Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Trump moves up in the WH2024 betting after winning the GOP Iowa caucuses – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,010
edited January 22 in General
imageTrump moves up in the WH2024 betting after winning the GOP Iowa caucuses – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,079
    First like Trump.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904
    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.

    https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/1747187167066022059?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 825
    edited January 16
    FPT

    I'm not depressed at all yesterday and nor was I yesterday. If I felt that at all it was between Christmas and NY with the endless storms of doom.

    What does get me down is Winter continuing into March or even April and refusing to bog off.

    Or us losing to France in the Six Nations.

    For someone who has written on here about struggling in the past (relating to being a father of young kids which I can wholeheartedly identify with), this is very good to read.

    Not sure if it’s linked, and not to blow smoke up your arse, I have found your posts on here in the past few days particularly insightful. We are very different politically but between the need for a programme of investment and the need to rearm Europe swiftly, there is a lot of common ground which gives me some hope for the emergence of some sensible politics in the UK in the next few years.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,411
    edited January 16
    The Sixth Sick Sheikh's Sixth Sheep's Sick.

    (Just been multiply dethreaded .... Bah! or rather Baa! @TSE .)
  • Options
    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    edited January 16
    ….
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,411
    Off topic:

    I would appreciate an update header on where we are with the Boundary Commission review process for 2024, and what the impacts are likely to be.

    I had a look at Ashfield, and it is ... complicated !
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904
    edited January 16

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    Not sure how much last night tells us about the general. I think Biden will improve his odds when he inevitably wins S Carolina or whereever the DEMs start.

    Though I think N Hampshire has gone rogue for the DEMs and they've got the equivalent of about 4 Ada Hutchinson type never weres competing there in their primary ?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    Vivek Ramaswarmy.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294
    maxh said:

    FPT

    I'm not depressed at all yesterday and nor was I yesterday. If I felt that at all it was between Christmas and NY with the endless storms of doom.

    What does get me down is Winter continuing into March or even April and refusing to bog off.

    Or us losing to France in the Six Nations.

    For someone who has written on here about struggling in the past (relating to being a father of young kids which I can wholeheartedly identify with), this is very good to read.

    Not sure if it’s linked, and not to blow smoke up your arse, I have found your posts on here in the past few days particularly insightful. We are very different politically but between the need for a programme of investment and the need to rearm Europe swiftly, there is a lot of common ground which gives me some hope for the emergence of some sensible politics in the UK in the next few years.
    Thanks.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
  • Options
    isam said:

    Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.

    https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/1747187167066022059?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Which countries are proposing to deport asylum seekers and grant them no right to apply for asylum? Specifically?
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    Show me your workings please.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,663

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    Trump, with a Putin style win for the rest of his life.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,663
    Good to see south Londoner Brit Emma Raducanu doing well this morning. Hopefully it will be at least a week before the Canadian-Romanian is knocked out.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    Yesterday people were saying The Telegraph was pushing for the Conservatives to become more right wing, but today they’re publishing a Rachel Reeves article titled ‘Labour is now the party of wealth creation.’

    https://x.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1747162884893741139?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,663
    isam said:

    Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.

    https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/1747187167066022059?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Blimey, Rwanda must be getting rich at £400m from each of those many countries for housing zero refugees.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 780

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    That would be darkly comic (not sure there's a route to it since the EC tends to favour the GOP). You might even get the farce of GOP states rushing to sign the interstate compact while Dem states try to leave!
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,314
    edited January 16
    More bad news for Everton.

    They could have 30 points deducted in total this season, 20 for PSR and 10 points for going into administration.

    https://www.givemesport.com/everton-777-partners-update-january-premier-league/
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    That'd require a big pro Trump swing on the west coast.
  • Options

    More bad news for Everton.

    They could have 30 points deducted in total this season, 20 for PSR and 10 points for going into administration.

    https://www.givemesport.com/everton-777-partners-update-january-premier-league/

    If Everton are getting -30 points, I assume Citeh are getting a -10,000 points penalty?
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,882

    More bad news for Everton.

    They could have 30 points deducted in total this season, 20 for PSR and 10 points for going into administration.

    https://www.givemesport.com/everton-777-partners-update-january-premier-league/

    Everton are the Ed Davey of Financial Fair Play.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    Whoever DJT picks for his Veep. His grip on the GOP is now so strong he doesn't need another bible wanker like Pence to balance the ticket for the evangelicals.

