The democratic party needs a total changeover. Take these four years and get rid of the centrist stupid people, find a candidate who's charismatic and gathered around just basic left leaning politics in economy and welfare. Produce a STRONG narrative in marketing with slogans that are quotable and that resonate with the voters who don't understand policy or politics in general. — Christoffer
The real shame will be 4 years of environmental deregulation, and the gutting of science. He’ll try to repeal the IRA, which may be possible now that they’ll have a trifecta (although a lot of republican districts have benefited, and with a slim house majority that may not fly). — Mikie
Also, and equally damaging, is the free reign of appointing judges, which will further the courts to the right for a generation. I imagine Alito or Thomas will retire, and Sotomayer is in poor health I hear— so he may get another 3. He’ll have a full 4 years of a Republican Senate too, because 2026 there’s no chance Dems take it back, given the map. — Mikie
But it’ll all likely swing back in ‘28. That is, if the party moves towards Bernie and away from the Clinton-Obama establishment neoliberal crowd. — Mikie
Things seem pretty peaceful to me. Where do you see crisis brewing? — frank
The US is a declining superpower, China is heading toward superpower status. For a while, I'm guessing the two will be a stable pair for the world. — frank
The global economy is fairly integrated and the US is the primary stabilizer and engine. This is a situation the whole world is creating because everyone benefits from it. Transitioning to a different structure would require some kind of massive crisis. It's not the kind of thing anyone would choose. So China will continue to do the best it can with the US. — frank
I'm not supporting Trump here, but I'm just going through his policies. What you bring up here is why he wishes to impose tarriffs. He's using his bully power to limit trade with a nation that needs it, which will weaken them. If they locate other markets in Europe, I would expect tarriffs in Europe. And so what would then happen is that someone takes out a calculator and realizes the better way to make money is not to create their economic policies from moral theories, but instead to maximize profits. — Hanover
This is the whole thing about him wanting to force NATO nations to pay for their own defense. He's threatening Europe with insecurity by underfunding NATO unless European nations better foot the bill. This fits his "everything is a deal" persona. — Hanover
I'm not getting into the weeds of what causes what because I don't know enough about it. I can say that fuel costs are an important part of everyone's budget and they've increased. Sam's Club sells gas at like 10 cents cheaper per gallon and cars are up and down the street to save the $2.00 on a tank. It's part of inflation control. — Hanover
1. The US economy will boom under this plan, as global change regulations are expensive. The US will outproduce the EU and will attract places like Canada and Japan to engage in business with them. It is doubtful those nations will prioritize the ethics of global resource management over reduced prices. — Hanover
4. This is exactly what Trump is trying to motivate. He's trying to save on defense costs by pushing it back on Europe. — Hanover
5. A shift toward more drilling will reduce oil prices and forestall climate friendly alternatives like electric cars and the like, which many Americans have no interest in anyway. Any drop in cost of living, even if temporary, will make Trump very popular because inflation of basic needs (like fuel, housing, and food) have risen drastically recently. — Hanover
Never act in panic. This was a big mistake the democrats did this year. In panic they replaced Old Joe with laughing Kamalahaha. — Eros1982
I don't know if Trump will actually do the things he promised. I hope not. But if he doesn't, his voters will be pissed. If he does, there will be serious negative impacts. That's the problem with simplistic proposals for complex problems. So it seems to me Trump is in a lose-lose situation. The good news: this bodes well for the next election cycle. — Relativist
Do you think that he and Vance and Musk and RFK and Bannon will be able to agree on anything and not end up derailing themselves in acrimony in a few months? — Tom Storm
And Harris could still carry the popular vote. But she's a weak uninspiring candidate is the problem. — Baden
However, "when shit hits the fan" as it were and you need daily approval of the president for all sorts of military actions and responses, then the inability to predict Trump is a problem. — boethius
Sure, but none of that is on the scale of crashing the global economy in a mad scheme to attack Iran without an endgame. — boethius
The issue of buying Trump is related in my these only to escalating the genocide, simply to avoid paying for something you can get for free anyways under Biden. — boethius
Obviously Trump has no problem wither further violence against the Palestinians, but if he's asked for something he's going to want something in return. — boethius
