Poll Suggestion: Who Will Be Elected U.S. President in 2024?

To account for the recent change to the roster, I should point out that the essentially improbable tie would seemingly still have a split ticket outcome (with a Republican POTUS and a Democratic VPOTUS), but the way the Representatives and Senators are deadlocked has always made this hard to guess. Last I checked, the news outlets are still awaiting something to report as to who will be Harris's running mate, but basically sensationalizing the bland suspense surrounding this.

Ah, yes, great catch, urbanemovies​! That's actually a very important fact to point out, concerning the date upon which one person vacates the office and another person is inaugurated: the twentieth day of January, in the year after election year. So, there is nothing random about that particular part of your thoughts.

As for your other thoughts, everybody pretty much knows for a fact that the winner will be a Democrat or a Republican, regardless of how many candidates appear on a ballot in any given State in the United States (or in the District of Columbia). The only actual assumptions are as follows: (1) that Joe Biden will live long enough to win re-election, likewise that he won't withdraw from the race; (2) that Donald Trump will indeed be nominated by the Republican Party and also live long enough to win re-election, likewise that he won't withdraw from the race; (3) that there won't be a dissolution of either one of the two major political parties or something even more extraordinary (like the abolition of the office of the president of the United States altogether). Of course, there is the possibility that Donald Trump will run as a third party candidate, thus meaning a three-way race, but all too similar to the 1992 United States presidential election, meaning victory for quid pro Joe. As we know, if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes in his favor, then the House of Representatives of the United States are to arrive at a decision, by choosing among the top three candidates and producing one vote per State, which might take a long time for the legislators to actually pull off. What happens if they take too long, though? Well, Kamala Harris might very well become the acting president of the United States upon the expiration of quid pro Joe's term of office until either the process is completed or the end of the term of office intended for the winner of the election. The situation might kind of be seen as a constitutional crisis, since logic would have to be applied in determining that a contingency rule exists and that the rule is not superseded by any other rule.

I'd be curious to know what kind of a person would be offended by a hypothetical poll addressing such a question. There isn't really anything offensive about the question apart from the possibility that politics itself or civil service for that matter is inherently offensive. The question isn't asking who ought to win, but who do people believe will win. I do suppose that people could take offense at the very sight of the candidates' faces, though. Maybe a problem could arise in the context of the believability of votes cast on the matter, thus people taking offense to perceived inaccuracy.

@jeorj_euler​ 🤔, 

I agree there are lot of moving parts and variables to consider. Even though it is now clear who the nominees will be.

I am not sure either will make it the last few months to the actual election and either step down or be removed for more a more viable and electable option or some other reason. I would have thought this could be the year for a third party candidate,  but the polls and odds makers say no.

Plus, there are 1250 other people registered and filed the paperwork to run for the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election (I would guess 25 or less will be on the actual ballot).

@urbanemovies​ Done.

@Tsarstepan​

I couldn't agree more. There are so many ways this matchup never happens, it almost seems unimaginable. Plus, I can't recall a Presidential primary & caucus season with this many X factors affecting the eventual outcome. Yet, it seems like everyone seems to accept the match-up as a foregone conclusion.

Most likely there won't be a primary election on the Democratic Party side, since the incumbent president is seeking re-election on that ticket after already having won the nomination on that ticket the last time. Whereas there is a high likelihood that there will be a primary election on the Republican Party side, even though the former president is like an incumbent in the hearts and minds of many people who worked really hard to keep him in office. To be fair, I'm not sure how how incumbent presidents are ordinarily nominated, except that there hasn't been for the past several decades any significant media coverage of the process. For all I know, nobody sharing the same party as an incumbent ever wants to contend against the incumbent's re-election bid, even if allowed, or maybe the incumbent always swiftly wins the primary election, before things like debates can be scheduled.

@jeorj_euler​

Biden already has competition for the nomination, but I agree as it stands now, it won't amount to much.

There is a lot of time between now and the conventions, but the window to get your name on the state ballots gets shorter with every passing day.

@urbanemovies​ 

Generally, in the end the most popular candidates are chosen and from all those proposed, Biden and Trump are the most recognized candidates.
However, in politics you never know.