    DJT prizes subservience and loyalty above all so maybe Kash Patel or Devin Nunes.

    One of the MAGA Karens like Kari Lake or MTG would do to much limelight hogging for DJT's taste.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,042
    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
  • Options

    More bad news for Everton.

    They could have 30 points deducted in total this season, 20 for PSR and 10 points for going into administration.

    https://www.givemesport.com/everton-777-partners-update-january-premier-league/

    If Everton are getting -30 points, I assume Citeh are getting a -10,000 points penalty?
    City will be relegated down to the National League North.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,097
    isam said:

    Governments around the world are now trying to imitate the UK Rwanda policy for tackling illegal people trafficking. This bill must be as legally robust as possible - and the right course is to adopt the amendments.

    https://x.com/borisjohnson/status/1747187167066022059?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Another crock from your boy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904

    More bad news for Everton.

    They could have 30 points deducted in total this season, 20 for PSR and 10 points for going into administration.

    https://www.givemesport.com/everton-777-partners-update-january-premier-league/

    They must have had a look at Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United and decided that 20 point deduction just won't cut it.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    Show me your workings please.
    Trump is already ahead of Biden by a smidgen (c.1%) in nationwide polling. Voters aren't excited about Biden and might only turn out for him where they must in the swing states most of which are currently toss-ups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    Bolton not accepting The Sun’s apology for tasteless headline about a fan’s tragic death

    Journalists from The Sun newspaper will not be present for Bolton's Emirates FA Cup third-round replay with Luton Town after the publication had its media privileges suspended.

    The decision was taken following a headline in Sunday's print newspaper.

    #BWFC #LTFC #EmiratesFACup


    https://x.com/burndenaces/status/1746946028241105210?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    edited January 16
    .
    Cyclefree said:

    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.

    Not yet.

    I hope it's a decent sized freezer.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055
    edited January 16
    Unpopular said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    That would be darkly comic (not sure there's a route to it since the EC tends to favour the GOP). You might even get the farce of GOP states rushing to sign the interstate compact while Dem states try to leave!
    Swing to GOP nationwide and regionally everywhere but the rust belt.

    GOP gains AZ, GA and NV while Dems hold MI, WI and PA.

    Result (I think) Dem 270 GOP 268.

    Maximum turmoil.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,042

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    Show me your workings please.
    Trump is already ahead of Biden by a smidgen (c.1%) in nationwide polling. Voters aren't excited about Biden and might only turn out for him where they must in the swing states most of which are currently toss-ups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
    Biden got over 2 million votes more than Clinton in California alone. These people can safely protest against Biden's foreign policy by staying at home without risking the state going to Trump. The same effect elsewhere will significantly reduce the PV premium that Biden got last time.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,584

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    I don't think they do.

    They did think the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government.

    They now have some collywobbles over that belief.

    If Trump fails they may go back to their previous thoughts (although some might think 'that for the grace of god' and they will be the sane ones)

    If Trump wins they will definitely not think the system they believed in so long was so good, by which time it will be too late.

    For most people they don't believe in incompatible things at the same time. They do at different times, but we are all able to change our minds.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,411
    edited January 16
    Cyclefree said:

    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.

    I hope you have good freezer organisation skills.

    I treated myself to umpteen (actually around 35) over->freezer->oven->table->dishwasher Pyrex-alike 1/2 portion dishes for Christmas, and I have done batch cooking but last week lost my last fish pie behind a wall of frozen plum crumbles :smile: .
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Apologies if already posted, but this is an excellent video from Sam Coates on the swings required for different UK election outcomes:

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1747180013084918058
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cyclefree said:

    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.

    Not yet.

    I hope it's a decent sized freezer.
    With a back-up generator in case of power cuts.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The neo-right with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and Wilders are on the march. The centre-right is dying.

    Only the centre-left stands in the way of a world more screwed than when screwy the screwy squirrel twisted his nuts.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    The neo-right with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and Wilders are on the march. The centre-right is dying.

    Only the centre-left stands in the way of a world more screwed than when screwy the screwy squirrel twisted his nuts.

    But the centre-left has also been hijacked by its own screwy elements.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    It's certainly unnerving. A substantial number of Americans would likely agree that it wouldn't be a bad thing for democracy to be suspended so that Trump could take absolute power.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,263

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Which brings us back to the limits on democracy. Something like the limits on free speech, perhaps? You have to accept the premise of the system to play.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    I don't think they do.

