• 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

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
883
I would not be surprised if once the trump regime is out of power, and sanity returns, that once the investigations start, widespread fraud and corruption will be found in every single branch of the US government,
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,919
Location
UK
I would not be surprised if once the trump regime is out of power, and sanity returns, that once the investigations start, widespread fraud and corruption will be found in every single branch of the US government,

For sure, but the problem is that even when they find all this and maybe a few scapegoats go to jail, it will never be the same for the USA again.

They say we can't just rejoin the EU, because the EU wants assurances we won't just seek to leave again in five years following a change of Government.

Well, likewise, the USA could go crazy again. The rest of the world has already started to make plans to migrate away from a reliance on America, whether from a military point of view, technology, things like GPS or banking (e.g. developing alternatives to Visa/Mastercards stronghold). Trade will increase with other countries, and there won't be any need to rush to negotiate with America that will likely be an outcast for a generation.

That's the real financial harm Trump will have done and it likely can't be truly measured.
 

SargeNpton

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2018
Messages
1,742
Trump has appointed Erica Kirk (widow of christian evangelist Charlie) to the advisory board of the Air Force Academy. Not quite sure what skills she will bring to the task of "considering the curriculum and instruction of the academy, recommending disciplinary action and preparing a semiannual report".

 

Spamcan81

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
1,265
Location
Bedfordshire
Trump has appointed Erica Kirk (widow of christian evangelist Charlie) to the advisory board of the Air Force Academy. Not quite sure what skills she will bring to the task of "considering the curriculum and instruction of the academy, recommending disciplinary action and preparing a semiannual report".

As as with all dictators, Trump makes these appointments based on faith to the cause and not ability to do the job
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,024
Location
Up the creek
Perhaps he, or one of his handlers, reckons that such a move will play well with those who idolised Kirk and that they will therefore vote for the GOP in November. I wonder how it plays with Melania.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
Trump has appointed Erica Kirk (widow of christian evangelist Charlie) to the advisory board of the Air Force Academy. Not quite sure what skills she will bring to the task of "considering the curriculum and instruction of the academy, recommending disciplinary action and preparing a semiannual report".
Perhaps it's as much about keeping her quiet and on-side rather than as a loose cannon who could represent a challenge to his/Vance's authority with the MAGA crowd.

A case of keep your friends close, and your potential enemies closer.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,113
Location
Redcar
As I understand it the US Navy has a long and honourable history of overspending and underdelivering, going back well before Trump.
Absolutely. The US Navy's inability to successfully procure a new escort (and it's had a somewhat chequered history with larger warships like carriers and amphibious assault ships) goes back the 1990s. The last successful program that they ran was the Arleigh Burke class destroyer which they seem to just be building until the crack of doom as they cannot manage to procure anything smaller than an amphibious assault ship successfully.

If anything the Trump administration is making the right noises about trying to get a handle on defence procurement (proof in the pudding of course though):

Donald Trump’s broadside against the defense industry might sound like a populist cry targeting wealthy CEOs.

But the president’s tirade was actually building for months, according to industry executives and administration officials, as top Pentagon officials grew frustrated with an industry that’s failed to deliver vital weapons’ systems on time and on budget.

His chastising of major contractors’ slow production has resonated with lawmakers in both parties and in emerging tech companies, who have decried the plodding, calcified nature of the process — even if Trump’s anger can do little to change the system. If he wants better performance, industry insiders say, he needs to stop jawboning about CEO pay and let the Pentagon reform government contracting to allow more flexible purchases and start-ups.

“Those guys make money when there’s more cost, when there’s more time, more materials going to the thing they’re building,” said a defense industry executive. “The president is just observing symptoms that prove that. We don’t need senior leaders getting into all the details of acquisition reform.”

So-called prime defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and RTX (formerly Raytheon) — which Trump called out by name in his extended missives Wednesday on TruthSocial — often operate on slimmer margins than other publicly traded companies and can profit from projects going over budget. Those companies have also used stock buybacks that can drive up their value and profits.

