Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, whelk said:

It was a joke!

General Mark Clark's US 5th Army liberated Rome on 4th June 1944. He was mightily pissed off when this event didn't make the front pages of the US press, having been overshadowed by D-Day.

[Weston Super Saint]

47 minutes ago, whelk said:

Impossible country to take. Not many are easy as the Russians are finding out. Italy maybe?

France for sure.

[egg]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

We haven't actually declared war on Russia - you know that right?

Err, yes. I haven't suggested that we have. I'm responding to someone's point that Europe, apparently, would easily beat Russia if there was a war. 

[sadoldgit]

On 01/03/2025 at 10:26, AlexLaw76 said:

You are right.

Net zero projects could be cut to raise more money for Defence 

Will your next user name be ElonMusk69?

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

You're equating, yet again, the surplus and often outdated equipment the west has been supplying Ukraine, with the actual weapons we have in our combined arsenals. If things did actually get hot between Europe and Russia we would have total, unchallenged air superiority for starters.

What's the source for that opinion? I'd like it to be correct, but I've not seen anything to support it. I still recall something, last year perhaps, from a German minister saying that the ammo stocks were depleted and that we couldn't resupply Ukraine and build back our reserves. 

Your view doesn't compare, for example, to articles that open with words like this:

"The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe’s biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces. So bare was the cupboard that last year the British military considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine, an idea that was dropped.

France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield".

I don't know what the truth is, but I'm not sure you know either. 

[aintforever]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Err, yes. I haven't suggested that we have. I'm responding to someone's point that Europe, apparently, would easily beat Russia if there was a war. 

Depends what you mean by beat. You would have to say a committed Europe should easily be able to stop Russia invading. They are three years into a war with Ukraine and still haven’t been able to take Kharkiv which is about as close to the Russian border as Southampton is to Portsmouth. If you have been watching the recent footage you would have noticed that much of their forces now look very different from a year or so ago. You have conscripts turning up in Ladas and things that look like they have been put together by the A Team.

The problem Europe has is the rate at which Russia could re-arm after a cease fire and the fact that they are run by a nut case who happily sends thousands of his own men into a meat-grinder. That is an obvious threat.

 

Edited yesterday at 11:59 by aintforever

[egg]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Will your next user name be ElonMusk69?

SoG, we're spending on defence, and have to shave elsewhere. Nobody would support austerity or tax rises. Unless you can point to other ways of covering the extra, you need to accept that India etc will not get our money. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Depends what you mean by beat. You would have to say a committed Europe should easily be able to stop Russia invading. They are three years into a war with Ukraine and still haven’t been able to take Kharkiv which is about as close to the Russian border as Southampton is to Portsmouth. If you have been watching the recent footage you would have noticed that much of their forces now look very different from a year or so ago. You have conscripts turning up in Ladas and things that look like they have been put together by the A Team.

The problem Europe has is the rate at which Russia could re-arm after a cease fire and the fact that they are run by a nut case who happily sends thousands of his own men into a meat-grinder. That is an obvious threat.

 

I don't know what victory looks like, it wasn't me who said that Europe would easily beat Russia in a war. The constant "we need US support to hold back Russia" mantra from western leaders doesn't suggest that they have that confidence though. 

Your re-arm point is my concern. I suspect Donny will gladly supply us on Donny's terms though. 

 

[sadoldgit]

17 hours ago, egg said:

The other choice is austerity. We're spending on defence, rightly, and given the option of cutting foreign aid or austerity, it must be the former for me. 

But it isn’t austerity is it? As I have said before the money has to be found from elsewhere. Perhaps if Labour spelt out the options and asked the country if we would be prepared to pay another 1p on our taxes they might, on this occasion, support higher taxes?

Again as I have said before, we all want better roads, transport systems, defence capabilities etc but nobody wants to see their taxes go up, but who pays for these things if we don’t?

The tax thresholds are well overdue a review. It could be done without effecting the least well off and putting more of the burden on those who can afford it. I know we hear that any party talking about raising taxes is signing its own death warrant, but until we as a country learn to hear and accept hard truths, we are always going to be held at the behest of the populists, like Farage and the current Tory leader. Starmer doesn’t want to go near taxes or the shambles that is Brexit because he fears the rise of Reform. Reform think that Trump will do a favourable deal with Farage and that is all they have, that and whipping up hate for foreigners. Trump will have Farage for breakfast. 
There are many areas of foreign aid that will come back to bite us in the arse if cut funding. We don’t have grown up discussions about them. All we get is the gullible parroting of shit people read on Musk’s propaganda machine.

[whelk]

Can anyone see the poll results on this thread as to which posters voted? I thought you could see that on polls?