Allan Lichtman seems to believe that the chances of the candidate on the Democratic Party ticket being elected president of the United States will be much higher if Joe Biden is again the nominee for such a party, that otherwise the candidate on the Republican Party ticket would probably win.

@GabrielFox​ I agree name recognition is a big deal, but Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both considered long shots early on. Like you said, in politics you never know.

@Tsarstepan​ Trump may be able to run, but there is a high probability that Trump will lose. 

Two-Face versus Penguin!

(Or, maybe, Two-Face versus Sionis, I ought say.)

@jeorj_euler​ 
JaJaJa ... very funny.

@ACT_1​ 

Let's wait and see who the people choose to be their new president.

@GabrielFox​ 🦊

Let's wait and see how President Donald Trump
directs the executive branch of the federal government
and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
from his Prison Cell.

all this is done with his cell phone??

- - -

Place him under (White) House arrest = Punishment?
He could still work at home.

.

@ACT_1​ 

For me it's a kind of bizarre how that works in America. A guy like him would not have even the slightest chance to candidate in G. And also in many other stable democracies in Europe.

Maybe they give him a golden telephone in a palace. And an electronic ankle bracelet.

???

I'm not wondering about anything at that point. But would be nice to see all the republican p.o.l.i.t.i.t.i.a.n.s. go visit him for the g.o.v.e.r.n.m.e.n.t.a.l. business. ;)

@Breumaster​ 

That's totally absurd. ;)

ACT,

There are always more than two people running for president of the United States, on these term years (leap years not excluding 1800, 1900, 2100 *etc.*). It's just a known fact that only a candidate on one of the two major parties will ever receive enough votes in each State to win a favorable delegation in a supportive State. Chase Oliver is the candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket, for instance, and he will not win a single electoral vote.

By the way, Donald Trump is appealing all of his felony convictions, but that's no guarantee of him being let off the hook in a timely manner. I'm not sure what sentencing guidelines are for these particular felonies. Since the crimes are of the felony level, there is supposed to be at least imprisonment, but some felonies are of a class farthest from capital offense and, by definition, are more severe than misdemeanors. No convict is supposed to be able to buy his or her way out of imprisonment for felony-offenses, but there is no telling how goofy some parts of the eighteenth title of the United States code can be, as a lot of the penalties for various "serious offenses" are basically fines. Even so, punishments are not allowed to be cruel and unusual, and there are limits to how large the gross amount of the fines and bail can be. I think, folks will mostly agree that the particular behaviors of which Trump has been accused and indicted are indeed rightfully prohibited and punishable by statute, so there is likely no risk of the statutes in and of themselves being vacated for some constitutional reason.

Breumaster. Trust me please when I tell you that the situation is just as bizarre to United States nationals. One could reasonably think that a guy like him wouldn't have the slightest chance of being a candidate for public office in the United States too, until it happens. As it stands, however, there are multiple States that are governed by people who don't believe that courts of law met their burdens of proof in finding him guilty, as well as people who flat out don't care if the courts of law did meet the burdens, so there may be some non-enforcement of rules that prohibit felony convicts from being on the ballot. There are tons of propagandists (in all professions including attorneys-at-law) who still insist that actual crimes of fraud were committed by sufferers of "Trump derangement syndrome" to make sure that Trump didn't win the United States presidential election of 2020. Worse yet, they claim that the President of the Senate of the United States actually has any authority to do anything other than do exactly what the Constitution of the United States commands.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

They're only going to make this false claim whenever the particular circumstance disfavors their preferred candidate. Even with the leadup to the War Among States back in the 1850s, there is no historical record of these kind of media gaslighting, sophistry, shenanigans and lawfare.

I put my believe in the American people. I believe in their hearts and their minds. No one with clear conciousness and a good inner compass should vote him. I'd vote for her, I was an American.

No one with a clean conscience and good inner compass would vote for either of them.

@Breumaster​ 
One way or another, in the end it is what the majority decides, that is democracy.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Well, since there are seemingly only these two options, so people with a good inner compass would rather vote for her than for him. Especially because if you don't vote for her, he gets the job. And believe me, most people in Europe don't want that. But America and Europe are friends in my humble opinion. I think we should stay together to avoid the worst. Europe does power up its defensee since some times. I'm glad for that, even though in my heart I'm a pacifist. We need to power up, to avoid the worst. This week I bought a N.A.T.O. t-shirt. Since the happenings in the last three years I'm a fan of and welcome Finnland and Sweden. Hope we will be more in future. Peace!

