Aren’t most of the rules around presidential elections part of their constitution? In which case changing them requires an amendment. Which requires 2/3rds of both houses of congress, followed by 3/4s of the state legislatures to ratify.
I don’t agree about Ukraine. Trump and Putin will sue for peace and attempt to showboat while doing it. Trump would love that. (It would be a bad deal for Ukraine though)
Your faith that the Labour Party are progressives is touching. Although they’ve swung back to high tax and spend, in other areas they are authoritarian and socially conservative. The other thing to note is that they are deeply tribal. Working with other parties is anathema to them.
I don't agree -I think Trump is more likely to give them carte blanche to invade by signalling he wont come to the aid of Taiwan if they do.
I do agree with this! Trump will agree the dismemberment of Ukraine, the creation of a puppet state and the replacement of Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a client all the while crowing about how wonderful he (Trump) is & how will save the world
Yes while Trump didn't start any wars, he oversaw military behaviour that previous leaders would have avoided. The best examples are the two airstrikes he launched on Syrian government forces and the drone strike that killed the top Iranian General at the start of 2020. I wouldn't put it past him trying to assassinate the Iranian Ayatollah if the opportunity arises, especially as the Israeli government would love that.
But she didn't call upon that record. The entire campaign was that Trump was a $hit. That was it. She offered no policy ideas, failed to address the issues that the Trumpians were interested in, showed any understanding of a perceived (?) cost of living crisis or grasped that the people supporting Trump don't care he is a $hit. They don't see it as a character flaw!
The vast majority of Americans know that Trump isn't a good person, they just think he'll make things cheaper. Britain is a nation of Romantics, which is a double-edged sword - Boris got in simply by being a court jester, but equally Trump wouldn't get anywhere near power because of his personality. America isn't. I was discussing this with a friend of mine today and it basically degenerated into finding ever odder election pairings to pit against each other - i.e. a candidate of good character against a variety of film/TV/literature villains - but it probably wouldn't matter how terrible their deeds were if they were promising a better quality of life. It's not necessarily that it's "not seen as a character flaw" (although see my earlier post #1,336 for my opinion on that) - it's just irrelevant.
Yeah, pretty much this. This is why I'm not at all surprised and it feeds directly into my 'two countries divided by a common language' viewpoint. Long as he spouts empty promises about improving their lot in life/bring costs down, they'll vote for him regardless if he has the personality of a burning dumpster.
For me, it's more about reducing the chances of encountering a MAGA-type. It's like a cult and the followers are incredibly tedious.
Under the current arrangements. But then Trump has a peculiar relationship with democracy.
If I had to guess he won't make it to 2028 - These things can progress quickly and he is very clearly on the decline.
Can't he? Given that he has the presidency, the Senate, and his Supreme Court majority, and looks likely to have a House majority too, doesn't that give him pretty well the powers of an absolute monarch and the ability to change the rules as he sees fit? The only thing that can be sure to stop him in due course is the Grim Reaper.
We may be saying the same thing from different sides.
Same as with Brexit, poor struggling people use their vote as a protest against “the elites” by *checks notes* voting for the party of Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel.
As noted previously, Trump doesn’t have nearly enough of a majority to effect constitutional changes.
A sign of an extreme lack of awareness of world affairs in the sense that they fail to understand the obvious truth that Covid and Putin are responsible for high prices.
Didn't think Bezos was particularly political and I don't think he endorsed either candidate, but what a stomach-churning, vomit-inducing piece of sycophancy this is from him:
Whilst the idea that he is not an "establishment figure" is obviously wrong, I do wonder if he is less in the pocket of corporate lobbysits, that lobby for their profits to be put ahead of little concerns like the cost of living.
Thankfully exactly the same would be needed to allow non US born candidates to stand, so no prospect of a President Musk (if he was eligible to stand I could see that being a very real possibility).
As someone has already pointed out he doesn't have the power to make changes to the constitution unilaterally.