    They did think the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government.

    They now have some collywobbles over that belief.

    If Trump fails they may go back to their previous thoughts (although some might think 'that for the grace of god' and they will be the sane ones)

    If Trump wins they will definitely not think the system they believed in so long was so good, by which time it will be too late.

    For most people they don't believe in incompatible things at the same time. They do at different times, but we are all able to change our minds.
    I'm failing to see the inconsistency.

    Setting aside the strawman that the U.S. system is 'optimal', no democratic system is invulnerable.

    If the republic falls - which is a very long way from certain in any event - it's because it's been steadily undermined over the last decade, not because of a single event.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,231
    Unpopular said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    That would be darkly comic (not sure there's a route to it since the EC tends to favour the GOP). You might even get the farce of GOP states rushing to sign the interstate compact while Dem states try to leave!
    The EC might not favour the GOP. It did the last 2 elections, but the 3 before that it favoured the Dem candidate.

    But last time the tipping point state was Wisconsin which Biden won by 0.6%, whereas nationally he won the vote by 4.4%, so a 3.8% advantage to Trump. It's quite a lot to completely overturn especially as we (probably) have the same 2 candidates this time. Maybe, as others have suggested, issues like abortion access will mean Biden will outperform national polls in the Midwest, but worth noting that Michigan has already passed a referendum (in 2022) protecting abortion access, so Biden might not get much of a boost there?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    edited January 16

    Jonathan said:

    The neo-right with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and Wilders are on the march. The centre-right is dying.

    Only the centre-left stands in the way of a world more screwed than when screwy the screwy squirrel twisted his nuts.

    But the centre-left has also been hijacked by its own screwy elements.
    Like that wild radical Joe Biden ?
    Don't be daft.

    Or did you mean Keir Starmer ?
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,142
    kamski said:

    Unpopular said:

    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
    I think he could win the PV but lose the EC.
    That would be darkly comic (not sure there's a route to it since the EC tends to favour the GOP). You might even get the farce of GOP states rushing to sign the interstate compact while Dem states try to leave!
    The EC might not favour the GOP. It did the last 2 elections, but the 3 before that it favoured the Dem candidate.

    But last time the tipping point state was Wisconsin which Biden won by 0.6%, whereas nationally he won the vote by 4.4%, so a 3.8% advantage to Trump. It's quite a lot to completely overturn especially as we (probably) have the same 2 candidates this time. Maybe, as others have suggested, issues like abortion access will mean Biden will outperform national polls in the Midwest, but worth noting that Michigan has already passed a referendum (in 2022) protecting abortion access, so Biden might not get much of a boost there?
    Also related:



    (Ideally you'd divide these numbers by population to see how big a deal they are.)
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055
    Jonathan said:

    The neo-right with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and Wilders are on the march. The centre-right is dying.

    Only the centre-left stands in the way of a world more screwed than when screwy the screwy squirrel twisted his nuts.

    Terms such as right or left are relative to where the mid-point is.

    When the big issue becomes to be immigration then the 'centre-right' are usually to the left of the mid-point thereby allowing a big opening for the 'neo-right'.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,148
    That's a bad night for non-Trumpers. A perfect result for him. I'm not happy. Still, it was a battle not the war. I keep the faith. No Trump2.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255
    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,882
    edited January 16

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    In that case, you'd have January 6th * 1000 as the right wing realise that Trump's election victory was worthless. You might have a few states (from either side) challenge the federal government.

    So, at the very least, huge riots, martial law, and possible secession. That's enough to be getting on with.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,584

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Which brings us back to the limits on democracy. Something like the limits on free speech, perhaps? You have to accept the premise of the system to play.
    It is a problem isn't it? Democracy is a rubbish form of Government, it just happens to be better than the rest. Clearly a large number of people are not responsible or bright enough to vote, but once you go down that route you are in deep, deep, deep trouble.

    It beggars belief that 50% of Americans can vote for someone who patently lies continuously, who believes magnets don't work in water, F35s are invisible, hurricanes van be cured with atom bombs and bleach will get rid of covid (well that one is true, but the side effects are somewhat dramatic). We are talking about someone who when you put his answers to questions on paper they are a random collection of words. And how the hell do Evangelicals vote for someone who breaks just about every rule they believe in?

