Not the USA. Certain individuals in the US government. The vast majority of US citizens are just as confounded by these hairbrained schemes as we are.
-
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
Has some chilling parallels (not exactly, I grant you) with the Sudetenland, Austria, Bohemia, Poland. Population who feel downtrodden after signing treaties (climate, free trade) and a demagogue promising to make the country great again. Strange man in charge of propaganda, now in a modern social media guise. Sounds rather familiar......
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 6,024
Spot on - I suspect money has been the driver for much of Trump's political career. All those MAGA hats weren't given away free!
No doubt access to Canada's and Greenland's oilfields would suit plenty among Trump's billionaire backers. If they can steal it for free then even better.
Maybe Canada, Greenland and Gaza should join together in a resistance campaign. I'd suggest "Stop The Steal" might make a suitable motto!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I note the US secretary of state will not attend the G20 in South Africa due to "DEI". I guess Musk being denied a starlink license there has nothing to do with it.
Gloster
Veteran Member
I am quite sure that this is what is behind it. With the ice thinning there will be all sorts of minerals becoming available for exploitation in Greenland and Canada. That is calculated, but I suspect that Gaza-a-Lago is more of an off the cuff bit of greed.
They don't, actually - it's a classic Trump distraction tactic to deflect from the evisceration of state capacity that is going on domestically.
I repeat my earlier caution. With DJT, et. al. the distraction is also the plan.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
it is misdirection surely and the media fall for it time and time and time again. What is going on with Musk, DOGE (?) the payment systems and all the confidential/personal information being passed about?
Gloster
Veteran Member
There are an awful lot of items that briefly appear in my newsfeed (Yahoo) about something being stopped, somebody being sacked, access being given, etc., that I do not see any where else. Even though I don’t follow the US media, I get the feeling that there are just so many things going on that only a political wonk in the US will be able to keep up with everything: most people just won’t realise the enormity of the changes that are happening and be able to understand the consequences. I would add that those outside the US are probably better informed about the various foreign policy changes as that is closer to us, but not something to interest a Normal Joe in Dullsville, Ohio.
brad465
Veteran Member
We'll also get simultaneous stories that are all designed as distractions from the other distractions, so it's very hard to focus on one particular story.
Given that the President is able to make all these far reaching changes by simple decree where doe Senate and Congress fit into the USA system of government.
Yes and no. The President can issue Executive Orders but they don't hold force of law. So if there's a conflict between an EO and an existing statute then someone can bring a legal challenge. This has happened already with several of his EOs.
Where Congress (the House and Senate) come into play is if they want to pass actual legislation. This has to be agreed by a majority in the House and two thirds in the Senate, a which point it's passed to the President to sign into law. Once that's done it can't be undone by the next President just passing another EO (like DJT has done for many of the EOs that Biden signed).
That's why their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) failed. It was signed into law by President Obama, so the only way to repeal it was by passing new legislation - which failed to pass through Congress.
The other issue is that Congress has abandoned its role as a co-equal arm of Government. They should be asking questions and holding hearings into the behaviour of people like Musk and pushing back on the Executive branch overreach into areas that are their domain (for instance the Executive Order that tried to suspend all federal funding, including funding authorised by law that is to say by Congress). Indeed they could, considering the blatant disregard of the Constitution that's ongoing be considering impeachment (even if they decided not convict and remove the President).
In theory Congress has all the power required to check a rogue Executive branch (by design), but it requires that Congress is actually interested in doing so. Thus far the Dems are making some noises in that direction but they do not have either House of Congress therefore their powers are extremely limited. The framers of the Constitution presumably never foresaw a situation in which Congress would willing just give up power to the Executive.
In theory Congress has all the power required to check a rogue Executive branch (by design), but it requires that Congress is actually interested in doing so. Thus far the Dems are making some noises in that direction but they do not have either House of Congress therefore their powers are extremely limited. The framers of the Constitution presumably never foresaw a situation in which Congress would willing just give up power to the Executive.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
They also expected all players to play by the rules they set!
OhNoAPacer
Member
And that the judiciary would stop them if they didn't.
I think yes and no. I suspect they hoped that everyone would abide by the rules as written, but in my opinion the reason they framed things as they did was in case one of the branches chose not to play by the rules the remaining branches of government would have the tools to step in and avert disaster.
The main reason this is disintegrating so badly is because Congress doesn't care to do anything. They have all the power required to make Trump and his cronies behave. They choose not to. Can you imagine if say Biden or Obama had allowed a left wing billionaire (if such a thing exists) to simply wander in and take over the payment system of the US Treasury, plug in external hard drives into secure IT systems, and have their own staffers going around departments trying to fire people and access information? A GOP controlled Congress would have had them all in front of committees explaining themselves hours later and would have had articles of impeachment of the President and everyone else in the White House drafted, authorised and a conviction secured the next day.
Isn't one of the kids working for Elon/DOGE a volunteer? Likely so happy to have such a powerful position that they're willing to work for free and sleep in an office for the kudos.
