Many limits on what Trump can do domestically in the USA - Biden helped Europe protect supplies to Ukraine from Trump - and US economy is recovering fast already with leeway for making mistakes
First this is not intended as political in anyway. As usual it is to help scared people and because Trump just won it is focused on helping mostly those who found that scary rather than those who are off celebrating the win.
First Biden REMAINS IN OFFICE THROUGH TO JAN 20TH 2025. Trump has NO EXECUTIVE POWER UNTIL THEN.
So let’s look at some of the top concerns first.
On abortion, it varies state by state in the US now. That's not likely to change under Trump.
Harris wanted to codify Roe. V. Wade making the law the same across all the states as it was before. This is not going to happen under Trump but it is still a possibility in the future.
Trump will not be able to put a federal abotion ban in place because he doesn’t have the support in the Senate to do that even if he wanted to.
With Ukraine
it's not clear what he'd do, some think he will ramp up support after failing to achieve peace in 24 hours and some think he will ramp down.
but if necessary Europe can step up and take the place of the US. It is already “Trump-proofing” NATO.
Biden has
billions of dollars of funding that he will send to Ukraine emptying his coffers before leaves office on Jan 20th. That would see Ukraine through the spring of 2025.
Europe would has from November 2024 to some time in Spring 2025, likely 6 months or more, to step up on its support for Ukraine.
That gives time for Trump to decide what he does if anything to help Ukraine once he finds he can’t achieve peace in 24 hours. And if he decides not to send anything to Ukraine then it’s time for Europe to step up in its support.
For those that worry about a world war:
Trump didn't start any wars as president. He wasn't actually a hawk.
Not much would happen to most of us in the rest o the world if he wins. We likely return to the metaphorical (not real) “trade wars” of tariffs in 2016-2020. This means the US takes a cut from any goods imported from Europe. Typically Europe will respond by taking a cut from goods imported from the US and then they end up haggling over how to resolve it.
He filled the news for the 4 years of his presidency from 2016 to 2020, but most of us were not directly affected by anything he did
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Trump will only be able to pass laws that are bipartisan or supported by ALMOST ALL Republicans
Convincing win but
House small majority or even lost
Senate not filibuster proof
In his first term
Trump never got funding for the wall
never cancelled Obamacare
Yes Trump has won but there are many strong checks on what he can do.
House will be a small majority, maybe even just one seat, or lose to Democrats.
Many split tickets, voting for Trump for president but Democrats for House.
Republicans find it very hard to coordinate with a small House majority as we saw with Mike Johnson, even in opposition, even harder in power likely.
Trump never got funding for the Mexican wall or repealed Obama care with a trifecta in his first two years.
The Supreme Court has ruled against Trump in more than half his cases, a record at least since the 1930s.
The Supreme Court is majority legally conservative rather than liberal but is NOT MAGA.
Trump can't force soldiers to take an oath to him and can only appoint four star generals from soldiers that are already one star brigadier generals or above
Soldiers take an oath to the US Constitution.
Any soldier commits his or her life to protect it.
Results from: NBC Election Results Live
Not that much changes now Trump is elected. He gets congratulations from world leaders. He starts talking to Biden’s team about the transition government. But he has no executive power yet.
How to read this - for a first impression just read the section titles and look at any graphics - then drill down into any section you want to read in more detail
I do the titles of sections as short summaries.
Then I summarize the main points within the sections using graphics and bullet points.
You can get a good first impression by just reading the section titles and looking at the graphic.
Then you can read a section to drill down for more details.
On substack you can hover your mouse over the left margin to see the contents and navigate through this page.
Also if you right click on any of the section titles and choose “open in new tab” or “open in new window” you
Kamala Harris’s concession speech - may help those of you worried about your rights
Harris's concession speech may help some of you. Especially those who see this election as a setback in recognition of your rights.
QUOTE STARTS
"Now, I know folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now. I get it. But we must accept the results of this election.
"Earlier today, I spoke with president-elect Trump and congratulated him on his victory. I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition, and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power.
"A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honour it.
…
"But hear me when I say: the light of America's promise will always burn bright. As long as we never give up. And as long as we keep fighting.
... "And we will continue to wage this fight in the voting booth, in the courts and in the public square. And we will also wage it in quieter ways in how we live our lives, by treating one another with kindness and respect, by looking in the face of a stranger and seeing a neighbour. By always using our strength to lift people up, to fight for the dignity that all people deserve.
...
"The fight for our freedom will take hard work. But like I always say, we like hard work. Hard work is good work. Hard work can be joyful work. And the fight for our country is always worth it. It is always worth it. ...
"To the young people who are watching... it is okay to feel sad and disappointed, but please know it's going to be okay.
"On the campaign, I would often say when we fight, we win. But here's the thing. Sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn't mean we won't win... the important thing is don't ever give up...
"Don't ever stop trying to make the world a better place. You have power... and don't you ever listen when anyone tells you something is impossible because it has never been done before.
"You have the capacity to do extraordinary good in the world.
...
"I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all I hope that is not the case. But here's the thing America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, brilliant billion of stars.
"The light, the light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service... and may that work guide us, even in the face of setbacks, toward the extraordinary promise of the United States of America.
In at least the first two years Trump will find it impossible to pass anything except very moderate or bipartisan legislation because the House margin will be single digits - maybe even just one seat either way
The Senate will be a majority but not fillibuster proof. Most bills require a 60 to 40 seat majority in the Senate to pass and Trump will have nowhere near that amount, at most around 57. Then in 2026 the Democrats have a decent chance of picking up Senate seats when a third of the Senate is up for re-election again.
The House race is very close, could be as close as a one seat majority either way, likely single digits.
Won't be known for some time.
QUOTE STARTS
House races are focused in New York and California, where Democrats are trying to claw back some of the 10 or so seats where Republicans have made surprising gains in recent years.
Other House races are scattered around the country, with some of the most contentious in Maine, the “blue dot” around Omaha, Nebraska, and in Alaska.
To gain control of the House, Democrats need to flip four seats from Republicans, while holding all of their own, a tall task especially in congressional districts where Trump has won.
It could come down to just a handful of seats, or as little as one, to determine House control.
. Who won the House and Senate? See the latest projections, results
We saw under Mike Johnson and their problems choosing a speaker after the mid-terms that even in opposition the Republicans find it very hard to be united in the House. While the Democrats are often able to unite.
If the Democrats get control then Trump will only be able to get legislation passed that the Democrat speaker is prepared to take to the House floor. That includes any budget requests.
They can also do investigations of Trump and impeach him though it would never be taken up by the Senate. But they could prepare investigations for possible judicial proceedings after the end of his term as they did under Nancy Pelosi as speaker.
If the Republicans get control they will have problems retaining the speaker as happened with McCarthy and then Johnson under Biden because they are so divided. They may well be even more divided in power than in opposition.
