And it's ridiculous that the president's spouse be expected to provide any support they don't choose to provide. The existence of an office for the First Lady presupposes a job for her to do.
It was not till 1977 that the Office of the First Lady was established in the East Wing. I think this was by act of Congress.
What Congress did was authorize the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president “in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities.” P.L. 95–570. Congress said nothing about the physical location where any such staff work beyond the White House generally.
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
It was not till 1977 that the Office of the First Lady was established in the East Wing. I think this was by act of Congress.
What Congress did was authorize the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president “in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities.” P.L. 95–570. Congress said nothing about the physical location where any such staff work beyond the White House generally.
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
I didn’t say the First Lady was being paid either. What I said was that Congress authorized “the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president.” And I also said that the Act of Congress, to which I provided a link, said nothing about any physical office in the East Wing or elsewhere.
Those people working for the First Lady are “the Office of the First Lady” as authorized by Congress.
And it's ridiculous that the president's spouse be expected to provide any support they don't choose to provide. The existence of an office for the First Lady presupposes a job for her to do.
If the partner of a President chooses to support their partner in some capacity, and as you say it should be a choice they make not an expectation much less a requirement, then it seems reasonable to me that there is provision for them to have an office and staff to support whatever reasonable role they choose to take up. And, if they choose to have a very small role then during that term the office is not required (it's probable that some of what the President's partner might choose to do would still need to be done, so the staff would still likely be employed under someone else's office to do the same things). If it is a requirement of the partner of the President to have a semi-official role hosting receptions at the White House, or whatever, then surely that would require the President to run on a joint ticket with their partner?
When my father was in the UK diplomatic service it was expected his wife would act as hostess and do pro social things. The US didn’t run on the same lines - we were provided with servants but expected to host dinners and events for 200 or so people. Whereas if you went to events at the US embassy, might well be bring and share though they did also have staff and hold formal dinners from time to time. I don’t know what the situation is now.
The logic of diplomatic entertaining was it was supposed to help build relationships to the benefit of negotiations between countries. There was also a sense it which you had to - to some extent - match the expectations of the host country. If you are a diplomat in a country where it is expected that power goes with being a rich man and you turn up to a formal event in a ford fiesta, you may not be listened to. It think the ethical balance between pandering and cultural sensitivity can be tricky - and I think all embassies continue to have heads of protocol for this reason.
Trump wants to be treated with pomp - countries doing this get better deals. And I would guess if you host him you need to feed him exactly what he likes - including coke - or ostentatiously fancy food so he feels flattered. But his attitude to women being what is it - I doubt he gives a toss whether the wife of his host is present or involved, only that pretty women are available to be looked at like sentient table decorations. Therefore I doubt he gives a toss about the role of the First Lady - or has thought through its implications in any way.
If it is a requirement of the partner of the President to have a semi-official role hosting receptions at the White House, or whatever, then surely that would require the President to run on a joint ticket with their partner?
While not printed on the ticket I think the First Spouse probably has more impact during a presidency than the VP, but probably less than the Secretary of State. The First Spouse is, more or less, a Presidential appointee, a bit like the Chief of Staff, and there's no expectation for those to be subject to electoral scrutiny. I seem to recall that in the past (probably pre-legislation) other relatives of the President have taken on the hosting role.
Why can’t a future President just change the name. As I understand it over here Trump didn’t go through the correct channels and went for an old building trick. Knock it down while no one really knows it is happing. That way it is done and there is no going back
If it is a requirement of the partner of the President to have a semi-official role hosting receptions at the White House, or whatever, then surely that would require the President to run on a joint ticket with their partner?
They effectively do. It's normal for spouses of candidates to take part in campaign events. Everyone knows who they are. When Hillary Clinton ran against Trump in 2016, there was plenty of discussion about what Bill might do as "First Gentleman".
There was plenty of talk during the 2008 primaries about what Bill Clinton would do if he were back in the White House. It's not why I voted for Obama, but it certainly crossed my mind.
In the hotly contested New York City mayoral race, Trump tonight endorsed the independent, disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, over looking, and in fact insulting the Republican Curtis Sliwa. All because he's terrified of the Democrat, Zohran Mamdami. I understand in fact Trump has threatened, if Mamdami wins, to strip him of US citizenship and deport him. And send the National Guard to NYC.
In the hotly contested New York City mayoral race, Trump tonight endorsed the independent, disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, over looking, and in fact insulting the Republican Curtis Sliwa. All because he's terrified of the Democrat, Zohran Mamdami. I understand in fact Trump has threatened, if Mamdami wins, to strip him of US citizenship and deport him. And send the National Guard to NYC.
