| Non-motoring > Trump Vol 4 | Miscellaneous |
Thread Author: smokie |
Replies: 87 |
|
Tue 28 Apr 26 08:36
Trump Vol 4 - smokie
|
|
Still more on Trump Previous volume HERE 688438 Last edited by: smokie on Tue 28 Apr 26 at 08:39
|
|
Tue 28 Apr 26 12:04
Trump Vol 4 - smokie
|
|
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 |
|
Wed 29 Apr 26 23:53
Trump Vol 4 - henry k
|
|
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. |
|
Wed 29 Apr 26 23:30
Trump Vol 4 - Fullchat
|
| I think its fair to say that King Charles certainly 'owned' (to use a street phrase) Trump today. |
|
Sat 13 Jun 26 18:46
Trump Vol 4 - Zero
|
|
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" |
|
Sat 13 Jun 26 20:00
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
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. |
|
Sat 13 Jun 26 21:43
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Mon 13 Jul 26 19:36
Trump and Hormuz - smokie
|
|
"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. |
|
Mon 13 Jul 26 19:43
Trump and Hormuz - CGNorwich
|
| He is a crook plain and simple. Extortion is just one of his criminal rackets. |
|
Mon 13 Jul 26 21:33
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Mon 13 Jul 26 22:25
Trump and Hormuz - Fullchat
|
|
" 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. :) |
|
Mon 13 Jul 26 23:17
Trump and Hormuz - Andrew-T
|
| 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. |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 08:17
Trump and Hormuz - Bobby
|
|
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...... |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 08:27
Trump and Hormuz - Zero
|
|
. 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. |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 10:53
Trump and Hormuz - Terry
|
|
>> . 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. |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 09:34
Trump and Hormuz - Duncan
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 10:00
Trump and Hormuz - CGNorwich
|
| How do you rate your own intelligence then ? Am I listening to someone in the top half or below average? |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 11:39
Trump and Hormuz - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> 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? |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 19:33
Trump and Hormuz - Duncan
|
|
>> 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'. |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 19:47
Trump and Hormuz - tyrednemotional
|
| There's no doubt you're an above average pedant though, Duncan. ;-) |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 11:54
Trump and Hormuz - Andrew-T
|
|
>> ... 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 ... |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 12:20
Trump and Hormuz - smokie
|
|
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... :-) |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 12:32
Trump and Hormuz - Robin O'Reliant
|
| Fair enough, he's probably just got back from a morning session in 'Spoons... |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 12:41
Trump and Hormuz - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> 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... ;-) |
|
Tue 14 Jul 26 12:58
Trump and Hormuz - Zero
|
| He's royalty really, just likes to be seen as "one of the people" |
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 10:02
Trump and Hormuz - Duncan
|
|
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. |
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 11:53
Trump and Hormuz - Terry
|
|
>> 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 |
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 12:42
Trump and Hormuz - CGNorwich
|
|
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
|
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 16:11
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
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. |
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 18:55
Trump and Hormuz - CGNorwich
|
|
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 |
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 17:45
Trump and Hormuz - Andrew-T
|
|
>> 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
|
|
Wed 15 Jul 26 17:57
Trump and Hormuz - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> 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. |
|
Thu 16 Jul 26 00:01
Trump and Hormuz - Terry
|
|
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. |
|
Thu 16 Jul 26 08:59
Trump and Hormuz - smokie
|
|
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. |
|
Thu 16 Jul 26 09:38
Trump and Hormuz - Andrew-T
|
| Part of the growing difficulty is that most serious problems are global and can't be managed or controlled by any one government ? |
|
Thu 16 Jul 26 12:14
Trump and Hormuz - Bobby
|
|
>>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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 09:54
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
>>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. |
|
Thu 16 Jul 26 13:16
Trump and Hormuz - Terry
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 10:17
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 11:52
Trump and Hormuz - Terry
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 15:43
Trump and Hormuz - Andrew-T
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 16:27
Trump and Hormuz - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 19:58
Trump and Hormuz - bathtub tom
|
|
>>He is now about the same age as Joe Biden was when he began to fail Trump, started off with a lower intellect. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 16:20
