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!
Trump, even without dementia, is not going to go quietly. But with dementia, it will be even worse. He won't accept that he has to leave. He won't accept that anything is wrong with him. He will say that he is being illegally removed any may become violent.
I think you will be right, and it will be violent, his supporters will be taken in by him, and he will try to call out the national guard, and military, What happens, depends on the view of the military, will they obey an illegal order? I'm hoping they will not, and that, Trump will then flee the country, One thing for sure, it will split his base, between those who are using him, and Vance would ensure the project remains on going, and those who are cultists,
The record-long shutdown is now resulting in flights across the US being cut. I can certainly see Trump and Congress being more desperate to end the shutdown with this problem now manifesting; the disruption will be unpopular, and it certainly weigh down GDP figures:
Domestic air travel will be cut by up to 10% at 40 major airports, resulting in thousands of cancelled flights in the coming days.
www.bbc.co.uk
In the last hour or so, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has spoken with the BBC's US partner CBS News.
He starts the interview by saying his number one job is "safety", and explains that his decision to reduce flight capacity at airports across the country will take "pressure" out of the system.
Some air traffic controllers are working 10-hour days, six days a week, he says, with fatigue setting in and others calling in sick or looking for second jobs.
"My job is to be pre-emptive," he says, adding that he will share the data behind the federal government's decision later, when pushed by CBS.
It took me over three hours to clear CBP at JFK on Wednesday. Probably about 75% of the usual lanes open, and (understandably) most staff working on a proper go slow
Truth though, has to be asked, is who, or what does the "American system" worship?
This is the result of having a Narcissistic, person, who sees everything through his own vanity, as president, and he has appointed sycophants, to governmental office, not because they will do a good job, but because they will do as he wants, and he lacks the education, and desire to learn, to do the job. Add in his mental decline, lack of attention, and you have the perfect storm, a man who acts on impulse, who does not understand, or possibly does not want to understand, the finer points of how a democratic system operates, then wonders why people don't like me now, as the country disappears down the plug hole.
Truth though, has to be asked, is who, or what does the "American system" worship?
This is the result of having a Narcissistic, person, who sees everything through his own vanity, as president, and he has appointed sycophants, to governmental office, not because they will do a good job, but because they will do as he wants, and he lacks the education, and desire to learn, to do the job. Add in his mental decline, lack of attention, and you have the perfect storm, a man who acts on impulse, who does not understand, or possibly does not want to understand, the finer points of how a democratic system operates, then wonders why people don't like me now, as the country disappears down the plug hole.
While what you say is true, Trump is not the beginning of the problem. He is however, the manifestation of a lot of the problems. The trouble with the USA system is that they find it difficult to change their system to improve it. The USA has a flawed democracy but appears it is stuck and cannot change it's own system.
A system designed for the time of it's making, but which is not now fit for purpose in a modern world. It's been left behind by younger democracies. And now the flaws are showing.
Trump and the people behind him are taking full advantage of many of the flaws to push their agenda forward as fast as possible. And they will continue to do this unless and until they are stopped.
Not that it's going to help the American citizens in the short term, but, it's likely that the USA will go into recession (if it's not already there, but the figures don't yet show it). As their economy struggles and as many of the voters are worse off or feel worse off, support for Trump may well decline enough that (assuming the mid-term elections are free and fair) the GOP will loose control of the House of Representatives.
That will then curb Trumps power. More so if the GOP decide he is now a liability and he looses influence of the party. That will then be good news for American citizens and the world for the longer term, once their their economy recovers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
For the record, in a ranking of democracies, Norway is top at number one. Second is New Zealand, third is Sweden. The UK is at number 17, the USA is at 28. The full list is here.
Twenty fifth Amendment by Vance and a majority of the Cabinet making Vance Acting President. Then you hope that, when he inevitably says I am still fit to serve, Congress votes with 2/3rd majorities of both houses to remove him (if he didn't send such a message then his removal and Vance taking over as Acting President sticks without a Congressional vote).
Truth though, has to be asked, is who, or what does the "American system" worship?