The Republicans may well end up stuck in a cycle of trying to find a speaker to please everyone as they did after the mid-terms in 2022. If that happens it is not impossible they end up with a Democrat Speaker of a House with a very small Republican majority, as almost happened under Mike Johnson.
Also if it is literally a one seat majority, control of the House could flip back and forth as members of the House retire on either side or die and are replaced with usually a few months gap between the two and sometimes the replacement of a different party.
Or if they end up with a Republican House + Speaker with a majority that's only a handful then it will cause major continuing problems with things like budget and any partisan laws never mind any far right agenda.
To pass any bill, a handful of moderate Republicans will need to be in agreement with an equally small number of far right Republicans to get anything done. E.g. if it is a 2 seat majority then the most moderate Republican must be in agreement with the most far right Republican to pass any legislation. If it is a 1 seat majority then some moderate Republican would be in a similar situation to Joe Manhcin in the Senate with the Inflation Reduction Act.
In his first term Trump had a trifecta for the first 2 years of the House, and Senate + presidency. He wasn’t able to get Congress to pass ANY funding for his Mexican wall. The bit he eventually built he did by moving funding around internally. He also wasn’t able to repeat Obamacare.
Here is a list of 40 things he promised to do in his first term but never did.
. Trump’s 40 Biggest Broken Promises
Limitations of what a president can do - appointed as a servant of the people to carry out the will of Congress according to the US constitution
There is a lot of confusion about what a president is and can do including by Trump himself. He thinks of the president as a kind of CEO but he has none of the power of a CEO of a company.
The legislators in Congress are selected by the election process. Trump can't appoint new legislators to Congress. And a president can't pass laws by himself. Only Congress can do that.
A president can't change the US Constitution and Congress can't do that either. Only a confederation of states can change that and if 13 states object then the change won't happen. There it is state legislatures that vote - both state Congress and the governor has to approve the amendment.
So Trump can't change the law or the US Constitution by himself.
The president's role is
to carry out the orders of Congress as set out in the legislation and according to
the US Constitution .
So the president is really a servant of Congress and the US Constitution .
Then there’s the judiciary - the judges, along with the justices who review decisions of judges
the judiciary interpret the orders of Congress in the legislation
this is why they often throw out executive orders or sections of bills or sometimes even entire bills - because when they try to interpret them they find they are unconstitutional or inconsitent with existing legislation
So though the president has a lot of power especially for foreign policy he is essentially a servant of Congress.
Limitations on who a president can fire and hire - he can’t fire justices, legislators or his vice president and his most important hires including the cabinet have to be approved by a majority in the Senate - and most public servants can’t be fired
He is limited in who he can fire and who he can hire.
He can sack people in the executive
However,
he can’t sack tenured public servants - Trump tried to change this with his “Schedule F” but it was likely illegal and Biden has added an extra rule which is likely impossible for him to completely reverse to give extra security to public servants
he can't sack any justices.
They can only be removed by impeachment in Congress by legislators in rare extraordinary circumstances.
he can't sack his own vice president.
He is stuck with JD Vance for the rest of his term. Just as he was with Pence in his first term. Unless he resigns.
He
can’t put non military people in charge of the army
only brigadier generals or higher
Most of his appointments have to be approved by the Senate
his cabinet (very different from the UK where the prime minister just decides by personal choice, all a president’s cabinet members must be approved by the senate
justices
other officials in the executive such as those in charge of liaising with various departments.
In the UK all of this is done by the rime minister just by personal choice. In the USA it all has to pass a majority approval in the Senate, 50 out of 100 have to vote in favour
It is rare but not impossible for cabinet members to be rejected by the senate. Other officials often are rejected.
. About executives nominations
So - a president is rather limited in what he can do.
Many checks to prevent Trump from doing extreme things
There are many checks in the USA to stop a president doing the things people are scared of.
Trump by testing those safeguards will show that they are there and show how robust the constitution is
He will find what he wants to do far harder than he things, he never really got the hang of how government works and he has surrounded himself with amateurs like Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy. A lawyer can’t really be in charge of public health, and someone who runs a rocket company may be good at getting people to build a rocket - but he has VERY bizarre ideas about the economy which he won’t be able to implement because they don't make sense.
Trump will soon find out that Musk can’t save $2 trillion from the US budget and that Kennedy can’t reorganize public health and medicine in the USA.
This is where his Schedule F will be tested. It would likely have been illegal anyway and Biden put a rule in place to make it very hard to implement. To replace e..g the head of the NIH with another person he will have to prove that they serve teh American people as well as the current head of the NIH does. So he can't for instance just put Robert Kennedy, Jr, a Lawyer, in the position of leading the NIH which requires a professional who is expert in medicine and typically with numerous research papers on medicine and highly respected in the profession.
This also means that the president or others in the executive don’t have the power to threaten to fire the head of the NIH or FDA or CDC unless they do as they require of them. These organizations are insulated from the executive as Trump will find out.
Without fire / hire ability, Musk and Kennedy will be very limited in what they can do.
Once Trump finds out that Kennedy can’t reshape medicine and public health and food regulation in the USA and that Musk can’t save $2 trillion from the US budget he likely fires them.
Remember pretty much his entire team except Pence was fired in his first term. A president can’t fire his vice president which is probably the only reason he didn’t fire Pence.
It is likely to be the same revolving door White House this time.
Message to anyone feeling suicidal - Biden remains in office through to Jan 20th so nothing happens right away and all the hype will calm down a lot
most likely the things you are afraid of are actually impossible
remember if you are at serious risk of harming yourself it is as much a medical emergency as a heart attack - help is available
The first thing to remember is that Biden remains president for one more term. And during that time there will no longer be any election campaigning. A lot of the worries are due to hyped up messages from the Democrats and Never Trumpers that are false combined with Trump bizarrely ramping them up further because it makes him seem macho and tough to his core base. He can't do these things.
Most likely ALL the things that are making you feel suicidal are things he can't actually do. Now he is president the campaigning will stop. The Democrats and Never Trumpers will be taking stock and working out why their campaign failed. The last thing they will do is keep up with the campaigning.
Trump will stop too. He no longer needs to get elected because this is his last term. So there will NEVER be another Trump rally.
Reminder to anyone seriously suicidal:
If you are seriously suicidal do get help! We are here to help you as best we can, in the way friends are advised to do to help someone suicidal - but there is no way we are any substitute for professional help.
Here are some thoughts that help some people who are suicidal - I shared a list of thoughts like this and asked suicidal members which they found most useful.
- Suicide is for ever - your entire future.
- It doesn't solve anything, it only makes things worse for the people you leave behind.
- Soon, this will all be a memory.