    But all these people do vote for him and if you believe in democracy they have every right to. Crap system isn't it, but there is nothing better.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    Now to start reversing those defence cuts in a more dangerous world would mean:

    Higher taxes on the rich and property than otherwise

    and/or

    lower spending on the oldies and poor than otherwise.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,411
    edited January 16

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cyclefree said:

    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.

    Not yet.

    I hope it's a decent sized freezer.
    With a back-up generator in case of power cuts.
    Can probably have the life extended by importing ice cut from the lake.

    Just like Frederick Tudor circa 1810.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_trade#:~:text=Opening up the trade, 1800–1830,-Frederic Tudor, the&text=The ice trade began in,afford their own ice houses.
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 636
    Very poor for Haley, and her rampers. Iowa was always going to be tougher for her than for DeSantis, which many didn't factor in, but all the talk was of how close a second she'd be to Trump. I even thought the polling showed she'd finish second, albeit distantly - but third is terrible.
    DeSantis will stagger on a little longer, but he's going out probably after NH.
    It's going to be Trump. It was always going to be Trump. And then he'll lose to Biden.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,584

    Jonathan said:

    The neo-right with Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Meloni and Wilders are on the march. The centre-right is dying.

    Only the centre-left stands in the way of a world more screwed than when screwy the screwy squirrel twisted his nuts.

    But the centre-left has also been hijacked by its own screwy elements.
    As someone to the right of centre (assuming a linear scale which I don't) I am baffled by that comment. Who the hell has hijacked the centre-left? Starmer and Biden are not Trots. Far from it. Nobody has hijacked the left in the modern era.
  • Options
    .

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    Trump couldn't be an absolute dictator at the start. No dictators ever are. But as to your points:
    1 He has the backing of a significant proportion of the population
    2 He has embedded control in a large number of states through elected Trumpers
    3 He has control of Congress and is only just shy of control of the Senate
    4 As CinC he can appoint whomever he likes to run all of the levers of government and military

    It is a distinct possibility that a reelected Trump carries out his threat to go after his enemies. So install a supplicant to run the FBI and order them to arrest his enemies. Some may refuse orders, many will not. And the ones who refuse will also be arrested.

    Even if he pulls his punches and only legislates rather than dictates, we know where that goes. Rights stripped for women and minorities. We will get a showdown where women refused the right to travel (allegedly because they may be going out of state for ungodly things like birth control or abortion) take their state to SCOTUS and lose.
  • Options

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    Now to start reversing those defence cuts in a more dangerous world would mean:

    Higher taxes on the rich and property than otherwise

    and/or

    lower spending on the oldies and poor than otherwise.
    Yep. We can't afford defence. Cheaper just to learn Russian.
  • Options
    VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,435
    edited January 16
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    This is the official article on the estimated 2019 election result for the 2024 new constituencies.

    Analysis by Colin Rawlings, Michael Thresher, David Denver and Nicholas Whyte.

    The spreadsheet with all the calculations is linked below.


    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/xls_spreadsheets/results_spreadsheet.ods

    Methodology

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bounds_explainer.pdf

    Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.


  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255
    Post Office dilemma: which livestream to watch?

    The inquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpo05gkigJg

    Select committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXXaq_21eXY
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    This is the official article on the estimated 2019 election result for the 2024 new constituencies.

    Analysis by Colin Rawlings, Michael Thresher, David Denver and Nicholas Whyte.

    The spreadsheet with all the calculations is linked below.


    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/xls_spreadsheets/results_spreadsheet.ods

    Methodology

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bounds_explainer.pdf

    Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.


    It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.

    Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Pulpstar said:

    No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.

    It wasn't triumphant; half the voters went against him, which is underperforming his national polling (though roughly in line with that in Iowa).

    He is, as he was before, cruising towards the nomination - judges, juries and health permitting - but Haley should show fairly strongly in the next two official contests which won't make it look like the unopposed coronation he'd like.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,609
    edited January 16

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    I can't think how far back you'd need to go to return to that situation, given that they had developed specialist naval supply ships* in the Napoleonic wars ... might have done without briefly between wars, but the Birkenhead was one.

    *50-gun ships partly disarmed by the removal of one deck's worth of guns to make room for supplies or squaddies.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,055

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    Now to start reversing those defence cuts in a more dangerous world would mean:

    Higher taxes on the rich and property than otherwise

    and/or

    lower spending on the oldies and poor than otherwise.
    Yep. We can't afford defence. Cheaper just to learn Russian.
    Learning Russian is too hard.

