So as not to clutter up other threads I thought it would be good to start a thread about how the UK and other countries would be affected by the recent election result in the US. How would trade for instance work, what about tourism?
Global impact is going to depend on what exactly the notoriously unpredictable incoming President does. Will he do what's necessary by the end of this decade to keep global warming below 3C? Though I'm not seeing any other national government doing that, but they are at least saying they recognise the need.
Trade and tourism will see a massive decline. Trump is isolationist and so wants to cut them off from the rest of the world.
Tourism to the US - I wouldn't want to go back while he is in charge.
Trade - as with our pseudo-Trump Johnson, making any deals with someone that untrustworthy at the helm is risky. So some businesses will choose not to.
Just as an example, data sharing between European and US organisations is currently underpinned by a mechanism called the "Data Privacy Framework". This, however, is reliant on executive orders relating to the actions of US intelligence agencies signed by Biden. If Trump rescinds them, and/or there are further indications that the rule of law is breaking down in the US then many organisations will have to take steps to stop working with US firms or step up the safeguards they have in place.
I suspect, based on mutterings I've picked up in the last few days, that one of the most immediately damaging issues for Britain is going to be an attempt to er, 'unhandback' the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, what with neither Trump nor his new pick for National Security Advisor being on board with the plan - indeed in the case of the latter actually opposing it.
Given it hasn't happened yet, and almost certainly won't have done by the time of the new administration, there is the potential for this to get seriously, globally, embarrassing/humiliating for Downing Street.
It will weaken NATO, weaken international response to climate change, damage international trade agreements, put the Ukraine at risk, strengthen Russia.
During his first term Mr Trump may have been, to some extent, reined-in by his desire for a second term: without that brake I think all bets are off. I think it is fairly clear from his time as 45th POTUS that he sees pretty much everything from a transactional standpoint, and that when he says "America First" he really means that. He really doesn't care what "the world" thinks of him, so the idea of legacy when it comes to international relations is a non-starter.
It will all depend on who he appoints to major offices, particularly Defence, State Department and Commerce, and whether or not they're prepared to go toe-to-toe with him over things like supplying Ukraine, supporting Taiwan, etc.
I suspect, based on mutterings I've picked up in the last few days, that one of the most immediately damaging issues for Britain is going to be an attempt to er, 'unhandback' the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, what with neither Trump nor his new pick for National Security Advisor being on board with the plan - indeed in the case of the latter actually opposing it.
Given it hasn't happened yet, and almost certainly won't have done by the time of the new administration, there is the potential for this to get seriously, globally, embarrassing/humiliating for Downing Street.
Tr*mp is a transactional unilateralist. He'll want to do things on his own, and have America do things on its own, as much as possible.
A recurring theme on the Right during the campaign was to pair household inflation with aid to Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, that same connection was not identified with aid to Israel.
It was even less surprising to learn of an immediate phone call between Tr*mp and Netany*hu, and to learn that the latter is all about the language of peace, now, despite (if reports are correct) deliberate IDF bombings of civilian refugee tents. It should not be forgotten that the Reagan Administration conducted backchannel negotiations with Iran to further frustrate Carter Administration efforts to gain the release of American Hostages -- Reagan wanted to make sure they weren't released before the 1980 election. It's hard to imagine a world in which the same kind of thing hasn't happened between the Tr*mp Campaign and the Israeli PM.
And Tr*mp is alleging the same kind of phone call with Putin re: Ukraine, though the Kremlin is denying it. Still, Zelensky remains in place, and considering the personal grievance Tr*mp surely maintains re: his botched plot with Zelensky over the Biden Family (a.k.a. "the perfect phone call"), I'd definitely expect a drastic reduction in Ukraine aid if not a full cutoff during the first few days of Tr*mp2. The fact that it won't improve household economics at all won't matter in the least. It will simply be a matter of the claim of extricating the US from "foreign wars," and that will be a promise kept enough.
