Since nobody else in this forum seems to be mentioning it, it seems worth pointing out that today Americans are choosing between two candidates, one of whom
(a) Supports at least some regulation of AI, whereas the other wants to let it rip;
(b) Has at least done no harm where nuclear arms control is concerned, whereas the other tore up the nuclear deal with Iran and withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty;
(c) Supports a reasonably sane approach to pandemic disease, whereas the other is talking of banning vaccinations (as well as fluoridation of water);
(d) Has been part of the US administration that has done far more to promote low-carbon energy than any of its predecessors, whereas the other candidate calls global heating a 'hoax' and is actively trying to bring back fossil fuels;
(e) Shows some sense of responsibility to the rest of the world, whereas the other openly preaches an ideology of 'America first' (and everybody else can go hang).
Perhaps all this goes without saying. But if you're a US citizen and you haven't yet voted--or if you can still persuade anybody who hasn't--please do bear it in mind.
I agree, it's too hard to disentangle these from any political discussion. I guess we could separate discussion of the issues (which we can reasonably link to politicians and parties) but not discuss the elections themselves. I (weak to moderate confidence) think EA and this forum could play a valuable role in bringing good epistemics, reasoning, and expertise to the discussions of the issues. And I think we should not trip over ourselves to refrain from tying these to the politics, where this is obvious.
In line with your list, I think it's plausible that
1. HEALTH/PANDEMIC RISK: Putting RFK in charge of health, or giving him influence over it will strongly escalate the risk of pandemics and large-scale disease outbreaks in the US and internationally. As I understand it, RFK rejects vaccines and the integrity of the current scientific institutions. He will spread this as a matter of policy as well as through his social influence; both will boost vaccine hesitancy. He will likely drastically reduce US support for vaccine development and promotion, with global implications.
(Representative evidence: He proposed allocating half of the NIH's research budget to "preventive, alternative, and holistic" medicine.)
2. NUCLEAR RISK: The US will fully or substantially abandon NATO and other institutions. This will be destabilizing and raise the risk of adventurism from Russia, China, and others, in turn raising the risk of nuclear war.
Fwiw these claims were broadly backed up by a query on Perplexity. Full disclosure, Perplexity was less convinced than I am that that Trump will undermine foreign development aid budgets. They had a mixed response on animal welfare issues, but they agreed it is "likely that a future Trump administration would attempt to undermine or preempt state legislation on animal welfare standards, particularly those related to farm animals."
Sadly, my instincts on foreign aid seem to have been correct, at least if the 90-day suspension is a sign of things.
Also sadly, Perplexity seems to have been accurate in predicting the attempt to undermine state legislation on welfare standards.