Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[najaB]

I read that as a facetious comment intended to convey the attitudes held by the people in the US government behind this ridiculous idea, not @najaB's own views. I hope that was the intent anyway.

Indeed it was.

 

[SteveP29]

I read that as a facetious comment intended to convey the attitudes held by the people in the US government behind this ridiculous idea, not @najaB's own views. I hope that was the intent anyway.

Same

 

[Broucek]

Glad I got an ESTA earlier this year. (I sometimes have to visit the US for work.)

Leaving aside the (shocking) big picture implications, this is also quite hard to do practically. Sure, I belong to a small number of forums that I read/post to fairly regularly and can readily name. But what about that DIY forum I joined because I needed help with something 2 years ago but never went back to and have now forgotten about?

On the upside, I'd rather be refused an ESTA than be detained or deported at the border.... /s

 

[AlterEgo]

The ESTA process is all smoke and mirrors anyway. There is basically no way of verifying any of the information there, and they just grant all of them unless they can't tie you to a banned list or unique passport.

 

[jon0844]

The ESTA process is all smoke and mirrors anyway. There is basically no way of verifying any of the information there, and they just grant all of them unless they can't tie you to a banned list or unique passport.

It's just like the silly forms before these came in, where you had to say you weren't a Nazi or terrorist.

Or course today, saying you had connections to the Nazis might be your way of getting in....

I guess the idea is that if something happens when you're in the US, they can potentially look at your application and seek issues then to make it easier to deport you. But, again, right now I don't feel that they'd care and would just lock you up and do what they want with no due process anyway.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The ESTA process is all smoke and mirrors anyway. There is basically no way of verifying any of the information there, and they just grant all of them unless they can't tie you to a banned list or unique passport.

Not in *all* cases: for instance, they do have access to Canadian police databases, so if you require the ESTA and you've been a naughty boy in Canada, they can see this and deny you accordingly. But yes, for the vast majority of people, they have no way of verifying anything that you've said there unless your passport shows something or your involvement with genocide is documented online.

Actually, in defence (I know, I know) of the US, Canada is equally nuts when it comes to entry if you've been convicted of certain crimes. The big one is DUI, which Canada treats as such a serious crime that you effectively need to either apply for a residence permit there or apply for some formal "criminal rehabilitation" before you enter, even if it happened 20 years ago. The problem with Canada is that it's incredibly vague, so you can't even go to the border and have a reasonable chat with the border police about it: as soon as you go into Canada, you are either admitted or formally refused, and if you're formally refused, then you have even more problems getting entry in future.

The truly bonkers thing about Canada is that it's left entirely to the officer on duty to decide if you can enter or not. So, people have found themselves stopped and banned from entering after many years of crossing without issue. The Americans, in comparison, are a bit more laid back about it and only consider DUI as a factor in denying you entry, but it can't be the sole factor.

 

[Broucek]

Surely they will be using AI to interrogate all the email addresses you have shared

 

[styles]

Surely they will be using AI to interrogate all the email addresses you have shared

AI interrogate email addresses? What does this mean?

 

[jon0844]

They'll enter your profile IDs and email addresses into software that will scan for your posts and mentions (and, who knows, maybe in the case of Gmail or Microsoft email addresses, they could just give full access to your email posts). At this time, I feel the US Government can and is doing whatever the hell it likes*.

If Trump threatened Google with some sort of regulations, tariffs or fines for not complying with a request to give access to emails, I bet they would let him do whatever he wants. Likewise, X, Microsoft and Facebook/Meta. No doubt TikTok also.

If a company refused to give access, Trump would probably threaten to ban them.

* It's good to read this week stories of things being overturned or deemed illegal, but - again - will it make any difference?

 

[Bantamzen]

They'll enter your profile IDs and email addresses into software that will scan for your posts and mentions (and, who knows, maybe in the case of Gmail or Microsoft email addresses, they could just give full access to your email posts). At this time, I feel the US Government can and is doing whatever the hell it likes*.

If Trump threatened Google with some sort of regulations, tariffs or fines for not complying with a request to give access to emails, I bet they would let him do whatever he wants. Likewise, X, Microsoft and Facebook/Meta. No doubt TikTok also.

If a company refused to give access, Trump would probably threaten to ban them.

* It's good to read this week stories of things being overturned or deemed illegal, but - again - will it make any difference?

Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if he tried this, it would also be a massive breach of not only data protection laws around the world, but would completely undermine confidence in those companies. So I suspect there will be a lot of legal teams preparing to push back on anything like this.

 

[najaB]

Whilst it wouldn't surprise me if he tried this, it would also be a massive breach of not only data protection laws around the world, but would completely undermine confidence in those companies.

