Gloster
Veteran Member
It just depends on who writes the history.
-
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
It just depends on who writes the history.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 883
Best answer to this has to be, Mr Reiner will be remembered in a positive way, Mr Trump will just be a foot note in History and largely ignored and forgotten.
More likely two days, they have to try not to make the link *too* obvious.
Strathclyder
Established Member
This is who he is and always has been: a black hole of narcissism & depravity with no standards or morals whatsoever. I'm shocked and repulsed. But not surprised, nor should anyone else be. Anyone who seriously expected him to respond to this horrific event with anything approaching respect and dignity is naive at best.
Mr. & Mrs. Reiner's legacy will far outlast the blight on humanity's shared horizon that is the Orange Scrote, that alone is certain.
One sincerely hopes that history will judge him appropriately. That of course depends on who's holding the pen.
Mr. & Mrs. Reiner's legacy will far outlast the blight on humanity's shared horizon that is the Orange Scrote, that alone is certain.
One sincerely hopes that history will judge him appropriately. That of course depends on who's holding the pen.
brad465
Veteran Member
He's gone ahead with his defamation lawsuit against the BBC for that Panorama edit, despite the fact that it currently looks unlikely to succeed given a) over a year has passed, and b) doing it through a Florida court is unlikely to bring up evidence many in the state saw the documentary
www.bbc.co.uk
Trump sues BBC for defamation over Panorama speech edit
Trump has requested billions of dollars in damages, according to court documents filed in Florida.
www.bbc.co.uk
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 883
I would say it's time to " accidentally" leave Trumps M16 file on a bus, or Train, where an investitive journalist just happens to find it, and the whole sordid truth about him and his Russian ties, links to organised crime, links to sex rings, and underage girls is documented in undeniable truth with tapes, and pictures. Us brits are sneaky like that.
It was interesting to listen to the new head of MI6 yesterday, stating that we are facing an "interlocking web of security challenges". I wonder if this is a hint the US has crept up the watchlist there as a result of their administration's policies around Russia and the Ukraine? The statement certainly sounded like a warning shot across the bows of anyone seen to be a risk. More details are in the BBC News link below:
MI6 chief: 'We are operating in space between peace and war'
Blaise Metreweli's first speech heading the agency focused on the multi-faceted threat posed by Russia.
www.bbc.co.uk
generalnerd
Member
Wait, Trump was involved in the cancelled London ringway??!??
In all seriousness though, he claims that panorama was available to the US on Britbox, so they could have accessed it. However, I’ve also yet to find any evidence that it was, as I’m pretty sure it’s only recently that they have started to put current affairs onto britbox
Technically, anyone in the US could have watched it on iPlayer by using a UK-based VPN. Exactly what I do if I'm abroad and I want to watch something on iPlayer.
(Which does annoy me actually. If I'm logged into the iPlayer website from overseas using my own account, with a UK address and fully paid on the licence fee, why am I barred from watching anything unless I switch to a UK IP address? Rant over)
Gloster
Veteran Member
London became a bit of a centre for this sort of libel tourism, with a number of cases of rich non-residents suing periodicals published abroad on the basis that someone in this country could have read the article online. The Defamation Act 2013 reduced the possibilities for libel tourists, but if they have enough money they can force the defendant to spend a lot of money defending themselves and then, when the defence is upheld, the plaintiff just dodges paying the costs awarded to the defendant. With the costs of lawyers in London, this can be a substantial hit for a paper. The one thing that has slowed it seems to be that some of the legal firms are now a bit chary about taking on such work in case they don’t get paid.
I can’t see Trump risking the case in London, although he no doubt thinks that if he did he could get Starmer to ensure that he has a tame judge to hear the case. Anyway, all the news release nowadays are being timed to make people look the other way and forget Epstein. “We can’t release the Epstein files until President Trump has had time to look at them, but he is so busy looking after the interests of the people of America that he doesn’t have time to. Not that he is in the files, of course.”
