I thought the ongoing comments on the US elections thread were increasingly at odds with the title and theme of that thread. Trump has now been inaugurated so its time to move to a thread about his presidency.
This is likely to be a thread with strong opinions and one influenced by controversial actions & decisions by Trump. Please therefore stick to facts, observations and views about the consequences of what Trump does (or says he is going to do). Try to avoid name calling and insults.
I’ll start with one observation. Trump did say he would act quickly and his rush of executive orders has shown that he intends to keep to his goal. It is a pity, from my perspective, that what he sees as most urgent could be seen as most destructive. That is:-
Pardoning the Jan 6 rioters. This is undermining the rule of law and endorsing aggressive, dangerous and violent actions. Surely the head of the state should endorse such rioting.
Taking the US out of the climate change agreement. The US is already the largest contributor to global warming. This will only cause more natural disasters, incur more cost in rectifying the damage from these disasters and risk destroying many small island nations. Surely there was scope for something reasonable between being in the climate agreement and being out of the agreement?
And certainly one could argue there are more urgent things than either of these two.
Is China,
I’ll correct that, the largest contributor of all time is the US. And China has not decided to walk away from the climate agreement.
Fasten the seatbelts.
“Clash of the Titans”. Anytime soon !
All the way 2. >> TvM Final.
And its Collateral Damage.
And his bestie, space Karen was giving the nazi salute
Two small incidents I noticed re-enforced my opinion of all politicians.Obama and Trump giggling together at the Carter funeral and Biden standing on the steps of the White House greeting Trump with “welcome home”.
There are all in one select club and we are not members.
To be fair China is also the country doing the most to reduce its CO2 emissions with solar farms and EVs
It is true that, so far, the number 1 polluter is , still, China (due to the fact it had its industrial revolution a century later compared to Europe eg) followed by India and the USA.
Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined
But the huge difference is that China is very conscious about that, and 100% committed to a greener earth and is indeed becoming the world leader in green technologies making huge progress daily in inventing and inovating world wide green technologies.
Trump realises the folly of this CO2 and net zero nonsense and wants no part of it, I commend him for that. If all the world were to alter the CO2 there would be some red faces when the extreme weather continues to make life difficult for us humans. Much better to prepare for climate change than try to prevent it.
His point is that the US shouldn’t implement climate accords when China is ignoring them. The irony is that US demand fuels Chinese production.
His argument against wind farms is partly based on bird deaths. I agree on that point. But our insatiable demand for goods combined with destruction of rain forests to feed us or fulfill our need for chemicals/cosmetics, maintain our 21st C lifestyles is leading to wide destruction of animal habitats.
Putting climate change aside, maintaining the natural eco balance of plant, animal, insect life is essential for our own survival. We could never have survived on an Earth in its original state.
What’s really shocking is that they are now talking about sending out shipping container sized satellites to generate power for the AI revolution. All the billionaire/trillionaire top tech guys had VIP seats at the inauguration. I’m not clear on why we need an AI revolution that is eating up the planets resources. How is that progress?
Trump arguments against wind farms are mostly underpinned by huge donations from Koch Industries and the oil giants.
If you all are interested in policy, this website expands on the executive orders and policies of the new administration:
These have already been discussed at length in our media
The citizenship birthright is an interesting one in terms of controversy, because the UK changed the rules back in the 1970s or early 80s and children of non UK nationals have to apply for citizenship regardless of being born in the UK.
Let’s take a state that is equivalent to the size of the UK and compare which creates more pollution. Oregon produces 61.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. But looking at the UK, produces the UK emitted approximately 406.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
But, per capia Oregon is 9.3 metric ton and the UK is 4.5 metric tons. But then again Oregon has considerably more plant life to convert co2 into o2.
That’s like comparing olives to watermelons.
That particular executive order will be challenged in the courts, Annie.
Thanks for sharing the link to the Trump administration’s stated goals. It is going to be interesting to see how he does. For example, how raising tariffs will support reducing costs. And how removing millions from the labour market will reduce costs. I’m also wondering if the dirt of corruption that tainted his first administration will be addressed in this second one. Or get worse. Plus, will the administration clamp down on racism and racist attacks which may well follow the anti-immigration, anti-non-white policies? Lastly, how will US exports fair in a time when Trump seems keen to punish countries that export to America. We shall see.
“We Shall See” !!
Here it was the British nationality act 1981 that changed the law. You can only be a British citizen born in this country if one of your parents is a British citizen. Prior to this place of birth determined British nationality. There are exceptions for some British territories. I don’t remember any legal challenges at the time. Perhaps other members here do. 1981 was a year of quite extreme prejudice in the UK. The NF and skins were a big movement here. Even though at the time there were very few foreigners.
The US being a country of incomers, historically giving shelter to all, is in a different position.
O that explains “Shamima Begum” Always wondered over that case.
Thanks learnt somthing.