Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[najaB]

Biden's economy was a strong one, recovering from the disaster he inherited.

As is the case: Republican administration breaks the economy, Democratic administration fixes it.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Trump was as tarnished as it is possible to get. He still won, twice. The double standards are insane, Democrats are expected to be saints while no one blinks at the long list of Republican scandals. Fox News propaganda is a major part of this.


Biddn's economy was a strong one, recovering from the disaster he inherited. Not that the narrative would tell you that, again the propaganda from Fox et al is to blame.

One of the most key changes that needs to form part of the denazification process in the US is that cable TV needs to come into the FCC's remit too.

Would it really be a good idea to give more control to the fcc when they can essentially be a puppet of whoever is in charge as can be seen at the moment?

 

[ainsworth74]

It’s outdated to say that Democrats are well to the right of our Labour Party; their policies on immigration, law enforcement, gender issues, abortion and environmentalism were controversial and divisive- and similar issues are just as controversial and divisive over here.

I mean if you just listen to Fox News and right-wing talking heads and social media warriors that might be true. They will find the one person from the boonies who holds some mad view and then paint that as if it is Democratic Party policy. So then suddenly Democrats are having to defend a policy which most of them do not hold and is not a manifesto commitment. "Defund the police" is cracking example of that. There are some on the lunatic fringes of the Democratic Party who hold that view but the vast majority of Democrats are not in favour of "defunding the police". The most extreme that they tend towards is that the police shouldn't be the first port of call for every emergency and investing in social services and similar preventative measures might be sensible. Along with a general sense that perhaps the Police shouldn't be above the law and there is a need for greater police accountability. That gets spun into nonsense by the right wing media ecosphere into "DEMOCRATS WANT TO GIVE CRIMINALS FREE REIGN TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER AND MURDER YOUR SON" and suddenly every Democrat has to defend attacks on a position that they don't even hold.

Meanwhile Trump and his fellow travellers are going around feeding the US Government and economy into the woodchipper, burning their alliances around the world, starting wars left and right and blathering on about all sorts of insane nonsense. But that just gets a pass.

You see the same thing happening with the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems over here. Some random Labour councillor in Fleetwood will say something dumb and then Kier Starmer is having to deny it because the generally right wing leaning press treat it as gospel.

 

[Krokodil]

Would it really be a good idea to give more control to the fcc when they can essentially be a puppet of whoever is in charge as can be seen at the moment?

Another part of the denazification needs to be the independence of regulatory institutions.

 

[Cowley]

I mean if you just listen to Fox News and right-wing talking heads and social media warriors that might be true. They will find the one person from the boonies who holds some mad view and then paint that as if it is Democratic Party policy. So then suddenly Democrats are having to defend a policy which most of them do not hold and is not a manifesto commitment. "Defund the police" is cracking example of that. There are some on the lunatic fringes of the Democratic Party who hold that view but the vast majority of Democrats are not in favour of "defunding the police". The most extreme that they tend towards is that the police shouldn't be the first port of call for every emergency and investing in social services and similar preventative measures might be sensible. Along with a general sense that perhaps the Police shouldn't be above the law and there is a need for greater police accountability. That gets spun into nonsense by the right wing media ecosphere into "DEMOCRATS WANT TO GIVE CRIMINALS FREE REIGN TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER AND MURDER YOUR SON" and suddenly every Democrat has to defend attacks on a position that they don't even hold.

Meanwhile Trump and his fellow travellers are going around feeding the US Government and economy into the woodchipper, burning their alliances around the world, starting wars left and right and blathering on about all sorts of insane nonsense. But that just gets a pass.

You see the same thing happening with the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems over here. Some random Labour councillor in Fleetwood will say something dumb and then Kier Starmer is having to deny it because the generally right wing leaning press treat it as gospel.

That’s exactly how it is and the legacy media just cannot work out how to report on it properly.