Also if you feel you are at risk of taking your own life, this is as much of a medical emergency as a heart attack and you can go to your nearest emergency response room and ask to be helped and they are obligated to help you, assess your situation. If you are at high risk you get monitored and get emergency treatment usually for a few days until the suicidal thoughts reduce enough so that you are safe again.
This is an article I did to help members supporting other members who feel suicidal or say they are going to commit suicide, based on summarizing some of the professional advice on what to do.
. Supporting someone who is suicidal
Minimal effect on global warming
On global warming, the US is set on a path to more and more renewables. That was already happening under Trump. But the Inflation Reduction Act has put it on a strong direction to reducing emissions. There is no way to stop that because many Republican states benefit.
And yes he can drill and get more oil but there will be less and less global need for it once we reach peak oil.
As with 2016 to 2020 he likely withdraws from Paris but that is likely to energize the rest of the world. NO WAY that China, India, EU etc withdraw from Paris.
SHORT DEBUNK: If Trump is elected for 4 years it will have only minute effects on global warming
Trump can’t start a world war - is not a hawk - and can’t order a general to go against the US Constitution
Slightly longer version of this section:
There is no way that Trump can start a world war. He isn't a hawk anyway - he didn't start any wars in his first term.
A president can't use nukes in peace time would go against all of the four main principles of the law of armed conduct.
He has no literal button. He has to order a general. The general will be very well versed in the law of armed conduct and what's more will have a team of lawyers to assist him.
A president CAN’T appoint a non military person to a position of command in the military. It has to be a grade above colonel.
The President may assign to any such position an officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Space Force who is serving on active duty in any grade above colonel or, in the case of an officer of the Navy, any grade above captain.
The first grade above Colonel is Brigadier General
. Marine Corps Ranks | Marines
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
All soldiers and officers will protect the US Constitution with their life and will NOT obey illegal orders.
All ranks are thoroughly versed in the Law of War.
To follow an illegal order is a war crime.
No matter who gives the order
A four star general will have NO HESITATION telling a general he can't obey.
President's choice must be at least 1 star alredy.
Generals are assisted by military lawyers.
A four star general has a team of lawyers on tap.
A president can ONLY appoint 1-star generals and above to command and ONLY withapproval of Senate.
Many people are confused by Trump’s claims and claims of others that he can be a dictator and think he could order the military to kill civilians. That is NONSENSE.
All officers and soldiers swear an oath to protect the US Constitution above the president. They HAVE to disobey illegal orders.
This may help.
Transcript
:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
General Milley:
We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe. We don't take an oath to a religion. We don't take an oath to a King or a Queen or to a tyrant or a dictator and we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don't take an oath to an individual.
We take an oath to the constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America and we're willing to die to protect it.
Every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, guardsmen and coastguardsmen, each of us commits our very life to protect and defend that document, regardless of personal price. And we are not easily intimidated.
========
Every US soldier, officer and general takes an oath to the US Constitution above all. They have it drilled in from the start that they must only obey LEGAL orders.
And as soldiers they are willing to die to protect the US constitution and the rule of law.
Speech starts at 1:21:00 here, the quote starts at 1:35:20 U.S. Constitution at Center of Military Transfer of Responsibility Ceremony
This is that oath
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Also even if a general followed a non-constitutional order by a president, the officers and soldiers that general commands would not only be able to but would be obligated by their own oath to refuse to follow those non-constitutional orders.
For instance suppose a general ordered his officers and soldiers serving below him to occupy Congress and to close down the US government, for an example absurd hypothetical, those officers and soldiers would refuse the order,.
They would then report him, he'd have a courtmartial for sure, probably get a psych evaluation too as it would be just crazy to do that, and he'd quickly be dismissed from office.
So it doesn't matter the rank, or how much power they have in the normal exercise of their duties. All that is valueless if they act against the US Constitution and try to use their rank to get others to do so.
Even if many of the generals broke their oath which seems incredible, they still couldn't force ordinary soldiers and officers to break their oaths too. They could try but only a tiny minority of them would surely follow illegal orders, and the rest would act to restrain the ones that did follow the non-constitutional order and then the oath breakers would all be court marshalled as well as tried for any civil offences.
And oath breakers in the military couldn't close down the system of justice throughout the USA that's beyond incredible.
At this point many will say - so then how was the US civil war possible?
In the US civil war the Confederate leaders took an oath of allegiance to their state not to the constitution. That is how the civil war was possible.
. Confederate oath of allegiance
That is no longer possible today. The oath of office is set in
See:
Here is a parody of the many videos on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram etc telling you NONSENSE when they claim a president can kill you or imprison you for having views different from them
.
Trump is not a hawk anyway - he uses bluffing words but he didn't start any wars.
If you are cynical about him, he is a property developer not a maker of weapons and wars aren't good for golf courses or hotels.
He is also a human being and not a movie villain or a character in a video game. He has a large family, lots of people he cares about and he doesn't want war that could impact on him in the USA, any more than you do.
And there is no way that Russia attacks the USA.
Suppose a future president, NOT TRUMP, said "I am in a bad mood today just go and drop a nuke on Russia"
The general would say "Sorry this is not one of the scenarios worked out for legality according to the law of armed conduct. Please let me consult with my lawyer" then the lawyer would say "No this is not legal".
The general would then say "sorry I am advised this would be a war crime. Please check with your lawyers.
That then is kicked down to Congress if the president insisted, and nobody wuld vote for it and that would be the end of the story - and most likely the president is quickly impeached as not suitable to run the country.
Retired general Kehler here testified to the Senate about how a general always has access to military legal advisors who would listen in on important conversations with the president to advise him on the legality of anything the president ordered him to do.
Also he couldn't replace generals by others that would agree to the order. He actually gives the order to a command center not a single general. They all listen in.
QUOTE The order given, probably by phone, from the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) in the basement of the White House or any other location would reach the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon (National Military Command Center, NMCC)22 or, failing that, the National Airborne Operations Center, an E-4B aircraft that functions as an alternate NMCC
https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Finger-on-the-Nuclear-Button.pdf
I cover the process in:
BLOG: Trump or any other president can’t launch a nuke even if he were to go mad
And the president doesn't get to select who becomes a general. He can select which of the already existing generals he chooses as a four star general - which then has to be approved by the Senate. But it is NOT possible for a president select an unqualified person not chosen by the military as a general and appoint him as a general.
NATO and Biden will work together in the next couple of months to fully Trump-proof NATO and protect Ukraine’s budget from him
Biden will likely spend a lot of his remaining months doing what he can to Trump proof anything he hasn’t already. E.g. he has already said he will empty all his budget for Ukraine before Jan 20th and NATO is going to shift its center for decision making and organization for Ukraine to Germany before Trump is inaugurated. This turns the US into a junior partner in the decisions. The headquarters of NATO have always been in Brussels.
This will galvanize NATO into becoming a much more coordinated body.