The other Tr*mp economic boondoggle is tariffs, which will only hurt endgame consumers. That will also fail to resonate as anything other than Tr*mp claiming he's gotten America a better deal.
It will all depend on who he appoints to major offices, particularly Defence, State Department and Commerce, and whether or not they're prepared to go toe-to-toe with him over things like supplying Ukraine, supporting Taiwan, etc.
Trump isn't going to appoint people he thinks will go toe-to-toe with him over anything.
It will all depend on who he appoints to major offices, particularly Defence, State Department and Commerce, and whether or not they're prepared to go toe-to-toe with him over things like supplying Ukraine, supporting Taiwan, etc.
Trump isn't going to appoint people he thinks will go toe-to-toe with him over anything.
True. It’s loyalists all the way. No General Mattis types this time.
Possibly. Some people actually do have scruples. And others may feel like more power will accrue to them if they stand up to Trump, given that he might weaken and given that none of us lives forever.
Tr*mp is a known POTUS quantity, now, so I would expect any dissenters to be retreads from last time who weren't distressed or offended by anything that happened back then, but who somehow get pushed too far this time.
Well, Tr*mp has done nothing but rail against EV targets and perceived "mandates." I think he's only allied with M*sk insofar as the latter makes Twitter friendly to MAGA bullies and misinformants.
Trump has chosen Marco Rubio to be the next Secretary of State. Really not that bad of a choice for a conservative. The MAGA people are not happy with it though. Goes to show that threads are starting to appear.
Well, Tr*mp has done nothing but rail against EV targets and perceived "mandates." I think he's only allied with M*sk insofar as the latter makes Twitter friendly to MAGA bullies and misinformants.
Yes, I suspect the proximal cause will be EVs or related to one of Musk's other pet projects.
I suspect, based on mutterings I've picked up in the last few days, that one of the most immediately damaging issues for Britain is going to be an attempt to er, 'unhandback' the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, what with neither Trump nor his new pick for National Security Advisor being on board with the plan - indeed in the case of the latter actually opposing it.
Given it hasn't happened yet, and almost certainly won't have done by the time of the new administration, there is the potential for this to get seriously, globally, embarrassing/humiliating for Downing Street.
and so it should be
Ummm ... you are aware @Telford of the UK's shameful treatment of the Chagos Islanders?
The embarrassment for the UK government is that the deal struck to hand the islands to Mauritius was negotiated without input from the Chagos Islanders and is something that they don't support. The deal hands their lands to a different distant government (is it really that different being governed from islands 1700km away, with a claim over the Chagos Islands based on French colonial administration putting Mauritius and Chagos together despite no cultural or ethnic connections with Chagosians culturally more related to the Maldives, compared to government from London?), and does nothing to either permit them to return home or properly compensate them for being thrown out of their homes.
The recent deal isn't good for the Chagosians. Trump dumping it to maintain the status quo possibly doesn't address compensation issues but would presumably end the US use of Diego Garcia as a naval base in 2036 and permit return at that point, albeit to land still owned by the UK.
The recent deal isn't good for the Chagosians. Trump dumping it to maintain the status quo possibly doesn't address compensation issues but would presumably end the US use of Diego Garcia as a naval base in 2036 and permit return at that point, albeit to land still owned by the UK.
I'm not sure how that follows? Given nothing has been signed the suggestion is that Britain will be leant on to renege on the agreement and maintain indefinite British sovereignty. The US will consequently maintain an indefinite base.
On that timeline 2036 is irrelevant, as is any return. The US-UK deal will just get re-extended.
Or a future US administration will have different priorities and will feel differently, but maybe not for a decade. In the meantime, it's the UK that gets the opprobrium for pulling a deal the PM has announced.
So as not to clutter up other threads I thought it would be good to start a thread about how the UK and other countries would be affected by the recent election result in the US
Going back to the original question, I can see Trump being fairly disastrous on multiple levels - not just the economic - and thus having an anti-incumbency impact around the world, purely because of the domestic effects in each country.