An executive order released Wednesday — which threatens to nix Pentagon contracts for companies that can’t speed up production and cut bonuses to executives and shareholders — has been in the works since the fall. It builds on the first Trump administration’s frustrations about the defense industry’s tepid pace and a risk-averse, bureaucratic contracting process that can cause yearslong delays.

The order didn’t entail how it would suddenly transform a complex, specialized production process system, which has bedeviled numerous administrations. And any attempts to supersede shareholders or ditch billion-dollar contracts with companies are bound to trigger lawsuits.

But the president’s comments, and the subsequent order, reinforce the Pentagon’s campaign to press the defense industry to build faster. Defense Department officials, in recent months, have pushed quicker weapons production to replace weapons sent to Ukraine or burned up by the U.S. strike campaigns against Yemen’s Houthi group.

I mean we'll see if anything positive results. But the US Navy is screwed because of it's own gross incompetence across multiple decades and administrations of both colours (see also our own armed forces...).

Indeed, that applies pretty much across the DoD - $800 hammers come to mind.

Though sometimes you do need a very expensive hammer (or similar)...


(Though yes the DoD is a money pit which I'm sure wastes colossal sums of money)
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,919
Location
UK
As as with all dictators, Trump makes these appointments based on faith to the cause and not ability to do the job

She fits the profile for a female working for Trump, although perhaps she needs some surgery to fully fit in.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,919
Location
UK
Well she was a candidate for Miss USA once!

Yeah, there are always connections (just like they also say there's always a Tweet). I think the files that Trump wants to keep distracting us from show how there really is a deep state - but it's not what we were told it was.

It was the ultra rich and powerful that knew they were above the law, and God damn they aren't wrong.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,940
Location
Devon
Perhaps it's as much about keeping her quiet and on-side rather than as a loose cannon who could represent a challenge to his/Vance's authority with the MAGA crowd.

I think JD and Erika are pretty close these days and have appeared at various events together. There’s certainly been a few (unsubstantiated) rumours.

Erika Kirk and JD Vance continue to make headlines amid allegations of a possible romantic relationship brewing between them. The members of Turning Point USA have been adamant in saying that they are nothing more than friends. However, the public still believes there's something more to their story
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,513
Location
Taunton or Kent

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,940
Location
Devon
So Vance his having an affair with both a sofa and Erika?

So I don’t think he really is (with either of them ;)). But I do think he sees tapping into Charlie Kirk’s right wing Christian youth base as being one of his main future voter cores if he plays it right.
Plus he’s ruthlessly ambitious.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,024
Location
Up the creek
So I don’t think he really is (with either of them ;)). But I do think he sees tapping into Charlie Kirk’s right wing Christian youth base as being one of his main future voter cores if he plays it right.
Plus he’s ruthlessly ambitious.

There is a risk for Vance that any hint of infidelity and not keeping to strict Mid-West Christian values (*) may not play well with potential supporters. As they are gullible and stubborn they may turn away if they feel he is playing away: once they are gone they may be difficult to get back.

* - The main principle is don’t get caught and if you do, make a tearful confession of your sins on TV.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
6,022
There is a risk for Vance that any hint of infidelity and not keeping to strict Mid-West Christian values (*) may not play well with potential supporters. As they are gullible and stubborn they may turn away if they feel he is playing away: once they are gone they may be difficult to get back.

* - The main principle is don’t get caught and if you do, make a tearful confession of your sins on TV.
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. Those supporters don't seem to have a problem with Trump's multiple marriages and "I like to grab 'em by the p***y" boasting.

Ability, relevant experience, or even basic competence, don't seem to feature in Trump's criteria for his appointments. Being youngish and blonde, or willing to lie through your teeth, or being even more ignorant than Trump himself, seem to be common characteristics. All three and you're a shoo-in.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. Those supporters don't seem to have a problem with Trump's multiple marriages and "I like to grab 'em by the p***y" boasting.
The difference there is that they don't see DJT as "one of them". He's coastal, rather than midwestern, but seen as being less of an elite than someone like Biden.
 

