them select. That’s what is truly terrifying about this, and we shouldn’t dismiss it happening here in future.

I agree. People (and not just Trump supporters) can now choose to live in a bubble where they only hear opinions that they agree with, supported by anything from carefully and selected out of context facts to outright inventions and lies. In the pre-social media world it wasn't really possible to do that. Even if you chose your pub carefully you would meet somebody with different views to you.

 

[nw1]

If Trump does lose in November, the overturning of Roe v Wade and its fallout will almost certainly be the biggest reason why. Arizona is a notable swing state, both in the Presidency and Senate, so this development could have major political impacts:

Arizona Supreme Court reinstates near-total abortion ban from 1864

Arizona's top court ruled that a strict 160-year-old ban on abortion may be enforced.

www.bbc.co.uk

Amazed Arizona have done this given its swing nature.

It's just going to make moderate Arizonans perceive the Republicans as authoritarian, right-wing extremists.

They can probably get away with this kind of authoritarianism in Alabama, because it's true-red Republican, but not somewhere like Arizona.

There's going to be a lot of anger and resentment about this, I wonder if there will even be significant "emigration" from Arizona as a result?

From the article:

The Alliance Defending Freedom joined anti-abortion activists in celebrating the decision, saying the "significant" ruling would "protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children".

The "Alliance Defending Freedom"? Almost beats the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea", or whatever its official name is, for irony.

 

[najaB]

Amazed Arizona have done this given its swing nature.

To be fair, it's not action specifically taken by the government or GOP but rather the court. Their ruling was just that the 1995(?) law was no longer valid since it was based on Roe v Wade being the law of the land. In theory, at least, this wasn't a political or ideological decision, but dispassionate interpretation of the law.

Regardless, this makes life difficult for anyone with an R appearing next to their name on the ballot sheet: appease the party or the people?

 

[nw1]

To be fair, it's not action specifically taken by the government or GOP but rather the court. Their ruling was just that the 1995(?) law was no longer valid since it was based on Roe v Wade being the law of the land. In theory, at least, this wasn't a political or ideological decision, but dispassionate interpretation of the law.

Regardless, this makes life difficult for anyone with an R appearing next to their name on the ballot sheet: appease the party or the people?

Mind you, is the court itself political? Isn't the overall US Supreme Court dominated by Republican-appointed judges at the moment?

And it sounds like the People's Democratic Alliance for Freedom pushed the case to court in the first place, so it is essentially at the behest of right-wing, Republican-oriented people.

 

[najaB]

Mind you, is the court itself political? Isn't the overall US Supreme Court dominated by Republican-appointed judges at the moment?

Yes, it is a 6:3 split in favour of justices appointed by Republican presidents.

And it sounds like the People's Democratic Alliance for Freedom pushed the case to court in the first place, so it is essentially at the behest of right-wing, Republican-oriented people.

Yes, it's the fault of a Republican group, but the court ruling (in theory) was based entirely on dispassionate interpretation of the law.

 

[nw1]

Yes, it is a 6:3 split in favour of justices appointed by Republican presidents.

Yes, it's the fault of a Republican group, but the court ruling (in theory) was based entirely on dispassionate interpretation of the law.

Of course there is no reason, presumably, why a new law could not be passed making abortion specifically legal in Arizona, irrespective of Roe vs. Wade.

 

[najaB]

Of course there is no reason, presumably, why a new law could not be passed making abortion specifically legal in Arizona, irrespective of Roe vs. Wade.

That would require the election of enough lawmakers who are willing act in accordance with the will of the majority of the electorate, rather than the noisy minority (and/or their wealthy patrons).

 

[ainsworth74]

It's worth noting that the decision in Arizona was by the Arizona Supreme Court not the US Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court was entirely appointed by Republican Governors between 2010 and 2021 (Arizona now has a Democratic Governor but they only took office in January 2023) though candidates are supposed to go through a bipartisan selection process that provides a list of candidates for the Governor to then make a decision on so on it's face isn't quite as open to hyper partisanship that has afflicted the US Supreme Court. All that being said I'm not willing to go much deeper than that however into the inner working of the Arizona Supreme Court

It strikes me though, on its face without doing in depth reading, that this decision surely just is the law being the law? If the previous law relied on Roe v Wade and now Roe has been overturned it therefore follows that the law no longer applies and then the rules on abortion fall back onto whatever was the previous operative law which would seem to be this extreme 1860s era law. It then falls upon the legislators to legislate and produce a new law or for there to be a ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution (which I think is what is now expected).

