And so it begins. Nine months still to go before the next US presidential election and already the Republican party favourite and former President Donald Trump is sending eyes rolling skywards with his seemingly outlandish statements.

And yet they will delight many of his supporters.

Suggesting at a rally in South Carolina that he would “encourage” aggressors (for example Russia) “to do whatever the hell they want” with Nato countries that fail to pay their dues has prompted an immediate slap down from the White House. A spokesman called the comment “appalling and unhinged”, saying it was “encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes”.

Nato Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg has also responded forcefully, saying: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone also likes to forget that she won the poplar vote. She lost the electoral college, an anti-democratic institution that Democrats seem to think is really important to keep, despite the fact that keeping it often makes them impotent.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It frankly doesn’t matter whether they want to keep it or not. It would take a constitutional convention to change and in the current climate that’s going to go make things worse, not better.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is one interesting workaround I’ve heard about from time to time, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a state-level agreement where all the participating member states commit to allocating their electoral college votes to whomever won the popular vote nationally. No need for a constitutional convention since the allocation of electoral college votes is in the hands of state governments, they can decide to do this under the existing constitution.

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                However the states likely to agree are the ones that reliably vote Democrat, and the GOP has only won one popular vote in the last 30 years. So again, it won’t make a difference.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The comment I was responding to at the root of this said:

                  It would take a constitutional convention to change

                  And my response was to point out that no, it wouldn’t. It doesn’t. It’s still difficult, sure, but it doesn’t require a constitutional convention to change.

                  Also, if you actually look it up, there are enough states that have already enacted the compact or are “pending” to get it done. So it’s closer to being done than you are implying.

                • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It will. To change the constitution you need 2/3 of the states. For this plan to work, you need only 50.1% of the electoral votes to agree. Doesn’t matter if they primarily swing democrat, it just has to be a majority.

    • spider@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      She ran a shit campaign. Everyone likes to forget that part

      …and then years later, this flew under almost everyone’s radar:

      From CNN, via Internet Archive, October 11, 2022:

      Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday.

      The cash offer was made during an overseas October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election.

      FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.”