Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[Cowley]

Yes, he did.

Coincidentally, Escape From Alcatraz happened to have been on TV the night before he first espoused the idea.

Oh that’s just amazing.

 

[DelW]

The full quote is so bad that it would probably be a violation of the forum rules to post it in full. Which is something of a first from a major politician.

It also, ironically, makes him look very weak.

I know that the relevant word has become much more commonplace since Kenneth Tynan shocked TV viewers by using it sixty years ago, but I think this might be the first time it's appeared in a public written statement from the head of state of a major country? Even though most of them have probably used it privately quite frequently, a public statement is a very different matter.

Many Americans have historically been surprisingly prudish about swearing in the media. I wonder how well it's gone down there?

 

[Purple Train]

I know that the relevant word has become much more commonplace since Kenneth Tynan shocked TV viewers by using it sixty years ago, but I think this might be the first time it's appeared in a public written statement from the head of state of a major country? Even though most of them have probably used it privately quite frequently, a public statement is a very different matter.

I think he's used it in a public statement before, although it may have been in one of his speeches.

Many Americans have historically been surprisingly prudish about swearing in the media. I wonder how well it's gone down there?

At risk of going down a rabbit hole, I think it's very interesting how that word in particular seems to be losing its power to shock somewhat, as with swearing in general.

When Kenneth Tynan used it, I seem to recall that multiple motions were tabled in Parliament.

Ithink there was also uproar when the word was first used in quotation in Parliament, in the 80s.

And yet, now, it's seemingly shocking only when it's used by the leader of a sovereign nation to threaten an escalation of war against another sovereign nation.

At least I guess it means that my original reaction to this news is now slightly more socially acceptable

 

[brad465]

Regarding this State Visit to the US, how much of it was decided by whom, out of the government and Buckingham Palace? There are a lot of calls for the government to cancel the trip, but is it entirely within their power to do this (I know they can certainly advise against it)?

 

[edwin_m]

Regarding this State Visit to the US, how much of it was decided by whom, out of the government and Buckingham Palace? There are a lot of calls for the government to cancel the trip, but is it entirely within their power to do this (I know they can certainly advise against it)?

Like many other things in the UK, it's officially the decision of the monarch but in practice they will do what the government tells them to.

(Just as well our monarch isn't a megalomaniac, that would cause a lot of trouble for our unwritten constitution)

 

[dorsetdesiro]

The royal visit could prove to be awkward as Trump thinks the King is on his side and would have his back after being snubbed by Starmer. The orange oaf likely does not know Charles III is also the monarch of Canada, another country he has alienated.

The King could be walking on a tightrope as being seen chummy with Trump could displease the Canadians, also Starmer being heavily criticised for allowing the visit to proceed.

 

[High Dyke]

I did read recently the difficulties this trip may raise, and that doesn't include the issues around Epstein.

The King is being deployed to the US between 27 and 30 April to sprinkle some royal magic over a president who is a monarchist and appears to soften in front of pomp and ceremony.

It is important to remember that royal visits have regularly taken place when the political mood is turbulent.

Source:
BBC News - Diplomatic challenges facing King on US visit

Diplomatic challenges facing the King on US visit

King Charles will be expected to improve UK and US relations on his state visit next month.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Harpo]

At risk of going down a rabbit hole, I think it's very interesting how that word in particular seems to be losing its power to shock somewhat, as with swearing in general.

Nothing Trump does has a professional or statesmanlike position to fall from so his swearing is probably not shocking very many?

Racial slurs have taken the place of swear words for severe offence, so let’s hope Trump doesn’t start scraping that barrel too.

Maybe the best advice for Trump would be the words of French president Macron earlier this week, which are probably best summarised as ‘shut up’.

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding the King visiting the US it's not really up to the King if he goes or not it's largely up to the government. The British Government aren't going to stop a state visit given the opportunities that come with it.