And in Texas, Abbott has tweeted that as soon as the polls close in New York, he will impose a 100% tariff on anyone moving from Texas to NYC.
(And, yes, this can be safely laughed off as meaningless shitposting.)
In the hotly contested New York City mayoral race, Trump tonight endorsed the independent, disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, over looking, and in fact insulting the Republican Curtis Sliwa. All because he's terrified of the Democrat, Zohran Mamdami.
I laughed at Trump thinking his endorsement would matter—at least positively matter—in NYC. Especially, such a last minute endorsement.
In the hotly contested New York City mayoral race, Trump tonight endorsed the independent, disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo, over looking, and in fact insulting the Republican Curtis Sliwa. All because he's terrified of the Democrat, Zohran Mamdami.
I laughed at Trump thinking his endorsement would matter—at least positively matter—in NYC. Especially, such a last minute endorsement.
I guess it's possible that his endorsement would get some of his cultists to switch from Sliwa to Cuomo. Whether that's enough to outweigh the New Yorkers who will reflexively vote against anyone he endorses I don't know, but I kind of think that cohort were already voting for Mamdami.
Is it a tight 3-way race? Or a 2-way between Sliwa and Mamdami? If the later then if an endorsement for Cuomo takes votes from Sliwa then that would be a shame.
Is it a tight 3-way race? Or a 2-way between Sliwa and Mamdami? If the later then if an endorsement for Cuomo takes votes from Sliwa then that would be a shame.
This Quinnipiac poll from last week showed it being Mamdani at 43%, Cuomo at 33%, Sliwa at 14%, and undecided at 6%.
Tomorrow SCOTUS will hear a challenge to Trump's Tariffs. An independent toy maker will take him on. The toymaker is arguing the law Trump is using to justify the tariffs does not mention the possibility of imposing tariffs, that is the prerogative of Congress. Trump is arguing the law allows for the imposition of tariffs if there is a national emergency, and he is saying the fentanyl crisis along with our trade deficit are national emergencies which Trump has declared and neither congress nor the courts can countermand that declaration.
Trump has made this the cornerstone of his second administration. He has collected over 90 Billion in tariffs. If he loses the case all those funds will have to be returned to the retailers who paid them.
So far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump. Some of those judges were Trump appointees.
Considering SCOTUS has leaned into Trump's actions up to now, people do not know what to expect.
Tomorrow SCOTUS will hear a challenge to Trump's Tariffs. An independent toy maker will take him on. The toymaker is arguing the law Trump is using to justify the tariffs does not mention the possibility of imposing tariffs, that is the prerogative of Congress. Trump is arguing the law allows for the imposition of tariffs if there is a national emergency, and he is saying the fentanyl crisis along with our trade deficit are national emergencies which Trump has declared and neither congress nor the courts can countermand that declaration.
Trump has made this the cornerstone of his second administration. He has collected over 90 Billion in tariffs. If he loses the case all those funds will have to be returned to the retailers who paid them.
So far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump. Some of those judges were Trump appointees.
Considering SCOTUS has leaned into Trump's actions up to now, people do not know what to expect.
As I mentioned on another thread, it'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS vote breaks down, because opinion on tariffs does not consistently follow a left-to-right pattern, but the question of what the 1977 law means might follow a jurisprudential pattern.
Right now, the only prediction I think safe to make is that Clarence Thomas will vote for Trump's position, because he's the most partisan judge on the court, and would vote whichever way he thinks any given GOP politician would want.
Tomorrow SCOTUS will hear a challenge to Trump's Tariffs. An independent toy maker will take him on. The toymaker is arguing the law Trump is using to justify the tariffs does not mention the possibility of imposing tariffs, that is the prerogative of Congress. Trump is arguing the law allows for the imposition of tariffs if there is a national emergency, and he is saying the fentanyl crisis along with our trade deficit are national emergencies which Trump has declared and neither congress nor the courts can countermand that declaration.
Trump has made this the cornerstone of his second administration. He has collected over 90 Billion in tariffs. If he loses the case all those funds will have to be returned to the retailers who paid them.
So far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump. Some of those judges were Trump appointees.
Considering SCOTUS has leaned into Trump's actions up to now, people do not know what to expect.
As I mentioned on another thread, it'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS vote breaks down, because opinion on tariffs does not consistently follow a left-to-right pattern, but the question of what the 1977 law means might follow a jurisprudential pattern.
