-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thoughts on the Trump presidency
- Thread starter Gloster
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed, but such posts don't need to be exclusive, and even if for some reason they do why choose a dying platform, that has been haemorrhaging users in the last few years?
is there a practical character limit when you pay for twitter blue, as the NTSB appears to be doing? I wonder if Musk will ever have to declare his earnings from US government agency twitter accounts if he ever gets onto the payroll.
They've attempted a lovely bit of gaslighting here:
Surprised President Musk is allowing them to use the former name of that website.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
There is growing will to target Trump's supporters in business, and I suspect that we're going to see highly targeted attacks on their businesses. We're already seeing "red state" bans on alcohol in parts of Canada, and I wouldn't be surprised if this follows elsewhere too. For instance, banning Starlink on regulatory grounds, or imposing extra checks on Tesla cars during their yearly technical checks.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Tesla is a bit awkward despite being an obvious choice. They have factories in Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands and several in Germany. I don't know if they import complete vehicles into those countries (or the EU as a whole) but whether they do or they just import parts for processing in those factories, it is likely they would suffer either directly from the disruption or because Musk would make sure they did.
I suspect extra checks would fall foul of anti-competition legislation in the UK and EU, unless someone can find a feature of Teslas that can defensibly be argued to warrant them. I'm not sure how far import tariffs would be subject to the same restrictions - it may be necessary to target an entire product type rather than a specific brand.
People who insisted Brexit would bring nothing but benefits were very quick to defend rising prices, delays on getting products etc and stating that they knew there would be some issues but it's all going to be good in the end. We're still waiting.
I have no doubt Trump will convince his base that it's going to be rough ride, but hey - look - we're deporting 10,000 immigrants a week. That will keep them happy for a bit.
By the time Trump manages to do everything on the Project 2025 checklist it will be too late to do much anyway. With Elon having taken over Government computer systems and X likely being the main method of communication to the people, it will be job done.
Without regulation, there might be a few more plane crashes, train crashes, river pollutions and food poisonings - and the spread of disease... but that will be the fault of DEI or sabotage by the FBI, Antifa or woke liberals or something.
Maybe. But he's playing with fire given that the deportations will directly affect food supply and restrict the availability of cheap labour to do the jobs that a lot of native-born United Statesians don't want to do
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 6,027
I've seen suggestions that Tesla's Euro Ncap ratings ought to be downgraded because of their having main driving controls accessible only via menus on a touch screen far away from the driver's eye-line. How likely that might be I don't know, since I can't find any official confirmation; but it does seem ridiculous that we've spent two decades trying to prevent drivers using smartphones while driving, but then put important driving controls on a very similar screen.
In the meantime we should just boycott the damn things and make it socially unacceptable to own or drive one. Last summer Musk was keen to promote rioting and civil war in Britain, maybe we should start by burning down all the Tesla dealerships and see how he likes that? (For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a serious suggestion and I'm not advocating criminal activity. I'd approve of a boycott though.)
The problem for Trump will be that some of his base will wake up and realise, while there are plenty of people who didn't vote for him that know.
The question is what they'll do about it. If any consider any form of civil unrest, Trump has put in place obedient people who will no doubt impose martial law and send troops out onto the streets. In fact, some people suggest he wants an excuse to do just this.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, I think Euro NCAP ratings are going to see a big change. No physical buttons for certain functions will mean potentially getting no more than two stars.
It's almost certainly going to lead to Volvo redesigning the EX30, but I can see Tesla refusing to comply and just press on anyway because Elon likely imagines us moving on to just using our voice or maybe a Neuralink brain implant to control the car - assuming it won't be driving itself anyway*.
* Given the hardware Tesla uses and the lack of suitable sensors, no, it won't be driving itself anyway.
My worry would be that in that time the economy recovers from shocks such as COVID, Ukraine, Oil Prices, etc, that it might erroneously give the appearance that it has worked.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
And in unrelated news: Trump is now talking about creating a "sovereign wealth fund" that could buy TikTok.