This is the result of having a Narcissistic, person, who sees everything through his own vanity, as president, and he has appointed sycophants, to governmental office, not because they will do a good job, but because they will do as he wants, and he lacks the education, and desire to learn, to do the job. Add in his mental decline, lack of attention, and you have the perfect storm, a man who acts on impulse, who does not understand, or possibly does not want to understand, the finer points of how a democratic system operates, then wonders why people don't like me now, as the country disappears down the plug hole.
While what you say is true, Trump is not the beginning of the problem. He is however, the manifestation of a lot of the problems. The trouble with the USA system is that they find it difficult to change their system to improve it. The USA has a flawed democracy but appears it is stuck and cannot change it's own system.
A system designed for the time of it's making, but which is not now fit for purpose in a modern world. It's been left behind by younger democracies. And now the flaws are showing.
Trump and the people behind him are taking full advantage of many of the flaws to push their agenda forward as fast as possible. And they will continue to do this unless and until they are stopped.
Not that it's going to help the American citizens in the short term, but, it's likely that the USA will go into recession (if it's not already there, but the figures don't yet show it). As their economy struggles and as many of the voters are worse off or feel worse off, support for Trump may well decline enough that (assuming the mid-term elections are free and fair) the GOP will loose control of the House of Representatives.
That will then curb Trumps power. More so if the GOP decide he is now a liability and he looses influence of the party. That will then be good news for American citizens and the world for the longer term, once their their economy recovers.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
For the record, in a ranking of democracies, Norway is top at number one. Second is New Zealand, third is Sweden. The UK is at number 17, the USA is at 28. The full list is here.
The changes necessary are also going to take a lot longer than a Presidential term, and certainly longer than 2 years (the length of the House of Reps' term), to fix. Thus nobody will pursue the necessary reforms for fear they get derailed halfway through implementation. The US definitely needs to move away from having elections so frequently: I'd abolish mid-terms entirely and make the House elections only coincide with presidential elections, while the Senator term is extended to 8 years, with half the chamber up for election every 4 years. Then on top of that, I'd have term limits for all occupants of both chambers, in the aforementioned hypothetical scenario, Senators would be max 2 terms (16 years), and the House max 4 terms (also 16 years). If you move between Chambers, the max is 24 years for all federal posts.
Like, or dislike don't come into it, I just find it staggering that so many people would vote for someone who was friends with a convicted sex offender, and whose own actions, make him unfit for any public office, he was don't forget found guilty of numerous offences himself, and has a very chequered business history as well as far too many question marks over just how indebted he is to Russian interests.
Like, or dislike don't come into it, I just find it staggering that so many people would vote for someone who was friends with a convicted sex offender, and whose own actions, make him unfit for any public office, he was don't forget found guilty of numerous offences himself, and has a very chequered business history as well as far too many question marks over just how indebted he is to Russian interests.
Like, or dislike don't come into it, I just find it staggering that so many people would vote for someone who was friends with a convicted sex offender, and whose own actions, make him unfit for any public office, he was don't forget found guilty of numerous offences himself, and has a very chequered business history as well as far too many question marks over just how indebted he is to Russian interests.
Because owning the Libs!
Seriously I think that anyone voting for him is a disgrace, let alone women or those with children who ate basically say that a person who most likely has committed sexual assault is a good man and by that token say that sexual abuse is OK and should just be accepted.
This is a serious problem that doesn't get talked about anywhere near enough. A critical mass of voters now care only about beating their opponent, even if the head of their tribe is more than happy to screw their supporters over too. You only need to look at how attitudes have changed in the UK since the last election to see it: each tribe effectively started making the arguments other tribes made before the election. Social media and associated echo chambers have almost certainly exacerbated this.
This is a serious problem that doesn't get talked about anywhere near enough. A critical mass of voters now care only about beating their opponent, even if the head of their tribe is more than happy to screw their supporters over too. You only need to look at how attitudes have changed in the UK since the last election to see it: each tribe effectively started making the arguments other tribes made before the election. Social media and associated echo chambers have almost certainly exacerbated this.