SHORT DEBUNK: How Europe is Trump-proofing NATO
This is going to turn the USA into a junior partner in NATO.
And though the USA can protect itself fine without NATO, smaller countries in NATO will be even more dependent on NATO for help with the USA less involved so it is going to lead them to be more coordinated with each other and less paying attention to the USA.
In Gaza Strip - he will just let Netanyahu do what he likes and any peace deal would be agreed with Israel without talking to Palestinians only other ARab states like Saudi ARabia.
At least that's what he did in his first term. I hope that Biden can end the war there before then, if not then it's looking bleak for Palestinians in Gaza Strip.
In Ukraine nobody knows. I think he will come out pro Ukraine.
What I expect to happen is that Trump goes to Zelensky some time in spring 2025 and says
"Unless you arrange a ceasefire with Putin I'll stop supplies to Ukraine".
Zelensky will say
"I've got billions of dollars of supplies from Biden which he sent before he left office, I've increased the UKraine budget to $90 billion a year and have a $50 billion fund from other NATO allies and they are now helping me via center in Germany. It is up to you, join us or not but we will continue to fight to push out Putin"
At that point I think the US won't like the optics of Ukraine pushing Russia out without US support and will choose to join in.
Also I expect Ukraine will do a counteroffensive this fall after election day which will likely surprise the West. Will see. If so then that may turn the views of the ,Americans around about supporting Ukraine in the war.
Schedule F will be impossible - no way that Trump can replace lead experts in medicine with an unqualified amateur lawyer, say, because he will have to prove in the courts that this substitution benefits the American people
Biden has already passed a rule that will prevent Schedule F - that will protect the jobs of tenured public servants and if this rule is reversed any new rule must ensure that anyone who replaces the head of the NIH say has to be as competent for the job as the existing head. So Trump can’t for instance replace the head of the NIH by Robert Kennedy Jr.
Similarly for the FDA.
What this would do is let the president fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 of the more than 2 million Federal employees. However that would be sure to get legal challenges. Biden has put in place a new rule which means a new president would need to take at least 2 months to even make a start on schedule F instead of doing it instantly as Trump did and more importantly makes it even more vulnerable to legal challenges.
It is now so robust that it could only be replaced by an equally strong rule to protect the American people from unqualified public servants.
In more detail, most of the US civil service is appointed by merit. As an example Dr Fauci, he was not appointed by a president and his post didn't change from one president to the next. However about 4,000 of the 2 million Federal employees are appointed by the president and typically one of the first things a new president does is to fire all the ones appointed by the previous president and replace them by the ones they prefer.
Trump changed the rules on October 21, 2020, not long before election day Nov 3.
Schedule F made it permissible to fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 by asking agencies to reclassify some of their employees as ones that can be fired. Still the vast majority wouldn't be fired.
However it's not clear if it was legal. It would certainly have been challenged. It had one suit against it already before Biden revoked it.
NTEU Sues Trump Over Schedule F Executive Order
However Biden revoked it on the third day of his administration on 22nd January 2021.
. Schedule F appointment - Wikipedia
Biden’s new rule is here Regulations.gov
It protects civil servants appointed by merit.
QUOTE STARTS
It would allow workers to keep their existing job protections, such as a right to appeal any firing or reassignment, even if their positions were reclassified. It would also tighten the definition of what types of positions can be exempted from civil service job protections, limiting it to non-career political appointees who are expected to turn over when a presidency ends.
...
“Our proposed regulation is strong and based in law and has a strong rationale,” Mr. Shriver said. “Anyone who wants to explore a change in policy would have work to do,” he added. “They’d have to go through the same administrative rule-making process and make sure that their policy is grounded in the law.”
. Biden Administration Aims to Trump-Proof the Federal Work Force
It means that reclassifying employees under Schedule F won't take away their protection from being fired.
To reverse it a president has to go through the same rule making procedure which takes 60 days so that delays it. However, it also opens it to legal challenges because the rule is on good legal grounds and reversing it would be legally dubious and sure to be challenged.
Anyone who tries to reverse it has to show that under their new replacement rule:
decisions to hire and fire are based on how well federal employees served the American people
are not based on political affiliation
as required by the merit system
This is from an article by Carten Cordell, managing director of the Government Executive:
QUOTE “We are confident that our final rule is the best reading of civil service statutes and is grounded in the civil service in the statutory language, congressional intent, legislative history and decades of applicable case law and practice,” said OPM Deputy Director Rob Shriver on a press call. “The rule is strong, it will help to ensure the rights employees earned as envisioned by Congress when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978 and expanded and strengthened those protections through subsequent enactments.”
... “If another administration were to disagree with the policies that are reflected in this regulation, first, they would have to follow that full rulemaking process themselves,” said a senior administration official when asked about potential attempts to revive Schedule F. “They would have to justify how a different rule would ensure that decisions to hire and fire were based on how well federal employees served the American people, as is required by the merit system principles that are enshrined in the law, rather than on their political allegiance.” ... Mfume said he was pleased the final regulation was adopted, "Civil servants are the nucleus of our federal workforce and provide the continuity needed to keep our government operating efficiently," he said. "I applaud the Office of Personnel Management for working with my congressional colleagues and me on this rule, because hardworking public servants deserve to be protected from the volatility of electoral politics."
The regulation is expected to go into effect on May 9.
One of their prime targets was the head of the NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], Dr Fauci.
Dr Fauci has retired now of course. The new director is Jeanne Marrazzo in her early 60s. She of course said similar things to Dr Fauci on COVID. She is openly lesbian BTW. Very expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Marrazzo
There is no way they could replace her by some Trump appointee who knows nothing about infectious diseases. It has to be someone who has been studying infectious diseases for many years, written vast numbers of papers on the topic and is very expert. To dismiss her without any reason is never going to work.
They would have to show that their decision to fire her and replace her by someone else is based on what best serves the American people.
The Project 2025 team had no idea how this all works. They don't understand how anyone could be as expert as Dr Fauci was
QUOTE “No bureaucrat should have an action figure made of him,” jokes Dans. “Fauci had 50 years on the job in one of the most technically demanding and ever-changing professions in bio-science. Either the person is a genius on the order of Einstein or is Machiavellian in terms of keeping power. I would submit the latter.”
[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811
He was a top academic. Doesn't need to be of the order of Einstein whatever that might mean but has to be genius level in his area of science to have such a job.
Also very good at his job.
And for as long as he continues to be up to the task, he has tenure for life.
And if he is that good he will have integrity and can't be a Trump loyalist.
They can't replace the head of the NIAID by someone who is willing to declare Ivermectin an effective drug to treat COVID if the evidence points the other way.
Can’t close down the Board of Education - took around 20 years to close down the by then completely useless Board of Tea Examiners (who sniffed and tasted imported tea)
A president can't close down the Board of Education.