The main thing, other than the all the Arizona women who will end up suffering lacking access to healthcare, is it probably does continue to hurt the Republicans and Trump more than it hurts anyone else in the interim as generally Americans at large are far more pro-choice than the mean Republican politician and the vocal Republican evangelical base.

 

[najaB]

The main thing, other than the all the Arizona women who will end up suffering lacking access to healthcare, is it probably does continue to hurt the Republicans and Trump more than it hurts anyone else in the interim as generally Americans at large are far more pro-choice than the mean Republican politician and the vocal Republican evangelical base.

Yup. This is nothing but a fillip for Democrats.

 

[JamesT]

That would require the election of enough lawmakers who are willing act in accordance with the will of the majority of the electorate, rather than the noisy minority (and/or their wealthy patrons).

Or be in a state that has a mechanism to allow referendums. I believe in all the states that have had votes since Dobbs have gone the pro-choice way.

Yup. This is nothing but a fillip for Democrats.

Probably why Trump’s most recent statement is a fairly neutral one that states should decide.

 

[najaB]

Probably why Trump’s most recent statement is a fairly neutral one that states should decide.

It's not neutral (as in not taking a position), it's an attempt to take both positions at the same time. He's also floated the idea of a Federal ban.

 

[brad465]

As it happens, Trump has spoken out saying the Arizona ban goes too far:

Donald Trump says Arizona's 1864 abortion ban goes too far

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would not sign a federal abortion ban.

www.bbc.co.uk

Former President Donald Trump said Arizona has gone too far after the state's top court upheld a near-total abortion ban dating back to1864.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Mr Trump said he thought the ban would quickly be "straightened out".
The law bars abortion from conception, except to save a mother's life.
His remarks come two days after he released a statement saying abortion rights should be left to US states, sending a mixed signal.
In the video statement posted on his social media platform Truth Social, Mr Trump also took credit for the US Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark decision that protected abortion access across the US for nearly 50 years.
He had campaigned in 2016 on appointing justices who would oppose Roe - then went on as president to name three conservatives to the court, all of whom voted to reverse Roe.
But the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was silent about a national ban of any length - now the goal of most anti-abortion activists - saying it was "up to the states to do the right thing".

"My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land," he said.
On Wednesday, during a trip to Atlanta, Mr Trump went a step further, saying he would not approve a federal abortion ban if re-elected.
"Would you sign a national abortion ban if Congress sent it to your desk?" an ABC News reporter asked.
"No," Mr Trump said, shaking his head.
And he expressed concerns about the Arizona ban, saying the governor would soon "bring it back into reason".
Arizona's top court ruled on Tuesday that the 160-year-old ban could be enforced, a decision with potentially sweeping implications for women's healthcare and election-year politics in a battleground state.
But the justices - all nominated by Republican governors - put the ruling on hold for at least 14 days, and sent the case back to a lower court for added arguments about the law's constitutionality.
Governor Katie Hobbs has called for the law to be repealed and Attorney General Kris Mayes, a fellow Democrat, has said she will not prosecute Arizonans for performing or obtaining an abortion.

 

[najaB]

As it happens, Trump has spoken out saying the Arizona ban goes too far...

So it's all up to the States, unless the state threatens his election chances...

 

[nw1]

As it happens, Trump has spoken out saying the Arizona ban goes too far:

While the ban has to be reversed, this shows Trump to be weak and wobbly.

"Abortion is wrong. No, abortion is fine. Actually I have no idea, what will the voters think? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (TM)".

 

[JKF]

The main thing, other than the all the Arizona women who will end up suffering lacking access to healthcare, is it probably does continue to hurt the Republicans and Trump more than it hurts anyone else in the interim as generally Americans at large are far more pro-choice than the mean Republican politician and the vocal Republican evangelical base.

It’s not just about numbers on each side, but motivation to vote. The fundamentalist Christian vote is very active, so in some cases it will serve the republicans to play this up for them. Opposition to it is also strong however as has been shown in recent results, although may be less of a factor in a presidential contest where bigger issues such as the economy will be in play.

 

[najaB]

Opposition to it is also strong however as has been shown in recent results, although may be less of a factor in a presidential contest where bigger issues such as the economy will be in play.

While that is true, only a minority of voters split their ballot with a vote for a Republican presidential candidate and a Democrat senator or congressperson. So the down-ballot, state and local issues do feed into the choice for President though, admittedly, they don't get nearly as much focus in the press.

 

[nw1]

It’s not just about numbers on each side, but motivation to vote. The fundamentalist Christian vote is very active, so in some cases it will serve the republicans to play this up for them. Opposition to it is also strong however as has been shown in recent results, although may be less of a factor in a presidential contest where bigger issues such as the economy will be in play.