I can’t see Trump risking the case in London, although he no doubt thinks that if he did he could get Starmer to ensure that he has a tame judge to hear the case. Anyway, all the news release nowadays are being timed to make people look the other way and forget Epstein. “We can’t release the Epstein files until President Trump has had time to look at them, but he is so busy looking after the interests of the people of America that he doesn’t have time to. Not that he is in the files, of course.”
Usually, because the BBC doesn't have the rights for that programme in locations outside the UK. It tends to be more common in sports, where a broadcaster will have paid a lot to show an event in another country and doesn't want to be undercut by everyone getting another broadcaster's stream. So the simplest solution is a blanket IP restriction.
It also mentions the content distributor Blue Ant Media and BBC partnerships with PBS and NPR. Though I'm sure it would have come up by now, potentially it was aired on a non-BBC US channel?
generalnerd
Member
Technically, but by that logic it’s the vape makers fault if somebody gets arrested for using one in Singapore (analogy)
To try and keep this on-topic, it's down to one of DJT's favourite things: trade. The rules around media rights in different markets are complex, even more so than those on trade in goods and services. Of course, the Orange One doesn't understand this, and at one point he threatened tariffs on media made outside the USA (still waiting for the explanation of how that would have worked).
brad465
Veteran Member
Trump's Chief of Staff reportedly said a lot of critical stuff about Trump, Vance and many others in his "cabal", and now appears to be trying to walk back on a lot of this:
www.bbc.co.uk
Susie Wiles: Trump's chief of staff hits back at Vanity Fair 'hit piece'
In the interview, Wiles describes Donald Trump as having an "alcoholic's personality" and JD Vance as having been a "conspiracy theorist" for a decade.
www.bbc.co.uk
People, even those who are not MAGA, seem to think she's very competent (and this is perhaps shown by the fact that she's spent the year largely staying out of the spotlight), so it's also possible that this is a strategic leak and that she knew what she was doing. Republicans in general are turning on him now and no one believes the claim that frequent MRIs are normal for healthy presidents. If the Epstein files (deadline for release is this Friday) aren't censored to the point of uselessness then this could very well be the start of the end.
The pointless attacks on Rob Reiner, the stuff in Venezuela, suing the BBC, reports that the US military is thinking about pulling back on its activities in Europe - all suggests that he needs a big distraction.
The pointless attacks on Rob Reiner, the stuff in Venezuela, suing the BBC, reports that the US military is thinking about pulling back on its activities in Europe - all suggests that he needs a big distraction.
Last edited:
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 6,799
The bloke from Vanity Fair who wrote the article has said that everything is on tape, from a total of 11 interviews over the course of almost a year. And Wiles isn't actually denying saying any of what's been reported, she's falling back on the last hope for those caught red handed and claiming it lacks context. Though if anyone would like to take the quotes about Trump, Vance and Musk and provide a coherent context where they aren't negative and critical statements, I'm all ears
Last edited:
If the BBC has supposedly damaged Trumps image I'd like to know which videos of him hugging a black man, saying hello to a transgender person or giving a gift to a migrant the BBC have supposedly shown? That's the only videos that would destroy his image to one of his faithful.
Of maybe they have shown a video of him paying a bill, for once, and hia creditors are circling
Of maybe they have shown a video of him paying a bill, for once, and hia creditors are circling
I remember the pink slip you had to sign on board the aircraft before landing in the States to confirm that you weren't, and hadn't ever been, a member of a communist organisation. Arguably, given the compulsory membership and their policies in the early 1980s, the NUS should have counted, but I thought better of saying anything about it
I'm starting get to get the feeling that the political end is near for Trump. For all his bravado and mud slinging, the Republicans are starting to become vocal in criticising him for what he's doing bit by bit. The continued personal attacks on Reiner have definitely made a visible hole in the MAGA wall, and there's a sense of unease about ramping up to a war with Venezuela & Trump's continued attacks on allies whilst cosying up to Putin. But most of all away from the media spotlight Trump's continued claims that the economy is the best it's ever been, whilst MAGA supports see their grocery bills increase month on month is starting to shake the previously solid support. Even Trump, erm Fox News are starting to dig their escape tunnel & starting to question his actions.