 

[najaB]

"Defund the police" is cracking example of that. There are some on the lunatic fringes of the Democratic Party who hold that view but the vast majority of Democrats are not in favour of "defunding the police". The most extreme that they tend towards is that the police shouldn't be the first port of call for every emergency and investing in social services and similar preventative measures might be sensible. Along with a general sense that perhaps the Police shouldn't be above the law and there is a need for greater police accountability. That gets spun into nonsense by the right wing media ecosphere into "DEMOCRATS WANT TO GIVE CRIMINALS FREE REIGN TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER AND MURDER YOUR SON" and suddenly every Democrat has to defend attacks on a position that they don't even hold.

Even "Defund the police" doesn't mean what a lot of people have taken it to mean - zeroing out policing budgets.

When it was originally proposed it was about ensuring that police funding matches actual responsibilities, rather than pouring money into a near-bottomless pit. I mean, is there any good reason that the civilian police should have vehicles like this:

As you pointed out, the idea was to reduce police funding and divert that money into programs and organisations that focus on crime prevention and mental health service provision.

 

[Krokodil]

Even "Defund the police" doesn't mean what a lot of people have taken it to mean - zeroing out policing budgets.

It's almost as if short, snappy slogans aren't actually very good at conveying information

 

[RT4038]

Even "Defund the police" doesn't mean what a lot of people have taken it to mean - zeroing out policing budgets.

When it was originally proposed it was about ensuring that police funding matches actual responsibilities, rather than pouring money into a near-bottomless pit. I mean, is there any good reason that the civilian police should have vehicles like this:

As you pointed out, the idea was to reduce police funding and divert that money into programs and organisations that focus on crime prevention and mental health service provision.

Reminds me of Lt Howard Hunter and an episode of Hill Street Blues...... Didn't he try and acquire a vehicle like this?

 

[BuhSnarf]

It's almost as if short, snappy slogans aren't actually very good at conveying information

It's almost like a 60s TikTok doesn't have the time to go through the nuance of any massive societal issue, yet this is how people form their opinions on anything from immigration, foreign and monetary policy. If yours is the most engaging 60s speech then that is gospel.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

The Guardian reckons Vance will stick the knife in quite soon as he tries to save his own skin from being the fall guy after a bruising few weeks.

Better to catch the orange tyrant unaware while he is all puffed up in his own self importance that he won't see the knife coming his way.

 

[Krokodil]

The Guardian reckons Vance will stick the knife in quite soon

Easier said than done, the 25th amendment is really designed for "president is in a coma"-type situations. Not "president is an idiot who is committing war crimes". That's what impeachment is for.

 

[AlterEgo]

The Guardian reckons Vance will stick the knife in quite soon as he tries to save his own skin from being the fall guy after a bruising few weeks.

Better to catch the orange tyrant unaware while he is all puffed up in his own self importance that he won't see the knife coming his way.

To be clear that was an opinion piece and cannot be construed as the newspaper's opinion in the same way editorial can.

 

[Killingworth]

Whatever happens in the US it won't be neatly resolved any time soon. The fallout and rancour will persist for many years if not decades.

We had our own examples with the Tory Party after the fall of Thatcher and again after Brexit. The fall of Starmer seems imminent, then what?

Trump loyalists will stick with him to the end, just as some did with Hitler. Hitler may have got a few things right (autobahns?) and Trump might too, hard though it is to see just now.

One thing is certain. America isn't being made greater in any meaningfully positive way.

 

[Harpo]

As frequently voiced in this thread, the BBC has an online item correlating market spikes with Trump announcements, questioning whether there is insider trading.

The BBC has examined trade volume data on several financial markets and matched them to some of the president's most significant market-moving statements.

It found a consistent pattern of spikes just hours, or sometimes minutes, before a social media post or media interview was made public.

Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public.

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

The BBC has found a pattern of spikes in trades ahead of public announcements by the US president.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[brad465]

As frequently voiced in this thread, the BBC has an online item correlating market spikes with Trump announcements, questioning whether there is insider trading.

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

The BBC has found a pattern of spikes in trades ahead of public announcements by the US president.

www.bbc.co.uk

It takes a psychopath so extreme they make Norman Bates look empathetic, to make dodgy profits like this while killing thousands of innocent civilians.

