Still more on Trump
Previous volume HERE
688438
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 28 Apr 26 at 08:39
|
I suppose it should be no surprise that BP are doing OK out if it.
"BP profits more than double as Iran war sends oil prices higher"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2eveyvgn9no
|
Trump bell.
metro.co.uk/2026/04/29/king-charles-gave-donald-trump-a-bell-hms-trump-28162231/
There were so many hidden messages in the King's speeches I wonder if there were others re the bell.
Maybe. The bell is rung when a patient is discharged from a medical ward after successful treatment.
It was very flattering to provide a French menu with garlic IIRC is banned by the royals in their meals.
|
|
I think its fair to say that King Charles certainly 'owned' (to use a street phrase) Trump today.
|
Blimey, the Trump news outlet "Fox news" has just rewritten history,
www.foxnews.com/media/decorated-general-links-trump-iran-strikes-historic-bombing-blitz-forced-vietnam-peace-pact
America's ignominious comprehensive capitulation is now called a "peace pact"
|
Since late March Trump has announced that a deal with Iran is imminent about 36 times.
The man is an egocentric fantasist and his mates at Fox News willing sychophants. My principal media memory of the end of the Vietnam conflict is crowds outside the US embassy desperate to get inside with helicopter the only means of escape,
I've given up listening to the news on the basis that anything said is llikely flawed. Its rather sad that authoritive comment on Iran talks comes from the regime which finances Hamas and Hezbollah. holds enriched uranium and claims not to want a nuclear bomb.
|
>> Its rather sad that authoritive comment on Iran talks comes from the regime which
>> finances Hamas and Hezbollah. holds enriched uranium and claims not to want a nuclear bomb.
Flipside is is that the nation regarded as leader of the free world is OK with terrorising other nations and has both enriched uranium AND the H Bomb.
|
"In a post on Truth Social, he says the US will be the "guardian" of the vital waterway and impose a 20% charge on all cargo shipped to pay for the cost of "safety and security" "
Is there no depths he won't plumb? He starts a war only one other person wanted, causes massive international and regional upset (as well as smashing Iran up) then penalises the world for it by charging a security fee.
This is over and above the increased energy prices and their knock-on effect. I sometimes find his stuff mildly amusing but this is just plain outrageous.
|
|
He is a crook plain and simple. Extortion is just one of his criminal rackets.
|
>> He is a crook plain and simple. Extortion is just one of his criminal rackets.
>>
100%. Extortion is his 'art of the deal'. He is clearly a useless negotiator and although it can be learned he won't learn anything from anybody because he knows it all.
His litigations are all shakedowns, nothing else. He extorts a sum of money that the victims would rather pay than risk the unknown cost of going to court and facing vengeful regulation. He is shocked that the BBC hasn't offered him £10 million or so to settle his $10bn. 'claim' and are actually going after him with proper lawyers.
I don't think there will be a 'deal' with Iran while Trump is there, and maybe not for a long time after. The last statement from the Iranian regime effectively precludes that. Iran can stick to that for as long as it can control Hormuz, which looks like a long time unless the US wants to invade.
|
" He is shocked that the BBC hasn't offered him £10 million or so to settle his $10bn. 'claim' and are actually going after him with proper lawyers."
That's almost worth paying the licence fee for. :)
|
|
My wife's penfriend in Seattle is if anything sicker of Trump than we are. His behaviour is rather an American version of Putin, bombing Iran instead of Ukraine, but admittedly with different objectives. The old Wild West dies hard, it seems.
|
You would hope that if Farage ever gets in here, that our parliament and constitution would stop him from becoming a mini Trump which is exactly what he wants to do.
But I am not too confident......
|
. President Donald Trump on Monday defended U.S. strikes on Iran, saying Tehran’s military capabilities have been badly weakened and warning that another “major attack” is coming tonight.
"We were in Vietnam for 19 years. We're here for four months, so I think we've done a lot," Trump told reporters when asked whether months of U.S. strikes on Iran have become the “new normal” for Americans.
Donny my orange ole fruite. YOU LOST IN VIETNAM.
|
>> . President Donald Trump on Monday defended U.S. strikes on Iran, saying Tehran’s military capabilities
>> have been badly weakened and warning that another “major attack” is coming tonight.