Almost all data protection laws have carveouts for "law enforcement purposes".

So I suspect there will be a lot of legal teams preparing to push back on anything like this.

Notwithstanding the above, yes I agree. The US tech companies won't want to comply without a fight, since they know that it rolling over and giving the US government unfettered access like this will be a stimulus for people to start investigating their European or Asian competitors.

 

[Bantamzen]

Almost all data protection laws have carveouts for "law enforcement purposes".

There's a difference between rooting out potential criminals and terrorists, from just wanting to root through people's data in case they said something nasty about the man-baby in charge. Even in the US this will not be received well, but here in the UK & Europe it's going to be an absolute no-no. The social media companies still have to obey our laws regardless of what Trump wants.

Notwithstanding the above, yes I agree. The US tech companies won't want to comply without a fight, since they know that it rolling over and giving the US government unfettered access like this will be a stimulus for people to start investigating their European or Asian competitors.

At the end of the day these companies are all in the race to expand into the AI market globally. Letting the Trump administration root through customer's data at will is going to destroy that confidence, and destroy their access into a lot of markets, giving as you say their competitors a huge advance.

 

[nlogax]

Need to renew my passport in coming months. This feels like a good excuse to get it done soon and get a new ESTA ahead of my one westward jaunt late spring and before stuff gets utterly ridiculous.

 

[AlterEgo]

Need to renew my passport in coming months. This feels like a good excuse to get it done soon and get a new ESTA ahead of my one westward jaunt late spring and before stuff gets utterly ridiculous.

Having just obtained a new passport and new ESTA on Tuesday, I can confirm the ESTA process remains the same as usual, with the social media question being optional.

 

[Sorcerer]

At the end of the day these companies are all in the race to expand into the AI market globally. Letting the Trump administration root through customer's data at will is going to destroy that confidence, and destroy their access into a lot of markets, giving as you say their competitors a huge advance.

It's for similar reasons to this that I don't think the US will end up pulling out of NATO despite some recent politician's attempts to pass a bill to withdraw. Would the likes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing really want US hegemony and global military dominance to be scaled back to a more isolationist pre-WW2 stance? I certainly don't think the former would appreciate Trump's antagonism towards European allies potentially compromising any F35 exports. The only problem here is Trump himself doesn't seem to care.

 

[brad465]

It's for similar reasons to this that I don't think the US will end up pulling out of NATO despite some recent politician's attempts to pass a bill to withdraw. Would the likes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing really want US hegemony and global military dominance to be scaled back to a more isolationist pre-WW2 stance? I certainly don't think the former would appreciate Trump's antagonism towards European allies potentially compromising any F35 exports. The only problem here is Trump himself doesn't seem to care.

There are also a lot of jobs involved in the military industrial complex that would cost whoever laid them off a lot of crucial votes. Georgia in particular is a swing state with a strong military industry.

 

[DerekC]

I think everyone should read the US National Security Strategy. It's unfortunately in a pdf format that I can only copy chunks from.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Here's Trump's introduction:

Over the past nine months, we have brought our nation—and the world—back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster. After four years of weakness, extremism, and deadly failures, my administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to restore American strength at home and abroad, and bring peace and stability to our world" "Starting on my first day in office, we restored the sovereign borders of the United States and deployed the U.S. military to stop the invasion of our country. We got radical gender ideology and woke lunacy out of our Armed Forces, and began strengthening our military with $1 trillion of investment. We rebuilt our alliances and got our allies to contribute more to our common defense—including a historic commitment from NATO countries to raise defense spending from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP. We unleashed American energy production to reclaim our independence, and imposed historic tariffs to bring critical industries back home. In Operation Midnight Hammer, we obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity. I declared the drug cartels and savage foreign gangs operating in our region as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. And over the course of just eight months, we settled eight raging conflicts—including between Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the DRC and Rwanda, Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and ending the war in Gaza with all living hostages returned to their families. America is strong and respected again—and because of that, we are making peace all over the world.

And on Europe:

C. Promoting European Greatness American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper. Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness. But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence. Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation. This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state. The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home. The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis. Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity. European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve. American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism. Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent—and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness. Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest,certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with theUnited States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.

This seems to face in two directions. In the first place Trump wants to emphasise the value of the nation state and weaken the EU. On the other, he wants Europe to co-operate to balance Russia's military power. I guess it's all about deals. Accept US standards and leadership, vote for politically acceptable (to Trump) governments and offer profitable deals, and the US will make sure Putin is kept under control. Otherwise you are on your own!

 

[nlogax]

That's good to know, ta. There's also the buffer of CBP's sixty day consultation period before any changes are made. Getting a new passport and ESTA by the end of January should be doable, barring any foul-ups from HM Passport Office.

