What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

I doubt the GOP wants Canada in the union . . .

This is all typical Trumpian blowhard drama which will result in a DEAL that is really bigly and much better than anything Biden could ever do.

The contours of that deal will be pretty much what is already under discussion, namely some compromise on DST and NA auto content rules, and some unenforceable "pledges" on stuff like dairy and other ag products.  It will typical ho hum sort of trade stuff that Trump will package and upsell as the DEAL!

The trade deficit with Canada is an artifact of two factors: (1) Canadian crude oil is shipped to US refineries who then ship the refined product on - this is of obvious economic benefit to both parties, (2) the US has deeper and superior investment options so there is a regular capital flow from Canada --> US which is partly balanced by the trade deficit.  Again this is not something US business interests are likely to want to change.

[Zanza]

The Anschluss of Canada is an unexpected first foreign policy move.

[Barrister]

Trump seems to be really getting obsessed with getting Canada into the US.  Has he hired Tim as a senior advisor? 

So that almost makes sense - adding Canada to the US would appeal to a Tim-like EU (or HOI) player who likes painting the map.  If Trump actually could add Canada to the US it would be the US's greatest territorial expansion ever - even larger than the Louisiana Purchase or the purchase of Alaska.

It would make a certain amount of sense too - US would get access to all of our natural resources, Canadians would get visa-free ability to travel (and work) in the US.

Problem is it isn't the 19th century anymore.

There just aren't any modern precedents for integrating two large and successful countries.  I can only think of two examples.  One is integrating east germany into west germany.  The thing is though that the GDR was essentially bankrupt and with no real legitimacy - and it still cost an estimated 2 trillion euros and took decades.

The only other example is the EU - which again is a process that has taken decades and has only very partially unified those countries.

[Razgovory]

I doubt the GOP wants Canada in the union . . .

This is all typical Trumpian blowhard drama which will result in a DEAL that is really bigly and much better than anything Biden could ever do.

The contours of that deal will be pretty much what is already under discussion, namely some compromise on DST and NA auto content rules, and some unenforceable "pledges" on stuff like dairy and other ag products.  It will typical ho hum sort of trade stuff that Trump will package and upsell as the DEAL!

The trade deficit with Canada is an artifact of two factors: (1) Canadian crude oil is shipped to US refineries who then ship the refined product on - this is of obvious economic benefit to both parties, (2) the US has deeper and superior investment options so there is a regular capital flow from Canada --> US which is partly balanced by the trade deficit.  Again this is not something US business interests are likely to want to change.

Oh, God.  We are going to have four more years of this tedious bullshit.

[Barrister]

I doubt the GOP wants Canada in the union . . .

This is all typical Trumpian blowhard drama which will result in a DEAL that is really bigly and much better than anything Biden could ever do.

The contours of that deal will be pretty much what is already under discussion, namely some compromise on DST and NA auto content rules, and some unenforceable "pledges" on stuff like dairy and other ag products.  It will typical ho hum sort of trade stuff that Trump will package and upsell as the DEAL!

The trade deficit with Canada is an artifact of two factors: (1) Canadian crude oil is shipped to US refineries who then ship the refined product on - this is of obvious economic benefit to both parties, (2) the US has deeper and superior investment options so there is a regular capital flow from Canada --> US which is partly balanced by the trade deficit.  Again this is not something US business interests are likely to want to change.

Oh, God.  We are going to have four more years of this tedious bullshit.

It's what the American people voted for...

[crazy canuck]

I doubt the GOP wants Canada in the union . . .

This is all typical Trumpian blowhard drama which will result in a DEAL that is really bigly and much better than anything Biden could ever do.

The contours of that deal will be pretty much what is already under discussion, namely some compromise on DST and NA auto content rules, and some unenforceable "pledges" on stuff like dairy and other ag products.  It will typical ho hum sort of trade stuff that Trump will package and upsell as the DEAL!

The trade deficit with Canada is an artifact of two factors: (1) Canadian crude oil is shipped to US refineries who then ship the refined product on - this is of obvious economic benefit to both parties, (2) the US has deeper and superior investment options so there is a regular capital flow from Canada --> US which is partly balanced by the trade deficit.  Again this is not something US business interests are likely to want to change.

Oh, God.  We are going to have four more years of this tedious bullshit.

I don't know what you mean I quite like JR's posts

[viper37]

Oh, God.  We are going to have four more years of this tedious bullshit.

On the bright side, the Palestine-Israel war and Ukraine-Russia war will be fixed by January 21st at the latest.
He already destroyed Syria and Iran is next before the end of the year.

[Norgy]

Trump seems to be really getting obsessed with getting Canada into the US.  Has he hired Tim as a senior advisor? 

I've said it before, but it's because he's still upset that Ivanka is attracted the Trudeau

And there is "The Omen" sequel we do not need born.

[Sheilbh]

Can't help but feel that if Trump is a Russian asset they've fucked up. Story doing the rounds in the European press that Trump is demanding a new NATO defence spending target of 5% of GDP from European allies (probably push for 5% to get 3.5%).

Imaging going to all the effort to get a pee tape and end up with an armed Europe capable of defending itself and projecting force in its near neighbourhood.