They won't be able to do that because there is no way that the far right can get a a majority in either the House or the Senate never mind a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
See this section of my project 2025 debunk https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right_Republican_Project_2025_is_mostly_an_illegal_fantasy_-_most_of_it_can%E2%80%99t_be_done_at_all_-_%E2%80%9CSchedule_F%E2%80%9D_would_face_legal_challenges_and_l
He would have to convince all the moderate Republicans and likely some Democrats too that the US doesn't need a department of education. That is not very probable.
The closest example here is when Congress closed down the Board of Tea Examiners whose job was to sniff, touch and taste imported tea to see if it was good enough to sell in the USA. It was established in the late 1800s but by some time in the 20th century it no longer served any useful purpose. Government officials had been trying to shut it down from the 1970s onwards. It took them 20 years and they finally shut it down in the 1990s.
QUOTE For example, the Board of Tea Examiners was a seven-person board created in the late 1800s to sniff, touch and taste tea to see if it was good enough to be sold in the U.S. It cost around the equivalent of $400,000 in today’s economy. Government officials had been trying to shut it down for around 20 years and finally did in the 1990s when the House and Senate voted to get rid of it.
. Fact Check Team: How hard would it be to dissolve the Department of Education?
It was closed down with the Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act of 1996
Tea Importation Act of 1897 - Wikipedia
So it can be done but it is really really hard to do because you have to convince many legislators that it needs to be closed down. Given how hard it was to close down the department of tea tasters seems implausible they could close down the department of education.
Trump would have to convince a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (60 out of 100 seats) to do this. It's not likely to happen.
See this section of my project 2025 debunk https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right_Republican_Project_2025_is_mostly_an_illegal_fantasy_-_most_of_it_can%E2%80%99t_be_done_at_all_-_%E2%80%9CSchedule_F%E2%80%9D_would_face_legal_challenges_and_l
Can’t do any of the extreme things in Project 2025 or Agenda 47 - and hopefully the media stop talking about this now that campaigning is over
No. He can't do any of the extreme things in Project 2025 or Agenda 47. The House won't be known for some time. The Senate is a narrow majority. In 2016 he had a trifecta with House, Senate and presidency and he couldn't get money for the wall and he couldn't get Congress to repeal Obamacare.
The things he wants to do this time around would need not just a Republican but a far right Republican majority in both houses and he can't do that.
Many of the things such as ones that restrict freedom
of speech would require a rewrite of the US constitution and just 13 states that are opposed is enough to stop that. For many of them he wouldn't get even one state in favour.
SHORT DEBUNK. Impossibility of Project 2025 and Trump's Agenda 47 - short summar
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Almost all of Project 2025 and of Trump's Agenda 47 is an illegal fantasy which can never be done.
This is the only part that's possible - the small part in the Republican platform.
But most of this needs a far right majority in the house and a fillibusterproof far right majority in the Senate to pass so will never happen either.
Also as I explain here, as soon as election day is over all these extreme claims will STOP.
See section:
All these FALSE claims that Trump can be a dictator will STOP immediately on election day with no more votes to be won - Trump himself, Never Trumpers, Democrats and others such as generals will ALL stop saying these things as they know they are FALSE / HYPERBOLE
Whoever wins, when the campaigning stops, whether
* Trump has won or
* Harris has won.
you will immediately find that.
* Trump will stop saying he can be a dictator
* Never Trumpers will stop saying he can be a dictator.
* Harris will stop saying he can be a dictator.
* All the generals and others who said he will be a fascist will also stop saying it too.
The reason being that there will be NO MORE VOTES TO WIN.
They are ALL for DIFFERENT REASONS claiming that Trump as president can do things that are LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Also MILITARILY IMPOSSIBLE (as generals and officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution above any order from the president).
They all KNOW THAT.
So they will NOT worry about Trump being a dictator or ending democracy after election day if he is elected.
And as for Trump, from his part:
* it will be like when he got the crowd to chant "Lock her up" about Hillary Clinton in 2016.
* as soon as the voting ended he stopped saying anything about locking up Hillary Clinton.
That is because he knew he couldn't.
I think it’s reasonable to suppose that he wouldn’t have even said it if this was a country without a properly functioning legal system or bill of rights where a president has the power to lock up an opponent.
But whether he would have said it or not, if it was possible - as a candidate for a US president he KNEW he couldn't just lock her up in the USA. So he just stopped talking about it.
It is TOTALLY SAFE to have VIEWS DIFFERENT FROM TRUMP if he is elected
- US Constitution PROTECTS your FREEDOM OF SPEECH
- perhaps TikTokers make such bizarre claims out of delusions of grandeur?
Nothing will change on gay marriage
Then on specific things, on gay marriage, Congress passed the respect for marriage act, it is also still protected under Obergefells with nothing to suggest the Supreme Court would overturn it and Trump removed the language about ending gay marriage from the Republican platform.
On abortion, Lisa Murkowski is in favour of codifying Roe v. Wade as is Susan Collins. And unless they do a filibuster carve-out they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a Federal law on abortion.
Harris would have done a filibuster carveout. But the Republicans don't want to do that.
. Senator Collins’ Statement on Partisan Bill Designed to Fail | U.S. Senator Susan Collins of Maine
The term limit is set in the US Constitution in the 22nd Constitution so Congress can't change it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
For Trans people who are suicidal or have a trans kid or relative - there are many in the US who care a lot for trans kids and many states are pro Trans - also the science is solidly behind you
those who don’t understand are just people out of touch with the latest science - will eventually understand though it may take many years
First one positive for trans from this election. Sarah McBride has become the first openly transgender person elected to Congress, as state representative for Delaware.
QUOTE STARTS
Delaware State Rep. Sarah McBride, a Democrat, won her race to become the first openly transgender person elected to Congress. The former Obama administration official was elected to the Delaware General Assembly in 2021.
. Who won the House and Senate? See the latest projections, results
She calls moments like this slingshot moments when the pressure of being pulled backwards propels us to destinations we have not yet been.
QUOTE STARTS
An advocate I talked to described moments like this as slingshot moments.
The pressure of being pulled backwards propels us to destinations we have not yet been.
Our charge in this moment is to summon our hope, to summon our faith and to remember that so long as we breathe, we hope and together we can turn that hope into historic progress.
Here she is talking about her win with that quote in context:
TRANSCRIPT:
Q. On a personal level, what does this mean to you?
Sarah McBride: I know how much this win would have meant to me as a young persons as I faced a crisis of hope and wondered whether the heart of this nation was big enough to love me, too.
I hope this win sends a message to young people across the country that our democracy is big enough for them, too.
That regardless of the results at the top of the ticket, we all have a place in our country.
We all belong.
I hope it shows that nothing is truly impossible.
I didn't run to make history.