I don't think his rise is an unalloyed good for the Tories - he has somewhat positive ratings among Reform supporters but largely negative ratings with current Tory voters.
I don't think his rise is an unalloyed good for the Tories - he has somewhat positive ratings among Reform supporters but largely negative ratings with current Tory voters.
Agreed. It is likely to encourage the view that Reform and Farage are the most promising vehicles for right-wing aspirations. Especially since Farage is now an MP and will, I imagine, act as a sort of "Trump-intercom" in the Commons.
I don't think his rise is an unalloyed good for the Tories - he has somewhat positive ratings among Reform supporters but largely negative ratings with current Tory voters.
Agreed. It is likely to encourage the view that Reform and Farage are the most promising vehicles for right-wing aspirations.
Though this can play both ways, if Trump is seen as a disaster then Farage will take a reputational hit.
I am seeing Germany and the Netherlands have restricted entry at their borders. Looks like an anti-immigrant movement. I wonder if the Trump win has given other states permission to close their borders too.
The recent deal isn't good for the Chagosians. Trump dumping it to maintain the status quo possibly doesn't address compensation issues but would presumably end the US use of Diego Garcia as a naval base in 2036 and permit return at that point, albeit to land still owned by the UK.
I'm not sure how that follows? Given nothing has been signed the suggestion is that Britain will be leant on to renege on the agreement and maintain indefinite British sovereignty. The US will consequently maintain an indefinite base.
On that timeline 2036 is irrelevant, as is any return. The US-UK deal will just get re-extended.
Or a future US administration will have different priorities and will feel differently, but maybe not for a decade. In the meantime, it's the UK that gets the opprobrium for pulling a deal the PM has announced.
As far as I can tell, the current "deal" with the US was some back-room shenanigans that means the US has exclusive use of Diego Garcia as a military base until 2036. Yes, there can be another deal made that extends that exclusive use, but I'm not sure Trump would be the person to deliver on that (it's almost certainly not something he's actually interested in, though if someone were to offer space for a golf resort there ...).
Of course, whether the PM should be put off by pulling out of a bad deal negotiated by the previous Tory government is a different question. Personally, I'd prefer him to find a way to fix the problems with the deal over the next few years and produce something that actually works for the Chagosian people.
The recent deal isn't good for the Chagosians. Trump dumping it to maintain the status quo possibly doesn't address compensation issues but would presumably end the US use of Diego Garcia as a naval base in 2036 and permit return at that point, albeit to land still owned by the UK.
I'm not sure how that follows? Given nothing has been signed the suggestion is that Britain will be leant on to renege on the agreement and maintain indefinite British sovereignty. The US will consequently maintain an indefinite base.
On that timeline 2036 is irrelevant, as is any return. The US-UK deal will just get re-extended.
Or a future US administration will have different priorities and will feel differently, but maybe not for a decade. In the meantime, it's the UK that gets the opprobrium for pulling a deal the PM has announced.
As far as I can tell, the current "deal" with the US was some back-room shenanigans that means the US has exclusive use of Diego Garcia as a military base until 2036. Yes, there can be another deal made that extends that exclusive use, but I'm not sure Trump would be the person to deliver on that (it's almost certainly not something he's actually interested in, though if someone were to offer space for a golf resort there ...).
Of course, whether the PM should be put off by pulling out of a bad deal negotiated by the previous Tory government is a different question. Personally, I'd prefer him to find a way to fix the problems with the deal over the next few years and produce something that actually works for the Chagosian people.
Depressingly, the probably best way forward was actually put today in the Commons by Nigel Farage (I know, but he seems to be right here) - the Chagossians seem to want to return to the islands and live under British rule, emphatically not independence, and definitely not as part of Mauritius. So a settled British colony.