Gabriel.

The distribution of votes cast by the overall body of electors doesn't always match the popular vote. How electors are appointed is governed largely by State law, and for each State, a number of electors equivalent to the number of United States Representative seats and United States Senator seats for it is allowed to be appointed by/for it, the District of Columbia (not a State) being entitled to three electors. For a long time, the rules in every State have been to appoint residents thereof who have pledged support for the candidate who earned a plurality (not majority) of the popular votes in it. (That's known as the "winner take all" system.) While an elector may suffer pre-established penalties (or disqualification from serving as an elector in the future) for deviating from their pledges, his or her actual electoral vote cannot be disqualified.

If no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, then it is up to the House of Representatives of the United States to pick which of the top three presidential candidates will be President of the United States, by all the Representatives for each State must produce one vote, after voting among themselves for whom that singular vote on behalf of their State will be. If no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, and it is up to the Senate of the United States to pick which of the top three vice presidential candidates will be Vice President of the United States, possibly deciding in quorums likewise with the way the House of Representatives is required to work under the circumstances.

All of this is considered "democracy", regardless of who many people actually find these procedures (bred of past compromise) to be reasonable. Rule of the majority of the people isn't guaranteed at all in the United States system, and rule of the majority of the States isn't really guaranteed either therein. There is actually a two-step procedure for amending the Constitution of the United States, pursuant to it, and there are numerous amendments that were successfully proposed but also failed to be ratified, some of which have been neither rescinded from proposition nor sufficiently "rejected", thus leaving an open-ended question as to their continued validity and requirements of two thirds majority support, in the event of more States being added to the Union.

Breumaster. Without a shadow of a doubt, one of the candidates from the two major parties will become President of the United States, but also without a doubt there are certainly more than two options for available to everybody eligible to cast a ballot in the upcoming general election, no "seemingly" about it. The very act of voting at all is also very much optional. Some folks genuinely have no preference between the leading two candidates in a given general election, meaning that if want both, they would have to pick one, but if they wan't neither one, then they're not required at all to pick one. People with a good inner compass won't vote for either one of the puss buckets. It's like choosing between Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy. One might have tortured and murdered more people than the other, but they were both serial murderers. A vote for the lesser of two evils (or even for the least of multiple evils) is still a vote for evil. Truth be told, politics basically has less to do with "good" and "no good", and more to do with utility. One man's trash may be another man's treasure. So, maybe some of what Europeans treasure, the folks of the United States consider to be utter trash, and vice versa. We'll all just have to live with it, for however as long as the "it" or the person survives. Meanwhile, there will always be a new "it" and new persons.

@jeorj_euler​ 

"No one with a clean conscience and good inner compass would vote for either of them."

The "seemingly" was just for making it you more easy to accept that there are just those two! With your former post you seemed to be not sure that there are these two only. Who would be the alternate? There is just one of them, except the Republicans have another plan. So please tell me. To name Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, the s.e.r.i.a.l k.i.l.l.e.r.s don't seem to fit for them both. What's going on with you? Are you stressed, somehow? I guess I'll quit, this discussion. It doesn't make sense this way. Please come back to earth.

I'm not uncertain of anything other the an aspect of the outcome that demands detail unhypothetical. I've explained how this works and identified one of the alternative candidates, e.g. Chase Oliver, and that's just one of the person running in the general election. I already pointed out that none of "third party" folks will win, but indeed they are on the ballot, as always. The bit about Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy was an analogy, but used to illustrate the both of the major party candidates are guaranteed to bring me a lot of pain and in a way that is exactly their individual chief executive faults, regardless of what civics-oriented advisers are whispering in their ears. Would my audience prefer the analogy of the Giant Douche and the Turd Sandwich? I don't like that analogy, because as long as the Giant Douche has never been used by anybody else, I might easily sacrifice an interesting "third party" option to pick that one of the "top" two popular (or cartel-directed) options.