I ran to make a difference for my neighbors here in Delaware and to serve this country that I love.
Q. What are your priorities when you start your term in January?
I ran this campaign focused on the issues that I know are top of mind for Delawareans: democrats,independents and republicans.
The american dream is unaffordable and unaccessible for too many people.
During my time in the Delaware state senate, I passed paid family and medical leave and the largest investment in medicaid in our state.
I did that with bipartisan support.
I hope to continue that work in congress, to guarantee affordable health care for every patient, affordable housing and childcare while at this critical moment defending our rights, including reproductive freedom and protecting our communities with gun violence.
Q. Trump's campaign repeatedly took aim at the LGBTQ+ community and trans rights. What's your message to people who are worried about what their lives will look like under another Trump administration?
A. look, this is a scary time. I think for so many people across this country, so many vulnerable people, they are facing their own crisis of hope in this moment.
I know that the story of this country is the story of our biggest challenges propelling us to take our most significant steps forward.
An advocate I talked to described moments like this as slingshot moments.
The pressure of being pulled backwards propels us to destinations we have not yet been.
Our charge in this moment is to summon our hope, to summon our faith and to remember that so long as we breathe, we hope and together we can turn that hope into historic progress.
It's going to be hard. We're going to face challenges.
This new administration is dangerous and they will try to take back.
But together, we are still unstoppable.
. Rep.-elect Sarah McBride is ready to ‘push back’ on a second Trump administration
If you are trans and suicidal or have a trans kid or relative who is suicidal - then to reasure you, there are many many people out there including in the US who care a lot for trans kids. Also many of the states are pro trans.
As for legislation that can pass in Congress then about the only one that is at all plausible is about restricting the right of trans women to take part in athletics in women's teams.
In this map, the main thing is that many states are very pro trans equality already.
. Snapshot: LGBTQ Equality by State
They are also BACKED UP BY SCIENCE. So be reassured that both medical professionals and scientists agree that some kids are biologically trans.
I don't think that the anti-trans people are being hateful. It is more that they are way out of date and don't understand the science.
So you or your kid can be reassured that the science is now very clear indeed, and medical experts unanimously agree that some kids are biologically trans, and that over time the rest of society will understand this too but it takes time, a lot of time, for the latest findings of science to diffuse out into society.
This is a blog post I did about the science.
Here are some thoughts that help some people who are suicidal - I shared a list of thoughts like this and asked suicidal members which they found most useful.
Suicide is for ever - your entire future which could have amazing good things in it that you don’t know yet - for instance there may be others out there who you will help hugely in ways you don’t know yet or ways that you yourself will find fulfilment that you can’t yet imagine
It doesn't solve anything, it only makes things worse for the people you leave behind.
Soon, this will all be a memory. In this case in weeks to months all the hype will die away because the campaigning stopped. And Trump’s second term is only 4 years and that too will be a memory once it is over
Also if you feel they are still at risk of taking their own life, and you can't be there all the time to look after them - this is as much of a medical emergency as a heart attack and you can take them to your nearest emergency response room and ask to be helped and they are obligated to help them, assess your situation. If they are at high risk you get monitored and get emergency treatment usually for a few days until the suicidal thoughts reduce enough so that they are safe again.
Of course that is a tough thing to do with a child but in some situations it may be needed.
QUOTE STARTS
Taking a child to the Emergency Room in a psychiatric emergency is scary and upsetting. But taking your child to the ER doesn’t mean you’re a failure — it means you’re doing everything you can to keep your child safe.
Doctors at the ER won’t diagnose what’s distressing your child or offer treatment. Their goal will be to assess your child’s safety and outline next steps. If your child has thoughts about suicide but hasn’t made a plan or an attempt, they will probably be sent home with a referral for out-patient treatment. If they do have a plan for suicide or have made an attempt, they will more likely be sent for in-patient treatment at a hospital until doctors think it is safe for them to go home.
If you disagree with the doctor’s assessment, say so loud and clear, and be specific about why you’re worried. Before you leave, you can ask the hospital for help setting up a follow-up appointment for your child. Contacting the hospital social worker or patient advocate can help. It’s also important to make plans for how to proceed at home. What behavior should prompt a return to the ER? What resources can help you between now and your child’s next therapy appointment?
And remember, it’s important to be kind to yourself during this difficult time.
. Taking a Child to the Emergency Room - Child Mind Institute
If it is less of an emergency then they will do a referreal to outpatient treatment.
This is an article I did to help members supporting other members who feel suicidal or say they are going to commit suicide, based on summarizing some of the professional advice on what to do.
. Supporting someone who is suicidal
On censoring LGBT then they can't ignore the law, there would be many legal cases against them
Note to any readers who have been convinced by the FALSE rhetoric on trans by people who are NOT medical professionals
Trans kids often need help with extreme levels of anxiety as they approach puberty due to a brain trapped in a body that is not the right gender for it. It is too late to use puberty blockers once they have already completed the transition to an adult body. Puberty blockers give their brain time to catch up with their body if they are amongst the lucky ones that get back in sync. If this doesn't happen they can then transition fully as an adult.
Scientists say this and medical professionals unanimously say that this is the only way to handle people who are genuinely trans who exprerience extraordinary levels of distress if they are not permitted to use puberty blockers.
It is very cruel to block access to puberty blockers to trans kids who need them - obviously after careful medical professional testing.
A few decades from now current atttitudes of many to trans will seem like medieval science.
Short summary of the science at 8 minutes into this video, as summarized by a trans woman based on the Scientific American article.
See again:
YES THERE IS A VERY SMALL ADVANTAGE FOR A TRANSWOMAN ATHLETE IN SOME SPORTS, ESPECIALLY RUNNING, THAT REMAINS EVEN AFTER HORMONE THERAPY - BUT NOT ENOUGH TO TURN AN ORDINARY ATHLETE INTO AN ELITE ATHLETE - FOR MOST SPORTS THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE
It is far more nuanced than other things because there is some scientific evidence for a small advantage in some sports.
There is NO WAY that the US should be regulate the participation of trans athletes in womens' sports at the school level country wide. For SOME SPORTS mainly atheltics, especially running it IS appropriate at the top of the league for some sports associations to have regulations on it.
But even in running, a small trans woman athlete who is similar in size to a biologically woman athlete has no advantage over women (after gender affirmation therapy)
===================
On forests maybe you mean about the logging permissions?
For old growth forests. I would need to search about it.
This is one of them. It is about changing rules about which sizes of trees can be felled and he has to comply with various laws.
Ukraine will NOT surrender
Ukraine will NOT surrender. You can be sure of that.
And NATO will pivot away from Trump. Even though US will remain in it, the decision making will be made in Brussels or in Germany for the Ukraine war. The US simply won't have a voice in NATO decision making any more. Unless Trump joins in with them.