Where I'm unsure how easy it is to buy Trump is to do something that would make him unpopular like starting a giant war that can't be won and would also cause a major economic catastrophe sending oil sky high (he's also super proud of keeping oil prices low). — boethius
Definitely Trump participates in these sorts of transactions but all this stuff his base also wanted. His MO is more seeing what his base wants and then maximizing his gains in following through on that. — boethius
Definitely possible. I'm definitely not arguing the genocide would stop under Trump, just that I find it unlikely he'll attack Iran. However, Trump being erratic and also loving good press, he may see forcing Israel to let aid in Gaza as an easy win. — boethius
It's unclear to me what hard influence the Israeli lobby has over Trump so maybe he can be just paid off as you say, but perhaps not. — boethius
The reason to escalate as far as possible now while Biden is present, try to "finish the final solution job", would be, even if Trump can simply be bought, to simply avoid needing to do that. Escalating as far as possible now and then deescalating (whether it is Trump or Harris that wins) is simply cheaper than needing to cut a deal with the next president, whether Trump or Harris. — boethius
When Trump talks about Iran he never mentions a need to attack them but just goes on about how he sanctioned them and they were broke and he kept the price of oil down and they would never dare due anything because he's Trump etc. — boethius
But he’s succeeded in convincing a very large number of people that the facts don’t matter, or alternatively, that they’re not facts, and that he’s the sole purveyor of facts. And that is definitely evil, although he has many willing co-conspirators in the dissemination of that evil. — Wayfarer
If the Democratic Party offered something real and started talking to working people, they’d break through a lot of this stuff — as Bernie did. But since they’re also a party of corporate America, there’s little chance of that. — Mikie
Harris’s lead has gone from roughly 2.8 to 2.4, with nearly every serious forecaster calling it a coin flip. Nate Silver has Trump’s odds at 50.6% or something like that. Little reason for the 60% number if not for manipulation. — Mikie
Now that Sinwar passed away—who was the main objective of Israel since October 7th—Netanyahu would like to stop killing civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, right? — javi2541997
Zero. There has been no cases where IDF soldiers and/or Israeli civilians went house to house murdering, raping, and torturing Palestinians in a manner comparable to 10/7. — BitconnectCarlos
Never underestimate the impact how a large terrorist attack can be put to use to rouse people to support war. — ssu
The DNC strategy at this point is to lay low, appeal to the middle, say as little as possible (see any of the uninspiring, friendly interviews she’s done), and bring it back to how bad Trump is and was. — Mikie
Anyway, I do recognize that Trump may make things worse and he already contributed to this mess when he moved the USA embassy to Jerusalem (among many other things he did, with help from Nikki Haley in the UN General Assembly). — Eros1982
The political reasoning is to get back the tens of thousands of Israelis that have been evacuated from Northern Israel, and hence the likely goal is to "destroy Hezbollah" altogether. — ssu
Yet a large scale attack would mean that the US would give a green light, which isn't actually so difficult as already the US has committed to the defense from incoming Iranian missiles. If Joe Biden (and Kamala) are started to be called chickens or whimps, that might easily get the US to side with it's ally even during an election. — ssu
War is the main interest of the current Israeli government to cover the corruption and power abuse of Netanyahu. He was lucky with the attack on October 7th. He would be locked up in prison otherwise. — javi2541997
As Israel and Iran are distant from each other, there is a geographic reason that limits warfighting capabilities. Hence both sides will talk about limited actions: they simply cannot fight the war in any other way. — ssu
Now tell me how Netanyahu won't strike back when he has said the above? When you say Iran will pay and that Israel will retaliate against it's enemies, it would be quite difficult then to follow by not doing anything. — ssu
Last time the two warring parties refrained their military actions, but likely this time it will be far more. — ssu
I don't see why Israel needs the US to fight its war for it. These past few days Israel decapitated Hezbollah. Hamas has been neutered. Israeli intelligence is unmatched. MBS just made a statement that he couldn't care less about Palestinians. A good portion of the Arab world cheers today at the death of Nasrallah while in the west they protest - Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese. — BitconnectCarlos
That was very stupid of him. But, I am wondering: does this guy take any advices from other people? — Eros1982