    Easier to make 'people like them' bear the extra costs.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT. Thumbnail of Europe's 50 countries ranked in order. Worth a look....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvd-dGZ6PYM
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,735
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cyclefree said:

    Snowing heavily here again.

    We are completely snowed in so will be living off the contents of our freezer.

    Time to stoke the fire.

    The USA is stuffed, isn't it.

    Not yet.

    I hope it's a decent sized freezer.
    With a back-up generator in case of power cuts.
    Can probably have the life extended by importing ice cut from the lake.

    Just like Frederick Tudor circa 1810.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_trade#:~:text=Opening up the trade, 1800–1830,-Frederic Tudor, the&text=The ice trade began in,afford their own ice houses.
    Emerson records how he was settling down to another idyllic peaceful day at icy Walden Pond when a raucous procession of horses and carts arrived to break the ice and carry it away to Boston.

    Call some place Paradise, kiss it goodbye.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,982

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    Then there’s that much smaller number who strongly support Ukraine in its struggle against Putin while eagerly anticipating the return of Trump. I feel the incompatibility in their case is beyond rational analysis.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,231

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    This is the official article on the estimated 2019 election result for the 2024 new constituencies.

    Analysis by Colin Rawlings, Michael Thresher, David Denver and Nicholas Whyte.

    The spreadsheet with all the calculations is linked below.


    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/xls_spreadsheets/results_spreadsheet.ods

    Methodology

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bounds_explainer.pdf

    Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.


    It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.

    Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
    swing not lead
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,706

    Very poor for Haley, and her rampers. Iowa was always going to be tougher for her than for DeSantis, which many didn't factor in, but all the talk was of how close a second she'd be to Trump. I even thought the polling showed she'd finish second, albeit distantly - but third is terrible.
    DeSantis will stagger on a little longer, but he's going out probably after NH.
    It's going to be Trump. It was always going to be Trump. And then he'll lose to Biden.

    There was polling that showed Haley coming second with around 20%.
    In the event she came third with 19.1%, 1.1% behind DeSantis.
    So not really 'very poor', really pretty much as expected.
  • Options
    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
    I know but Trump does not have that power and the US system was specifically designed to stop one person being an absolute monarch. Even the SC, despite its composition, would likely balk at any such measures as would probably a lot of Republican-run states.

    He just can't do it even if he wanted to.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
    That's not entirely true. At the start of 1933, Germany was already being ruled on emergency powers under the Papen-Bruning-Schleicher regimes, using presidential decrees. Hindenberg did agree to sweeping restrictions on civil liberties following the Reichstag fire but it was the Enabling Act which really made Hitler a dictator (though even then, subject to Hindenberg until the latter's death the following year), and that required another general election (under a lot of voter intimidation), and even then parliamentary chicanery to get the Bill through after the Nazis failed to get a majority at the election.

    But the legal aspect is only one side. The SA and Hitler's mobs were as much a part of the political system as ministerial decree.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    See Schedule F re the bureaucracy. If he needs to fire them all this time, he can and will. He's learned that lesson.

    He doesn't need the military on-side; he'd need them neutral, which is easy enough as commander-in-chief: you just order them to stay in barracks / on normal exercises etc.

    And America, famously, has the Second Amendment. So how do you establish a dictatorship? Intimidation. You control the mob. If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training, under the 2nd, to provide for that paramilitary role, with command structures and the rest. Force opponents to resign or acquiesce, or meet out violence.

    It's not all that difficult to do. See Russia, for the template.
    Russia was an entirely different proposition - the Communists only really needed to control St Petersburg and Moscow at the start as there was the concentration of power. Much of the country didn't find out about the Revolution until several days or weeks later. Crucially, the opposition to the Communists was also heavily split and there was no coordination.

    Sure, technically he can use Schedule F but then what? There are no federal employees. How exactly does the US govern or do anything? You cannot just draft in a bunch of people with MAGA hats.

    The military will not stay neutral in any such situation. In any effect, Democrat and any Republican-led states that joined them have their own National Guards plus specialist police units etc.

    The key I think is in what you say "If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training..." He is not and there are no signs he is planning to do so. Such training takes a huge amount of time, effort and training. He clearly isn't doing it and nor does he look to be planning as such.