>>
>> "We were in Vietnam for 19 years. We're here for four months, so I think
>> we've done a lot," Trump told reporters when asked whether months of U.S. strikes on
>> Iran have become the “new normal” for Americans.
>>
>> Donny my orange ole fruite. YOU LOST IN VIETNAM.
They also lost big time in Iraq and Afghanistan - although offset by major triumphs in Panama and Grenada. Part of a coalition to free Kuwait from the Iraqis - but didn't finish the job.
Reality and Donald Trump are only loosely connected. He eliminated the nuclear threat with bunker busters (but still wants a nuclear deal), the Iranian military is completely destroyed (but still firing missiles) etc.
He is concerned about assasination threat (understandabe) despite inconsistencies in removing the Iranian leadership. The man is a complete clown. Iran know it. The Europeans have worked it out but still try to keep him onside supporting NATO. Putin clearly thinks him ineffectual.
With a bit of luck the Democrats will take Congress in November and limit Trumps power.
|
>> You would hope that if Farage ever gets in here,
Farage will only "get in" if the Great British electorate vote for him. There is no other way TSTBO.
However, considering that the average voter has average intelligence and I don't think a person with average intelligence is very bright and 49% of the electorate have below average intelligence, it's all a bit worrying.
|
|
How do you rate your own intelligence then ? Am I listening to someone in the top half or below average?
|
>>
>>
>> However, considering that the average voter has average intelligence and I don't think a person
>> with average intelligence is very bright and 49% of the electorate have below average intelligence,
>> it's all a bit worrying.
>>
How do you class "Below average intelligence", then?
Somebody who votes differently to you, maybe?
|
>> How do you class "Below average intelligence", then?
There are various measures of intelligence, however I wasn't making any claims about my own intelligence.
>> Somebody who votes differently to you, maybe?
You have no idea how I vote.
It's different 'from'.
Try to remember, it's 'similar to', 'different from'.
|
|
There's no doubt you're an above average pedant though, Duncan. ;-)
|
>> ... considering that the average voter has average intelligence and I don't think a person with average intelligence is very bright and 49% of the electorate have below average intelligence, ... >>
Don't forget that most motorists believe they are better-than-average drivers, and that the traditional aim of the union movement was that all workers should earn more than the average wage ...
|
Before he gets flamed too much, and I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Duncan always intends his posts to be taken absolutely seriously.
There is still room here for a little light heartedness... :-)
|
|
Fair enough, he's probably just got back from a morning session in 'Spoons...
|
>> Fair enough, he's probably just got back from a morning session in 'Spoons...
>>
A good way of making one feel one's above average intelligence... ;-)
|
|
He's royalty really, just likes to be seen as "one of the people"
|
Yes, a wary thank you for the compliments...
I do think the British electorate - as a whole - is/are? stupid.
Example 1.
They voted for Brexit. What a good idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Example 2.
Fourteen years of Tory mis-rule. Well, why did you keep voting for them!!?? The British electorate voted four times in succession for the Tories. They were not imposed upon us by some foreign power, or alien force. You, me and the bloke next door voted for them!
Since WW2 we have had 22 general elections.
Labour have won 10.
Tories have won 11.
Coalition 1.
|
>> Yes, a wary thank you for the compliments...
>>
>> I do think the British electorate - as a whole - is/are? stupid.
They are stupid!!
Winston Churchill famously described democracy as "the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." He
|
Without a definition of intelligence or stupidity a phrase the argument that the electorate is stupid makes no sense at all. Voting to cut for, example, taxes may make perfect sense to a wealthy individual but not to someone reliant on public services. Neither is acting in an intelligent or illogical manner. Neither is necessarily stupid
You may argue that we should all vote for what is overall best for the nation but in reality that is almost impossible to define and most vote quite logically for what they feel is in their own interest.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 15 Jul 26 at 12:44
|
Except that if everyone behaves 'rationally' by voting or acting solely in their own interest, they will all be worse off.
It's well known as the "tragedy of the commons".
Poor people are more likely to act in the common interest than rich ones. Greater inequality tends to make the management of collective resources harder. There's PhD in that.
Considering the literal commons, rich people have more power and more cattle than poor people so are more likely to contribute to over grazing of the common.
Eat the rich.
|
There are three resolutions to the problem
State control. The Government decides who may graze on the common.