I don't think he's getting to 2028 as the boss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again (until events prove me wrong!
) but the moment of maximum danger by my reckoning is going to be January 2027. Until then I think, absent divine intervention and a terminal conclusion to his life, Vance isn't going to want to see Trump removed from office to ensure that he can have a go at ten full years in the Presidency. January 2027 onwards any service he does as President doesn't count as one of his two terms of office. Before then however he burns one of his terms. Obviously there are various issues with Vance in terms of internal GOP politics in that no-one seems to like him so actually getting the opportunity to run for a full Presidential term in 2028 might not be an option he has.But I can't see any scenario (as I say absent Trump dying) where Vance and his backers (bother within and without the Republican Party) allow for Trump to be removed before January 2027.
Plus it'll be a much easier political sell to everyone including sections of the base that are having second thoughts (obviously there's some die hards who will never doubt Dear Leader) once they've, probably, had a catastrophic mid-term performance, another twelve months of increasingly hard to deny/hide mental degradation, another twelve months of Epstein shenanigans, and the recession that seems to be looming in the shadows (and hidden by them just not doing stats anymore) becomes more obvious and felt more widely.
January 2027, I'd put it in your calendars...
nlogax
Established Member
Trump's responses to the Reiner deaths have had even the most die-hard of his supporters publicly questioning his judgement, and on right-leaning channels to boot. The turning point *is* coming.
But I agree, that timeframe is approximately when things will come to a head, assuming Dems aren't gerrymandered out of existence for the midterms.
Fortunately it's already in mine with the other 11 months of 2027
But I agree, that timeframe is approximately when things will come to a head, assuming Dems aren't gerrymandered out of existence for the midterms.Fortunately it's already in mine with the other 11 months of 2027
Har har
Yes interference in the midterms seems highly likely (who would bet against ICE raids in the vicinity of polling stations that just happen to be in majority black or hispanic areas?) but on the gerrymandering side it does seem like they're not having it all their own way. California has gerrymandered in favour of Dems, Texas is caught up in legal issues (though no doubt the Supreme Court will rule in their favour in the end), Virginia is the process of reintroducing the ability to gerrymander (and would likely favour Democrats as they will control all three branches of Virginia's government from January 2026), and Indiana's State Senate (majority Republican!) voted down a revised pro-Republican map much to Trump's fury.
I still think the real danger in 2026 comes from voter intimidation at the polling booth, wider disenfranchisement (onerous ID requirements, lack of polling places, etc etc), possible interference with voting machines, and then attempts to discredit successful Democrat candidates as having rigged their elections. I think there's a real risk they'll attempt to not seat some Democrats in Congress in January 2027. But assuming that I'm catastrophising and the elections go without too much of a hitch I reckon we're looking a bloodbath at the moment for Republicans.
JD Vance has zero charisma so if the right is currently eating itself as they all throw each other under the bus, what's it going to be like with him in charge? There was a time I thought perhaps he had a bit more discretion and could at least act more statesman like, but I'm not so sure with some of his attempts to mimic Trump with the same awful rhetoric.
Of course, once Trump is gone, perhaps the spell will be lifted - but I don't see any changes to the Republican party without a LOT of members going with Trump.
Of course, once Trump is gone, perhaps the spell will be lifted - but I don't see any changes to the Republican party without a LOT of members going with Trump.
nlogax
Established Member
Some Republicans are vocal about their predictions for a midterm catastrophe although prediction and poll trackers I keep an eye on don't really align with those doom-laden GOP statements and are continuing to predict relatively narrow red wins. I wonder if it's a more of an advanced 'go and vote' warning to Trump's base in order to keep both chambers red. Maybe I'm missing something but the Dems' early campaigning feels lacklustre. They are the side that needs a proper get-out-and-vote campaign, it sure as hell didn't happen where it needed to last year.