IMHO, American voters do appear to vote for the party or president that tells them that they will make them better off. And many don't appear to be able to tell when they are being lied to. Trump is a pathological liar, one of the worst, if not the worst in the history of the USA.
IMHO, American voters do appear to vote for the party or president that tells them that they will make them better off. And many don't appear to be able to tell when they are being lied to.
I'm going to be honest here, I dislike Trump as much as the next guy and think the sooner that increasingly demented lunatic is out of the White House the better, but I think using the whole convicted criminal argument to judge him and his voters is massively hypocritical from some of the same sorts of people who raised other convicted criminals to sainthood.
Anyone who called Luigi Mangione a legend for gunning down a CEO in the street or wished for Charlie Kirk's assassin to never get caught has no right to suddenly start moral high-horsing about Trump being a crook, especially not when you were also on the same side as Dick Chaney during the election. He wasn't exactly wrong about Trump, but much as I hate to speak ill of the recently deceased he also wasn't a moral crusader for good either.
I'm going to be honest here, I dislike Trump as much as the next guy and think the sooner that increasingly demented lunatic is out of the White House the better, but I think using the whole convicted criminal argument to judge him and his voters is massively hypocritical from some of the same sorts of people who raised other convicted criminals to sainthood.
Anyone who called Luigi Mangione a legend for gunning down a CEO in the street or wished for Charlie Kirk's assassin to never get caught has no right to suddenly start moral high-horsing about Trump being a crook, especially not when you were also on the same side as Dick Chaney during the election. He wasn't exactly wrong about Trump, but much as I hate to speak ill of the recently deceased he also wasn't a moral crusader for good either.
I'm with you on the first part, however the bold bit I'm definitely not. There are only two effective sides in US politics, so to avoid being on the same side as any bad individual(s) is almost impossible. The person most at fault for the side Dick Cheney took was Dick Cheney himself, if he didn't want Trump in office he should have seen how much of a turn-off he was and kept his mouth shut.
Anyone who called Luigi Mangione a legend for gunning down a CEO in the street or wished for Charlie Kirk's assassin to never get caught has no right to suddenly start moral high-horsing about Trump being a crook
Very few (no?) "people of note" on the liberal side of the political spectrum subscribe to either of those views. Pretty much everyone who matters condemned both murders and decried politically motivated murder.
I'm with you on the first part, however the bold bit I'm definitely not. There are only two effective sides in US politics, so to avoid being on the same side as any bad individual(s) is almost impossible. The primary person at fault for Dick Cheney's siding is Dick Cheney himself, if he didn't want Trump in office he should have seen how much of a turn-off he was and kept his mouth shut.
I can't really argue with that to be honest, and before the election results I was of the opinion that Dick Chaney siding against Trump was a testament to just how bad Trump actually was. It wasn't until he actually won that I began to consider that maybe an average middle-of-the-road American who remembers the post-9/11 political climate might not consider his endorsement to be a good thing, especially given a lot of the MAGA base would prefer to take a step back from being the world police and would hate big government policy such as the Patriot Act (or at least the parts where it applies to them and not the other guys).
Very few (no?) "people of note" on the liberal side of the political spectrum subscribe to either of those views. Pretty much everyone who matters condemned both murders and decried politically motivated murder.
I would hope so, but this depends on how you interpret the Charlie Kirk resolution. While all 215 Republicans who voted unanimously voted Yea to the resolution, Democrats were more split; 95 voted Yea, but 58 voted Nae, 38 voted Present (neither for nor against) and 22 didn't vote. One of these individuals was Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who some have championed as a potential Democrat nominee for the Presidency.
For full context, the bill was largely about honouring the life of Charlie Kirk and condemining political violence. It was undoubtedly emotionally-fuelled by Republicans wanting to make a martyr out of him, and while AOC has every right to vote how she wishes, she was considerably more critical of him than she was over Luigi Mangione despite the latter committing an actual murder. Whether she actually "matters" is another question entirely.