 

[Sorcerer]

This seems to face in two directions. In the first place Trump wants to emphasise the value of the nation state and weaken the EU. On the other, he wants Europe to co-operate to balance Russia's military power. I guess it's all about deals. Accept US standards and leadership, vote for politically acceptable (to Trump) governments and offer profitable deals, and the US will make sure Putin is kept under control. Otherwise you are on your own!

It might seem confusing to some people, but ultimately I think this just once again comes down to how Trump views geopolitics as a zero-sum game with winners and losers and no understanding of mutual benefit. The impression that I get is that he wants to run the world like a protection racket where Europe must pay for protection against Russia, and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines must pay for protection against China. Of course much like a protection racket you don't know how reliable they might actually be when the time for protection actually comes. Such is the damage that the Trump Administration has caused to the country's reputation.

 

[Annetts key]

It might seem confusing to some people, but ultimately I think this just once again comes down to how Trump views geopolitics as a zero-sum game with winners and losers and no understanding of mutual benefit. The impression that I get is that he wants to run the world like a protection racket where Europe must pay for protection against Russia, and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines must pay for protection against China. Of course much like a protection racket you don't know how reliable they might actually be when the time for protection actually comes. Such is the damage that the Trump Administration has caused to the country's reputation.

Under Trump, there is no protection from Russia. Not when both he and many of his appointed officials are both anti-European and pro-Russian.

And for protection against China, he wants paying. I don't think China will attack Japan, Taiwan, South Korea or the Philippines anytime soon. Not militarily at any rate. China doesn't want to risk losing their export markets to the U.S.A. or Europe.

The big problem is that as Trump's mental problems get worse, he will become more erratic. It becomes increasingly difficult to try to persuade someone that has dementia with logical reasoned discussions. And trying to butter him up will only get you so far and will also soon become less and less effective.

The other problem being that the people that he appointed each have their own agenda. Plus there are the other people behind the scenes also with their own agenda. Who knows what they will do, especially when Trump no longer reads or understands the documents that he is asked to sign.

 

[najaB]

There's a difference between rooting out potential criminals and terrorists, from just wanting to root through people's data in case they said something nasty about the man-baby in charge. Even in the US this will not be received well, but here in the UK & Europe it's going to be an absolute no-no. The social media companies still have to obey our laws regardless of what Trump wants.

Oh, I totally agree. I'm just making the point that asking for this data and trawling through people's data wouldn't, by itself, constitute a breach of the letter of data protection laws if it's the government doing it ostensibly "for the purposes of detecting and preventing crime" or for "national security" reason.

 

[Sorcerer]

Under Trump, there is no protection from Russia. Not when both he and many of his appointed officials are both anti-European and pro-Russian.

Not too unlike a protection racket then in the sense that you're trying to get money to protect against threats you yourself are partly responsible for.

And for protection against China, he wants paying. I don't think China will attack Japan, Taiwan, South Korea or the Philippines anytime soon. Not militarily at any rate. China doesn't want to risk losing their export markets to the U.S.A. or Europe.

Indeed not, I think China would prefer to play the long game, and Trump's increasingly hostile and isolationist stance would leave them an opportunity to fill power vacuums or gain influence.

The big problem is that as Trump's mental problems get worse, he will become more erratic. It becomes increasingly difficult to try to persuade someone that has dementia with logical reasoned discussions. And trying to butter him up will only get you so far and will also soon become less and less effective.

The other problem being that the people that he appointed each have their own agenda. Plus there are the other people behind the scenes also with their own agenda. Who knows what they will do, especially when Trump no longer reads or understands the documents that he is asked to sign.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue really. Trump doesn't have to be a Russian agent, he just has to be surrounded by those acting in the interest of the Russian state. Nevertheless he is crucial because he is the face of MAGA. If he dies or is removed from office I think there will be will be an actual risk of collapse which might be why European leaders banked on some level of appeasement hoping in time they could go back to normal relations when he's gone.

 

[brad465]

Tell me you're feeling insecure without telling me you're insecure:

New Epstein photos show Trump, Clinton and Andrew

The photos, which do not imply wrongdoing, are part of a trove of images the House Oversight Committee received from Epstein's estate.

www.bbc.co.uk

(Image of Trump branded condoms with the caption "I'm HUUUUGE!" written underneath a portrait of Trump)

 

[Strathclyder]

Tell me you're feeling insecure without telling me you're insecure:

New Epstein photos show Trump, Clinton and Andrew

The photos, which do not imply wrongdoing, are part of a trove of images the House Oversight Committee received from Epstein's estate.

www.bbc.co.uk

Get rid of the decimal point and you'd get what he'd really be charging for one of those.