Privatisation. The common is acquired by a single entity who decides who may graze his cow and charges a fee for so doing
The farmers form dome sort of cooperative to apportion grazing rights fairly
|
>> Example 2 - Fourteen years of Tory misrule. Well, why did you keep voting for them!!?? The British electorate voted four times in succession for the Tories. >>
You are forgetting that because so many politicians keep showing that it is usually difficult to achieve anything positive, most voters vote AGAINST rather than FOR. The hard part is deciding which candidate is the least unappealing.
And if a referendum on an important issue were offered with an assurance that the result would be acted upon, one on the death penalty would carry with a large majority.
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Wed 15 Jul 26 at 17:49
|
>>
>> And if a referendum on an important issue were offered with an assurance that the
>> result would be acted upon, one on the death penalty would carry with a large
>> majority.
>>
Don't be too sure on that. The last country I know of to have such a thing was the Republic of Ireland in 2001 and a large majority voted not to have it, even in times of war.
|
That people vote in what they believe is in their own best interest is no surprise.
But most are stupid. They don't have the intellect nor a basic knowledge of how public administration works, taxes raised, public expenditure allocated, etc etc etc.
Their vote is largely based on perceptions formed from the media they frequent. Most media dumbs down and skews their output to match the generally limited ability of their chosen audience.
Probably no more than 10% can critically examine a proposition, ask intelligent further questions and form a legitimate opinion. A further 15% may be able to largely comprehend and contribute to a debate, There can be more than one conclusion - the issue is how well informed the debate.
A completely arrogant view, I know. That we allow the ill informed and stupid to vote is a necessary part of a democracy - as Churchill noted "the worst form of government except all the others". Restricting the right to vote to those with "capacity" would leave 75% disenfranchised - completely unstable.
|
That's a rather extreme and supremacist view Terry, in that it takes the assumption that your 25% enfranchised have the right to decide how the 100% are governed.
Gas chambers anyone?
And an afterthought - it also presumes that the 25% are "doing it right", whereas if 75% are not "doing it right" then it you could say the 25% might be the minority after all.
|
|
Part of the growing difficulty is that most serious problems are global and can't be managed or controlled by any one government ?
|
>>Part of the growing difficulty is that most serious problems are global and can't be managed or controlled by any one government ?
Include in this the wealth of individuals and corporates - from trying to keep social media giants under control to companies like Tesla / Musk.
Oh and no fan of Liz Truss but you could see there as soon as the financial companies dislike what you are doing, they can basically pull some levers and your strategy goes to pot.
|
>>Oh and no fan of Liz Truss but you could see there as soon as the financial companies dislike what you are doing, they can basically pull some levers and your strategy goes to pot.
Do you think what happened went beyond a simple market reaction?
If so, and I think it certainly became more than that as the wagon rolled, that would be a fair example for the comment I was about to make which is that the people no longer have the power, because money thinks it can choose the government and increasingly they are right.
The people could still be in power if they were prepared to educate themselves and learn to see when they are being manipulated, and to look past for example the hate campaign against Starmer that started even before parliament had reconvened after the election in 2024.
It will be very difficult to reverse when the ruling cabal controls all the 'news' media and the socials.
We might be looking back in 2029 and thinking this government, good or bad, was the last proper one before the Kakistocracy. The US is there now, and the big question is whether their institutions and constitutional guard rails will be strong enough to stop it and undo it.
I ask myself if I am a catastrophiser, but the Trump administration has turned out worse than even I prognosticated. If ever Farage were to be PM we mind find that Magna Carta did indeed die in vain.
|
>> That's a rather extreme and supremacist view Terry, in that it takes the assumption that
>> your 25% enfranchised have the right to decide how the 100% are governed.
>>
>> Gas chambers anyone?
An honest view. No suggestion the 75% should be disenfranchied (or worse) - quite the opposite. But the outcome is often sub-optimal and sometimes bonkers. Examples .....
95% of highly educated climate scientists have been warning of dangerous climate change for decades - yet half the country would vote to get rid of net zero targets and actions.