It was widely reported in the media that the Biden Administration and Joe Biden himself was somewhat anti-British due to his comments about the United Kingdom while he was president and his actions in the 1980s. While it's far from an ideal situation at the moment Westminster will want to charm Donald Trump who has previously said he has an affinity for the United Kingdom. As I say though it's far from an ideal situation.

 

[martin butler]

My view is that the visit, should have been postponed, Trump clearly is now far too unpredictable to not risk a diplomatic incident, and the King isn't in good health, Ideally, we should distance ourselves from the US,

Imagine the damage if Trump calls out this country not backing him, to the king's face, and the king fly's home with the headlines calling for him to abdicate? it could happen, what if Trump does his usual bully tactics, saying how the king agrees with him, and that we need to have Farage take over, How much damage will that do to royal standing,

 

[The Ham]

My view is that the visit, should have been postponed, Trump clearly is now far too unpredictable to not risk a diplomatic incident, and the King isn't in good health, Ideally, we should distance ourselves from the US,

Imagine the damage if Trump calls out this country not backing him, to the king's face, and the king fly's home with the headlines calling for him to abdicate? it could happen, what if Trump does his usual bully tactics, saying how the king agrees with him, and that we need to have Farage take over, How much damage will that do to royal standing,

Those who understand the monarchy wouldn't believe that the King would say that. Even those who are calling for a republic would find it a hard case to use as justification for their desire. As the supports of the monarchy would ask then questions like "what would you put in place to ensure we didn't end up with a King in all but name Trump like figure in the future?"

Bottom line, how much would it harm their standings if they were to be rolling out something Trump said as a key point to their argument as to why we should get rid of the monarchy?

Personally it's likely to harm them more than help them.

Would Reform jump on the bandwagon? They may gain a bit more from Trump saying it, however, even then, it's unlikely to attract many extra people to their side (as I'd imagine that most who like Trump are probably already more likely to vote Reform than other parties and those who aren't likely to vote Reform aren't likely to shift their vote just because of something Trump said).

If it was Obama, then that would be a different story, a lot more British people liked him than, even, don't hate Trump (and many of them wouldn't put themselves in the like Trump camp).

I think that the majority of our press (and especially the Canadian press, who are in a much more anti Trump country and also have the same king) would report that Trump had said it, however likely with a tone which implied that there are questions about it it was actually something the king had said and the vast majority would quote a royal statement along the lines of "the king, like his mother before him, does not make comment on who he believes should be his Prime Minister, only advises whoever is in that role at the time".

Of course, I'd be interested to see if anyone would take a different view of how the people of the UK may respond to such a quote from the great and glorious leader (may he live forever) of the most wonderful and powerful country on the planet, who graciously allowed a royal from a minor nation to seek guidance and wisdom from him?

 

[Farang]

and the King isn't in good health

That's a good point. Perhaps the King's health could conveniently take a turn for the worse and force the trip to be postponed?

 

[DerekC]

My view is that the visit, should have been postponed, Trump clearly is now far too unpredictable to not risk a diplomatic incident, and the King isn't in good health, Ideally, we should distance ourselves from the US,

Imagine the damage if Trump calls out this country not backing him, to the king's face, and the king fly's home with the headlines calling for him to abdicate? it could happen, what if Trump does his usual bully tactics, saying how the king agrees with him, and that we need to have Farage take over, How much damage will that do to royal standing,

I think they have decided that going ahead is the lesser of two evils. Cancellation on top of not supporting Trump's war would put us on the list for spiteful countermeasures. King Charles will be prepared for bullying - it's an obvious risk. He's a wily old bird and whatever he says will be polite and diplomatic but in the end he has to stand up for the country and can't just roll over - that's his fundamental job and I think he will do it somehow.

 

[martin butler]

Those who understand the monarchy wouldn't believe that the King would say that. Even those who are calling for a republic would find it a hard case to use as justification for their desire. As the supports of the monarchy would ask then questions like "what would you put in place to ensure we didn't end up with a King in all but name Trump like figure in the future?"

