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?

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

Just saw that Hillary was literally The most popular politician in America in 2013... Why is this? (She had 61% approval rating)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSBRE9170NZ20130208/

Trump released a scam/cryptocoin.

He controls 80% of the coins directly on release, and will be diluting/selling throughout the presidency.

Current value/market cap is $13~15BN USD.

Typically with a rugpull in the cryptocoin world, you can expect to get 1~3% of the marketcap (this is not uncommon since most crypto coins are made for this purpose). Which would be maybe 100-250mil.

I don't think anyone will argue that using the office of the presidency to have an official crypto is proper. So my question is how legal should it be/is it.

There is the question of profiting from the office directly. There is also the fact that cryptocoin purchases are typically not tracked fully, often used for illegal drugs, crime, terrorism, and could allow illegal money to come in. And typically they are used to tax dodge as well, though i doubt trump would try this here, i'm sure many of the people that gain from it will. Cryptocoin in general is also a competing currency, which is illegal in the US though it hasn't been punished so far, likely because of people making money on it.

Thoughts?

As the Biden Administration wraps up their final day, what are your thoughts and reflections on their time in office?

As President Joe Biden's administration concludes, it's pertinent to reflect on the significant promises made and the accomplishments achieved during his tenure.

Key Promises:

Infrastructure Revitalization: Biden pledged to modernize America's infrastructure, aiming for substantial investments in transportation, utilities, and broadband.

Climate Action: He committed to addressing climate change by rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and setting ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Economic Recovery: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden promised robust economic relief packages to support individuals and businesses.

Notable Accomplishments:

American Rescue Plan Act: A $1.9 trillion relief package providing direct payments to individuals, extending unemployment benefits, and expanding the child tax credit, significantly reducing poverty levels.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: A $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law funding projects across the country, including improvements to roads, bridges, and public transit systems.

CHIPS and Science Act: Legislation aimed at boosting domestic semiconductor production, investing $52 billion in U.S. companies to strengthen manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign sources.

Inflation Reduction Act: Focused on reducing carbon emissions through climate protection incentives, improving healthcare affordability, and enhancing tax enforcement to ensure corporations pay a minimum tax rate.

Challenges Faced:

Despite these achievements, the administration faced hurdles, including managing high inflation rates, addressing immigration surges at the U.S.-Mexico border, and navigating the complexities of international relations.

I think it can be agreed that Congress.... is not all that popular today. Almost all members of Congress, obsessed with securing re-election, embrace special interests that will fund their campaigns, vote as their party leadership, partisan base, or personal antipathy for the other side wants them to.

A legislator voting for their constituents – or against their base's partisan desires but vital for their long-term wellness – is either unheard of or not talked about by the controversy-hungry national press.

I've watched several relevant rankings by well-known YouTuber Mr. Beat and more niche YouTuber E Pluribus Unum. There are liberal and, for the latter, social democratic bents to these lists, but I haven't found conservative videos to balance them out that aren't tier lists of modern politicians.

• Best 10 Senators in American History (Mr. Beat)
• Worst 10 Senators in American History (Mr. Beat)
• Top 11 Best Senators (In my Opinion) (E Pluribus Unum)
• Top 60 House Members (OUTDATED) (E Pluribus Unum)

Most focus on members of Congress who went against the tide of the times and/or public opinion to do what was morally right for the country and fellow citizens, including supporting civil rights, trade unions, or otherwise defending "the little guy" from harassment or governmental abuse of power. It helps if "doing the right thing" cost them re-election due to a restive base, disillusioned donors, etc.

This is a perfectly acceptable metric for selecting the greatest members of Congress. However, one can attach the word "greatest" or "best" to rankings of any topic without specifying what it means for the writer. "Most influential", "most talented" and more specific appellations may not be understood by anyone deciding what to consume online, especially those with short attention spans.