I've also read a fair bit that there's a non-zero possibility he increases support to Ukraine. Basically because he wants to do a deal but Putin isn't willing to do a deal (this is something I've flagged before in all the talk about Trump pushing for a deal or frozen conflicts - that I think it misreads how maximalist Putin's objectives are). So there's talk that they're looking at actually expanding support to try and force Russia to the table. Which would be good and sort of makes sense, but I don't think was something many people were really thinking might happen

[frunk]

Trump says a lot of things, most of it incoherent or will not be followed through on.  It's very important that it doesn't look like Trump is caving to Putin, as long as he finds excuses to end up doing what is favorable to him.

[Sheilbh]

Trump says a lot of things, most of it incoherent or will not be followed through on.  It's very important that it doesn't look like Trump is caving to Putin, as long as he finds excuses to end up doing what is favorable to him.

I agree to a point.

But I think the "everyone's taking us for a ride" on trade and defence is something Trump was saying in 2000 and in the 80s - and I think it involved bullying countries who need America more than America needs them (Canada, Europe). So I think he will follow through on pushing for a significant increase in defence spending in Europe. In his last presidency Europe did end up increasing spending (though not enough), I suspect the same will happen - and if that does it's bad news for Putin.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-misinformation-government-shutdown-bill-budget-trump-musk-1235b15b425856bf902d0c8133eec222

Musk helped kill a congressional spending bill. But much of what he spread was misinformation

President-elect Donald Trump's billionaire ally Elon Musk played a key role this week in killing a bipartisan funding proposal that would have prevented a government shutdown, railing against the plan in a torrent of more than 100 X posts that included multiple false claims.

The X owner, an unelected figure, not only used his outsize influence on the platform to help sway Congress, he did so without regard for the facts and gave a preview of the role he could play in government over the next four years.

"Trump has got himself a handful with Musk," John Mark Hansen, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, said in an email. "Trump's done this kind of thing before, blowing up a bill at the last minute. This time, though, it looks like he was afraid of Musk upstaging him. Now there's a new social media bully in town, pushing the champion social media bully around."

Hansen added: "We'll see what Musk's influence is when he runs up against reality — like when he proposes cutting off 'wasteful' spending for other people but not NASA contracts for Space-X."

Musk's objections to the 1,547-page omnibus bill included misinformation about congressional salaries, federal funding and public health preparedness, among other topics.

He alleged that the plan included a 40% raise for lawmakers. But the maximum pay increase possible through the proposal would have been 3.8%, according to the Congressional Research Service.


One way that members of Congress can receive a pay raise is through automatic adjustments that go into effect unless denied by law. Most members make $174,000 per a year after their last increase of 2.8% in 2009. Congressional leadership is the exception, with the Speaker of the House earning the most at $223,500 annually.

The rejected bill struck a section from a previous appropriations act that denied members of Congress this automatic pay raise. A maximum increase of 3.8% would have bumped their annual salary by about $6,600, to approximately $180,000 annually.

Musk also shared a post from another user that falsely claimed the bill provided $3 billion in funding for a potential new stadium for the NFL's Washington Commanders, commenting: "This should not be funded by your tax dollars!"

The bill included a provision to transfer control of the land that houses RFK Stadium from the federal government to the District of Columbia. That transfer is necessary to pave the way for the Commanders to possibly build a new stadium in the franchise's old home — though the team is still considering other locations.

However, no such funding is provided by the bill. It states, in fact, that the federal government "shall not be responsible for payment or any costs or expenses" that the District of Columbia incurs after the transfer is complete aside from responsibilities related to specific environmental issues.

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser addressed false claims about the stadium's funding on Thursday, calling them "frustrating."

"It was stated that the C.R. contains $3 billion for a stadium," she said at a press conference. "All wrong. There are no federal dollars related to the transfer of RFK and in fact, the legislation does not require or link at all to a stadium.

Bowser added that she has reached out to the Trump administration to correct misinformation about this issue.

In a third post, Musk incorrectly claimed that "We're funding bioweapon labs in this bill!"

The plan provided funds for up to 12 regional biocontainment research laboratories, not facilities for creating bioweapons. It stipulates that among their uses, the labs will conduct biomedical research to prepare for biological agents such as emerging infectious diseases.

A spokesperson for Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

Some members of Congress expressed dismay that Musk had disseminated misinformation about the bill.

"I love you Elon but you need to take 5 seconds to check your sources before highlighting bottom feeders looking for clicks," Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican, wrote on X.

In a hastily convened Thursday evening vote, the House rejected a new Trump-backed bill whittled down to 116 pages, with the bill failing 174-235. Dozens of Republicans joined Democrats in opposition.

The House finally approved a third spending deal Friday evening, and the Senate followed suit early Saturday. President Joe Biden planned to sign it into law later Saturday.

Trump led Republicans into the longest government shutdown in history in his first term during the 2018 Christmas season, and interrupted the holidays in 2020 by tanking a bipartisan COVID-relief bill and forcing a do-over.

Of course, Musk's threats to fund primaries against any Republican voting for the bill probably also helped tank the original proposal.

How do you curtail such influence in the hands of an unelected Billionaire?

[The Brain]

If the people voting on the plan get their information about it from Musk then I think the problem isn't Musk.

[Syt]

Seeing commentary that Musk torpedoed the bill because it had provisions that would have placed scrutiny and restrictions on companies operating in China. Any truth to that?

[Syt]

If the people voting on the plan get their information about it from Musk then I think the problem isn't Musk.

I think his misinformation is less egregious than him threatening congress members to fund their opponents in primaries which given his deep pockets (thanks Citizens Unites) and ownership of Twitter could lead to him quite literally buying the legislature.