Right now, the only prediction I think safe to make is that Clarence Thomas will vote for Trump's position, because he's the most partisan judge on the court, and would vote whichever way he thinks any given GOP politician would want.
Sorry I missed your previous comment.
Here is my breakdown, assuming a positive outcome
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
Tomorrow SCOTUS will hear a challenge to Trump's Tariffs. An independent toy maker will take him on. The toymaker is arguing the law Trump is using to justify the tariffs does not mention the possibility of imposing tariffs, that is the prerogative of Congress. Trump is arguing the law allows for the imposition of tariffs if there is a national emergency, and he is saying the fentanyl crisis along with our trade deficit are national emergencies which Trump has declared and neither congress nor the courts can countermand that declaration.
Trump has made this the cornerstone of his second administration. He has collected over 90 Billion in tariffs. If he loses the case all those funds will have to be returned to the retailers who paid them.
So far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump. Some of those judges were Trump appointees.
Considering SCOTUS has leaned into Trump's actions up to now, people do not know what to expect.
As I mentioned on another thread, it'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS vote breaks down, because opinion on tariffs does not consistently follow a left-to-right pattern, but the question of what the 1977 law means might follow a jurisprudential pattern.
Right now, the only prediction I think safe to make is that Clarence Thomas will vote for Trump's position, because he's the most partisan judge on the court, and would vote whichever way he thinks any given GOP politician would want.
Sorry I missed your previous comment.
Here is my breakdown, assuming a positive outcome
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
Fingers crossed.
And on some issues, eg. LGBTQ rights, indigenous rights, Gorsuch has actually voted against the standard conservative position, by reasoning, as you say, from textualist premises. So with him it'll probably come down to whether or not he thinks the non-mentioning of tariffs in the law means you can't implement them.
The political blowback I'm worried about is if the court strikes down the tariffs, and Trump obeys the order, but then turns around and blames every economic snafu for the rest of his term on the Democratic and RINO judges.
The political blowback I'm worried about is if the court strikes down the tariffs, and Trump obeys the order, but then turns around and blames every economic snafu for the rest of his term on the Democratic and RINO judges.
The political blowback I'm worried about is if the court strikes down the tariffs, and Trump obeys the order, but then turns around and blames every economic snafu for the rest of his term on the Democratic and RINO judges.
So, what else is new?
Well, in this specific scenario, it wouldn't just be the usual posture of blaming your opponents' general existence for the bad state of the economy(eg. "Why won't Biden stop inflation!"). There would be a very concrete and high-profile victory for the opposition's policies, that everybody would be paying attention to and speculating as to its effects.
Just perusing other election results Democrats did very well across the board. NYC mayor, New Jersey Governor, Virginia Governor, Virginia Attorney General, the three liberal justices in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retained, Prop 50 in California passes. Democrats win two statewide offices in Georgia.
Trump is complaining the reason the Republicans did so badly was because he was not running.
Just perusing other election results Democrats did very well across the board. NYC mayor, New Jersey Governor, Virginia Governor, Virginia Attorney General, the three liberal justices in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retained, Prop 50 in California passes. Democrats win two statewide offices in Georgia.
It is almost like the voters do not appreciate everything the Emperor has done for them. I mean, he has already destroyed their small businesses, driven up prices for goods, decreased the amount of available services and driven healthcare costs through the ceiling. What more do they want from him????
Trump is complaining the reason the Republicans did so badly was because he was not running.
He's not wrong.
I would say he was behind all the election results in some form or fashion. All the people he endorsed were soundly defeated. And the main reason I see for all the Republican defeats was the economy. Trump's economy.
Which brings up the Democratic motto going into 2026: It's the economy, stupid. Seems like I have heard this motto before.
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
According to The Guardian, judges expressing a skeptical view of the tariffs during oral arguments included Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Brown.
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
According to The Guardian, judges expressing a skeptical view of the tariffs during oral arguments included Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Brown.
Those who have two and a half hours to spare and are so inclined can listen to oral arguments in the consolidated tariff case here.
My take on the case is that it comes down to whether at least two of the Republican appointed justices have more loyalty to the big business interests that fund things like the Federalist Society than they do to the Trump administration.
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
According to The Guardian, judges expressing a skeptical view of the tariffs during oral arguments included Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Brown.
I had been listening to oral arguments for a while. Seemed like Thomas and Alito were solidly for Trump, but the others were quite skeptical.
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
According to The Guardian, judges expressing a skeptical view of the tariffs during oral arguments included Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Brown.
I haven’t listened to the arguments yet, but according to the New York Times, Barrett and Gorsuch also expressed skepticism.