What's going on with me? I can understand the surprise exhibited, but this conversation is kind of like me revealing who I've always been since before anybody on the forum ever even encounter my words around here. Come back to earth? What does that even mean? I make regular visits between earth and the realms beyond. Haha. I'd imagine some of this stuff seems very alien, but it is based on what might simply be regarded as "too technical". I suggest we be nice and not accuse each other of living in LaLa Land.

@Breumaster​ Why?

@stv_cnnr​ 

You ask me why when I tell to come back to earth?

Well, some prosecutors (much like cops) are only successful because they do whatever they can to bend their obligation to not violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, and also not withhold evidence from defendants charged with crimes; all at the same time as offering plea bargains to ensure that the innocent (but foolish) are punished and the guilty (but clever) are partially let off the hook.

@jeorj_euler​ 

When I look at her smiling or laughing it looks totally normal, heartfull and true. Not like trumps states, she would look like insane. that's rubish! She a very sympathetic woman and looks very grounded to me, while Trump sometimes grins creepy and often mixes up people, just like Biden. Trump is also way too old, too. He shouldn't be president on so many points. And guess what, the mere main part of the people which were asked stated that it's awfull to have two such old persons (Biden & Trump) candidating.

@Breumaster​ 

Recently Trump threatened the people with W.W.3, if not elected. That should show everyone which kind he is. Let you tell from a man who was raised in a country that formerly had the worst dic.tat.or in the world, and the best known. You don't want to face such a system. Harris is a chance for the U.S. of A. I see her as a chance for America and the world. You could still put Clint Eastwood as candidate. He would surely be a better president than Trump in my consideration.

I'm confident that the're all "fake", like in the way Holden Caufield would describe other people. Anyway, Trump didn't seem to do anything more dictatorial than the typical President of the United States from the past sixty years. Tons of things set him apart from the rotten world leaders throughout history, especially that injured solider who liked to paint civic scenes. Trump has pointed out that his critics (on Capitol Hill and CNN/MSNBC/ABC) aren't really after him, that he is just in the way, that they're after his constituents. He has got a point about that. However, without a doubt he does deserve a lot of criticism, much like the lot of them. I don't know if I've stated it before, but I'm basically an advocate for Ron Paul and Rand Paul. Throw in Thomas Massie to a lesser extent. I've yet to realize a verdict for J.D. Vance, but there is a certain area of political interest where his voting record as a United States senator is basically perfect.

@jeorj_euler​ 

You mean that turnaround-guy?:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/kfile-jd-vance-comments-trump/index.html

@jeorj_euler​ 

My ficitional inner eye sees them talking:

T: " Bdn won't do, he's too old and counted to k.o. I'll win. I saw you telling some "un-nice" things about me. You can be the dirt under my toe nails. I like them clean. Or you can even be my vp, what do you think?"

J.D.: "Of course I'm your vp, that was all bad lies I followed, being betrayed by my next people, I swear, ...."

And now there comes K and the plan doesn't fit. How bad! ;)

... just fictional. Of course I can be totally wrong about, I'm just from overseas. Just a mind game, please don't mind. I don't really say it was like that, but got the personal impression through press. Sorry for my 2 cents.

The fact that Vance was once an advocate of/for #NeverTrump type of thinking is one of the best things about him. Sadly, some of the things he believed about Trump were never based in evidence, so thankfully, he has seen the light, and hopefully he (like Pence) can serve as a great counterweight to the large or small slice of beliefs held by Trump that happen to patently absurd. On a related note, the Vice President is one of the few Cabinet-level positions that doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President, i.e. the position cannot be vacated by the President, without incapacitation or loss of life being involved, be it lawful or unlawful. Also, as a reminder, the vice president of the United States is the president of the Senate of the United States. People who claim that "nobody cares" who the Vice President is are entertaining a disgusting absence of technical thinking. Strategic voters look beyond the person running for President, and consider what manner ilk he will be appointing to fill vacancies in the judiciary among other things. Trump has appointed a lot of federal judges who exude excellent legal (and causal) reasoning in court cases belonging to certain very important topics. That being stated, some of the pro-Trump "constituents" may recognize that they don't really need him anymore. Still, that's no excuse to throw support behind a "shrimp and grits" Californiaesque goofball hasbeen like Harris.