 

[DerekC]

It takes a psychopath so extreme they make Norman Bates look empathetic, to make dodgy profits like this while killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Trump won't be doing it himself - it's a word dropped to someone in his family, most likely. He won't see that as wrong in any way.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It takes a psychopath so extreme they make Norman Bates look empathetic, to make dodgy profits like this while killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Welcome to the arms trade. Always remember that "defence spending" is just a euphemism for "buying bombs to drop on kids." Lockheed Martin, BAe, etc, make their money on the back of dead civilians. They don't care.

Trump won't see anything wrong with leveraging the knowledge he has to help close allies make a quick buck on the back of all of this. Those criticising the 'insider trading' but endorsing the profits made by the arms trade are rather missing the point, in my opinion.

 

[martin butler]

It would not surprise me one bit, if Trump, and those around him were manipulating the markets to make money, you have to remember that Trumps god is Money, then power, His entire life has been one scam after another.

His family seem to have learnt the same way of business, and those around him, will be of the same ilk,
Anyone with morals, would most likely see the warning signs, and avoid doing business with him where possible,

Some people will see the impact of the chaos, and the opportunity to make money from it, all we can hope for is that one day, if Sanity ever returns to the US, those profiteering from Trumps wrecking ball of an administration if it is shown they acted illegally. be held liable.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I thought it was pretty obvious that there was massive amounts of insider trading happening through the White House.

On both the 23rd and 24th March, the oil markets had massive influx (billions of dollars) mere minutes before Trump announcements.

And let's be honest, when announcing the tariffs and knowing the markets would drop lots of Trump friends/family/allies bought up a load of stocks at great prices before the Great Orange One walked back many of the tariffs a week later and suddenly netted a fortune. It was all planned.

 

[edwin_m]

Welcome to the arms trade. Always remember that "defence spending" is just a euphemism for "buying bombs to drop on kids." Lockheed Martin, BAe, etc, make their money on the back of dead civilians. They don't care.

Trump won't see anything wrong with leveraging the knowledge he has to help close allies make a quick buck on the back of all of this. Those criticising the 'insider trading' but endorsing the profits made by the arms trade are rather missing the point, in my opinion.

Taking your point on the arms trade but I think the latest situation, if true, is very different.

Anyone with some capital can invest it in arms companies - indeed we need that to happen to facilitate the defeince spending increases that most of us probably consider are justified. As a child of the 60s and 70s I have some qualms about this, but I think it is necessary in the current international situation.

The difference with what is now alleged is, firstly, that the people making the trades are taking advantage of insider knowledge. This is illegal and immoral regardless of what commodity or industry they are trading in. Secondly, those people may be close enough to the decision makers that the decision to go to war could actually be influenced by the prospect of profit.

 

[Bantamzen]

As frequently voiced in this thread, the BBC has an online item correlating market spikes with Trump announcements, questioning whether there is insider trading.

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

The BBC has found a pattern of spikes in trades ahead of public announcements by the US president.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is almost certainly going to be happening, once might be put down as a coincidence, but multiple times it's just obvious what's going on. And plenty of people at the top know all about it but say nothing. In fact didn't Tump get caught off camera bragging about some of his mates made massive gains on the back of some of his first tariffs?

It's just insane what's going on, and even more so because there seems to be few, if any people willing to actually do something about it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The difference with what is now alleged is, firstly, that the people making the trades are taking advantage of insider knowledge. This is illegal and immoral regardless of what commodity or industry they are trading in.

The quote I responded to was specifically referencing the killing of innocent civilians. My opinion is that anyone who holds shares in defence companies profits from the murder of innocent civilians. Bombs drop, share price rises.

Is insider trading more or less unethical than that? It’s always gone on and always will go on, the only difference is that Trump is a lot more brazen about it.

 

[martin butler]

The quote I responded to was specifically referencing the killing of innocent civilians. My opinion is that anyone who holds shares in defence companies profits from the murder of innocent civilians. Bombs drop, share price rises.

Is insider trading more or less unethical than that? It’s always gone on and always will go on, the only difference is that Trump is a lot more brazen about it.

The most telling thing will be to watch who flees to Israel and Russia the moment Republicans lose the Presidency, and who starts to throw whom under the bus, in order to reduce their own time in jail when the FBI come knocking,

 

[najaB]

The most telling thing will be to watch who flees to Israel and Russia the moment Republicans lose the Presidency, and who starts to throw whom under the bus, in order to reduce their own time in jail when the FBI come knocking,

I agree with the sentiment, however fear that the current administration has done such a thorough job gutting anyone with competence from the DoJ and FBI that it will take way to long for them to face any meaningful comeback for all that they've done.