    This whole talk of 1933 revisited is not only bonkers but is also heavily damaging especially as its logical conclusion is 'anything is justified to nullify the threat'.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    See Schedule F re the bureaucracy. If he needs to fire them all this time, he can and will. He's learned that lesson.

    He doesn't need the military on-side; he'd need them neutral, which is easy enough as commander-in-chief: you just order them to stay in barracks / on normal exercises etc.

    And America, famously, has the Second Amendment. So how do you establish a dictatorship? Intimidation. You control the mob. If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training, under the 2nd, to provide for that paramilitary role, with command structures and the rest. Force opponents to resign or acquiesce, or meet out violence.

    It's not all that difficult to do. See Russia, for the template.
    Trump himself, while a natural demagogue, is pretty disorganised.
    Which was clear throughout his past administration.

    But the first time round served to eliminate those Republicans who weren't prepared to worship at the altar of Trump, and the team around him is much better prepared (see, for example, the plan in place to fire 50,000 civil servants deemed awkward).

    It won't be as simple as following the Russia template - the US does have many checks built into the system - and the outcome of a second Trump presidency is far from certain. But it's the biggest threat to US democracy in my lifetime.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
    I know but Trump does not have that power and the US system was specifically designed to stop one person being an absolute monarch. Even the SC, despite its composition, would likely balk at any such measures as would probably a lot of Republican-run states.

    He just can't do it even if he wanted to.
    How would the Supreme Court vote if mobs took the families of the justices hostage? Or if equal force was threatened, less overtly?

    Any country can be made into a dictatorship with the consent of a reasonable minority of the governed who are prepared to use violence in its support.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411

    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
    I know but Trump does not have that power and the US system was specifically designed to stop one person being an absolute monarch. Even the SC, despite its composition, would likely balk at any such measures..
    That's far from certain.
    There are some genuine enthusiasts for untrammelled presidential power on the court. While they aren't a majority, four years is a long time.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    kamski said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    This is the official article on the estimated 2019 election result for the 2024 new constituencies.

    Analysis by Colin Rawlings, Michael Thresher, David Denver and Nicholas Whyte.

    The spreadsheet with all the calculations is linked below.


    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/xls_spreadsheets/results_spreadsheet.ods

    Methodology

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bounds_explainer.pdf

    Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.


    It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.

    Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
    swing not lead
    It's about the same thing given that the Tories had a UK-wide lead of 11.5% in 2019 (or 11.7% in GB).
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,411
    kamski said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    This is the official article on the estimated 2019 election result for the 2024 new constituencies.

    Analysis by Colin Rawlings, Michael Thresher, David Denver and Nicholas Whyte.

    The spreadsheet with all the calculations is linked below.


    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/xls_spreadsheets/results_spreadsheet.ods

    Methodology

    https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/bounds_explainer.pdf

    Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.


    It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.

    Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
    swing not lead
    They lost me when they said this at the very top of the piece:

    The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.

    In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    See Schedule F re the bureaucracy. If he needs to fire them all this time, he can and will. He's learned that lesson.

    He doesn't need the military on-side; he'd need them neutral, which is easy enough as commander-in-chief: you just order them to stay in barracks / on normal exercises etc.

    And America, famously, has the Second Amendment. So how do you establish a dictatorship? Intimidation. You control the mob. If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training, under the 2nd, to provide for that paramilitary role, with command structures and the rest. Force opponents to resign or acquiesce, or meet out violence.

    It's not all that difficult to do. See Russia, for the template.
    Russia was an entirely different proposition - the Communists only really needed to control St Petersburg and Moscow at the start as there was the concentration of power. Much of the country didn't find out about the Revolution until several days or weeks later. Crucially, the opposition to the Communists was also heavily split and there was no coordination.

    Sure, technically he can use Schedule F but then what? There are no federal employees. How exactly does the US govern or do anything? You cannot just draft in a bunch of people with MAGA hats.

    The military will not stay neutral in any such situation. In any effect, Democrat and any Republican-led states that joined them have their own National Guards plus specialist police units etc.

    The key I think is in what you say "If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training..." He is not and there are no signs he is planning to do so. Such training takes a huge amount of time, effort and training. He clearly isn't doing it and nor does he look to be planning as such.

    This whole talk of 1933 revisited is not only bonkers but is also heavily damaging especially as its logical conclusion is 'anything is justified to nullify the threat'.
    It’s not being discussed too much in the mainstream media, but there’s an interesting conflict brewing in Texas between the Federal ICE and the State National Guard.