@jeorj_euler​ 

As my last statement above ... ;)

"As above, so below."

@Breumaster​ 

So my voting is clear! :D

Btw.:

Did you ever see Trump heartfully laugh? He often grinned or smiled creepy, but I saw him only one time laughing. And that was, because he didn't expect the reaction of the UN. (yt)

I guess that's why Trump has a problem with the laughing of Kamala Harris. He can't do anything with it. He seems to have no touch with a heartful laughing. So he declares hers to be an insane laughter. But how insane is it to never laugh? ... He just laughs, when he is irritated ... Presumably  he goes to his basements for laughing. ;)

D.T. rants around about that K.H. formerly told she was indian , but now she tells she is black. Well, that's another point D.T. doesn't get that SHE IS BOTH ! She has black as well as indian ancestors. This is not r.a.c.e-advertising! Only r.a.s.i.s.t.s. can come to the conclusion that she would be cheating people on being black OR indian. She is both! D.T. only sees that she is not white, so she has to decide, if she is black or indian? That's primitive!

Now I know why this is happening. 1971, Richard Nixon declared August 1-7 being the National Clown Week. (wikipedia). First I thought it is a hoax, but now I see it's true. The joint resolution was signed into law by President Nixon on August 2, 1971.

Yeah, Trump would be wise not to talk about how Harris used to or currently identifies herself, and just focus on her record as United States vice president and former California prosecutor, in addition to her attitude.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Sure. It's better to argue with facts, than cultivating populism. I know he was upset that Madame Harris wasn't at the discussion he ranted at her. But recently he refused the second TV-duell with her (instead of Biden), because she wasn't nominated for candidate by the democrats. What did  he think would happen? I guess he is too old and spoiled by his former life. When Kamala Harris argues, she argues based on facts. Trump is miles away from that. Do you remember how he treated the subject covid? He had no facts, but fantasies about healing UV-rays or injection of desinfection fluids. That's far from science.

When I was young, there was a disease called Polio, and they had a vaccine to cure it. In the seventies, when I was a kid, my mom brought me to that vaccination and I'm grateful she did. Since these years until now, Polio is defeated in the civilized countries. I'm grateful that science could manage this for humankind.

No vaccine had yet been developed back then, when Trump made those inarticulate misleading statements, and Trump may have possibly been aware of an experimental medication known as Pulmotect, which like any medication that is or would be prescription grade presents risks of injury to the human body. Hell, in many species, including homo sapiens sapiens, the body itself produces substances, as well as organic cells, that can harm it whenever there is an imbalance of substances or even flora (and native organic cells of varying types). Internal medicine is the study of regulating all this in patients who likewise unwell. Trump probably had discussed a tiny slice of all the technical possibilities with his medically-educated SARS-Cov-2 analysts, asking them about this, and was probably advised not to try to publicly pitch such complex stuff in layman's words all by himself, before apparently doing it anyway. The key thing is that if there was a simple way to "cleanse" the inside of the lungs in such a way as to target only the virus and not the native tissue and normal flora therein, the medical scientists and medicine engineers would have tried it already (based upon decades of research), yet Trump perhaps, just perhaps, got emotional about it and decided to ignore all of that. I don't believe at all that Trump actually had tabletop disinfectants (substances that destroy organic cells indiscriminately) in mind when he made his unscientific, childish, rather imaginative statements publicly (and as President of the United States) about "possible" solutions to the way that SARS-Cov-2 combined with natural immunoresponse to it leaves the lungs ravaged. Right now, vaccines (whether based upon mRNA or deactivated virus bodies) are the only thing really available to humanity to safely treat various virus-borne ailments, so the matter remains in the domain of immunologists, e.g. Anthony Fauci. The problem with this that whenever a new virus or a new strain of an old virus emerges, immunological engineers have to scramble to come up with vaccines or antiviral medications, even the primary organ being ravaged is, say, the lungs, the domain of pulmonologists (who would be interested in viral and non-viral causes of alveolar inflammation).