Incidentally, there was an interesting article somewhere that made the point that through an accident of timing the 2036 back room deal is pretty much the only thing relating to BIOT, right back to its original carving off from other territory, that *hasn’t* been the work of a Labour government. Which, given how infrequently Labour has been in power, is almost impressive!
I don't think his rise is an unalloyed good for the Tories - he has somewhat positive ratings among Reform supporters but largely negative ratings with current Tory voters.
Agreed. It is likely to encourage the view that Reform and Farage are the most promising vehicles for right-wing aspirations.
Though this can play both ways, if Trump is seen as a disaster then Farage will take a reputational hit.
Except that any/all disasters will be "someone else's fault" in the yes of both gentlemen and their supporters. So everyone who thinks either of them has a good reputation will not change their mind and everyone who thinks the opposite will also be unvarying in their opinion.
I suspect, based on mutterings I've picked up in the last few days, that one of the most immediately damaging issues for Britain is going to be an attempt to er, 'unhandback' the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, what with neither Trump nor his new pick for National Security Advisor being on board with the plan - indeed in the case of the latter actually opposing it.
Given it hasn't happened yet, and almost certainly won't have done by the time of the new administration, there is the potential for this to get seriously, globally, embarrassing/humiliating for Downing Street.
and so it should be
Ummm ... you are aware @Telford of the UK's shameful treatment of the Chagos Islanders?
Or doesn't that factor into the equation?
Was it shameful to invite them to come and live in the UK?....No
Was it shameful to give away the islands without consulting them?....Yes
Was it shameful to take their land in the first place ?
Quite possibly. Some might say that because it was owned by the UK, it was not their land. It was a political decision made by a Labour government in the late 1960s.
What planet did you get off of, Telford? I live in a country (Canada) that has a litany of treaties, signed during British colonial rule saying it very much was indigenous land. Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763. If you are going to make that argument then at least do us the trouble of actually learning about how British colonial policy was actually implemented.
What planet did you get off of, Telford? I live in a country (Canada) that has a litany of treaties, signed during British colonial rule saying it very much was indigenous land. Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763. If you are going to make that argument then at least do us the trouble of actually learning about how British colonial policy was actually implemented.
Your argument is flawed. They were not
indigenous people
Ah, so we can relocate the population of Haiti at will to another continent can we?
Or more to the point, the Chagosians were living on the Chagos Islands before the British took precession of the islands which is the key test for indigeneity under British colonial practice.
The entirety of British colonial practice lies against you. Chagos is just one more howler in the litany of howlers that is British colonial indigenous policy. Worse than even the Gunshot Treaty in Upper Canada in 1808 and that document was blank.
What planet did you get off of, Telford? I live in a country (Canada) that has a litany of treaties, signed during British colonial rule saying it very much was indigenous land. Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763. If you are going to make that argument then at least do us the trouble of actually learning about how British colonial policy was actually implemented.
Your argument is flawed. They were not
indigenous people
How long do people need to live in a place to be considered indigenous? With the possible exception of parts of East Africa, no human is indigenous to where we currently live, we're all descended from migrants with just a variation in how many generations have passed since our ancestors settled into the place we're living (and, also a question of how we define the place we are as many of us have moved around quite a bit).
The Chagos Islands were part of the Maldives for centuries, and often used for fishing expeditions, with at least temporary camps though it's unclear whether there was a permanent population (if so, it was small). Under French colonial rule permanent settlement was established along with coconut plantations (providing an export crop) towards the end of the 18th century, with the islands passing to the British following the defeat of Napoleon. By the time the British turfed out the population in the late 1960s the colonists had been there for two centuries. That to me seems long enough, a population of people born on the islands for several generations, without any other place they would identify as "home".
Yes, and it all happened under a Labour government too, but whichever government was to blame it was still wrong.
@Telford, we aren't in Epiphanies but if some 'own voice' detail is required, I do know someone with close connections with the Chagossians and have heard testimony of how they were treated.