    It appears that the federal agents have been told to assist illegal immigrants across the border, whereas the local government wishes to restrict such immigration.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-admin-demands-texas-allow-border-patrol-agents-access-to-border-area/ar-AA1mYuBR
  • Options
    Re Iowa, Trump performed pretty much in line with the polling and, if you take the Des Moines Register as the gold standard for Iowa polling, actually did a few points better. But the real 'outperformer' compared with then polling was DeSantis who performed around 5% better than his DMR polling. I wonder therefore whether the Trump campaign on the ground implicitly lent votes to DeSantis to ensure he beat Haley into second place and so deny her momentum as the non-Trump choice going into NH (the implication of this is also that Trump's underlying support was a lot stronger than expected).
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,706

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    Is it?
    Suppose that Dan Quayle hadn't told Pence that he didn't have any option but to certify Biden as winner in 2020.
    Or suppose that the Jan 6th insurrectionists had killed Pence or a Senator or two. Trump was still President at that time.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/dan-quayle-pence-trump-january-6-woodward-costa-book/index.html
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    A test for Sunak.

    Lee Anderson planning to rebel confident he will keep his job as Tory deputy chair...
    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1747217268008681932
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,492

    Post Office dilemma: which livestream to watch?

    The inquiry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpo05gkigJg

    Select committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXXaq_21eXY

    Today's witness seems very young compared to everyone else.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,650

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    Now to start reversing those defence cuts in a more dangerous world would mean:

    Higher taxes on the rich and property than otherwise

    and/or

    lower spending on the oldies and poor than otherwise.
    Your offer is acceptable. I elect option a.

    (Parenthetically, the fact that you phrased it that way showed the uphill element of the problem. It is not impossible to tax the rich more and we need to start doing it. We should not continue to run a pretendy state on credit.)
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855
    Nigelb said:

    A test for Sunak.

    Lee Anderson planning to rebel confident he will keep his job as Tory deputy chair...
    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1747217268008681932

    Anderson’s confident enough that he can rebel and Sunak can’t fire him.

    I suspect he’ll be fired tomorrow morning, because he has to be if the PM is to retain any respect at all.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    See Schedule F re the bureaucracy. If he needs to fire them all this time, he can and will. He's learned that lesson.

    He doesn't need the military on-side; he'd need them neutral, which is easy enough as commander-in-chief: you just order them to stay in barracks / on normal exercises etc.

    And America, famously, has the Second Amendment. So how do you establish a dictatorship? Intimidation. You control the mob. If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training, under the 2nd, to provide for that paramilitary role, with command structures and the rest. Force opponents to resign or acquiesce, or meet out violence.

    It's not all that difficult to do. See Russia, for the template.
    A fascinating idea. Instead of having ragtag groups of "patriots" like the Proud Boys and the Klan, why not just form them up as MAGA Patriot Brigades? Yes, paramilitary groups are illegal in all 50 states. But these are not paramilitaries, they are patriots!

    The 2020 election was stolen. And the best way to stop the steal in 2024 and thus Defend The Constitution is to have groups of armed men with machine guns outside every polling station where democrats vote.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    See Schedule F re the bureaucracy. If he needs to fire them all this time, he can and will. He's learned that lesson.

    He doesn't need the military on-side; he'd need them neutral, which is easy enough as commander-in-chief: you just order them to stay in barracks / on normal exercises etc.

    And America, famously, has the Second Amendment. So how do you establish a dictatorship? Intimidation. You control the mob. If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training, under the 2nd, to provide for that paramilitary role, with command structures and the rest. Force opponents to resign or acquiesce, or meet out violence.

    It's not all that difficult to do. See Russia, for the template.
    Russia was an entirely different proposition - the Communists only really needed to control St Petersburg and Moscow at the start as there was the concentration of power. Much of the country didn't find out about the Revolution until several days or weeks later. Crucially, the opposition to the Communists was also heavily split and there was no coordination.

    Sure, technically he can use Schedule F but then what? There are no federal employees. How exactly does the US govern or do anything? You cannot just draft in a bunch of people with MAGA hats.

    The military will not stay neutral in any such situation. In any effect, Democrat and any Republican-led states that joined them have their own National Guards plus specialist police units etc.