If Trump is elected then NATO has already done a lot to Trump proof NATO and will focus a lot on improving that. And Biden will empty his fund giving billions to Ukraine before his term ends.
SHORT DEBUNK: How Europe is Trump-proofing NATO
. How Europe is Trump-proofing NATO
The US economy is doing very well under Biden even though it doesn't seem like it. So there is a lot of leeway to make mistakes.
There is no way they can censor LGBT material. The main thing here is concern about limiting what is permitted to be kept in school libraries and taught at school. .But this is usually at state level.
There is NO POSSIBILITY OF A WORLD WAR
Not a war. Not a world war. In China then China can't attack Taiwan which is a high tech country way advanced over Ukraine which has been able to keep Russian ships well away from the Ukrainian coast. Trump would be vague and confusing about it.
In the Middle East I don't think anyone will see this as good for Palestinian rights. He will just let Netanyahu do whatever he wants.
Let's hope the war is over, by then. When he was president he worked out plans for Israel and Palestine based on talking only to Netanyahu and other Arab states but not Palestinians. So he is likely to just ignore their ideas while working on the solution whatever it is.
Nothing major like a world war or ending democracy or any of the things that people in this group get scared of. They all fail fact check .
But I do have one concern only since yesterday as I didn't know he planned to appoint Robert Kennedy to his administration - a bizarre choice. What's more Trump's team bizarrely has come out as their pitch for the final few days. However I think this may well be the thing that loses him the race if it is close.
I follow many medical professionals and have done since the COVID pandemic for my debunking, and they are all talking about this today and have been since yesterday. I can't see many of those voting for Trump.
Trump wants to appoint Robert Kennedy Jr to some role in the administration to oversee health, safety and medicine. There is no way he can actually make vaccination illegal and it's not likely he can ban fluoride in the water either. But there's a lot of concern that he may turn back years of work in public education ot assure people that vaccines are safe. If that happens then measles may return, and other childhood diseases - it's not that serious a disease in advanced economies but it kills one baby in 5000.
Your baby can be close to 100% safe from measles if vaccinated. But already less than 80% are vaccinated in Iowa and many states have less than 90%. It needs to be at a 95% level to stop measles outbreaks.
So there is a realistic concern that if Trump is elected it could lead to measles outbreaks again. Not instantly but more and more smaller outbreaks with each year of his presidency.
Hopefully this may lead to some pushback if it happens.
Anyway that's my main concern about Trump.
No possibility of a world war. Don't expect him to be any different from Biden on Ukraine. He is likely to withdraw from the Paris agreement yet again but this will have little effect globally.
He can't have a serious impact on freedom of speech because of the strong constitution.
The economy is very robust and recovering, and he is not likely to push tariffs so far as to affect it in a major way.
The background is that just as Trump says he will give Elon Musk some role in the executive on governmetn efficiency, a man with very bizarre ideas about the economy, he will give Robert Kennedy Jr a role in overseeing health, food and medicine regulation, a man with very bizarre ideas about medicine and health.
Both appointments seem unlikely to last long. They would be well out of their depth in those roles.
But we have already seen many major effects of vaccine misinformation and so I hope that he doesn't get elected for the health effects, or that if he does, he goes back on this decision to give Robert Kennedy a major role in his administration.
I think it's also possible that he tries it for a while and then Robert Kennedy resigns, because he is way out of his depth not having much understanding of basic ideas in medicine. He is a lawyer, former US attorney general, under his brother John F. Kennedy, not a doctor. So that is the plus side what may happen.
I hope he gets fired quickly if he is appointed.
I cover it here in the new blog post.
50 - 50 chance for Republicans to get the House.
Supplementary Security Income will be safe
. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
On SSI, when Biden exaggerated about plans by Trump, Trump responded saying he will never do anything to cut SSI
. Trump vows he 'will never do anything' to Social Security after 'cutting' comment
In 2020 Trump did an executive order pausing payroll taxes which fund SSI. But it turned out he can only stop it with a bill in Congress:
QUOTE STARTS
On August 8, Trump signed an executive action to temporarily suspend the payroll tax for many employees. It also leaves open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax down the road.
Critics argue that this would essentially defund Social Security and Medicare because they are both primarily financed by the tax. Others say the temporary pause won't have a significant effect on Social Security benefits because the President alone can't reduce payroll taxes, which would require action from Congress.
When asked about the effect this action would have on Social Security trust funds, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told reporters in a press gaggle on August 11 the President is still committed to protecting entitlements but did not outline how he would do so. Conway also said Trump was more concerned with people who are currently trying to make ends meet, rather than the longer-term aims of Social Security.
...
During a press briefing on August 12, Trump outlined what he would seek to do if reelected.
"At the end of the year, with the assumption that I win," Trump said, "I'm going to terminate the payroll tax."
Trump went on to say that Social Security would be paid for through the General Fund. "It works out very nicely," he said.
The next day Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, added confusion, telling reporters that Trump meant that "he wants permanent forgiveness of the deferral" instead of permanently eliminating the payroll tax. But that's not what Trump said.
Only Congress can terminate the payroll tax and it's unclear, with the House controlled by Democrats and the difficulty of rallying Senate Republicans behind such a proposal, how Trump would get rid of the tax by the end of the year.
So - he can only stop payroll taxes with a bill in Congress and he would have to find another way to support SSI to get support for that enough to get a bill passed in Congress.
So there is a fair bit of protection both from Trump's own statement and also because Congress would need to be behind any plan to change how SSI is funded.
All the dates for the SSI checks are scheduled in advance for the next year. I am not sure how these dates are determined, if it is a law or a rule or something - but they are all decided in advance.
. Social Security Payment Schedule 2024
No Trump can’t use the military as soldiers on US soil - just relief workers, surrogate national guards and so on
Also for those worried by recent claims by Trump, and also made by his opponents also that he can use the military as soldiers on US soil - no that's nonsense. Only as relief workers for hurricanes, surrogate national guards etc.
Trump as an accidentally successful disruptor - trying to understand from the UK why so many Americans voted for him
Second half of
I find a lot of Trump’s appeal is hard to understand writing from the UK. It just doesn't translate as anything sensible in UK politics. Imagine if either Boris Johnson or Kier Starmer had
led an insurrection with rioters trying to stop the sovereign's speech announcing the new prime minister and forming the new government, say. A
been convicted of paying hush money to a porn star to keep news about paid sex out of the public while campaigning
been convicted of claiming to have smaller properties than they do have for tax purposes.
facing a future trial over hiding classified documents that they were supposed to return when they left office?
And then suppose they said they would
imprison their political opponent if they got into office.
be a dictator on day 1.
ALMOST NOBODY IN THE UK WOULD VOTE FOR THEM.
So why don't all these issues have more influence on voters in the US?