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
>> >> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 13:26
Trump and Hormuz - Zero
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 17 Jul 26 15:51
Trump and Hormuz - Manatee
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Fri 24 Jul 26 20:18
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
|
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. |
|
Fri 24 Jul 26 21:16
Trump Vol 4 - sooty123
|
| 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. |
|
Fri 24 Jul 26 22:40
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
| Do you think it more likely the US is looking at one of more of the islands? |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 08:16
Trump Vol 4 - sooty123
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 08:31
Trump Vol 4 - Zero
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 10:06
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
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. |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 13:03
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
|
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. |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 18:33
Trump Vol 4 - sooty123
|
|
x.com/DefenceGeek/status/2080921821658894739 Something is happening, nearly 200 tankers in the region. |
|
Sat 25 Jul 26 21:50
Trump Vol 4 - Zero
|
|
>> 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. |
|
Sun 26 Jul 26 09:49
Trump Vol 4 - Andrew-T
|
|
>> 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
|
|
Mon 27 Jul 26 15:24
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
|
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? |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 09:20
Trump Vol 4 - tyrednemotional
|
| .....and breathe! |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 09:33
Trump Vol 4 - smokie
|
|
Great result but it seems he retains quite a level of ability to disrupt and take executive decisions, and it's whack a mole if they manage to get rid - the VP takes over. Still it might clip his wings a bit. The new houses doesn't assemble till Jan 3 AIUI I feel they need to revise their constitution to prevent the president having quite so much power but that's unlikely. Last edited by: smokie on Wed 4 Nov 26 at 09:34
|
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 09:49
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I feel they need to revise their constitution to prevent the president having quite so >> much power but that's unlikely. Agree. The Trump presidency has shown the current constitutional 'guardrails' utterly inadequate. However I doubt, even after the midterms, there are the numbers to get an amendment through. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 10:38
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
>> >> I feel they need to revise their constitution to prevent the president having quite >> so >> >> much power but that's unlikely. >> >> Agree. The Trump presidency has shown the current constitutional 'guardrails' utterly inadequate. >> >> However I doubt, even after the midterms, there are the numbers to get an amendment >> through. In the UK if a party or prime minister loses the confidence of the electorate and/or parliament they can be forced out and replaced. The US elects presidents for a fixed 4 year term - in the event of their incapacity or inability there is a process for direct replacement by a vice president. Not convince JD would be a lot better!! Higher "guardrails" risks the country being unable to react to immediate threats - military, economic etc. So it is (sadly in this case) important that the president retains sufficient powers to defend the nation, even if control over budgets and other legislation is constrained. Last edited by: Terry on Wed 4 Nov 26 at 10:39
|
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 11:23
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
|
>> Higher "guardrails" risks the country being unable to react to immediate threats - military, economic >> etc. So it is (sadly in this case) important that the president retains sufficient powers >> to defend the nation, even if control over budgets and other legislation is constrained. They could restrict executive action almost entirely without impeding the ability to react defensively. At the moment pretty much the only thing he can't do unilaterally is make new laws. But he can tell ICE how to enforce immigration policy for example or it seems tell the DoJ who to investigate or prosecute. And lots of non-urgent stuff by declaring emergencies. The guardrails aren't the biggest problem. They anticipate that a President might go off his rocker. What they didn't allow for is all the people who could 25th him being crooks and sycophants. And maybe they need to look at how members of the Supreme Court are appointed. Just pub talk of course, I'm not any kind of expert on constitutional law. The weirdest thing when we compare with say the UK is how, when both House and Senate are majority Democrat, the Republican administration remains in day to day control for another 2 years and a president who has lost legislative control still has executive powers. There will be 2 years of virtual deadlock over funding that comes under congressional control presumably. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 11:40
Trump Vol 4 - smokie
|
|