It always seems bizarre to me that Christian fundamentalists would wish to vote for Trump, who basically represents the polar opposite of traditional Christian values...

Someone like Pence, yes. But Trump?

 

[birchesgreen]

It always seems bizarre to me that Christian fundamentalists would wish to vote for Trump, who basically represents the polar opposite of traditional Christian values...

Someone like Pence, yes. But Trump?

These are money gospel fundamentalists, they are about as far from your cake making CofE church goer as you can imagine.

 

[Silenos]

These are money gospel fundamentalists, they are about as far from your cake making CofE church goer as you can imagine.

They make their God in their own image. Personally I think that the vengeful spirit they worship, who tortures His enemies (who are of course, their enemies) for all eternity in a private dungeon for the crime of disagreeing with Him, has more in common with Satan than with Eternal Love, or the suffering man on the cross. But what would I know, I’m an unregenerate heathen.

 

[dgl]

The fundamentalist Christians that have come to a realisation that true happiness is a healthy bank balance, I doubt most of them really believe in God and just see religion as a way to justify their views and fleece gullible people out of money. The old "TV evangelist", where their followers are expected to pay rather than pray!
Imagine if Christianty is real, God could have a lot of fun if he materialised on Earth, "the loed came to me in a dream and this is what the Lord has told me to do", "excuse me sir, I'm pretty sure I did not come to you in a dream and certainly would never say anything like that. I hope you like being warm!"

 

[birchesgreen]

If Jesus came back to Earth half of these US "Christians" would condemn him as being too woke.

 

[The Ham]

The fundamentalist Christians that have come to a realisation that true happiness is a healthy bank balance, I doubt most of them really believe in God and just see religion as a way to justify their views and fleece gullible people out of money. The old "TV evangelist", where their followers are expected to pay rather than pray!
Imagine if Christianty is real, God could have a lot of fun if he materialised on Earth, "the loed came to me in a dream and this is what the Lord has told me to do", "excuse me sir, I'm pretty sure I did not come to you in a dream and certainly would never say anything like that. I hope you like being warm!"

Unfortunately I suspect that they wouldn't recognise him if he did. They also are likely to skipped over the story of the sheep and goats:

Matthew 25:41-46 NIVUK‬ [41] ‘Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was ill and in prison and you did not look after me.” [44] ‘They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or ill or in prison, and did not help you?” [45] ‘He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” [46] ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.’

Matthew 25:41-46 ‘Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty | New International Version (Ang

‘Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty

bible.com

Even if they didn't skip over that story they still didn't realise the compassion that they should have for others.

 

[brad465]

One vegetable endorsing another vegetable:

Liz Truss endorses Donald Trump to win US presidential election

The ex-PM warns the "world was safer" under Donald Trump's presidency, and the West is "on the cusp" of conflict.

www.bbc.co.uk

Liz Truss has endorsed Donald Trump to win this year's US presidential election, saying the "world was safer" when he was in the White House.
The UK's shortest-serving prime minster said the world was "on the cusp of very, very strong conflict" and needed "a strong America more than ever".
Her comments came as the first of Mr Trump's four criminal trials began in New York.
Mr Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for November's election.
Ms Truss, who recently spoke at a pro-Trump conference in the US, said the West's "opponents feared the Trump presidency more" than the Democrats under Joe Biden.

Speaking to the BBC, Ms Truss said Mr Trump was more aggressive towards Iran and China. She also praised Mr Trump's support for Ukraine, approving the sale of anti-tank Javelin missiles, despite his Republican allies' recent attempts to block military aid to the country.
"I'm not saying that I agree with absolutely everything he's ever said," she said.
But she added: "I do agree that under Donald Trump when he was president of the United States, the world was safer.
"I want to work with fellow conservatives to take on what I believe is a real threat of Western society and civilization being undermined by left-wing extreme ideas."
This includes supporting Nigel Farage "becoming an MP" if he were to re-join the Conservative party, she told the BBC.
Speaking to the Newscast podcast, Ms Truss said the founder of the political parties Ukip and Reform UK "believes in conservative values - I think it's a shame he's not in the Conservative Party".

 

[nlogax]

One vegetable endorsing another vegetable:

Liz Truss endorses Donald Trump to win US presidential election

The ex-PM warns the "world was safer" under Donald Trump's presidency, and the West is "on the cusp" of conflict.

www.bbc.co.uk

Endorsements like these, made by people like these are beyond satire. All we can do at this stage is laugh.