 

[edwin_m]

The quote I responded to was specifically referencing the killing of innocent civilians. My opinion is that anyone who holds shares in defence companies profits from the murder of innocent civilians. Bombs drop, share price rises.

Is insider trading more or less unethical than that? It’s always gone on and always will go on, the only difference is that Trump is a lot more brazen about it.

Arguable whether insider trading in something other than defence shares is better or worse than any trading in defence shares. But the particular feature of this case is that whether bombs drop or not may be motivated by someone's personal profit rather than by any sort of moral or strategic objective.

 

[Krokodil]

The most telling thing will be to watch who flees to Israel and Russia the moment Republicans lose the Presidency, and who starts to throw whom under the bus, in order to reduce their own time in jail when the FBI come knocking,

Or Argentina

 

[najaB]

Obviously this is "anonymous sources say" territory, but there are rumours making the rounds that DJT asked about using nuclear weapons against Iran over the weekend and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs refused to sanction it.

 

[Annetts key]

Obviously this is "anonymous sources say" territory, but there are rumours making the rounds that DJT asked about using nuclear weapons against Iran over the weekend and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs refused to sanction it.

Discussed in the following video:

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how a former CIA Analyst says that top generals in the United States Military are hiding the nuclear codes from Trump and Meiselas shares the words of Trump’s and his current leadership in the State Department to show the nuclear threat Trump poses here in the United States and abroad.

First few minutes of the transcript:

Donald Trump was blocked from accessing the nuclear codes by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine, this past weekend as Donald Trump was ranting and raving like a lunatic and panicking in the situation room. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Kaine, apparently told Donald Trump, "Get the hell out of here. We're not giving you the code. Stop talking about nuclear weapons." Now, this is according to the Mirror. The source that they site is a former CIA analyst.

And I'm going to show you in a moment what this former CIA analyst says that his sources told him about this moment in the White House where the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Kaine, told Donald Trump, "Stop talking about nuclear weapons. You can't access the nuclear codes." And now, while this may seem like a salacious story, and perhaps it is, when you see what Donald Trump has been doing with nuclear testing and with nuclear weapons over the past few months, it's actually not that far-fetched. And so, before sharing with you what this CIA analyst is saying that his sources tell them, because you may go, "Come on, Ben, does this CIA analyst really have these sources?" Before showing you that, let me just show you Donald Trump's own words over the past 6 to9 months. And let me share with you the words of Donald Trump's under secretary of state for arms control. Also talk about how they are interpreting Donald Trump's command that nuclear weapons testing occur in the United States immediately.

And I know with all of the distractions that Donald Trump throws everybody's way, this is one of those stories that, you know, just happened on a random Wednesday, if you will. But Donald Trump claimed that China and Russia were involved in nuclear testing. What they were involved in was testing regarding weapons capable of delivering nuclear arms and nuclear material, but there wasn't actually a nuclear test where the underlying nuclear material itself was used cuz that would probably register with our intelligence community. And so Donald Trump again just not just shooting from the hip, but hearing things and then um interpreting it in a way that's so dangerously wrong. So before sharing with you this incident that allegedly occurred this weekend, first let me share with you what this guy Thomas Dano who's Donald Trump under he's Donald Trump's under secretary of state for arms control. He said that the United States has not yet decided how to implement Donald Trump's order to resume US nuclear weapons test. We're still assessing it. We've made no decisions specifically on how or what any testing program would look like. Now, you would think that this would be a front page story, right? You would think everybody would know about it. Uh-uh. But let me show you the clip. Let's play it.

 

[Railwaycat]

Breaking news!

Trumps just watched Ch4's Suez documentary (we've just watched the first part, what an eye opener, thoroughly recommend it) and has finally realised what a complete f---up he's presided over, so he's declared an indefinite ceasefire extension...

 

[BuhSnarf]

You've got to think that every time he TACO's and extends he's making the Iranian's hand look stronger and stronger.