Bottom line, how much would it harm their standings if they were to be rolling out something Trump said as a key point to their argument as to why we should get rid of the monarchy?

Personally it's likely to harm them more than help them.

Would Reform jump on the bandwagon? They may gain a bit more from Trump saying it, however, even then, it's unlikely to attract many extra people to their side (as I'd imagine that most who like Trump are probably already more likely to vote Reform than other parties and those who aren't likely to vote Reform aren't likely to shift their vote just because of something Trump said).

If it was Obama, then that would be a different story, a lot more British people liked him than, even, don't hate Trump (and many of them wouldn't put themselves in the like Trump camp).

I think that the majority of our press (and especially the Canadian press, who are in a much more anti Trump country and also have the same king) would report that Trump had said it, however likely with a tone which implied that there are questions about it it was actually something the king had said and the vast majority would quote a royal statement along the lines of "the king, like his mother before him, does not make comment on who he believes should be his Prime Minister, only advises whoever is in that role at the time".

Of course, I'd be interested to see if anyone would take a different view of how the people of the UK may respond to such a quote from the great and glorious leader (may he live forever) of the most wonderful and powerful country on the planet, who graciously allowed a royal from a minor nation to seek guidance and wisdom from him?

What' I'm half expecting is a Trump media post, once the king has left, the US, saying how much he agreed with Trump s views, (even if he didn't) and how bad Starmer was, etc etc., how we had a very poor prime minister, how his friend would change things, ( kiss his feet)

 

[Harpo]

All previous evidence is that Trump’s behaviour with the Windsor’s is exemplary and almost fitting of a world leader. <Holds breath>….

 

[SuspectUsual]

King Charles will be prepared for bullying - it's an obvious risk. He's a wily old bird and whatever he says will be polite

“My brother Andrew sends his best regards, he said it’s a long time since he was with you on Epstein Island”

 

[The Ham]

“My brother Andrew sends his best regards, he said it’s a long time since he was with you on Epstein Island”

At a live press briefing!

Although, that is too blunt, more likely to be "My brother sends his regards and misses the more youthful parties you had together."

If questioned, the youthful comment was just that it's been some time ago... however you wouldn't need to read much between the lines to imply something other, and there would be plenty of people who would quite publicly.

There might be some fallout in the UK, but not a lot, few would be concerned about the reputational damage of Andrew and the King has been fairly clear (stripping of royal titles) that is anyone wants to question Andrew about past events then that's fine (as no headlines like "HRH Duke of York questioned by FBI").

 

[weepingwillowb]

“My brother Andrew sends his best regards, he said it’s a long time since he was with you on Epstein Island”

"Never met the guy. Fact."

 

[edwin_m]

What' I'm half expecting is a Trump media post, once the king has left, the US, saying how much he agreed with Trump s views, (even if he didn't) and how bad Starmer was, etc etc., how we had a very poor prime minister, how his friend would change things, ( kiss his feet)

Few in the UK or most other countries would believe it. The remaining MAGA still suffering from the real Trump Delusion Syndrome might, but their minds (using the term loosely) are already made up.

 

[Killingworth]

The elephant in the room is Netanyahu and Israel.

Trump is the useful idiot doing his bidding and it is Bibi who needs controlling before lasting peace can be achieved. Can anyone realistically see that happening even after Trump departs? Is it a realistic dream after Bibi departs?

Iranians don't see it and don't trust Israel an inch. The feeling is totally mutual.

Trump must surely be realising he's got two puppet masters that make lasting deals beneficial to the US increasing unlikely no matter how much he rants. Worse, whoever succeeds him, red or blue, has an impossible task to restore America's reputation.

Make America Go Away. If only they would.

Of course Iranian backed attacks are totally wrong. Only a Trump could swing sympathy in their favour!

 

[The Ham]

The elephant in the room is Netanyahu and Israel.