Trump is complaining the reason the Republicans did so badly was because he was not running.
According to the New York Times (free link), he has said Republicans lost because of the shutdown, while adding that the results weren’t a rejection of him because he wasn’t on the ballot.
If only there were something Republicans could do about the shutdown.
Meanwhile, he might want to think about how DOGE was a factor in Virginia, and his directives to Republican state legislatures to do more gerrymandering was a factor in California.
In his mind, he’s entitled to all credit but never to any blame.
Sounds like he considers himself the sovereign. But in American Civics I had always understood "We the People" were the sovereign. Using his line of thought, though, it would appear to me he lost a lot of (his) sovereignty on Tuesday. He just may have entered his lame duck era now. He still wants the Senate to lose the filibuster, but Republican senators are saying, "Fat chance." Heck, the Republicans even lost their supermajority in the Mississippi state legislature. Trump lost big time across the board.
Mamdani became a naturalized American citizen in 2018. I would not put it past Trump to try to revoke that citizenship. Trump will likely try to use Mamdani's support of Palestine as the reason to revoke it.
I've already seen comments on Twitter to the effect that the new mayor will be hiring a lot of Muslim police officers as members of the NYPD take early retirement to avoid working for him (allegedly).
I've already seen comments on Twitter to the effect that the new mayor will be hiring a lot of Muslim police officers as members of the NYPD take early retirement to avoid working for him (allegedly).
I've already seen comments on Twitter to the effect that the new mayor will be hiring a lot of Muslim police officers as members of the NYPD take early retirement to avoid working for him (allegedly).
GOOD. Might change the fucked up culture a bit.
My first thought as well, but I'm sure there are plenty of jerks in all religions anxious to commit crimes with impunity.
Apparently, according to a UK newspaper, Trump is going to attack the BBC.
I wonder what he will do. Any ideas? Mrs RR fears for 'Gardener's Question Time'.
Apparently, according to a UK newspaper, Trump is going to attack the BBC.
I wonder what he will do. Any ideas? Mrs RR fears for 'Gardener's Question Time'.
I can think of several Radio 4 programmes he would have ideological objections to, just based on titles. "Thinking Allowed" would piss him off, for starters.
Apparently, according to a UK newspaper, Trump is going to attack the BBC.
I wonder what he will do. Any ideas? Mrs RR fears for 'Gardener's Question Time'.
The News Quiz, inter alia, will look forward to getting their revenge in on that...
Comments
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
Those people working for the First Lady are “the Office of the First Lady” as authorized by Congress.
The logic of diplomatic entertaining was it was supposed to help build relationships to the benefit of negotiations between countries. There was also a sense it which you had to - to some extent - match the expectations of the host country. If you are a diplomat in a country where it is expected that power goes with being a rich man and you turn up to a formal event in a ford fiesta, you may not be listened to. It think the ethical balance between pandering and cultural sensitivity can be tricky - and I think all embassies continue to have heads of protocol for this reason.
Trump wants to be treated with pomp - countries doing this get better deals. And I would guess if you host him you need to feed him exactly what he likes - including coke - or ostentatiously fancy food so he feels flattered. But his attitude to women being what is it - I doubt he gives a toss whether the wife of his host is present or involved, only that pretty women are available to be looked at like sentient table decorations. Therefore I doubt he gives a toss about the role of the First Lady - or has thought through its implications in any way.
While not printed on the ticket I think the First Spouse probably has more impact during a presidency than the VP, but probably less than the Secretary of State. The First Spouse is, more or less, a Presidential appointee, a bit like the Chief of Staff, and there's no expectation for those to be subject to electoral scrutiny. I seem to recall that in the past (probably pre-legislation) other relatives of the President have taken on the hosting role.
They effectively do. It's normal for spouses of candidates to take part in campaign events. Everyone knows who they are. When Hillary Clinton ran against Trump in 2016, there was plenty of discussion about what Bill might do as "First Gentleman".
And in Texas, Abbott has tweeted that as soon as the polls close in New York, he will impose a 100% tariff on anyone moving from Texas to NYC.
(And, yes, this can be safely laughed off as meaningless shitposting.)
[Yes, I am being sarcastic. We all know that no law applies to him. His whim is the only law.]
I guess it's possible that his endorsement would get some of his cultists to switch from Sliwa to Cuomo. Whether that's enough to outweigh the New Yorkers who will reflexively vote against anyone he endorses I don't know, but I kind of think that cohort were already voting for Mamdami.