I would hope so, but this depends on how you interpret the Charlie Kirk resolution. While all 215 Republicans who voted unanimously voted Yea to the resolution, Democrats were more split; 95 voted Yea, but 58 voted Nae, 38 voted Present (neither for nor against) and 22 didn't vote. One of these individuals was Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who some have championed as a potential Democrat nominee for the Presidency.
For full context, the bill was largely about honouring the life of Charlie Kirk and condemining political violence. It was undoubtedly emotionally-fuelled by Republicans wanting to make a martyr out of him, and while AOC has every right to vote how she wishes, she was considerably more critical of him than she was over Luigi Mangione despite the latter committing an actual murder. Whether she actually "matters" is another question entirely.
Charlie Kirk didn't do anything deserving of being honoured, so it's not surprising that people either voted against the measure or abstained even if they condemned political violence.
Charlie Kirk didn't do anything deserving of being honoured, so it's not surprising that people either voted against the measure or abstained even if they condemned political violence.
I don't disagree in principle, and like I said it was an emotionally-fuelled bill by Republicans trying to make a martyr out of the man, but my point was that it is still somewhat concerning when individuals like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are more critical of people who got murdered for having views they consider unsavory than they are of people actually committing the murders.
If she was merely an outspoken lunatic on the fringe of the Democrats that'd be one thing, but if she is actually a potential nominee for their Presidency candidate then it really does say a lot about the party that, for all their preaching about love and empathy, are surprisingly lacking in both for their out group and have a selective moral compass when it comes to criminals.
I don't disagree in principle, and like I said it was an emotionally-fuelled bill by Republicans trying to make a martyr out of the man, but my point was that it is still somewhat concerning when individuals like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are more critical of people who got murdered for having views they consider unsavory than they are of people actually committing the murders.
YouTube short of her talking about Charlie Kirk during the house resolution:
"We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was. A man who believed that the Civil Rights Act. that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a mistake. Who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that "some amazing patriot" should bail out his brutal assailant. And accused Jews of controlling "not just the colleges. It's the non-profits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it". His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Far from the "working tirelessly to promote unity" asserted by the majority in this resolution"
YouTube video of her reacting to the murder of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione (unfortunately I couldn't find many videos about this one):
"It's really important that we take a step back. This is not to comment, and this is not to say that an act of violence is justified, but I think for anyone who is confused and shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them"
I don't even inherently disagree with some of what she says. The American healthcare system has it's massive problems, and the Trump administration were very keen to weaponise Charlie Kirk's assassination. But you can tell she does not feel as strongly about the murderers as she does the victims or the fallout from both situations. She was genuinely more concerned by Jimmy Kimmel's temporary cancellation that was later undone.
This is starting to go off topic from the Trump Presidency so I won't go too much into talking about her as an individual, but the point I am ultimately making is that the whole "Trump is a convicted felon" is not a card that the Democrats can play when people like Cortez don't feel so strongly about criminality when it's against their out-group. Had Charlie Kirk been one of their own, they would've gladly (albeit rightly) condemned right-wing political violence.
Once again, I long for the day when Trump is gone from the Oval Office, but that day might not come soon enough if the Democrats try to play such moral high-horsing instead of genuinely offering something better. Bernie Sanders was well and truly a missed opportunity who had a very clear vision for his country and has no qualms about condemning political violence on all sides. Now more than ever does the US need someone like him.
YouTube short of her talking about Charlie Kirk during the house resolution:
YouTube video of her reacting to the murder of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione (unfortunately I couldn't find many videos about this one):
I don't even inherently disagree with some of what she says. The American healthcare system has it's massive problems, and the Trump administration were very keen to weaponise Charlie Kirk's assassination. But you can tell she does not feel as strongly about the murderers as she does the victims or the fallout from both situations. She was genuinely more concerned by Jimmy Kimmel's temporary cancellation that was later undone.
This is starting to go off topic from the Trump Presidency so I won't go too much into talking about her as an individual, but the point I am ultimately making is that the whole "Trump is a convicted felon" is not a card that the Democrats can play when people like Cortez don't feel so strongly about criminality when it's against their out-group. Had Charlie Kirk been one of their own, they would've gladly (albeit rightly) condemned right-wing political violence.
