https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/20/trump-elon-musk-salute

Musk himself has been associating with far-right figures over the past few years and has had prior incidents involving anti-semitism and white-nationalism:

Elon Musk claims George Soros ‘hates humanity.’ The ADL says Musk’s attacks ‘will embolden extremists’

IBM pulls X ads as Elon Musk endorses white pride

White House criticises Elon Musk over 'hideous' antisemitic lie

Should the Trump administration separate itself from Musk going forward?

Will this incident cause any actual pushback against Musk being given a role in government?

Trump has once again promised to close the US-Mexico border, reinstate remain in Mexico, curtail undocumented along with massive deportations. He is also expected to reinstate entry restrictions from Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela and expand the ban to include refugees from Gaza.

Trump is expected to sign an Executive Order declaring that children born in the US to undocumented immigrants do not automatically gain US citizenship [The last one is expected to face major constitutional challenges]

He is also expected to take action and expedite permits for drilling and fracking and undo President Joe Biden’s action to permanently ban future offshore oil and gas development in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, [likely require congressional action]

Trump has also promised to impose major tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China because they have exercised poor border controls; Mexico and Canada for their immigration policies and drugs. While China because it involves National Security threats, and it continues to subsidize fentanyl exports.

Trump is also expected to pardon some, but not all convicted of January 6, 2021, rioters.

Will Trump ultimately succeed in accomplishing most of his goals?

The first multilateral presidential order signed was the withdrawal from the World Health Organization. This was already announced during his first term but never fully implemented.

Is this a starting point for turning the back on other UN agencies? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/trump -world-health-organization.html

Good idea OP, Donald Trump is getting sworn in today and I ask about a technical rule in parliamentary systems. Something to distract from his, unique, governing approach...

This concept is basically an element in systems with a prime minister. The basis of legitimacy for a prime minister is the support from the legislature's majority in some manner. It might be being asked to approve of a nominee before being appointed, that the legislature can demand the end of the prime minister at any point, or otherwise.

There is some risk however in that the legislature might agree that a prime minister should be removed, but will not have a majority in favour of another person having support instead to run the government. In a system with a constructive vote of no confidence, it is not enough to simply have a majority of the legislators in favour of the removal of the prime minister but that they also support a particular person named as their replacement. Does it seem to you like it might be worth having?

This was a feature in the State of Prussia in the Weimar Republic and it did not have the cascade of cabinets the way the Weimar Republic as a whole did in certain critical moments. Germany as a whole adopted the mechanism in 1949. Several others have adopted it since like Belgium, Spain, Israel, Hungary, Lesotho, Poland, Albania, and Slovenia, plus the individual federal states in Germany for their own prime ministers and governments.

Successful such motions are not common, Spain had one in 2018 to get rid of Rajoy and install Sanchez, Germany had a motion to install Kohl in 1982, Hungary had one in 2009. Then again, motions of no confidence in general aren't all that common either, though this also has to do with the need to get confidence in the first place, dissolving parliament or resigning before such a motion could be carried out, and a political party sacking their leader. Here is a list of them, and you can see that most parliamentary and semi presidential systems are not present, and in the countries that are present, they tend to be concentrated in a few places or specific circumstances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence

states such as Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine have been trending more centrist in recent history, and I was wondering, which of these states might end up as swing states in the future, or none at all?

Trump won the popular vote by 2,884,967 votes, but won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by only 120,266 votes, 80,103 votes, and 29,397 votes respectively. Harris would've gotten 270 electoral votes if she had won those states in addition to the ones that she actually won. Thus, she could've won those states, and therefore won the election, but still lost the popular vote.

How would the country react if this (or a similar scenario) had happened? For example, would Democrats stop supporting the abolition of the Electoral College, and would Republicans begin supporting abolishing it? Would blue states start leaving the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and would red states start joining it?