@jeorj_euler​ 

There have been a few vaccinations developed for Covid-19, 4 years ago. What you are talking about? In 2020 Pfizer figured out the first covid vaccination (Biontech).  Instead of fantasizing, Trump could have relied to the scientists. Because of his ignorance, too many Americans died of Covid. I still know the news that a few weeks after the outbreak, they found a cooling truck with bodies they couldn't get rid of in New York. It was a completely mix up. The corpses already stunk. There was no rule to cope with it. That was under the Trump Administration, in a broad sense.

Okay, so, in which month within 2020 did Pfizer release Biontech to the public? (Did I just hear a whisper about red tape and regulations by force of law? Too late to matter now perhaps.) I recall the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization sending mixed messages about pre-vaccine ways for people to minimize the viral loads to which they might be exposed in day-to-day life; initially claiming that wearing masks would be inappropriate and then endorsing mandates for it as soon as N-95 masks were no longer in short supply. There is really no circumstantial damage that can be attributed to Trump in any way more than Faucci. For certain, many of the quarantine measures were excessive and also damaging to the markets. A lot of people dropped the ball, I would say, due to just general unpreparedness for an outbreak, and supposedly there isn't much preparedness for the inevitable next one.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Ok, this is a little excursion to outside the topic. I caused it, because it is symptomatic for Trump.

What about the American Election system? It's of 1787! Other democracies around the world, have adjusted their voting systems. There are no electors in all of them! Each voice is counted directly! The voting system of the U.S. of A. bases on a stagecoach system of that times. It really is poor that America didn't check that! It's 2024 now, not 1787! Shady politic stratecics try to change the elective areas for reaching out to win, but is this true? That doesn't show the will of all people, just of selected areas. In G. ALL people are considered to vote for the next chancelor. There is no game about! There are not any of these false moves to change elections through the backdoor. Why not considering all of them in total, instead of this old, lesser democratic system?

Well, the United States have their namesake for a reason! Their federal government, formerly confederation polity, formerly continental polity, is governed by the States, not the people collectively; as always designed. Which has a lot to do with how people in one State have zero authority to govern people located in other States. The forms of democracy found within and throughout the United States are necessarily compartmentalized. The design is actually a merit, not some defect, and quite frankly it is considerably smarter and more forward-thinking than anything found in any part of Europe, a region heavily dependent upon the might of the navy, marine corps and air force of the United States. If the United States were wiser, there wouldn't even be an office of the President of the United States, but as it has stood since 1789, there is, and the States basically appoint one, based on some variant of State-level democracy, basically in the way of constitutional republics and constitutional commonwealths. Somewhere in there is penchant for individualism and decentralization, for which sadly not enough individuals have much respect. By no means are Thomas Jefferson's civic ideas antiquated. Also, the only thing less fascist than democracy is anarchy.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Fascism and anarchy is another discussion. For me they seem to be brothers in crime. To look at the life standards in different countries, we would have to compare them, we would need to examine the statistics. Mostly all of Americans that live in Germany admire the health system, which - compared - does not exist in the U.S.A. We get all necessary medical examinations, all necessary medicine and cures. To manage this for all people is a power-source for the whole land. When you got healthy people, so you got manpower. This is just a part of it. Look to Norway; it has the highest life standard in Europe. I guess that many people of the U.S.A. would like to live there. But first they would need to feel a touch of it to understand the difference. Denmark, Sweden, Finnland, Germany, Spain, Greece, ... are all fine together. The only problem we really have is the many refugees that come overseas. That's an ammount our countries can't handle. You can put many people in a lifeboat. But then it raises to an ammount which is dangerous. Put a few more in and the lifeboat sinks. Europe is a lifeboat, but not without borders. And we do not talk about a few million Mexicans, but tens of millions of refugees in the next years. One problem is the climate change, which is constantly ignored by the Republicans. World heats up, we got heatwaves and many people know that, too many. Instead of changing the voting system, as an alternate, it would be helpful, if the Republicans would calm down, care more about facts. They shouldn't ignore facts about climate change and re-unite the country. ... What do I say - they won't. If Trump would win, all those things like medical care for normal people, things and thoughts about climate change would be canceled, soon. Sorry, but many other countries are further with that. Even Saudi Arabia thinks about solar projects and things like that. Surely because they know that fossile power is limited and ending sometime. Our problem, globally, is that all is built up on oil consume. We have to search for alternates before oil ends. We got to find these alternates fast and all over the world, if we don't want to screw our planet totally. Earth will recover, but I guess humankind won't, if we don't get alternates quickly.