China must be laughing their heads off at just how incompetent he really is. They're not going to complain if the American government pays well over the odds for a social media platform that will instantly cease to be cool if it's owned by the American government, they'll just create something new.
China must be laughing their heads off at just how incompetent he really is. They're not going to complain if the American government pays well over the odds for a social media platform that will instantly cease to be cool if it's owned by the American government, they'll just create something new.
trainswitheddy
Member
Erm...businessman doesn't like regulations, wants rid of all of them
What could go wrong?
edit:
Actually, looking especially at the "if...we missed the mark on a regulation" what classifies missed the mark? Do people need to die, environments destroyed due to pollution or buildings crumble due to poor construction standards? And then what? Everyone just looks at eachother and thinks "Well! Oopsie"
It feels like watching 'House of Cards' being played out in real-life.
Here's my pitch for the next remake.
"World's richest man realises that even with all that money, he still isn't the most powerful person on the planet. His ego cannot allow this. What can he do? The three most powerful people in the world are the leaders of China, Russia and the USA. There's no way for him to get to the top of the pile in China. Russia is a possibility, but there's already a dictator in place there who will be difficult to shift. The USA is also difficult as he doesn't meet the criteria to be leader, but of the three it's the one with possibilities.
He sets out on a plan to reinstall a previous megalomaniac president to enact his plan. He looks at the increasing numbers of people who are being 'left behind' by capitalism. Whilst he's the cause of their predicament, that's fine, because his hold over the media has shifted all the blame to the government and that's his ticket to success.
1. Get the ear of the man who wants to be president.
2. Buy him the presidency.
3. Get him to enable you to eviscerate the government.
4. Slowly turn up the heat on all those who voted for you. Rising costs of goods, less regulation to protect people, no federal grants or monies being paid out.
5. Use your media to stoke rioting and have your president evoke martial law.
..."
Not sure what outcome to go for though for the next step? Should I have the baddie succeed and sit as overlord over the smoking ruins of humanity or should I have him hoist by his own petard with something like his private jet crashing due to no air traffic regulation or oversight?
Here's my pitch for the next remake.
"World's richest man realises that even with all that money, he still isn't the most powerful person on the planet. His ego cannot allow this. What can he do? The three most powerful people in the world are the leaders of China, Russia and the USA. There's no way for him to get to the top of the pile in China. Russia is a possibility, but there's already a dictator in place there who will be difficult to shift. The USA is also difficult as he doesn't meet the criteria to be leader, but of the three it's the one with possibilities.
He sets out on a plan to reinstall a previous megalomaniac president to enact his plan. He looks at the increasing numbers of people who are being 'left behind' by capitalism. Whilst he's the cause of their predicament, that's fine, because his hold over the media has shifted all the blame to the government and that's his ticket to success.
1. Get the ear of the man who wants to be president.
2. Buy him the presidency.
3. Get him to enable you to eviscerate the government.
4. Slowly turn up the heat on all those who voted for you. Rising costs of goods, less regulation to protect people, no federal grants or monies being paid out.
5. Use your media to stoke rioting and have your president evoke martial law.
..."
Not sure what outcome to go for though for the next step? Should I have the baddie succeed and sit as overlord over the smoking ruins of humanity or should I have him hoist by his own petard with something like his private jet crashing due to no air traffic regulation or oversight?
The risk there is that that would fan the flames of unrest. Thankfully the US isn't Iran, and such a move would undoubtedly spark more outrage, especially if there were injuries or deaths. If protests spread through the most progressive cities such as New York and Boston, and with university and college students or even lecturers/staff (perhaps going on strike) it would be a very difficult situation.
The million dollar question: how far will the military go before their obligation to follow orders is overridden by their oath to preserve, protect and defend?
I believe the Government is seeking to allow the hiring of bounty hunters to earn as much as $1000 for finding people to deport, which should be fun to see how that works, and the type of people that sign up to 'hunt illegals'.
I wonder if they'll be able to use self defence if the people they approach don't want to cooperate. And by that I mean shoot them and claim self defence.
I wonder if they'll be able to use self defence if the people they approach don't want to cooperate. And by that I mean shoot them and claim self defence.