There was a chart on the Beeb this am which showed that the US has been in this divided government state more often than not over the past 50 something years. Can't find it now on the Beeb but from Copilot Years Status 1981-1987 Reagan (R), Democrats control House 1987-1989 Reagan (R), Democrats control House & Senate 1989-1993 G.H.W. Bush (R), Democrats control House & Senate 1995-2001 Clinton (D), Republicans control Congress 2001-2003 G.W. Bush (R), split control during period 2007-2009 G.W. Bush (R), Democrats control Congress 2011-2015 Obama (D), Republicans control House 2015-2017 Obama (D), Republicans control House & Senate 2019-2021 Trump (R), Democrats control House 2023-2025 Biden (D), Republicans control House (The missing lines were not divided government) Divided government: about 34 years Unified government: about 16 years And then there's Musk - "Musk spent a historic $455m (£337.6m) - at least - to support Republican candidates and conservative causes, according to an analysis of federal campaign disclosures by OpenSecrets.". He said on X ""Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time." Phew. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 13:34
Trump Vol 4 - CGNorwich
|
|
Abdul el Sayed has been subject to vicious abuse from Trump and Vance. The son of Egyptian immigrants, El-Sayed is set to make history as the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. Addressing supporters in his victory speech on Wednesday (4 November), he highlighted the irony of Vance being required to swear him into office in January. “JD, there is this delicious irony in the fact that you’re constitutionally obligated to swear me in in January,” he said. He then delivered a pointed message to Trump: “Donald, I know you struggle with my name, so after JD swears me in in January, you can go on and call me Senator.” |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 13:59
Trump Vol 4 - ChrisM
|
|
"set to make history as the first Muslim elected to the US Senate." Also elected was the first openly gay man to the Senate. Radical lot those Americans. One day they may even have a woman in the White House shock horror! Last edited by: ChrisM on Wed 4 Nov 26 at 14:01
|
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 14:20
Trump Vol 4 - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> One day they may even have a woman in the White House shock horror! >> I think more than one President probably has. ;-) |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 15:42
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
>> They could restrict executive action almost entirely without impeding the ability to react defensively. At the moment pretty much the only thing he can't do unilaterally is make new laws. >> The guardrails aren't the biggest problem. They anticipate that a President might go off his >> rocker. What they didn't allow for is all the people who could 25th him being >> crooks and sycophants. And maybe they need to look at how members of the Supreme >> Court are appointed. Fully agree with this - although the track record of subordinates properly holding the boss to account in business or politics is patchy to say the least whether in the UK, US or anywhere else. >> The weirdest thing when we compare with say the UK is how, when both House >> and Senate are majority Democrat, the Republican administration remains in day to day control for another 2 years and a president who has lost legislative control still has executive powers. Our unwritten constitution has evolved over 1000 years, the US over 200 years. Both comfortably predate smartphones, internet, air travel, satellites, ballistic missiles etc etc etc. They are the product of valued traditions and some necessary changes. The UK in its own way is equally bizarre. King Charles is titular head of the armed forces, and as monarch signs all legislation. Yet he has no real power at all. We have a House of Lords, populated by patronage in which appointees can serve for life - if they bother to turn up at all. Ultimately they have no power - the Commons can force legislation through. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 16:24
Trump Vol 4 - Alanovich
|
|
The Lords have the power to block legislation when they want to. Look at Assisted Dying. That fell because the Lords chose to block it. It's not good enough, there must be democratic reforms to our upper chamber, urgently. There is some merit in appointing competent experts in some fields to the legislature, but that's not what's happening (Boris Johnson's appointments, cough cough) and we can't go on as we are. Those who know me from old will also not be surprised to hear me say we should elect the Head of State, too. And I'm not going to respond to any nonsense mewling about "President Blair", or "rather Charles than Trump". Neither arguments hold water at the slightest glance and I invite anyone of that mind to "do their own research" as the saying goes. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 16:42
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The Lords have the power to block legislation when they want to. Look at Assisted >> Dying. That fell because the Lords chose to block it. Is it that simple? Certainly the Lords delayed it in the previous session and under normal circumstances that would have been fatal for a Private Members Bill. However it fell after being reintroduced in the current session and failed to get a vote in the Commons. Or have I got that round my neck? On the wider point of Upper House and elected Head of State I'm of the view that, starting with a clean sheet of paper you'd never come up with what we have now. But now it's there and relatively settled I'm not sure messing with it is worth the effort an opportunity cost. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 4 Nov 26 at 16:44
|
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 17:25
Trump Vol 4 - Andrew-T
|
|