Trump is the useful idiot doing his bidding and it is Bibi who needs controlling before lasting peace can be achieved. Can anyone realistically see that happening even after Trump departs? Is it a realistic dream after Bibi departs?

Iranians don't see it and don't trust Israel an inch. The feeling is totally mutual.

Trump must surely be realising he's got two puppet masters that make lasting deals beneficial to the US increasing unlikely no matter how much he rants. Worse, whoever succeeds him, red or blue, has an impossible task to restore America's reputation.

Make America Go Away. If only they would.

Of course Iranian backed attacks are totally wrong. Only a Trump could swing sympathy in their favour!

I don't know this creator, and so don't know how reliable the information is, however if Trump's son in Law is that close to the Israelis then just Trump being "pensioned off" may not help:

President Trump has an Israeli and Saudi asset in his inner circle. It's his son in law, Jared Kushner.

We investigated how Kushner used his connections to both Netanyahu and MBS to push Trump to war with Iran.

Writer/Producer: Jeremy Loffredo
Host: Trevor Hayes
Editor: niklaak
Supervising Producer: Court Fuller

 

[martin butler]

I don't know this creator, and so don't know how reliable the information is, however if Trump's son in Law is that close to the Israelis then just Trump being "pensioned off" may not help:

Trumps son in law only has impact when Trump listens to him, If anyone else were President, he would not have the impact he enjoys, If anything, he would probably be on an arrest warrant,

 

[Gloster]

Trumps son in law only has impact when Trump listens to him, If anyone else were President, he would not have the impact he enjoys, If anything, he would probably be on an arrest warrant,

Trump seems to listen to all sorts of people, but those who know him have an advantage. Trump is liable to act hastily when fed information, but then go off on another tack when someone else feeds him different information. Those closest to him have the advantage that they can feed him stuff when nobody else is around to feed him something else: Trump will then do what the nearest and dearest intend. Things will be too far gone to reverse in any way that won’t embarrass Trump by the the time that somebody wiser, even if still biased, gets his ear.

 

[brad465]

Well this guy's odds of winning have just worsened significantly:

Trump endorses ex-UK political aide Steve Hilton for California governor

Steve Hilton, who advised the former prime minster and hosted a Fox News show, is running as a Republican.

www.bbc.co.uk

US President Donald Trump has endorsed a former top adviser to ex-British PM David Cameron for governor of California, shaking up an unusually unpredictable race in the heavily Democratic state.
In a Truth Social post, Trump declared Republican candidate Steve Hilton would "be a great governor". The president argued that "Democrats have done an absolutely horrendous job" in California and that "people are fleeing" the state.
Hilton is one of 10 total candidates running in the 2 June primary. The top-two finishers, regardless of party, will advance to the general election.
Republicans have not won a statewide election in California in two decades.
Hilton posted on X on Monday that he was "deeply honored" to receive the Republican president's endorsement.
But Trump's backing could become a hindrance if Hilton faces a Democrat in November's election in the liberal-leaning state.
Hilton, who now lives in California, previously served as a top aide to Cameron from 2010–12, but later grew critical of the Conservative prime minister's immigration policy.
Hilton went on to host a Fox News show for several years, and continues to contribute to the conservative news network.
He is running for governor on a platform of lower taxes and cutting back the state budget, while helping lower housing and other costs for families.
Hilton joined Stanford University in California as a visiting scholar in 2012, and said he was applying for US citizenship in 2019.
Democrats dominate California state politics, but Republicans viewed this as a rare chance to capture the governor's mansion because of a splintered Democratic field of candidates in the state's so-called jungle primary system.
Trump's endorsement of Hilton, however, may squeeze out the other Republican in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, leaving the door ajar for a Democrat to become a top vote-winner.
A March poll by the University of California, Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies rattled the political establishment, after it suggested Hilton and Bianco were ahead of the Democratic contenders.
Democrats became alarmed enough that top state party officials called for some candidates to drop out.
The University of California, Berkeley poll suggested that congressman Eric Swalwell, former congresswoman Katie Porter, and billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer had the most support among the eight Democrats running.