I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing. Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
Well...
Not that shocked.
That's always been the question when it comes down to it. The right and left wing pro-gun types always claim that the Second Amendment is vital to ensure that they cannot fall to a tyrannical government. You'll even see it occasionally when something kicks off in somewhere like the UK that they'll go on about "This is why the right to bear arms is so important, you'd never get away with this if the people had guns!" or similar.
Of course the reality is that, when confronted with a proper tyrannical regime, the only way those who are resisting win an armed struggle is if either a) the US military (or the bulk thereof) is on the same side as those resisting or b) the US military stays on base and doesn't get involved at all. Doesn't matter how many guns you have the US military wins. Every time. The sheer power that the US military can bring to bear is irresistible. People might point to the likes of Vietnam or Afghanistan as times the US was defeated in conflicts by insurgent forces but those weren't military defeats. They were political defeats, the US lost the will to go on with the conflict and so withdrew. The US military was not defeated in the field and forced to surrender. In a civil conflict (or, I guess, war) the US military is not going to be withdrawn from the field just because the war is unpopular back home and people are exhausted of it because the fight will be seen as being existential. People can endure a lot hardship when they think it's all on the line.
So the second amendment proponents will have to hope that, if it gets that far, the US military is either on their side or refuses to get involved (or I suppose the US military itself fractures with both sides gaining chunks of it). Because if they don't...
I saw the meme animated in my head!
What's more, in both of those conflicts they were fighting with one arm tied behind their backs and the other covered in cotton wool. While the miliatry chiefs would rather not have started either, had they been given free reign, the conflicts would have lasted months at most.
Quite, and civil wars are not usually known for their restraint.
Chief of Staf General Mark Milley made it plain in sayining
“We don’t take an oath to a king, or queen, or tyrant or a dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.
We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
Lost his job of course
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/25/trump-nbc-msnbc-comcast-country-threatening-treason
The CJCS is restricted to one four year term in office, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Milley retired at the end of his term. Nothing untoward about it.
I'd be more concerned about the current Chair. The new secretary of defence said he'd be "reviewing" senior leadership roles.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It could come down to the standpoint of each individual even against others within the same unit. A substantial part of the general population apparently believes Trump can do no wrong, so this is likely to be true of the military as well. It could be more because the military tends to recruit from the sort of demographic that voted for Trump, or less because military discipline has instilled more common sense, but either way it is significant. Which means that it could get very nasty if the military is ordered to intervene in a way that is legally questionable.
Not exclusively though. A lot of people from minority communities enlist as it's a way to get a college education. Those people tend to skew more towards the Democrats in voting tendencies.
Gloster
Veteran Member
And, so I read a while back, that is why the various members of the Republican Party dislike the military. They paid a lot of money to get into and through their exclusive colleges. They don’t like the way poor people can, merely by risking their lives over a lengthy period (where’s the money in that), get their way through college paid by the state.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
True. The British army is probably more representative of the equivalent demographic here. But nevertheless it must be expected that a significant number of the US forces would be Trump supporters, and this may well colour what they consider to be a legitimate order or otherwise.
OhNoAPacer
Member
The real test is what the officers decide, if they refuse an unconstitutional order then the order won't get carried out.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
I think the more likely scenario is that Trump will try and freeze federal funding from the blue states, which might lead to those states demanding that all taxes are paid to them directly. This would lead to a messy situation (comparable to the USSR-era "war of laws", or to what was happening in Yugoslavia between 1990-1992) where the federal government would have no effective means of forcing the blue states to pay, yet they would need the money to subsidise the red states.
What he's doing to USAID is morally reprehensible (big surprise, I know), but it's also completely against the USA's and his own interests.
The foreign aid budget is something like 1% of the federal budget, but does immeasurable good to the image of the USA globally. All they are doing by cutting the USAID budget - which *will* result in people dying - is handing China an opportunity to step in and be the good guys.
The foreign aid budget is something like 1% of the federal budget, but does immeasurable good to the image of the USA globally. All they are doing by cutting the USAID budget - which *will* result in people dying - is handing China an opportunity to step in and be the good guys.