>> Those who know me from old will not be surprised to hear me say we should elect the Head of State << That would be OK if you could find a way of ensuring suitably intelligent candidates. We would be no better off if we replicated the foolishness of the Johnson>>Truss episode. And would it be for life or a fixed term ? |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 18:21
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
There are major weaknesses in the way UK political regimes operate, and how they relate to and manage the public sector. Seeking to modify current structures to eliminate weaknesses would be a forlorn task. Those in senior positions (even if utterly proficient in their specialist field) only achieve success through single minded ambition. They usually also have the capacity to appear "nice, decent" - it's how they get elected. Qualities needed - sharp elbows, ability to communicate, the strength to manage (ambitious) others, capacity to resist and fight any challenges. They enjoy the privileges and exercise of power. They do not want to lose. They will charm if this will helps - aor be absolutely stubborn. Who was the last UK PM to leave office willingly vs having made a gross mis-judgement or pushed after extensive pressure. Changing political structures (elected HoL, elected leader etc etc) will not change individuals in politics - they will modify behaviours to succeed in the changed environment with weaknesses in becoming apparent over time. One change at a time may be a better strategy than wholesale overhaul whose outcomes would likely expose major unintended consequences. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 17:59
Trump Vol 4 - Bobby
|
|
>>Those who know me from old will also not be surprised to hear me say we should elect the Head of State, too. And I'm not going to respond to any nonsense mewling about "President Blair", or "rather Charles than Trump". Neither arguments hold water at the slightest glance and I invite anyone of that mind to "do their own research" as the saying goes. I am absolutely no fan of the Royal Family but considering that they really don't have any legal oversight of Govt Policies etc, (its all smoke n mirrors and for tradition rather than actual involvement) but I do currently think that better them than basically being open to election whereby we know that the elite rich can pretty much buy whatever they want now.... |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 12:18
Trump Vol 4 - Alanovich
|
|
As I expected, people automatically think that replacing a hereditary monarchy with an elected Head of State means a US or French style Executive President by default. It does not. I would favour an Ireland/Germany/Finland/Iceland model on non-executive elected head of State. It's an entirely different paradigm. It's up to us to choose. Same with the House of Lords. We could engage in a wide ranging public consultation, and put the favoured options before Parliament to decide. Stick with Status Quo and you just get the same chords over and over again. Anyway, Trump is toast now, hopefully. |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 14:09
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> As I expected, people automatically think that replacing a hereditary monarchy with an elected Head >> of State means a US or French style Executive President by default. It does not. >> I would favour an Ireland/Germany/Finland/Iceland model on non-executive elected head of State. It's an entirely >> different paradigm. I was certainly looking at Ireland or Germany as a model. Would that be any better than what we have now to deal with a Constitutional Crisis where, say, the next GE leaves an precarious Commons with no majority and three parties broadly equal in seats in a bitter squabble? I suspect the Counsel of State advising a President would be broadly the same as those advising a Monarch. The Lords broadly works as a Chamber of Experts. The Appointment process needs radical overhaul but trying to replace it with an elected 'Senate' is way too difficult. Brexit is an object lesson in the opportunity cost of constitutional reform. |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 14:17
Trump Vol 4 - Alanovich
|
|
There remains the simple problem that you cannot replace a monarch if they turn out to be undesirable, and they have no particular power other than ensuring their own wealth and influence passes down the generations of one family, so therefore very little point in government. Imagine a King Andrew now. We were one misplaced birth away from that. And imagine a Head of State who could actually hold a rogue PM, like Boris Johnson acting unlawfully umpteen times, to account. How's about that for opportunity cost. And have a look at the list of "Experts" Boris Johnson appointed to the Lords. My God. Let's start with the son of a KGB officer... Last edited by: Alanovich on Thu 5 Nov 26 at 14:19
|
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 15:17
Trump Vol 4 - Duncan
|
|
>> As I expected, people automatically think that replacing a hereditary monarchy with an elected Head >> of State means a US or French style Executive President by default. It does not. >> I would favour an Ireland/Germany/Finland/Iceland model on non-executive elected head of State. It's an entirely >> different paradigm. Or the Swiss system of government, I have been droning on about this for ever. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 15:51
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Or the Swiss system of government, I have been droning on about this for ever. >> >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland I think the UK will be wary of referendums for a very long time.... |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 17:58