A point about the Haitians, nearly all of the current population are of African descent. There have been a smattering of other ethnic groups there too, but they have intermarried into the black population. Here is an article about the original people of Haiti.
In Canada, a substantial number of people are identified as Metis, that is, descendants of French, Scottish and English men and indigenous women (mostly Cree). The Metis are legally recognized as an indigenous people.
It really is, because without question, the leader of the next Administration won't have the first freaking clue about any of it going in, and will neither educate himself nor subject himself to being educated about it while there.
Reuters is reporting that Muslim Leaders who supported Trump (and possibly were the difference to the result in Michigan) are upset by his pro-Israel cabinet picks.
Which makes me wonder whether they were paying any attention to what Trump did in his first term of office. Like when he banned Muslims from coming into the country. And when he broke decades of American policy by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol and moving the American embassy there, spitting in the eyes of the Palestinians.
I understand that they were mad at Biden for his support of Israel. What I don't get is why they thought Trump would be better for their cause when, in his first term, he was so aggressively pro-Israel.
Oh well. They got exactly what they voted for, so they have no cause to gripe.
[Please read that last line knowing that the Sarcastic Font is On.]
I had a short, semi-aggressive exchange with an alleged Muslim PhD on Twitter (unsure the discipline of hits PhD), which began with him accusing me of being supportive of the Gaza genocide via my endorsement of VP Harris. I asked him what would be better for Palestinians under a MAGA Presidency. The PhD did not answer that, but only doubled down on his accusations. After the election I tried to wish him luck, but found he had blocked me. Since then Mike Huckabee has been nominated as Ambassador to Israel, and his stunted evangelical comments re: Israeli Occupation are as horrid as one would expect. For the life of me I can't imagine what Biden-disaffected Muslims thought they were getting with anyone, really, other than a Progressive candidate. Hope they look forward to an end of hostilities -- 100% on Israel's terms.
For the life of me I can't imagine what Biden-disaffected Muslims thought they were getting with anyone, really, other than a Progressive candidate.
But from their point of view it's under a progressive candidate that the situation has been allowed to continue for over a year with no ceasefire in sight (and no sanctions worth the name). And a progressive candidate who sent Torres and Clinton to lecture them.
If you watch Vedant Patel and Matthew Miller it's been clear that even the most on side reporter has long lost patience with their constant circumloctions around the subject (most recently around the letter published just before the election to much fanfare that purported to specify a 30 day deadline for improvements https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/1856466057956852046)
And when he broke decades of American policy by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol and moving the American embassy there, spitting in the eyes of the Palestinians.
You know of course that the Biden administration moved ahead with these plans despite the land for the embassy itself being disputed (which would have offered an opportunity for a pause should they have wished to take it)
It was also the Biden administration that sanctioned UNWRA.
In that situation I can see why a particular group might swap votes and then make an appeal of that sort even if it wasn't completely sincere. I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
In any case, Harris' loss wasn't solely attributable to a few Muslims switching votes and more staying at home.
Yes, I am aware of that. As I stated, I am aware of their anger at Biden. But to think that Trump would be an improvement such that they are now complaining seems a bit rich.
But you are quite correct that Harris' loss is not solely attributed to a few Muslims. And I never said it was. And, as far as I know, nobody has said that it was. Harris' loss is also not solely because of Biden withdrawing when he did. Harris' loss is also not solely because of the economy. Why people are so enamored with seeking a "sole causation" theory also puzzles me. That is not how social interactions like elections work.
Comments
Trump has long wanted to reduce the American footprint in NATO.
His appointment for ambassador to the UN suggests he is not giving it high priority.
Dictators will rejoice.
In the last go around international tourism into the US sharply reduced, and many Americans did not feel welcome in other countries.
Are castles no longer popular
Tourism to the US - I wouldn't want to go back while he is in charge.