I thought it was bad enough when companies elevate fans to moderator/admin status on certain forum sections to get them to defend the company that has given this status (for no pay, obviously) and often attack users who dare post anything about issues with a product or service. I didn't think it could extend to giving people powers to go into Government systems, and presumably gives Elon plausible deniability if anything bad happens.
At least one of these poor kids is going to fall under a bus sooner or later.
I thought it was bad enough when companies elevate fans to moderator/admin status on certain forum sections to get them to defend the company that has given this status (for no pay, obviously) and often attack users who dare post anything about issues with a product or service. I didn't think it could extend to giving people powers to go into Government systems, and presumably gives Elon plausible deniability if anything bad happens.
At least one of these poor kids is going to fall under a bus sooner or later.
OhNoAPacer
Member
So long as the bus driver isn't a DEI hire then they won't care.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It would cost a lot less to just extract the resources within the countries' existing boundaries and laws than to occupy them, even if they could then extract the minerals without paying any fees or taxes.
But in the latter situation, it's the US government that pays for the occupation and the extracting company getting the benefits.
Well if Trump wants more terrorism on America's shores he's going the right way about it, and not just from the people he's talking crap about or trying to steal their land but from his supporters who now think physically attacking "liberals" is fine as the president doesn't like them either.
Also with all his tariffs it's going to be a lot like Brexit, one group of people saying it's a great thing and everything is going to be great whilst rights are eroded and day-to-day living costs increase.
I do think though that if he does have a state visit then there should be no regular protests if he's out and about, people should just line the streets and laugh at him, as he doesn't care about people hating him however I bet he'd hate being laughed at en masses!
Also with all his tariffs it's going to be a lot like Brexit, one group of people saying it's a great thing and everything is going to be great whilst rights are eroded and day-to-day living costs increase.
I do think though that if he does have a state visit then there should be no regular protests if he's out and about, people should just line the streets and laugh at him, as he doesn't care about people hating him however I bet he'd hate being laughed at en masses!
brad465
Veteran Member
I've joked before that the right sort of character assassination would completely ruin him (whereas an actual assassination would be completely counterproductive). All it would take is a water balloon to the head and some gale force winds and the resulting images going viral forever would drive him insane (or should I say more insane than currently).
Regarding "what can anyone do" and how congress is very much working in his favour right now - also worth nothing that Trump appoints the attorney general, who effectively has control of federal law enforcement. The new AG is a true MAGA believer, so good luck with that.
The lower level courts can issue orders for him or Musk to stop what they're doing but they have no independent means of enforcement, and of course the judiciary itself is politically appointed (in total contrast to our own where independence and impartiality are valued) so if Trump and co wanted a veneer of legitimacy then they could just appeal upwards to a court that might see their way.
The lower level courts can issue orders for him or Musk to stop what they're doing but they have no independent means of enforcement, and of course the judiciary itself is politically appointed (in total contrast to our own where independence and impartiality are valued) so if Trump and co wanted a veneer of legitimacy then they could just appeal upwards to a court that might see their way.
JNicholson
Member
I have read the first few comments. The nonsense has started. Put simply https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...les-filed-heres-what-happens-next/ar-AA1yxvVJ is a farcical proposed use of the impeachment process.
President Donald Trump's 34 convictions should be overturned on appeal. I hope the convictions will be because that trial was appalling. I do not even believe he falsified business records given trusts are not businesses. The jury instructions given by Judge Merchan are reversable error as is forbidding a defence witness. One charge (18 USC 371) was credible in my view. Not a slam dunk, but coherent and reasonable. I tend to agree with the judge in the documents case, but again perhaps not a watertight ruling. The basis on which the ruling was usually disputed is dicta rather than precedent for Judge Canon's court. Nor am I convinced Jack Smith was appointed correctly. The documents case is somewhat complicated because I was never sure which documents related to which charge.
Regarding the executive order natural born citizens perhaps that will be nullified. I am unsure what the correct interpretation is, but I can understand President Donald Trump's claim about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. I cannot remember the case, but I can get hold of the published opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I hope President Donald Trump's term will be successful. I mostly approve of what Trump has enacted so far.
Anyway, you do not have to agree with me. However, I would prefer to discuss the presidency of Donald Trump (and for the record Brexit) in a more mature way than simply mocking him and/or his supporters.
President Donald Trump's 34 convictions should be overturned on appeal. I hope the convictions will be because that trial was appalling. I do not even believe he falsified business records given trusts are not businesses. The jury instructions given by Judge Merchan are reversable error as is forbidding a defence witness. One charge (18 USC 371) was credible in my view. Not a slam dunk, but coherent and reasonable. I tend to agree with the judge in the documents case, but again perhaps not a watertight ruling. The basis on which the ruling was usually disputed is dicta rather than precedent for Judge Canon's court. Nor am I convinced Jack Smith was appointed correctly. The documents case is somewhat complicated because I was never sure which documents related to which charge.
Regarding the executive order natural born citizens perhaps that will be nullified. I am unsure what the correct interpretation is, but I can understand President Donald Trump's claim about 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. I cannot remember the case, but I can get hold of the published opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I hope President Donald Trump's term will be successful. I mostly approve of what Trump has enacted so far.