Trump Vol 4 - ORB>>>
|
|
Well... I for one am happy that the Swiss have these popular referendums. Why? From this year I will get a "13th" month oh pension in December equivalent to 8,3% of my annual pension. That's on top of the modest annual rise. Of course HMRC will take their share.. |
|
Wed 4 Nov 26 18:31
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
| As long as the HoS is purely ceremonial it might as well be hereditary. Particularly as the institution and all its appurtenances is one of the few remaining things that differentiated us from a banana republic. |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 14:20
Trump Vol 4 - Alanovich
|
|
>> As long as the HoS is purely ceremonial it might as well be hereditary. Particularly >> as the institution and all its appurtenances is one of the few remaining things that >> differentiated us from a banana republic. >> Cool. I'd like some of that action. Where do I apply? |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 14:53
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
|
When we had the session on this at school c. 1967 I think they trotted out the old "the monarchy is not important for any power it holds but for the power it denies to anyone else". I wouldn't put it quite like that but they had a point. The jostling for the job, the old school tie, the surprise rotters - if we favour a ceremonial head of state with nominal powers then how do we choose them? There's a wonderful randomness to the royal family and the succession. If it had been open to nominations it would surely have been Boris Johnson's life's ambition rather than the premiership. There would presumably still have to be a castle or two and one palace at the very least. And there would surely be a clamour to keep the coaches and the horse soldiers for the trooping of this and that. Unless you want a cycling monarch. But I can't imagine that would do much for tourism. Perhaps it could only be improved by true randomness. We could all opt in or out as with organ donation and the names would go into a hat when monarch dies. Actually we could keep one in hand, so there is always one in training, ready to take over. |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 22:53
Trump Vol 4 - Terry
|
|
The UK monarch is wholly ceremonial with no actual power. We have been fortunate that those holding office have performed their monarchial duties largely with dignity and integrity. I accept that, but for an accident of birth, Andrew may have preceded Charles - but both may then have emerged totally different characters. Who knows. I neither envy nor resent the Royals their privileges or inherited wealth. The unavoidable public spotlight is a huge price to pay. The real question - do they add value to UK PLC. Total cost is £100-500m pa depending on what is included and who is estimating - about £2-7 per head - fairly trivial in the grand scheme. Total benefits are harder to estimate. Foreign tourist income generates £32bn pa of which a part is likely related to the monarchy. They can deploy soft power internationally in a way which no other country can. Oscar Wilde - 'A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.' Personal view - support the monarchy in its current form unless evidently damaging. An elected HOS (even one with no power) would risk the corrupt, egotistical etc - a complete non-starter! |
|
Thu 5 Nov 26 23:50
Trump Vol 4 - expat2
|
| If it is not broken don't fix it. The current system works better than a lot of others. |
|
Fri 6 Nov 26 01:45
Trump Vol 4 - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If it is not broken don't fix it. Even if it's slightly broken, in the not working 100% perfectly sense, then something as complex as the UK's arrangements for Head of State is best left to do its stuff. |
|
Fri 6 Nov 26 08:08
Trump Vol 4 - Bobby
|
|
In my job in Land Registration in Scotland its amazing the sheer volume of titled people you come across, Earls, Lords, etc titles passed through generations and generations. Makes me wonder how many there are in total across the country. In many cases the tree often starts at some landowner going back centuries and finishes currently with some "influencer luvvie" friend of the tabloids! |
|
Fri 6 Nov 26 09:18
Trump Vol 4 - Zero
|
|
good ole Trump, you have to laff. There has been a bit of a market correction on Tech/Ai stocks - as there always is Trump posted on Truth Social to the US electorate "The Stock Market crashed today because the Dumocrats had a big Tuesday — So sad to see, you only have yourselves to blame!" |
|
Fri 6 Nov 26 14:19
Trump Vol 4 - Manatee
|
| It's affected other assets but it's the Tech market that's wobbly. The election may well have been a trigger, but everybody knows AI stocks is a bubble that will burst at some point. |
|
Fri 6 Nov 26 10:11
Trump Vol 4 - Andrew-T
|
|
>> In my job in Land Registration in Scotland its amazing the sheer volume of titled people you come across, Earls, Lords, etc titles passed through generations and generations. >> Don't know about Scotland, but there are quite a few in England and probably still some in Ireland. You must blame 1066 for that, when basically all the landed estates were grabbed and handed over to Norman buddies of William. That much hasn't changed an awful lot since, and I believe continues as our class 'system'. Amusingly, in France many 'titles' which have been hidden since 1789 are revived at weddings. We have been to two of those, when families with normally simple surnames suddenly blossom on wedding invitations with ancient baronial names from the distant past. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