Per the New York Post, an AtlasIntel poll (links to X) released yesterday shows Mandami at 43.9%, Cuomo at 39.4% and Sliwa at 15.5%.
Either way, it’s a Mandami-Cuomo race, and Trump is clearly trying to get Sliwa supporters to help Cuomo.
Trump has made this the cornerstone of his second administration. He has collected over 90 Billion in tariffs. If he loses the case all those funds will have to be returned to the retailers who paid them.
So far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump. Some of those judges were Trump appointees.
Considering SCOTUS has leaned into Trump's actions up to now, people do not know what to expect.
What do you think?
A report from The New Republic is here.
As I mentioned on another thread, it'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS vote breaks down, because opinion on tariffs does not consistently follow a left-to-right pattern, but the question of what the 1977 law means might follow a jurisprudential pattern.
Right now, the only prediction I think safe to make is that Clarence Thomas will vote for Trump's position, because he's the most partisan judge on the court, and would vote whichever way he thinks any given GOP politician would want.
Sorry I missed your previous comment.
Here is my breakdown, assuming a positive outcome
Justices for Trump: Thomas and Alito.
Justice leaning toward Trump: Kavanaugh.
Justices in neutral position: Gorsuch and Barrett (both are considered textualists--if it is not in the text, it is not supported).
Justice leaning against Trump: Roberts (primarily concerned about integrity of the Court).
Justices against Trump: Sotomayor; Kagan; Brown.
Therefore, the two Justices to watch, IMB, are Gorsuch and Barrett.
Fingers crossed.
And on some issues, eg. LGBTQ rights, indigenous rights, Gorsuch has actually voted against the standard conservative position, by reasoning, as you say, from textualist premises. So with him it'll probably come down to whether or not he thinks the non-mentioning of tariffs in the law means you can't implement them.
So, what else is new?
Well, in this specific scenario, it wouldn't just be the usual posture of blaming your opponents' general existence for the bad state of the economy(eg. "Why won't Biden stop inflation!"). There would be a very concrete and high-profile victory for the opposition's policies, that everybody would be paying attention to and speculating as to its effects.
Trump is complaining the reason the Republicans did so badly was because he was not running.
On to 2026!
He's not wrong.
Possibly a war in Central America.
I would say he was behind all the election results in some form or fashion. All the people he endorsed were soundly defeated. And the main reason I see for all the Republican defeats was the economy. Trump's economy.
Which brings up the Democratic motto going into 2026: It's the economy, stupid. Seems like I have heard this motto before.
It's de ja vu all over again.
According to The Guardian, judges expressing a skeptical view of the tariffs during oral arguments included Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Brown.
Those who have two and a half hours to spare and are so inclined can listen to oral arguments in the consolidated tariff case here.
My take on the case is that it comes down to whether at least two of the Republican appointed justices have more loyalty to the big business interests that fund things like the Federalist Society than they do to the Trump administration.
I had been listening to oral arguments for a while. Seemed like Thomas and Alito were solidly for Trump, but the others were quite skeptical.
If only there were something Republicans could do about the shutdown.
Meanwhile, he might want to think about how DOGE was a factor in Virginia, and his directives to Republican state legislatures to do more gerrymandering was a factor in California.
In his mind, he’s entitled to all credit but never to any blame.
I think that’s already been rumoured
Trump in an odd statement said, "We lost a little bit of sovereignty last night (in New York City)." But he said. "We will get it back." See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/trump-says-us-lost-little-205151298.html
Sounds like he considers himself the sovereign. But in American Civics I had always understood "We the People" were the sovereign. Using his line of thought, though, it would appear to me he lost a lot of (his) sovereignty on Tuesday. He just may have entered his lame duck era now. He still wants the Senate to lose the filibuster, but Republican senators are saying, "Fat chance." Heck, the Republicans even lost their supermajority in the Mississippi state legislature. Trump lost big time across the board.
Mamdani became a naturalized American citizen in 2018. I would not put it past Trump to try to revoke that citizenship. Trump will likely try to use Mamdani's support of Palestine as the reason to revoke it.
Yes. I think that's what @The Rogue was saying, via subtle irony.
GOOD. Might change the fucked up culture a bit.
My first thought as well, but I'm sure there are plenty of jerks in all religions anxious to commit crimes with impunity.
I wonder what he will do. Any ideas? Mrs RR fears for 'Gardener's Question Time'.
I can think of several Radio 4 programmes he would have ideological objections to, just based on titles. "Thinking Allowed" would piss him off, for starters.
The News Quiz, inter alia, will look forward to getting their revenge in on that...