Anyway, you do not have to agree with me. However, I would prefer to discuss the presidency of Donald Trump (and for the record Brexit) in a more mature way than simply mocking him and/or his supporters.
What do you approve of and what don’t you approve of?
JNicholson
Member
Enacting policy to secure the border.
Getting rid of DEI as far as he can.
Recognising only two sexes.
Reducing the spending of USAID (what not whether).
I am not sure how I feel about the Gaza announcement, but the main alternative (the two-state solution) has not worked (so far). At first I dismissed the headlines because the media have so often played with quotes from President Donald Trump.
I am also not sure I would have pardoned to the extent the commutated and pardoned convictions, but I agreed with Vice President JD Vance (assess on a case-by-case basis) on that particular issue. I have mixed feelings about the pardons for the people who went into abortion centres. I would rather the FACE Act be repealed because people who disturb church services rarely get prosecuted for interrupting church services (to which the FACE Act also applies). This is a complicated one because I am pro-life and I do not have a problem with people praying inside hospitals, but abortion (on a state-by-state basis) is a legal (even if an immoral) activity and the law applies even when we disagree with the law. Unjust law should be repealed rather than not enforced.
Anything else? When I stated 'I mostly approve of what Trump has enacted so far' I meant mostly approve of the enactments I have heard about.
What policy? Exactly.
I'll paraphrase a post I made earlier: The US population is split roughly 50:50 male to female (there are actually slightly more females), yet taking something like tech as an example nearly 75% of workers are male.
This means that one of two things are true: there are institutional obstacles that make it harder for women to enter the field, or women aren't as capable as men. DEI policies exist to remove those barriers and give everyone an equal start, and anyone who opposes DEI either believes that women aren't as capable as men or wants to suppress their opportunities.
I'm curious which describes yourself.
Nature doesn't care about our attempts to classify a continuum. Transgender people exist, you can't define them away. Only deny their humanity.
How much, as a percentage, of all US government spending did USAID get?
One thing Democrats should really be more onside with is border security. Even a democratic socialist or a social democrat knows you can't have a social democracy with open borders.
He's essentially rolled civil rights back to 1965. This is certainly a gross overreach, much more so than the overreach of DEI programs ever had (and they probably did have some overreach, and did cause some harm - but nothing like simply eviscerating any sort of move for inclusion in workplaces and the state).
The state has never recognised more than two sexes. Which other sex has been recognised?
The wording of Trump's executive order was explicitly transphobic and further discriminates against intersex people. It is an order where "the cruelty is the point", signifying the state's intentions in other areas, but which doesn't itself have much substance. Further, Trump's defence secretary has issued orders saying that trans service people (reminder - these are United States serving personnel who fight and die) have a "false gender identity" and being trans is in conflict with a serviceperson's obligation to an "honourable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle". It is so insulting and repellent; anyone falling for the Trump administration's rhetoric around this is telling on themselves. I don't know any trans person who I would consider to be untruthful or undisciplined; indeed, the nature of transition requires one admit a truth to oneself and others (one which, perhaps, might be a difficult yet necessary truth to convey), and frequently requires self-discipline to accomplish to one's satisfaction.
Note that the government has deleted transgender people from the "LGB umbrella" and attempted to delete them from the state's consciousness, yet still talks about trans people as if they exist...which of course they do.
Notwithstanding the global distress this will cause, this will make America less safe. He didn't reduce it, he proposes to remove it. Totally.
The one where he suggests that Gaza be ethnically cleansed and to set up an American colony there? Okay. I think I know how I feel about that one.
Oh no, he really did suggest ethnic cleansing.
Why? What's good about pardoning people who tried to mount an insurrection in the president's name and tried to take over the Capitol? The whole area of presidential pardons is really just legalised despotism regardless of who is issuing the pardons. Biden was little better, protecting his own family.
"This same law also, by chance, does another thing, and those clauses often aren't applied" is not a good justification for why it's bad law. if disrupting church services was in a totally separate law you wouldn't be able to suggest repealing it (and by extension making it legal for people to protest around women who are receiving abortions and often experiencing trauma).
brad465
Veteran Member
The two-state solution hasn't really had a chance to exist. Various proposals over the decades have seen successive Israeli regimes take more land and receive next to no pushback for it, despite other countries' regimes doing comparable land grabs and receiving pushback. Then when they got close in the 90s under Clinton, the Israeli PM was assassinated by someone who didn't want peace.
If Israel is able to normalise relations with Egypt, despite them being a major part of the Yom Kippur War, then normalising relations with a Palestinian state should be possible too, even if very difficult. I get this is not going to happen on the latter side with the likes of Hamas, but subjecting Gaza to a bombing campaign larger than all the major bombing campaigns of WWII combined, is not going to allow an authority willing to come to a 2-state solution, or other peaceful compromise, to come forward.
Something that a lot of the MAGA crowd don't realise is that deportations were higher under Biden than the previous administration. And without any needless cruelty.
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,809
Really? There are videos of his incoherent rambling speeches all over the internet, it really isn’t difficult to be sure of exactly what he’s said
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Unfortunately it’s all part of the politicisation of the judiciary. The other side of the coin is an administration targeting those of the opposite / outgoing persuasion.