Voting to leave the EU - made no rational sense and we will pay for decades - decided on the illusion of "take back control" etc, not rational analysis
Shortly before the recent local govrnment elections YouGov polled voters on issues seen as most important:
- economy and cost of living made 2nd place - local authorities have almost no control
- potholes and congestion made the top spot vs social care in 18th position
- NHS made 3rd on the list - local authorities have some influence but no control
- immigration 4th, poverty and homelessness 14th - hardly a worthy prioritisation
HS2 - completely incompetent futile waste - demonstrates our elected leaders have little more capacity than those who voted far them. Fortunately they may protect us all from the some of the gross stupidity and moral vacuum evident in the opinions of the electorate as a wole.
|
There are some reasonable arguments for leaving the EU but taking back control isn't one of them. And the arguments for being in it are IMO stronger.
If you have the right to leave, you still have sovereignty. But if you want to make agreements on trade and defence, then you give up some sovereignty whether you are in the EU or not. The sovereignty argument is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Not all Leave voters are racist but we all know what moved the dial towards Leave. And the result achieved when they won was that the EU nationals went home and had to be replaced with the foreigners they thought they had voted keep out.
This is a bit far off Trump and Hormuz. There you have malicious, stupid and criminal action through ignorance, greed and megalomania, backed by a small and frankly evil cabal and funded by tech centi-billionaires who are happy because Medicaid etc. has been cut to fund reductions in their taxes.
Few of the people in government like Mike Pence who stopped Trump's January 6th wheeze are there now. Netanyahu had more influence than they did. Supposedly senior figures have no prior knowledge of his actions. A handful of people are in on these decisions.
It's an absolute certainty that he was told that the possibility of the Ayatollahs being overthrown was near zero, that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran could and would attack US bases and allies. When they speak up, those people are sidelined or simply sacked. Any Trump adviser who crosses Miller is gone.
|
>> There are some reasonable arguments for leaving the EU but taking back control isn't one
>> of them. And the arguments for being in it are IMO stronger.
Agree
>> If you have the right to leave, you still have sovereignty. But if you want
>> to make agreements on trade and defence, then you give up some sovereignty whether you
>> are in the EU or not. The sovereignty argument is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Agree
>> Not all Leave voters are racist but we all know what moved the dial towards
>> Leave. And the result achieved when they won was that the EU nationals went home
>> and had to be replaced with the foreigners they thought they had voted keep out.
Agree - although governments of both colours made wholly inadequate arrangements to deal with immigration in those communities most impacted - housing, healthcare, education etc. That local communities resented the new arrivals is unsurprising.
>> It's an absolute certainty that he was told that the possibility of the Ayatollahs being
>> overthrown was near zero, that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran
>> could and would attack US bases and allies. When they speak up, those people are
>> sidelined or simply sacked. Any Trump adviser who crosses Miller is gone.
Trump was born in 1946 to a completely dominant world power to a wealthy family - no surprise he is uttterly arrogant. A world populated by relative pygmies. He believed the ayatollahs would be overthrown and the US welcomed as a long lost friend.
The same sort of arrogance that saw Putin invade a relative pimple, Ukraine, in the belief that military supremacy would overrun the county in a couple of weeks.
He may have been warned about Iranian control of Hormuz. He would have ignored any advice about US bases in the area believing he would quickly eliminate any threat - the US has the best military technology in the world. Clearly wrong - the nature of warfare has changed.
What I find very disappointing is those around him have allowed this to happen. They are not stupid people - possibly motivated by personal power and money. Trump now lives in a world surrounded by yes men - it is clear that disagreement with the Donald is career ending.
|
>> Trump now lives in a world surrounded by yes men - it is clear that disagreement with the Donald is career ending <<
Trump's father trained him to be a bully in the world of business. He has never grasped or accepted that being a politician is different. He is now about the same age as Joe Biden was when he began to fail, so we must hope for something similar.
Of course many of us have said that that started some time ago.
|
>> Trump's father trained him to be a bully in the world of business. He has
>> never grasped or accepted that being a politician is different.
His cousin Mary Trump's bio of him, Too Much is Never Enough, is an instructive read.
|
>>He is now about the same age as Joe Biden was when he began to fail
Trump, started off with a lower intellect.
|
>> >> It's an absolute certainty that he was told that the possibility of the Ayatollahs
>> being
>> >> overthrown was near zero, that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, and that
>> Iran
>> >> could and would attack US bases and allies. When they speak up, those people
>> are
>> >> sidelined or simply sacked. Any Trump adviser who crosses Miller is gone.
