Strathclyder
Established Member
And those people, rather importantly, weren't the brown-nosers, ring-kissers, sychophants and true believers like the ones Trump has surrounded himself with.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thoughts on the Trump presidency
- Thread starter Gloster
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Exactly, when all you have is yes men you get into much bigger trouble than when the people around you are prepared to disagree and know they will be listened to.
It's hard to go against someone that will sack you at a moments notice if you say something he doesn't like.
brad465
Veteran Member
They make The Human Centipede look like a party conga line.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 848
That's why I think that if as expected the Republican Party does poorly at the mid-terms, the members of congress will have to grow a backbone, or face the consequences, The democrats this time round hopefully will be in no mood to let Trump's regime off the hook,
Trump, will, if anything become more authoritan, using rule by decree, and that's when I expect the Repuplican party to turn against him, because he will turn against them, and they know if they don't depose him the next president will be a Democrat, and they will have to answer for what they let Trump do.
Trump is already ruling ‘by decree’ with executive orders.
Thing is, Congress can nullify an EO with ease.
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,704
But has yet failed to do so, as it is currently dominated by a supine Republican majority.
Indeed. But this was in response to posts saying that he would attempt to rule by decree if the GOP loses control of Congress in the mid-term elections.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
According to a quick web search they can only do so by passing legislation, referring it for judicial review, or defunding it. The first two would run up against the filibuster and the Supreme Court respectively.
Annetts key
Established Member
With respect to legislation, It very much depends on how much support said legislation gets. If the votes get a supermajority, as I understand it, there is not much the President can do to block it.
On the legal point, it very much depends on the decision of the supreme court. And even though it's biased to the right, it has sometimes ruled against the government/Trump.
Again, while this applies to today's supine Congress, it wouldn't matter if the GOP weren't afraid of DJT.
I always think it's worth noting (as I'm sure you're aware but just in general) that Congress is a co-equal branch of Government. Now, obviously, it's usually more pliable to a Presidents wishes when the same party occupies the majorities in Congress and also the White House but the level of supine disregard for actually exercising it's powers is staggering. I cannot imagine the Republican controlled House and Senate of the early 2000s would have merrily given away the power of the purse to Bush in the way that the current one has for Trump (or vice versa for the Democrats in say 2009/10 with Obama).
For me, the two things that highlight how abnormal this Congress is compared to normal were the fact that they specifically voted away their powers to constrain DJT over tariffs, and the fact that on two (three?) occasions Mike Johnson sent the House on recess and/or allowed Government shutdowns rather than allowing votes that potentially would have gone against DJT's desires.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Indeed, but it would take about 16 of about 50 Republicans senators to rebel on the same issue, including circumventing the various means the Speaker has to stop things going to a vote. Last I heard the mid-terms weren't expected to change the balance in the Senate much, as most of the seats up for re-election were pretty safe for the incumbent party. But it's possible Trump gets so unpopular that this no loner applies.
I would stake all the money that I have that, privately, at least that senators are opposed to many of DJT's actions. But they won't speak against him in public because they're afraid of losing the support of his faithful followers.
brad465
Veteran Member
One of the lesser-talked about incidents involving Trump recently has been the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool renovation. He had it ordered for renovation to paint the bottom "old glory blue" and try and remove algae. However, turns out the algae reappeared quickly, then when they tried to get rid of the algae using hydrogen peroxide, didn't realise that chemical is a well-known paint stripper.
While H2O2 can strip paint, that's only at a lot higher concentration than they used. The real reason for the elastomeric liner coming away from the bottom of the pool is much more prosaic and Trumpian: they skimped on surface preparation because they were trying to do the job the fastest and cheapest that they could.
And once water gets under that kind of liner it's only a matter of time until it all comes up.
Strathclyder
Established Member
Of course, the reason the algae returned so quickly (the reason the algae was there at all was due to it building up in the ageing pipework under the pool iirc) is due to the darker colour of the pool bottom attracting/retaining more heat and algae of course blooms far more explosively in warmer water. So no matter which cheap solutions they throw at this problem, it ain't gonna be fixed and it's more than likely gonna be the next Democratic President that properly sorts it out. Would be the simplest of the Trumpian messes left behind to fix tbh.
Last edited:
Assuming there's any money left over after they pull down the Arc de Trump and restore the East Wing of the Whitehouse.
GusB
Established Member
I'd love to quote some of this but I honestly don't know where to begin:
It's just a load of rambling nonsense.
It's just a load of rambling nonsense.
No so much a comment on the DJT presidency as much as on the man himself.
Pictured, Senator John Thune on the left, walking next to the President. Senator Thune is widely reported to be 6' 4" (193cm) tall. According to his medical, the President is 6' 3" (190cm) tall.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that there is more than 3cm height difference between the two men. Determining which of the two is not telling the truth about their height is left as an exercise for the reader.
Pictured, Senator John Thune on the left, walking next to the President. Senator Thune is widely reported to be 6' 4" (193cm) tall. According to his medical, the President is 6' 3" (190cm) tall.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that there is more than 3cm height difference between the two men. Determining which of the two is not telling the truth about their height is left as an exercise for the reader.
Jon_jpwh
Member
I suspect that the floor isn't level.No so much a comment on the DJT presidency as much as on the man himself.
Pictured, Senator John Thune on the left, walking next to the President. Senator Thune is widely reported to be 6' 4" (193cm) tall. According to his medical, the President is 6' 3" (190cm) tall.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that there is more than 3cm height difference between the two men. Determining which of the two is not telling the truth about their height is left as an exercise for the reader.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
What's the source for this? It looks a little off somehow and may be AI?No so much a comment on the DJT presidency as much as on the man himself.
Pictured, Senator John Thune on the left, walking next to the President. Senator Thune is widely reported to be 6' 4" (193cm) tall. According to his medical, the President is 6' 3" (190cm) tall.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that there is more than 3cm height difference between the two men. Determining which of the two is not telling the truth about their height is left as an exercise for the reader.
Buzby
Established Member
I stood next to DJT at the Balmedie course - he was approx 5’ 9” and appeared to be wearing standard heel shoes. Most certainly not 6’ 3” - that stated 6” of difference is nonsensical!
No so much a comment on the DJT presidency as much as on the man himself.
Pictured, Senator John Thune on the left, walking next to the President. Senator Thune is widely reported to be 6' 4" (193cm) tall. According to his medical, the President is 6' 3" (190cm) tall.
I'm reasonably confident in saying that there is more than 3cm height difference between the two men. Determining which of the two is not telling the truth about their height is left as an exercise for the reader.
I think you'll find it's all good.
You sir, win the Internet for today.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There's also video of the two together:
The BBC reports that the Trump administration has unveiled a new limited edition US passport design including Trump's picture to commemorate America's 250th birthday. Hopefully no border control officials will subject holders of this passport to special scrutiny - that would be petty.
He seems to be a bit confused about what US passports are for. 'Welcome but be good' would surely be for visas for entering the US.
He seems to be a bit confused about what US passports are for. 'Welcome but be good' would surely be for visas for entering the US.
The rest of that sentence was surplus to requirements, IMO.
At least the passport is only issued on special request, which I'm sure he intended to be a