 

[Harpo]

Trump a huge dick? No new information there.

 

[martin butler]

Trump a huge dick? No new information there.

That's not what stormy said The only thing that's huge about Trump is his own ego
( Good job I'm not planning on visiting the US any time soon)

 

[Gloster]

I mentioned in #1 that there might come a time where we in the UK would have to make a stand against Trump: I feel that that point is not far off. With Trump and, more importantly, his handlers starting to actively encourage the more extreme right-wing parties and groups in Europe, considering winding down the country’s support for NATO and seemingly prepared to turn a blind eye to Russia’s expansionistic demands, we really can’t just continue to offer him sweeteners like state visits and endless flattery in the hope that he will be nice to us. He won’t and neither will his handlers or successors.

This is not a decision to be taken lightly as for eighty years we have militarily and economically tied ourselves to the US. More recently we have, to Russia and the US’s pleasure, ripped ourselves away from the countries that we are much more in tune with than the US. Starmer has got to stand up for the country, despite the howls that will come from certain parts of the media, and take a stand for the country. It won’t be easy and I am sure that there will be endless moans about how terrible for the country it will be when people find holidaying in Disneyland is more difficult (as if isn’t becoming so anyway) or we have to raise taxes in order to up our defence spending to protect ourselves or, horror of horrors, we try to become better integrated with Europe.

The changes that are necessary are going to be politically unpopular, particularly with those patriots who slavish support the US or Russia, whichever pays better, or just want to maintain their low tax life and know they can insulate themselves from the disasters that will overcome the general populace. There is a small amount of truth in the US’s belief that Europe has freeloaded off them since World War II, but they got a world in which they can dominate trade, something that really matters to them. If they aren’t going to keep their half of the bargain, why should we keep ours?

 

[SteveP29]

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America Correspondent on the BBC website this afternoon:

'Donald Trump has made his share of derogatory and callous statements about his critics and political adversaries over the course of his 10 years in the national political spotlight. He has reached a point where comments that would once be headline-generating controversies if uttered by an American leader now barely register a ripple.

Trump’s Truth Social post attributing Rob Reiner’s death to his "Trump derangement syndrome" – suggesting that the famous Hollywood director and actor’s political views somehow contributed to his possible murder – is still shocking in its brazenness given the lack of evidence so far from police.

Trump’s statement comes in the wake of efforts by his own administration – and some conservatives – to punish anyone on the left who suggested the assassination of Charlie Kirk was deserved or a consequence of his at times divisive political views.

Trump, whose approval numbers have dropped substantially in recent months, is in danger of being out of step with a public that may expect – or hope for – expressions of empathy or grace from their president, even when a tragedy involves an outspoken critic.

At least today, they will get neither.'

I think it's official. Trump is paranoid, narcissistic and loopy.
Absolutely zero evidence, yet links thew killings with the Reiners being Trump critics, that's seriously deranged.

 

[brad465]

We're only four days away from the deadline for all the Epstein files to be released, and three days away from when bombing runs over Venezuela commence.

 

[Purple Train]

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America Correspondent on the BBC website this afternoon:

'Donald Trump has made his share of derogatory and callous statements about his critics and political adversaries over the course of his 10 years in the national political spotlight. He has reached a point where comments that would once be headline-generating controversies if uttered by an American leader now barely register a ripple.

Trump’s Truth Social post attributing Rob Reiner’s death to his "Trump derangement syndrome" – suggesting that the famous Hollywood director and actor’s political views somehow contributed to his possible murder – is still shocking in its brazenness given the lack of evidence so far from police.

Trump’s statement comes in the wake of efforts by his own administration – and some conservatives – to punish anyone on the left who suggested the assassination of Charlie Kirk was deserved or a consequence of his at times divisive political views.

Trump, whose approval numbers have dropped substantially in recent months, is in danger of being out of step with a public that may expect – or hope for – expressions of empathy or grace from their president, even when a tragedy involves an outspoken critic.

At least today, they will get neither.'

I think it's official. Trump is paranoid, narcissistic and loopy.
Absolutely zero evidence, yet links thew killings with the Reiners being Trump critics, that's seriously deranged.

It's utterly sickening. I don't watch films but The Princess Bride is one of a very few I actively enjoy, and I was deeply shocked and saddened to hear of the deaths of Mr and Mrs Reiner. I think the shock from the entire film industry that has accompanied their deaths - let alone the terrible nature of them - speaks for itself with regard to the esteem, respect, and love with which they were held across an extremely wide circle, whether for their personal friendship, for their work and activism, or for Mr Reiner's talent as a director.

As for Trump, history will pay its own tribute.