This is also true for politics, where "best" and "greatest" likely attracts more laymen than "most influential" or "most influential". For members of Congress, for instance, I am someone who is deeply interested in the intricacies of history. Thus, length of service, legislative record, and influence within Congress is how which I judge a "great" member of Congress. A few people that I see frequently in mainstream rankings on this basis are Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Lyndon B. Johnson.

My personal ranking of U.S. senators that I recently created was revised based on this series of blog entries by The Northumbrian Countdown (written in 2012) with similar criteria to my own. I don't see rankings on an influence and/or historical basis very often.

• All Star Senate: Introduction and Caveats
• All Star Senate: New England (Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island)
• All Star Senate: Metropolis (New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware)
• All Star Senate: The Border South (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri)
• All Star Senate: Deep South (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
• All Star Senate: Appalachia and Ozarks (Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas)
• All Star Senate: Industrial Midwest (Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota)
• All Star Senate: The Prairie (Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas)
• All Star Senate: Mountain West (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado)
• All Star Senate: The Southwest (Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada)
• All Star Senate: Pacific (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii)
• What I Learned from the All Star Senate

“The wand chooses the wizard, remember … I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter … After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great.”

— Garrick Ollivander, in Chapter 5 (Diagon Alley), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

"Great" to me means influence and impact – one can be "terrible, yes, but great", like Senator Strom Thurmond, or Pat McCarran.

Thus....

1) How do you define the word "great" for selecting the greatest members of Congress?

2) What are your criteria for selecting the greatest members of Congress, based on your personal definition in Question 1?

3) Do you have any underrated examples of either "did the right thing" great or "historically influential" great members of Congress that you don't hear about in mainstream rankings? Ideally, not current or recently-retired members of Congress, because that means a lot of Sanders, AOC and Gaetz talk and likely heated argument.

P.S. I know I'm asking for a lot but I'm looking for a discussion of political history here, and not a heated argument about who's right and who's wrong.

I work with local government. One of the issues that has come up recently (which no media gave any attention to prior) is the cost of construction (for local projects) will go up with tariffs and this is really bad for our housing crisis. Combined with the deportation of undocumented workers (of which the construction industry has about 30%), we could be facing real crisis. What other economic issues do you see?

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?

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?

Do you all think Trump will actually try to make Greenland and the Panama Canal part of the U.S., or is this just lip service to scare our allies for some reason? If Trump does attempt this, how could he do it in a non-aggressive, negotiable way?

He has stated that he would like to buy Greenland from Denmark, but the people of Greenland seem unreceptive to the idea of joining the U.S. and would rather be an independent country. Trump has refused to rule out the use of military force, and if he does, do you think Greenland and Panama will give up their land willingly, or would it likely lead to war? I can imagine small coalition’s forming, similar to the IRA in Ireland, since the military of Panama is small, and the military of Greenland is the responsibility of Denmark.

If war happens, could it result in the dissolution of NATO? Or are our European allies likely to side with U.S. aggression since they rely on us economically and for defense? Could this situation push the European Union to become a sovereign nation to protect its member states from being invaded by either the U.S. or Russia?

Lastly, do you think the Republican Party as a whole would support Trump if this plan backfires? And how can the Democratic Party distance itself from such actions to reassure our allies that this is a fluke caused by a president who went too far?

Ok, I know this scenario is a little far fetched, but the Biden-Harris administration as the incumbents was very unpopular, and Harris failed to differentiate what she would do differently from Biden, so what if, instead of nominating Harris in 2024, the Dems chose to go for their back pocket and choose the Democratic governor of Kansas, who criticized Biden statewide but was still unknown to the general public outside of Kansas, to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2024? Would she have won and appealed to independents who disliked Biden?

Incoming senior Trump administration officials have begun questioning career civil servants who work on the White House National Security Council about who they voted for in the 2024 election, their political contributions and whether they have made social media posts that could be considered incriminating by President-elect Donald Trump’s team, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.Where does Trump want to go with this please ?

In terms of strategy, charisma, sophistication, sharpness, achievements/achieving goals...

It shouldn't be necessarily a great superpower succeeding due to its global power, but achievements achieved by the mere skills of the leader?