Trade - as with our pseudo-Trump Johnson, making any deals with someone that untrustworthy at the helm is risky. So some businesses will choose not to.
Given it hasn't happened yet, and almost certainly won't have done by the time of the new administration, there is the potential for this to get seriously, globally, embarrassing/humiliating for Downing Street.
That’s for starters.
It will all depend on who he appoints to major offices, particularly Defence, State Department and Commerce, and whether or not they're prepared to go toe-to-toe with him over things like supplying Ukraine, supporting Taiwan, etc.
A recurring theme on the Right during the campaign was to pair household inflation with aid to Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, that same connection was not identified with aid to Israel.
It was even less surprising to learn of an immediate phone call between Tr*mp and Netany*hu, and to learn that the latter is all about the language of peace, now, despite (if reports are correct) deliberate IDF bombings of civilian refugee tents. It should not be forgotten that the Reagan Administration conducted backchannel negotiations with Iran to further frustrate Carter Administration efforts to gain the release of American Hostages -- Reagan wanted to make sure they weren't released before the 1980 election. It's hard to imagine a world in which the same kind of thing hasn't happened between the Tr*mp Campaign and the Israeli PM.
And Tr*mp is alleging the same kind of phone call with Putin re: Ukraine, though the Kremlin is denying it. Still, Zelensky remains in place, and considering the personal grievance Tr*mp surely maintains re: his botched plot with Zelensky over the Biden Family (a.k.a. "the perfect phone call"), I'd definitely expect a drastic reduction in Ukraine aid if not a full cutoff during the first few days of Tr*mp2. The fact that it won't improve household economics at all won't matter in the least. It will simply be a matter of the claim of extricating the US from "foreign wars," and that will be a promise kept enough.
The other Tr*mp economic boondoggle is tariffs, which will only hurt endgame consumers. That will also fail to resonate as anything other than Tr*mp claiming he's gotten America a better deal.
Trump isn't going to appoint people he thinks will go toe-to-toe with him over anything.
True. It’s loyalists all the way. No General Mattis types this time.
Possibly. Some people actually do have scruples. And others may feel like more power will accrue to them if they stand up to Trump, given that he might weaken and given that none of us lives forever.
Yes, I suspect the proximal cause will be EVs or related to one of Musk's other pet projects.
Ummm ... you are aware @Telford of the UK's shameful treatment of the Chagos Islanders?
Or doesn't that factor into the equation?
The recent deal isn't good for the Chagosians. Trump dumping it to maintain the status quo possibly doesn't address compensation issues but would presumably end the US use of Diego Garcia as a naval base in 2036 and permit return at that point, albeit to land still owned by the UK.
I'm not sure how that follows? Given nothing has been signed the suggestion is that Britain will be leant on to renege on the agreement and maintain indefinite British sovereignty. The US will consequently maintain an indefinite base.
On that timeline 2036 is irrelevant, as is any return. The US-UK deal will just get re-extended.
Or a future US administration will have different priorities and will feel differently, but maybe not for a decade. In the meantime, it's the UK that gets the opprobrium for pulling a deal the PM has announced.
Going back to the original question, I can see Trump being fairly disastrous on multiple levels - not just the economic - and thus having an anti-incumbency impact around the world, purely because of the domestic effects in each country.
I don't think his rise is an unalloyed good for the Tories - he has somewhat positive ratings among Reform supporters but largely negative ratings with current Tory voters.
Agreed. It is likely to encourage the view that Reform and Farage are the most promising vehicles for right-wing aspirations. Especially since Farage is now an MP and will, I imagine, act as a sort of "Trump-intercom" in the Commons.
Though this can play both ways, if Trump is seen as a disaster then Farage will take a reputational hit.
Of course, whether the PM should be put off by pulling out of a bad deal negotiated by the previous Tory government is a different question. Personally, I'd prefer him to find a way to fix the problems with the deal over the next few years and produce something that actually works for the Chagosian people.