>>
>> Trump was born in 1946 to a completely dominant world power to a wealthy family
>> - no surprise he is uttterly arrogant. A world populated by relative pygmies. He believed
>> the ayatollahs would be overthrown and the US welcomed as a long lost friend.
Netanyahu told him they would fold. His advisers (the ones who knew about the Middle East) and the Pentagon gave him the warnings. He chose to believe Netanyahu. Either he never stopped to think about Netanyahu's motivations or he is too thick to perceive them
>> What I find very disappointing is those around him have allowed this to happen. They
>> are not stupid people - possibly motivated by personal power and money. Trump now lives
>> in a world surrounded by yes men - it is clear that disagreement with the
>> Donald is career ending.
Or with Hegseth for the military. Trump I think is still making the calls but he shops for advice that supports his world view and can usually find it. Miller is super-powerful and keeps/frightens away people who might rock the boat. Bessent is essential because he's the one who really understands the markets but other than that he seems to be invertebrate. Wiles is an eminence grise, less visible but enabling the cabal. I think that is probably about it. Cabinet members generally are not involved in things like deciding to bomb Iran or try and decapitate a regime. Let alone Congress which is only useful to give him the power he wields.
Hegseth Looks like a cipher, fulfilling the role of tough warlord. I suspect he is disposable and the others hold their power more securely as long as they can keep Trump in power.
Clearly I could be quite wrong. But it's obviously very undemocratic and corrupt off the scale.
|
>> There are some reasonable arguments for leaving the EU but taking back control isn't one
>> of them. And the arguments for being in it are IMO stronger.
There were no rational sensible practical arguments for leaving the EU. There were, (and still are if inside) rational sensible practical arguments for improving and reforming it.
|
>> There were no rational sensible practical arguments for leaving the EU. There were, (and still
>> are if inside) rational sensible practical arguments for improving and reforming it.
I was being generous. Those arguments are mainly about the shortcomings of the EU. That could be mitigated by trying to fix them.
|
Trump is signalling (possibly posturing but that would credit him with a degree of guile I don't think he possesses) that he is planning a ground offensive in Iran. The US is moving planes into Israel (but not into the bases in the Arab states). Possibly because Israel's Iron Dome still works.
He has even issued warnings to Russia and China that they should not help Iran or"bad things will happen".
This is WW3 stuff. Russia at least is a declared ally of Iran. China id its largest trading partner. The back channels must be full of pleas to remove him.
|
|
It's just part of his waffle, they'll be no ground invasion of Iran. They'd need 250k troops for that, the ME countries wouldn't want that to happen.
|
|
Do you think it more likely the US is looking at one of more of the islands?
|
>> Do you think it more likely the US is looking at one of more of
>> the islands?
>>
No, there's not enough troops in the area, and it's pointless it doesn't get them anything that they don't have already.
|
>> Do you think it more likely the US is looking at one of more of
>> the islands?
Currently not configured or capable of doing so. Whatever they are doing, they better get on with it, they are running low on ordnance, very expensive slow to replace ordnance.
|
Occupying the islands around Hormuz would be under 24x7 threat so potentially very difficult to defend from an enemy only a few miles away. There would be casualties and losses.
It would also make little difference to the Iranian threat. They clearly have missiles and drones with a range that can easily target any shipping in the Gulf from anywhere along their coastline.
|
I'm not sure that Trump's rationale for whatever it is includes any kind of sense.
I heard one of the "loyal" generals talking about inspiring the rebels to revolt with more attacks on the leadership. Utter fantasy.
|
x.com/DefenceGeek/status/2080921821658894739
Something is happening, nearly 200 tankers in the region.
|
>> x.com/DefenceGeek/status/2080921821658894739
>> Something is happening, nearly 200 tankers in the region.
I am off to Norfolk Sun, be there for a week. Just thrown the Mil Air band scanner in the van, see what happening out of Lakenheath and Mildenhall.
|
>> I'm not sure that Trump's rationale for whatever it is includes any kind of sense. >>
The words 'Trump' and 'rationale' do not belong together !
Last edited by: Andrew-T on Sun 26 Jul 26 at 09:50
|
It looks very much as if China has told the US that if it starts another big bombing campaign then China will get directly involved on the side of Iran.
There is no way the US has enough Patriots etc. for that. Is this the end of Trump?
|
Trump Vol 4 - smokie