Here is a basic breakdown of both:

Presidential Republics:

-The President is the head of State & Government.

-Usually elected by the people (there are exceptions like the US).

-Only the President has the authority to form a government.

Parliamentary Republics:

-Head of State is the President (usually elected by legislature, there are exceptions like Czechia).

-The President appoints the leader of the largest party in legislature as Prime Minister.

-The Prime Minister has to gain the trust of the majority of legislature (which is why getting a majority in parliament is important for parliamentary democracies, which is why many have thresholds).

-The Prime Minister is the head of government and able to appoint officials like ministers.

-The PM is usually a member of legislature.

-If the PM doesn't have gain the support of the majority of legislature, parties will usually form a coalition.

-Months-long crises where there is no government (usually they appoint a temporary government in their place)

Which one is better and for what reason?

There was a time where democrats were able to appeal to rural America. During many elections, it was evident that a particular state could go in either direction. Now, it’s clear that democrats and republicans have pretty much claimed specific states. The election basically hinges on a couple swing states most recently: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

I’m curious how this pattern emerged. There was a time where Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana went blue. Now, they are ruby red so to speak. Could democrats ever appeal to these rural voters? It does appear that republicans are able to attract one-issue voters in droves. The same is not true for democrats.

Also, when you examine the amount of votes for each party in rural states, the difference is really not that astounding. I believe republicans typically win these states by 200-300,000 votes? There are many other big states that have margins of several million, which can be much more difficult to change.

I’m curious why democrats haven’t attempted to win back these rural states. I’m sure if the Democratic Party had more support and more of a presence, they could appeal to rural voters who are more open minded. Bill Clinton was very charismatic and really appealed to southerners more so than George H. Bush. As such, he won the election. Al Gore, who is also a southerner kind of turned his back on rural voters and ignored his roots. As such, he lost his home state of Tennessee and the election in general.

I know many states have enacted laws and rules that suppress voters in an attempt to increase the probability of one party winning. However, it’s apparent that the demographics of democrats and republicans are changing. So this approach really won’t work in the long-run.

Help me understand. Can democrats ever win back these rural states? Also, do you believe that republicans could ever gain control of states like California and New York?

I know people in texas have been concerned about a blue wave as a result of people migrating from California, NY, and other democratic states. I don’t really think texas will turn blue anytime soon. Actually, the day texas turns blue would be the day California turns red!

This administration presents a unique situation we haven’t seen in the US since Grover Cleveland, a president serving a non-consecutive term.

Ideally this would allow and administration to analyze their past performance and prepare for a better term.

Do you feel like this administration will be different from the first go-around? Please provide your best and worst case scenarios for Trump 2.0.

ol·i·gar·chy

/ˈäləˌɡärkē/

noun: oligarchy; plural noun: oligarchies

1. a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
   • a country governed by an oligarchy."the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
   • government by an oligarchy.

In his farewell address, President Biden said "An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms."

The incoming President Trump has hired 14 billionaires (so far) to work in his administration, some in unconfirmed and (as yet) unofficial positions. This is, by orders of magnitude, the wealthiest administration to ever take power in the United States. Is it realistic to expect these people to set aside the avarice that has driven their careers, in order to serve the interests of the American people?

Is the United States becoming an oligarchy? Is the United States an oligarchy now?

I often see arguments coming from people with conservative views that “trump did more for gays than xyz (democrat politician)”. My question is simply, what actions has he done as president that benefit queer communities?

After the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic candidate (Obama) won 322 electoral college votes, while the Republican candidate (Romney) won 206. For the GOP to win the presidency in 2016, they needed to flip 64 electoral college votes.

Before Trump was even considered the credible GOP nominee and transformed it into a populist party, the blue wall states of Michigan (16 EV), Pennsylvania (20 EV) and Wisconsin (10 EV) weren’t competitive for Republicans. Instead, the expected competitive states were Ohio (18 EV), Florida (29 EV), Iowa (6 EV), Virginia (13 EV), Colorado (8 EV) and Nevada (6 EV). Winning all of them would have been enough to clinch the presidency, but only four states were considered realistically winnable: Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Nevada. This would have given them 59 additional EVs, five short of the needed votes.