Depressingly, the probably best way forward was actually put today in the Commons by Nigel Farage (I know, but he seems to be right here) - the Chagossians seem to want to return to the islands and live under British rule, emphatically not independence, and definitely not as part of Mauritius. So a settled British colony.
Incidentally, there was an interesting article somewhere that made the point that through an accident of timing the 2036 back room deal is pretty much the only thing relating to BIOT, right back to its original carving off from other territory, that *hasn’t* been the work of a Labour government. Which, given how infrequently Labour has been in power, is almost impressive!
Except that any/all disasters will be "someone else's fault" in the yes of both gentlemen and their supporters. So everyone who thinks either of them has a good reputation will not change their mind and everyone who thinks the opposite will also be unvarying in their opinion.
Was it shameful to give away the islands without consulting them?....Yes
Your argument is flawed. They were not
indigenous people
Or more to the point, the Chagosians were living on the Chagos Islands before the British took precession of the islands which is the key test for indigeneity under British colonial practice.
The entirety of British colonial practice lies against you. Chagos is just one more howler in the litany of howlers that is British colonial indigenous policy. Worse than even the Gunshot Treaty in Upper Canada in 1808 and that document was blank.
The Chagos Islands were part of the Maldives for centuries, and often used for fishing expeditions, with at least temporary camps though it's unclear whether there was a permanent population (if so, it was small). Under French colonial rule permanent settlement was established along with coconut plantations (providing an export crop) towards the end of the 18th century, with the islands passing to the British following the defeat of Napoleon. By the time the British turfed out the population in the late 1960s the colonists had been there for two centuries. That to me seems long enough, a population of people born on the islands for several generations, without any other place they would identify as "home".
@Telford, we aren't in Epiphanies but if some 'own voice' detail is required, I do know someone with close connections with the Chagossians and have heard testimony of how they were treated.
Very poorly.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Which makes me wonder whether they were paying any attention to what Trump did in his first term of office. Like when he banned Muslims from coming into the country. And when he broke decades of American policy by formally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capitol and moving the American embassy there, spitting in the eyes of the Palestinians.
I understand that they were mad at Biden for his support of Israel. What I don't get is why they thought Trump would be better for their cause when, in his first term, he was so aggressively pro-Israel.
Oh well. They got exactly what they voted for, so they have no cause to gripe.
[Please read that last line knowing that the Sarcastic Font is On.]
But from their point of view it's under a progressive candidate that the situation has been allowed to continue for over a year with no ceasefire in sight (and no sanctions worth the name). And a progressive candidate who sent Torres and Clinton to lecture them.
If you watch Vedant Patel and Matthew Miller it's been clear that even the most on side reporter has long lost patience with their constant circumloctions around the subject (most recently around the letter published just before the election to much fanfare that purported to specify a 30 day deadline for improvements https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/1856466057956852046)
You know of course that the Biden administration moved ahead with these plans despite the land for the embassy itself being disputed (which would have offered an opportunity for a pause should they have wished to take it)
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/15/us-embassy-israel-biden-jerusalem/
Furthermore he never moved ahead on his promise to create a consulate for the Palestinians.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/25/blinken-announces-us-plans-to-reopen-jerusalem-consulate
It was also the Biden administration that sanctioned UNWRA.
In that situation I can see why a particular group might swap votes and then make an appeal of that sort even if it wasn't completely sincere. I'm not going to blame desperate people for rolling the dice.
In any case, Harris' loss wasn't solely attributable to a few Muslims switching votes and more staying at home.
But you are quite correct that Harris' loss is not solely attributed to a few Muslims. And I never said it was. And, as far as I know, nobody has said that it was. Harris' loss is also not solely because of Biden withdrawing when he did. Harris' loss is also not solely because of the economy. Why people are so enamored with seeking a "sole causation" theory also puzzles me. That is not how social interactions like elections work.