Railwaycat

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2023
Messages
277
Location
Derbyshire
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. Those supporters don't seem to have a problem with Trump's multiple marriages and "I like to grab 'em by the p***y" boasting.

Ability, relevant experience, or even basic competence, don't seem to feature in Trump's criteria for his appointments. Being youngish and blonde, or willing to lie through your teeth, or being even more ignorant than Trump himself, seem to be common characteristics. All three and you're a shoo-in.

Not quite right...Noem was a brunette (or something dark). Very attractive though, and I really do think that counts for everything in Trump's eyes.
 

zero

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2011
Messages
1,607
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. Those supporters don't seem to have a problem with Trump's multiple marriages and "I like to grab 'em by the p***y" boasting.
Well Trump's wives are/were all white. Vance is already a "race traitor"
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,940
Location
Devon
If you were a betting person, it would be worth putting a tenner on the Vances divorcing before 2028.

Yeah I think I might be with you on that.

Let’s just take this from November last year (2025) for starters.

JD Vance is doubling down on comments he made about wanting his wife, Usha Vance, to convert to Christianity – remarks that drew political backlash from some quarters.

At an event with Turning Point USA at the University of Mississippi to honor the conservative group’s slain founder Charlie Kirk, an audience member questioned the US vice-president about how he sees the links between American patriotism and Christianity.

He’s ruthlessly ambitious. However he doesn’t come across as particularly charismatic and he’s going to come out of this last few years severely damaged politically.

I don’t think his ego will allow him to believe that though and as far as I’m concerned, long let that continue!
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,799
Yeah I think I might be with you on that.

Let’s just take this from November last year (2025) for starters.



He’s ruthlessly ambitious. However he doesn’t come across as particularly charismatic and he’s going to come out of this last few years severely damaged politically.

I don’t think his ego will allow him to believe that though and as far as I’m concerned, long let that continue!

I was talking about ambition with my old work mates earlier. We all agreed that in a perfect world ability would match ambition, ability greater than ambition is sometimes frustrating for others, but my god ambition greater than ability is a nightmare. And hey ho, here’s JD Vance
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
We (as in the U.K. possibly with some help from France) do know how to build both rocket motors (both solid fuel and liquid fuel systems) and nuclear weapons. Before we bought the first system from the U.S., the U.K. had it's own programme. The issue is not can we, but will we, as in will our government commit the money to fund the required work? Then the remaining problem is the time frame to go from development to a working, operational system.
This is starting to get discussed in mainstream political circles:
Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey is calling on the government to start building a "fully independent British nuclear deterrent" to end the UK's reliance on the US.

The UK has operational control of its nuclear arsenal, including British-built warheads, but it depends on the US to supply and maintain the Trident missiles that would deliver them.

Sir Ed told the BBC: "When we've got presidents in the White House like Donald Trump, totally unreliable, I don't think we can have our nuclear deterrent dependent on the mood at breakfast of the person in the Oval Office."
BBC: UK must build own nuclear missiles, say Lib Dems
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,113
Location
Redcar
This is starting to get discussed in mainstream political circles:

BBC: UK must build own nuclear missiles, say Lib Dems

It's not a terrible idea but it's a very expensive idea. Considering the state of the wider conventional armed forces and the level of investment that is going to be required to get them into something approaching a reasonable condition I'm not convinced that there's going to be the money to spend to invest in producing a domestic launch platform for our nuclear warheads. Quite apart from difficulties and costs that might arise from either fully disentangling ourselves from the Common Missile Compartment (the launch assemblies in both our submarines and the US Columbia class are a common design being assembled I believe by General Dynamics in the US) or modifying them to deal with any vagaries that might arise from using a non-Trident missile in the compartment.

I imagine the French would be willing to sell us M51 missile designs (or even straight up sell us the missiles for us to then maintain) for a suitable price but modifying our warheads and missile launch compartments to accommodate a French missile would also be serious wonga. Though the media headlines of relying on French missiles might be quite fearsome.