How do you feel about Peter Thiel? Because by all accounts JD Vance is his guy so if Vance ends up in the big chair you're going to be getting an administration which adheres to Thiels world view to a great degree. So that's lovely.
I agree that generally Vance is quite weak (and it seems like no-one really likes him all that much on both sides of the aisle) so his dream of a ten year spell is likely to crash and burn on take-off. But, certainly at the moment, if Trump either meets his maker or is removed from office via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment then Vance is the next guy up in the line of succession so he will become the President (or Acting President depending on the exact mechanism used).
And yet from the elections we have had this year it has not gone well for the Republicans. Okay those were only in a handful of states but still. It did not go well for the Republicans. I think they have reason to be nervous that another year of *gestures at whatever you want to call the current US Administration* is going to end badly for them. I mean we're about to see health costs skyrocket as the various subsidies to the Affordable Care Act expire because the Republican's are singularly unable to find a position they can all agree on other than "we hate Obamacare". That's gonna hurt.
I mean at eleven months from election day I reckon they've got time yet to wind up their get out the vote campaign. They won't even have all their candidates in place yet! If they started it now they'd probably exhaust themselves and their voters by November 2026
Gloster
Veteran Member
From what I can see, Vance is a lot nastier and more anti-European than Trump, who is just…let us say, greedy and unpredictable. Vance does not have the charisma or supporting network that Trump has, so he is going to be even more in hock to Trump’s handlers than even Trump is. I am sure that the handlers wanted to keep Trump as the front man until after the mid-terms next year in order ensure a Republican majority in the House so that they could complete pushing through their changes to the existing system in the following two years.
‘Events, dear boy, events’, particular an event called Epstein, and Trump’s increasingly obvious deterioration have forced them to speed things up. They may still get what they want, but there is a possibility that they won’t have sufficiently rigged the mid-terms and will be hamstrung. Whichever way the mid-terms go, they won’t give up and the result will be chaotic. The result will spread to Europe, particularly the UK, so we really should be prepared to be cut adrift.
‘Events, dear boy, events’, particular an event called Epstein, and Trump’s increasingly obvious deterioration have forced them to speed things up. They may still get what they want, but there is a possibility that they won’t have sufficiently rigged the mid-terms and will be hamstrung. Whichever way the mid-terms go, they won’t give up and the result will be chaotic. The result will spread to Europe, particularly the UK, so we really should be prepared to be cut adrift.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 883
I think the whole of Europe will be cut adrift, American tech barons don't like the power the EU has to hold them to account,
And the GOP clearly is in hock to people who might have taken Russian money, so allowing them a free hand to carve up what they want to them might make sense, after all Europe isn't part of their country, or can be bought, But they ignore the fact that the eastern parts of Europe lived under the soviet iron fist, and have no desire to return to it, its not if but when Europe takes its own security into its own hands, and America finds it has very few friends it can call on .
nlogax
Established Member
I mean at eleven months from election day I reckon they've got time yet to wind up their get out the vote campaign. They won't even have all their candidates in place yet! If they started it now they'd probably exhaust themselves and their voters by November 2026
My worry is there's no-one leading the charge amongst Dems ranks. They look truly rudderless. AOC is strident and vocal but too young, Newsom is sharp but utterly divisive, Buttigieg is fantastic but I fear a huge swathe of American voters just aren't ready. The party's reliance on a 'it's the economy, stupid' message may have worked wonders in the 90s but I'm not sure it neatly applies to 2026's electorate. The polarised nature of modern politics and the absolutely baffling cult of personality that inspires the adoration of Trump's supporters suggest to me the midterm results will be very close, nefarious factors not withstanding*
*My optimism may return when it's not cold, dark and wet outside and I get some vitamin D!