 

[thenorthern]

Well this guy's odds of winning have just worsened significantly:

Trump endorses ex-UK political aide Steve Hilton for California governor

Steve Hilton, who advised the former prime minster and hosted a Fox News show, is running as a Republican.

www.bbc.co.uk

Doubt it, Steve Hilton has always been a Trump supporter since back in 2016.

Also Federal Issues tend to have much less of an effect on state elections as national issues do on local/devolved elections do here. While federal issues do have some effect on state elections, no question it tends to be state issues that have the biggest effect as states are quite powerful. In the US things like sales taxes, income taxes, fuel taxes, the death penalty, abortion, education, gun control, policing, highways, public transport, betting regulation, alcohol regulation, cannabis regulation and housing are either entirely/mostly a state issue so they tend to be the main thing at elections.

In other words in the Welsh elections next month Labour will do very badly not because of their manifesto but rather voters in Wales are unhappy with how Westminster is being run. Or at the 2024 UK local elections, Gaza was a big issue in some areas but in reality other than putting up a Gaza flag at the council offices it was largely a wasted vote as councils don't have a foreign policy. Neither of these things would happen at US state elections.

 

[The exile]

(Just as well our monarch isn't a megalomaniac, that would cause a lot of trouble for our unwritten constitution)

Less than a US President can. The King can (in theory) block every piece of legislation that Parliament passes, but he cannot initiate any. So within a year, the army would have no legal footing, there would be no public funds to pay for anything (including his own household).

The last time it happened it led to the Civil War - which I suppose would come under the heading of “a lot of trouble” - but I doubt the argument of “divine right” would hold as much water here now as it did then. Incidentally - our constitutional settlement is written - it just isn’t codified (i.e. collated logically in one document - of course not - we’re British!!!!)

 

[edwin_m]

Doubt it, Steve Hilton has always been a Trump supporter since back in 2016.

I think the point here is that Trump's support is probably the kiss of death for someone's statewide electoral chances in Califormia.

However, multiple Democrats have stood in their "primary" where the top two candidates regardless of party go forward to the main election. There is a risk of them splitting the vote to give a choice of two Republicans.

From the above story:

Democrats dominate California state politics, but Republicans view this as a rare chance to capture the governor's mansion because of a splintered Democratic field of candidates in the state's so-called jungle primary system.

 

[AlterEgo]

Like many other things in the UK, it's officially the decision of the monarch but in practice they will do what the government tells them to.

(Just as well our monarch isn't a megalomaniac, that would cause a lot of trouble for our unwritten constitution)

We do have a written constitution! It just isn’t codified into a single document. We have parliamentary sovereignty as a result of it.

 

[brad465]

Now he's basically promoting a genocide:

Iran warns it will respond if Israeli attacks on Lebanon don't stop immediately

Israel and the US say Lebanon is not included in a two-week ceasefire deal with Iran. PM Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel struck "the greatest blow" to Hezbollah in strikes today.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump says 'whole civilisation will die tonight' if Iran fails to make deal with US

US President Donald Trump has just posted on Truth Social, warning: "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again".

He goes on:

"I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?

"We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!"

• For context: Trump has given Iran a deadline of 20:00 EDT Tuesday (00:00 GMT / 01:00 BST on Wednesday) to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[The exile]

Now he's basically promoting a genocide:

Iran warns it will respond if Israeli attacks on Lebanon don't stop immediately

Israel and the US say Lebanon is not included in a two-week ceasefire deal with Iran. PM Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel struck "the greatest blow" to Hezbollah in strikes today.

www.bbc.co.uk

He’s right of course - but not in the way he means. If he does what this is threatening, at government level at least the United States will have excluded itself from the Civilised World. Its leader already has.