Reality is that it probably is a good idea to disentangle our nuclear deterrent from the United States, they've proven that they cannot be a partner to be relied on anymore. But the costs of doing so would be horrendous after we've hitched our nuclear bandwagon to theirs so thoroughly for sixty odd years. Is anyone willing to pay for both a complete shift in our nuclear infrastructure and rebuilding out conventional forces at the same time? I can't see it personally...
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,436
Location
Somerset
It's not a terrible idea but it's a very expensive idea. Considering the state of the wider conventional armed forces and the level of investment that is going to be required to get them into something approaching a reasonable condition I'm not convinced that there's going to be the money to spend to invest in producing a domestic launch platform for our nuclear warheads. Quite apart from difficulties and costs that might arise from either fully disentangling ourselves from the Common Missile Compartment (the launch assemblies in both our submarines and the US Columbia class are a common design being assembled I believe by General Dynamics in the US) or modifying them to deal with any vagaries that might arise from using a non-Trident missile in the compartment.

I imagine the French would be willing to sell us M51 missile designs (or even straight up sell us the missiles for us to then maintain) for a suitable price but modifying our warheads and missile launch compartments to accommodate a French missile would also be serious wonga. Though the media headlines of relying on French missiles might be quite fearsome.

Reality is that it probably is a good idea to disentangle our nuclear deterrent from the United States, they've proven that they cannot be a partner to be relied on anymore. But the costs of doing so would be horrendous after we've hitched our nuclear bandwagon to theirs so thoroughly for sixty odd years. Is anyone willing to pay for both a complete shift in our nuclear infrastructure and rebuilding out conventional forces at the same time? I can't see it personally...
No - but quietly manoeuvring ourselves to a position where we can is probably no bad thing. The irony is that by then it’ll either not be necessary for another two or three generations or already too late!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
It's not a terrible idea but it's a very expensive idea. Considering the state of the wider conventional armed forces and the level of investment that is going to be required to get them into something approaching a reasonable condition I'm not convinced that there's going to be the money to spend to invest in producing a domestic launch platform for our nuclear warheads. Quite apart from difficulties and costs that might arise from either fully disentangling ourselves from the Common Missile Compartment (the launch assemblies in both our submarines and the US Columbia class are a common design being assembled I believe by General Dynamics in the US) or modifying them to deal with any vagaries that might arise from using a non-Trident missile in the compartment.

I imagine the French would be willing to sell us M51 missile designs (or even straight up sell us the missiles for us to then maintain) for a suitable price but modifying our warheads and missile launch compartments to accommodate a French missile would also be serious wonga. Though the media headlines of relying on French missiles might be quite fearsome.

Reality is that it probably is a good idea to disentangle our nuclear deterrent from the United States, they've proven that they cannot be a partner to be relied on anymore. But the costs of doing so would be horrendous after we've hitched our nuclear bandwagon to theirs so thoroughly for sixty odd years. Is anyone willing to pay for both a complete shift in our nuclear infrastructure and rebuilding out conventional forces at the same time? I can't see it personally...
I agree that it's unlikely to happen any time soon, but making the statement of intent might be enough to make the point.

That said, when are the French boomers up for replacement? Could we bring them in to the Dreadnaught program and have them work with us to build a new missile compartment.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,113
Location
Redcar
That said, when are the French boomers up for replacement? Could we bring them in to the Dreadnaught program and have them work with us to build a new missile compartment.
They cut steel on the first in early 2024. The design will be fairly mature just like the Dreadnought design is so modifications will be tricky. If we wanted to cooperate to that degree with the French the moment would probably have been in the mid/late-2010s.

No - but quietly manoeuvring ourselves to a position where we can is probably no bad thing. The irony is that by then it’ll either not be necessary for another two or three generations or already too late!

Oh yes exploring is no bad idea but I just cannot see the cash being available. If it were me I'd be working on pulling the skills and capabilities together to maintain the Trident missiles we have on hand ourselves should the need arise. That's probably a more achievable goal both practically and financially.
 

Top