    The key I think is in what you say "If Trump had any sense, he'd be forming militias-in-training..." He is not and there are no signs he is planning to do so. Such training takes a huge amount of time, effort and training. He clearly isn't doing it and nor does he look to be planning as such.

    This whole talk of 1933 revisited is not only bonkers but is also heavily damaging especially as its logical conclusion is 'anything is justified to nullify the threat'.
    It’s not being discussed too much in the mainstream media, but there’s an interesting conflict brewing in Texas between the Federal ICE and the State National Guard.

    It appears that the federal agents have been told to assist illegal immigrants across the border, whereas the local government wishes to restrict such immigration.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-admin-demands-texas-allow-border-patrol-agents-access-to-border-area/ar-AA1mYuBR
    And the Federal Government has taken Texas to court to stop it putting buoys and other deterrents to entry along the border.

    I think Texas is always a bit up 'up you' to the Feds given the GOP did propose to secede from the Union (and Texas was, at one point, its own state).

    Mind you, trouble is also brewing in other border states like Arizona where (Democrat) Katie Hobbs has been saying she will take action.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983
    edited January 16

    Britain has zero active naval supply ships for first time
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/

    Four decades of Tory defence cuts...

    It's not the "first" time because Fort Vic has been in refit since 2021. That has obviously gone sideways or, more likely, they don't have enough crew to reactivate her.

    This has NOTHING to do with money or cuts. That's just what the MoD want everyone to believe in order to get more money. Recall that the FSSP program started in 2015 to deliver 3 ships by 2025.

    The only time the tories have acted with any haste in this fiasco was to sell, with all possible immediacy, the two other Sold Support ships (Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin) to Egypt in 2021.

    The Fireplace Salesman saw the USMSC special forces support ship and got a bit lovestruck at the sight of big lads with tats so he halted the program in 2017 in order to turn these ships into SF war canoes. Baldy Ben managed to tear himself away from the pie counter in Greggs to restart the effort in 2019 but now, because of reasons, they had to be built by H&W in the Six Counties - a shipyard that hasn't built a naval vessel for 40 odd years and can't find the manual for their TIG welder. Even with the Spaniards doing the difficult bits this is now a very lengthy build process that won't produce any ships until 2031.

    This has FUCK ALL to do with a lack of money. It's the natural consequence of mismanagement, indecision and the use of the defence budget for the political aim of industrial welfare. To give the MoD any more money than they currently receive is the same as burning it.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,492
    New boundaries put the Tory majority up from 80 to 94.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,244
    Can’t help but think Trump’s in trouble in Nov if fully half of the nutters voted for another candidate last night.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,231

    eristdoof said:

    IanB2 said:

    Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?

    One of the sproggs?

    You think there'll be an election in 2028?
    Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
    This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.

    Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.

    Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
    Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?

    Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.

    Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.

    The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
    I don't know if you are including this in Beurocracy, but a cruicial step to Hitler quickly moving from elected Chancellor to dictator required the agreement of the Reichspresident at the time Hindenbug, who signed over in several decrees absolute power to Hitler.
    I know but Trump does not have that power and the US system was specifically designed to stop one person being an absolute monarch. Even the SC, despite its composition, would likely balk at any such measures as would probably a lot of Republican-run states.

    He just can't do it even if he wanted to.
    Trump will probably do what he can to settle scores, and, especially, save his own skin. Those will be his priorities.

    He also might sack loads of civil servants and appoint loyalists. He'll probably replace generals who aren't sufficiently loyal. But I don't think this kind of stuff really makes him a 'dictator', though he may find ways to undermine democracy. He might find that after taking a lot more control through various means, that he can't blame the 'deep state' for screwing everything up anymore and he'll become quite unpopular. A bit like the Conservatives in the UK have (mostly) lost the EU as a useful scapegoat for anything unpopular.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    edited January 16
    @kinabalu

    You know what, fuck it just keep the bet

    It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.

    On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.

    But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,294
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    A test for Sunak.

    Lee Anderson planning to rebel confident he will keep his job as Tory deputy chair...
    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1747217268008681932

    Anderson’s confident enough that he can rebel and Sunak can’t fire him.

    I suspect he’ll be fired tomorrow morning, because he has to be if the PM is to retain any respect at all.
    It's probably every man for himself all the way to the GE now.

    That won't help the rout, but the individuals concerned won't be able to help themselves - they might also be more by-elections.
This discussion has been closed.