I speculate it is to do with
free speech laws,
a strong constitution,
Trump's charisma
his way of accidentally doing things that work out well even against his own intentions.
It seems highly unlikely many voting for Trump want him to overthrow democracy in the USA, so I assume most voters who want to vote for him understand at some level that he can't really do that.
The best explanation I saw from one Republican on TV was that they see him as someone who will disrupt the way government is done and they want it shaken up because they don't like the way it is working now.
So perhaps it is really about him being a disruptive influence on the US government and hoping this leads to something they see as better than good qualities in him as a person.
Trump’s habit of accidentally doing good things
Perhaps they see the confusion and disruption he creates as itself a good thing shaking up the government to lead to unexpected solutions?
It reminds me a bit of the computational technique of “simulated annealing”. This is a classic problem of the traveling salesman who has to visit a number of destinations spread over a large area and can visit them in any order. Which order is best?
In this case they are airports in Europe and joined by flights along straight lines. It is a remarkably hard problem to find the best solution - though you can find reasonably good solutions quite easily.
For a simple version of the problem, you suppose there is a direct route between each one and all he has to do is to minimize the total flight distance. This is far too complicated to find the solution by trying out all possible routes once the number of cities gets very large though for small paths it is solvable by checking everything.
Well it turns out one of the best ways to solve it quickly is to start with a random path through them all. Then you jiggle the paths around in a way that resembles raising the temperature - and then gradually cool it down, do less jiggles, with restraints on the path that guide it towards shorter total paths.
Perhaps Trump does something like this? Jiggles things up forcing others around him to rejoin the dots sometimes into an accidentally better solution?
However he does it, the one thing I can understand is that he often has accidentally done good things.
his summits with Kim Jong Un where I think he accidentally hit on the right tone for the leader, combination of threats and flattery, talking up the economic potential for his country of the deal, and talking about building luxury hotels in North Korea which has some beauty spots that would be attractive to tourists if it was opened up - and going right to the top which you need to do negotiating with a Confucian leader.
his operation warp speed for vaccines where it is kind of accidental because he did little to help people get vaccinated when he lost the presidency, but he still got vaccinated himself.
withdrawing from the Paris Agreement I think actually led to the rest of the world taking more not less action on climate change, it may be a factor in how much action we've done since then.
the first president to give Ukraine any military support and if he hadn't given them the javelin anti-tank missiles, Biden might not have either and Latvia and Lithuania would have found it harder to give them the Stingers politically and they would have found it significantly more difficult in the battle for Kyiv in spring 2022.
Domestically in the US he was responsible for the big per person payouts in 2020 that helped support many people during the recession and set up the conditions for the recovery with Biden continuing the same, so he took on trillions of dollars of debt to protect the economy in COVID which a more traditional Republican might not have done.
he also did some revisions of tax that the Democrats also thought helped the economy as they kept them.
And it is true he didn't start any wars - nor did Biden.
he set up the conditions for withdrawing from Afghanistan, which he thinks led to the Ukraine war - if so surely the Ukraine war would have happened as much under him as Biden
I also don't think he'd have stopped the Hamas attack, if anything he made the conditions for it stronger by his support of Netanyahu. So I don't buy those arguments at all.
But he did, mostly accidentally, do things that were good for the world.
by misleadingly claiming that NATO countries owe money - they don't actually the 2% is about boosting their own military not about paying anything to the US or anyone else - but with all that goading he probably boosted the amount they spent on funding their miltiaries which led to their militaries being more prepared for assisting Ukraine and to present a stronger front to Russia after the incursion.
Then as an enthusiast for humans in space myself
Trump had a much better humans in space policy than Obama, who for some bizarre reason required astronauts to go to Mars without ever landing on the Moon first, which led to a plan to send a robotic spacecraft to pick up a small boulder from an asteroid and return it to the Earth Moon system just to give them something to visit near Earth that's not the Moon
Trump rightly scrapped that idea and pivoted to revisiting the Moon for the first time since Apollo - he may achieve this in his next term with luck.
You can't run history again but without Trump if it was Clinton instead in 2016 it might not necessarily have been a better world by now, different but not necessarily better.
Of course, Democrats would have many reasons to prefer that history with Clinton winning, but after it has happened there were pluses from a Trump term that might not have happened under Clinton.
It is of course permitted in the US constitution to elect a convicted felon.
He is not immune from prosecution as a president - the Chutkan pre-trial hearing will clarify that
If he is found guilty of starting an insurrection then he can't run. But that case will only be concluded after the election, probably not until 2025 if they appeal and it reaches the Supreme Court and would be stopped if Trump becomes president.
However even if Trump is elected he can stop the Jan 06 prosecution he CAN’T stop Justice Tanya Chutkan’s judgement about whether the case can go ahead. She will make that decision at some point likely soon after election day.
So whoever is elected as president we will know well before Jan 20th whether a president can be prosecuted for Jan 06. The answer is sure to be yes. We’ll also have details of what exactly he can be prosecuted for. All this will be an inhibitor on Trump.
The case could continue all the way through to Jan 20th however and it's not impossible that the appeal just fails in the higher courts.
The Supreme Coruts might also refuse to take it on, quite likely - and if so, if it moves swiftly, perhaps it could get as far as a trial date scheduled before he is inaugurated if he wins?
In any case, he would be able to stop it at that point by just withdrawing the Federal prosecution I think.
However Chutkan’s ruling itself will help give some check on him however far it gets, knowing that he can be prosecuted and is not as immune as some made the ruling out to be. There is no way that they decide he can't be prosecuted for Jan 06, as the evidence is strong and Jack Smith made a good case.
See:
. Judge in Trump 2020 election case unseals more evidence from special counsel
Answering various concerns about Trump - he can’t do the things many claim he can do
SHORT DEBUNK: If Trump is elected for 4 years it will have only minute effects on global warming
SHORT DEBUNK Impossibility of Project 2025 and Trump's Agenda 47 - short summary
Robert, I want to offer a very deep and profound thank you for everything you’ve written over the years. I have been a silent follower for about 8 years now. Your words have not only soothed my immediate anxiety, but also armed me with the tools I need to cope with anxiety and overly bleak news on my own. I was extremely hopeful for this election, but find myself in a similar mode of panic and anxiety that I was 8 years ago. However, I truly believe that when people are challenged by hatred and division, we also see the best in them. I still believe in all the good things that people have to offer the planet and each other. I feel that no matter how dire the news seems, it only hardens our resolve to work towards a better future. So I will see this moment in time as a challenge to better myself, and do my part in passing it on to those around me. Again, thank you for the tremendous amount of time you’ve spent helping others you've ’e never even met.
Thanks for this Robert. It’s hard not to feel like everything’s bleak and hopeless right now, but your words offer a guiding light. I especially thank you for your section on suicide prevention—I fear a lot of people are going to be consumed by anxiety and despair after this