P.S.:

Health care for all is a achievement of modern democracies. The whole world is enriched by that. The U.S.A. dampened the normal progress of it for all U.S. Americans critically. Do you know, why I alway say U.S.A. or U.S. Americans? Because I got a very good colleague from Chile, who doesn't want to be compared with U.S. Americans. I also got colleagues from Ukraine. These are good people who work good and do their very best. In a democracy like in Europe you have many opportunities to learn about other people, from other countries. I have colleagues from whole Europe, also England, which screwed its economy by brexit. They are good colleagues and like to be with us. ... and do their best! ;)

Btw.:

Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada) just stated that they will reach the 2% of Nato related expenditures only in 2032. Trump asked Europe to do it immediatelly. He even said that he wouldn't care about these countries who wouldn't hit the goal. He doesn't care, if they were attacked. So if Canada was attacked, he wouldn't care about?

Indeed the United States lack a perfect demonym. That should be indicative of something. I can tell you that I'm a citizen of the United States, but that doesn't tell you that both my parents were citizens of the United States, and all four of my grandparents were citizens of the United States. The union of States is home to a complicated melting pot, and even the landmass is shared with what is left of the Lakota, Sioux, Pawnee, Navajo and Apache, among others. So, despite the sovereignty claimed by the union, the landmass overall doesn't fit the traditional meaning of a country, especially considering Alaska and Hawaii.

The only justifiable adjustments to the health systems found in the United States would be for prohibitions (and even embargoes) against various drugs to be repealed, the prohibition itself being banned. No more waiting for approval by faceless bureaucrats who have the power to punish folks for pitching barely-proved technology. I advocate for laissez faire markets and for adults to make choices for themselves what levels of health coverage they want or none at all, leaving the same or the rest to charity as it pertains to people who cannot afford coverage or actual "care" (treatment) in and of itself. The levels of so many costs are the fault of draconian statutes. Many people believe that government is the answer to so many problem. Some realize that lack of unanimous consent of the governed may be the problem. Since roughly nowhere in the world has that, basically typical government in is the problem, always violating somebody somewhere and sort of getting away with it, amid thunderous applause.

Except as however treaty permits, the President of the United States doesn't have the authority override the United States' treaty obligations, so Trump's attitude to with regard to encouraging the worst for members of NATO who don't want to offer up suitable compensation to the United States for support may not really matter. It's no so much that he doesn't care, but that he would probably ask foreign sovereign governments to agree to new treaties on terms drafted by him, if for some reason, NATO didn't even still exist. He may just be showing coldness to folks who cannot make up their minds whether or not to cut off the hand that feeds them. For him, not to care, he would have to be certain that it would make no difference to the United States if some foreign nations were attacked, be them in Europe or wherever. Right now, this generally only applies to out-of-coverage nations being attacked or "attacked" all the time anyway. For that very reason, just as well, those nations aren't eligible to join NATO, unless they're stable despite being caught up in a war with some other nation. If Canada were attacked by some party other than one under the command of the United States and in the absence of a defense pact with the United States, then there would might actually be a debate within the United States as to whether or not the situation make a difference to the United States. Given the history of the United States' hostile attitude toward foreign powers from outside the Americas having a ruling presence of some kind therein, the United States probably would take issue with, say, an invasion of Canada originating from outside the Americas, regardless of how whoever is President of the United States may feel about it.

High Jeorj. I struggle here with some problems. That's why I can't always answere immediatelly. Be sure to get me right. I't not about being sorrowless, everyone has to do his/her/* part. There is no allimentation without taking part. That would be totally wrong. I'll answere to your argument, soon. Thank you for being patient.

By all means, feel free to take your time, Breumaster. I don't particularly delight in conversing these topics. Let us not kid ourselves about our purposes with this thus far. I mean, with the exception of me not being super enthusiastic, I'm here to spread my philosophical propaganda just as much as you are here to spread yours.