Once again, I long for the day when Trump is gone from the Oval Office, but that day might not come soon enough if the Democrats try to play such moral high-horsing instead of genuinely offering something better. Bernie Sanders was well and truly a missed opportunity who had a very clear vision for his country and has no qualms about condemning political violence on all sides. Now more than ever does the US need someone like him.
I would hope so, but this depends on how you interpret the Charlie Kirk resolution. While all 215 Republicans who voted unanimously voted Yea to the resolution, Democrats were more split; 95 voted Yea, but 58 voted Nae, 38 voted Present (neither for nor against) and 22 didn't vote. One of these individuals was Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez who some have championed as a potential Democrat nominee for the Presidency.
For full context, the bill was largely about honouring the life of Charlie Kirk and condemining political violence. It was undoubtedly emotionally-fuelled by Republicans wanting to make a martyr out of him
Yes, imagine not voting in favour of it. That would be good! I'm going to look up a list of those who had the moral fibre to do so.
I don't think it is wholesome to, and I quote from the resolution:
honor the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk
Kirk was a deeply unpleasant individual who hated women and literally thought they should be property. He had all manner of extremely unpleasant and ill-informed views which he would debate solely for clip content with college students, and rarely with anyone more serious.
Of course he didn't deserve to get murdered in such a brutal way - nobody does - but good on some Democrats for refusing to honour his life's "achievements".
, and while AOC has every right to vote how she wishes, she was considerably more critical of him than she was over Luigi Mangione despite the latter committing an actual murder.
Luigi Mangione was a nobody who committed a murder. Charlie Kirk was one of Trump's inner circle and effectively a politician who helped set a very harmful agenda in the federal government, as well as being one of his most important footmen in getting him elected. I would absolutely expect Kirk to get a lot more scrutiny from an elected representative.
I recommend watching this entire video (it's quite long and the video title only represents part of the topic matter).
It's the 'I've Had It Podcast' with two hosts discussing how the MAGA movement is now moving on by either going against Trump (as Marjorie Taylor Greene has been doing of late) or just not mentioning him at all. He can still be used to do things without him really knowing he's doing it ('Sign this sir...') but for all intents and purposes given his frame of mind and health, he's finished.
The Heritage Foundation is already making moves to progress without Trump and now we get to see the infighting to see who will take over next, and by all accounts they don't want it to be JD Vance unless he divorces his wife (and we all saw the 'weird' scenes with him and Erika Kirk).
I see all this and wonder HOW the American people got like this, but we pretty much did the same with Brexit and a large percentage of people blindly following Nigel Farage as a 'man of the people' who is so heavily interconnected with all that's going on in the USA and will be doing everything to copy everything they've done Stateside to undermine democracy.
(And as long as people keep getting told the problems are down to immigrants, they'll keep winning).
About the only real difference is that we're not as religious here as in the USA, but it must be noted that at recent rallies the right have been trying ever harder to say we're a Christian nation - so they're planting the seeds.
Is it though? Because it didn't win them the 2024 election nor is it doing anything to meaningfully oppose Trump's increasingly fascist behaviour. The only way I can see it being better is because it's practically doing nothing at all and therefore cannot actually hurt anyone directly. I might be overestimating Bernie Sanders but at least he had and still has an actual non-partisan vision for his country that goes beyond keeping Trump out of power.
Luigi Mangione was a nobody who committed a murder. Charlie Kirk was one of Trump's inner circle and effectively a politician who helped set a very harmful agenda in the federal government, as well as being one of his most important footmen in getting him elected. I would absolutely expect Kirk to get a lot more scrutiny from an elected representative.
If nothing else I thought that I should at least give you props for actually making a good point about the social standing aspect of everyone in question. Indeed had it simply been a case of gun-related gang violence rather than someone gunning down a Fortune 500 CEO then Luigi Mangione probably would've remained a nobody.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