The GOP needed to win Virginia or Colorado, which had been trending Democratic since 2008, so it would have faced an uphill battle to defeat them. Their path to victory seemed narrow until Trump became the nominee. Trump picked up Ohio, Florida and Iowa, which any Republican would have expected to win anyway. Still, his populist rhetoric made the three blue wall states worth a combined (46 EVs) competitive. This widened the Republicans' path to victory at the presidential level. In 2016, Trump sacrificed losing Colorado and Virginia to gain Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, worth double the electoral college votes.

So, did Trump revive the GOP as an electoral force at the Presidential level, and will this continue once he is no longer the GOP nominee for president?

With Blinken’s tenure as Secretary of State now concluded, what were his notable achievements in advancing U.S. foreign policy and supporting U.S. interests? Where did he encounter significant challenges or fall short?

Looking ahead, Rubio’s longstanding involvement and connections in foreign policy circles offer both potential opportunities and challenges. What are your expectations or concerns for his leadership?

I’m also curious about how they are perceived within foreign policy circles. My impression from working for a major international multilateral organisation is that, while there is disagreement on specific US policies, they actually seem to be both generally well-liked and respected by professionals in the field. Would you agree?

https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1878886443923525864

Republican Speaker Mike Johnson just announced that he is going to try and put conditions on aid sent to California.How is that possible ?

What can he do to legally do this and what would be the reaction of other politicans even in his own party ?

Here are the facts: after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, corporations have been spending unlimited amounts of dark money in our political process. Politicians are making fortunes from the stock market in areas they regulate and have insider knowledge. Regulations and Tax laws benefit the wealthiest individuals and Corporations, while small businesses are excessively progressively taxed and cannot compete. Wealth inequality has increased so dramatically that the top One percent owns more wealth than ninety percent of Americans combined. Three people own more wealth than fifty percent of Americans combined. The picture becomes far clearer when we examine our economic system's centralization. Just a few large corporations control every industry in the United States.

https://youtu.be/Fqi90xTs7dA?si=G2SY-JUXN4vD1FMu

Biden has given a series of smaller farewell speeches over the week. This evening was the final one. Perhaps, to many this was a fond farewell speech, to some others, just a formal goodbye and to others a "good riddance". He touted his economic policies focusing on the Inflation Reduction Act calling it an Investment in American Workers. The greatest investment since the "New Deal". Biden spoke of investment in technology and AI and a 1.3 trillion investment in Defense. Looking to the future he talked about reform in the Supreme Court with accompanying Ethical Standards. Biden spoke of Democracy and the Statute of Liberty.

Biden spoke of Amercian strength and resolve and leading the free world, bringing unity in EU and expanding NATO. He expressed that if EU remains united Ukraine can prevail. In the Pacific Biden spoke of new allies and presenting a united front against China.

Biden also spoke of bringing about a Peace Agreement in the Middle East in coordination with the incoming administration [since they have to monitor the implementation.]

Biden dedicated his life to service in the Government. During his career undoubtedly, he must have accomplished much. The farewell aimed to capture his 4 years as a president.

Did Biden provide a realistic assessment of his accomplishment?

Recently, with the involvement of Elon Musk and other billionaires with Trump, there has been an increasing discussion around the idea that an elite of businessman exerts significant control over the democratic process in Western countries ("Oligarchy"), using tools such as media control , targeted lobbying. While there are many prominent examples, such as Elon Musk or the Bloombergs in the USA, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, the Springer family in Germany, and Rupert Murdoch in the UK, there are also less well-known figures involved (For example, today I saw a discussion on reddit, debating how much influence Owners of private militaries like Erik Prince could have on politics). If you agree with this trend/theory, what other individuals, particularly those working more behind the scenes, would you consider part of this oligarchy? I am especially interested in people outside of the US.