 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Can anyone see the poll results on this thread as to which posters voted? I thought you could see that on polls?

 

I thought the same, but I can't see who's voted either. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

But it isn’t austerity is it?

It is the same thing. Labour are cutting spending on many public services to protect their NHS spending. Just because it isn’t ideological and some workers have had pay rises.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

But it isn’t austerity is it? As I have said before the money has to be found from elsewhere. Perhaps if Labour spelt out the options and asked the country if we would be prepared to pay another 1p on our taxes they might, on this occasion, support higher taxes?

Again as I have said before, we all want better roads, transport systems, defence capabilities etc but nobody wants to see their taxes go up, but who pays for these things if we don’t?

The tax thresholds are well overdue a review. It could be done without effecting the least well off and putting more of the burden on those who can afford it. I know we hear that any party talking about raising taxes is signing its own death warrant, but until we as a country learn to hear and accept hard truths, we are always going to be held at the behest of the populists, like Farage and the current Tory leader. Starmer doesn’t want to go near taxes or the shambles that is Brexit because he fears the rise of Reform. Reform think that Trump will do a favourable deal with Farage and that is all they have, that and whipping up hate for foreigners. Trump will have Farage for breakfast. 
There are many areas of foreign aid that will come back to bite us in the arse if cut funding. We don’t have grown up discussions about them. All we get is the gullible parroting of shit people read on Musk’s propaganda machine.

Slashing government spending is austerity. It leads to reduced public services, job losses, then lower tax revenue, probably a recession. Why should we tolerate that rather than cutting foreign aid? 

You've been asked before where you say cuts should be made and swerved the question.

Let's assume taxes ain't going up and we don't tweak thresholds.

Which areas of public spending do you say should face cuts to keep foreign aid going? Please answer. 

[sadoldgit]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

SoG, we're spending on defence, and have to shave elsewhere. Nobody would support austerity or tax rises. Unless you can point to other ways of covering the extra, you need to accept that India etc will not get our money. 

Why single out India? I know it is an easy win, but I did supply a list of other countries who are really struggling. Don’t forget also that we are still providing aid to Ukraine and the Palestinians.

The other day I read a statement from Ms Dodds that outlined the new measures that Labour were supporting have increased the foreign aid (development) funding after it had been cut under the previous Tory government. It made for interesting reading and I wish I could find the link. Non of this nonsense about condoms and the crap that Musk spouts on about. She sounded really proud to be heading up the programmes and I can see why she felt the need to resign when having the rug pulled from under her feet.

As before, given the current situation I completely agree that we need to increase spending on defence and a decision has been made which we will all live by.

[Lighthouse]

Egg, you’re taking far too many political statements as literal truth. All these European leaders saying we need America’s help to defeat Russia are quite clearly trying to put pressure on Uncle Sam to continue supporting Ukraine as they have historically been our strongest ally, the worlds largest economy and have a truly eye watering defence budget. If Russia was as strong as you’re making out, they’d have steamrollered all of Ukraine in a month, with or without western aid. They haven’t, they’re involved in a slow, grinding war of attrition, throwing North Korean troops and equipment into the meat blender.

[sadoldgit]

Just now, egg said:

Slashing government spending is austerity. It leads to reduced public services, job losses, then lower tax revenue, probably a recession. Why should we tolerate that rather than cutting foreign aid? 

You've been asked before where you say cuts should be made and swerved the question.

Let's assume taxes ain't going up and we don't tweak thresholds.

Which areas of public spending do you say should face cuts to keep foreign aid going? Please answer. 

I would gladly answer if I was an economic expert and had all of the figures of governmental department budgets and spending plans at my fingertips. Sadly I am in no position to answer but as said before, raising taxes in some areas could be an option.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Why single out India? I know it is an easy win, but I did supply a list of other countries who are really struggling. Don’t forget also that we are still providing aid to Ukraine and the Palestinians.

The other day I read a statement from Ms Dodds that outlined the new measures that Labour were supporting have increased the foreign aid (development) funding after it had been cut under the previous Tory government. It made for interesting reading and I wish I could find the link. Non of this nonsense about condoms and the crap that Musk spouts on about. She sounded really proud to be heading up the programmes and I can see why she felt the need to resign when having the rug pulled from under her feet.

As before, given the current situation I completely agree that we need to increase spending on defence and a decision has been made which we will all live by.

Which areas of public spending do you say should face cuts to keep foreign aid going? Please answer. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

I would gladly answer if I was an economic expert and had all of the figures of governmental department budgets and spending plans at my fingertips. Sadly I am in no position to answer but as said before, raising taxes in some areas could be an option.

No way!

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

It is the same thing. Labour are cutting spending on many public services to protect their NHS spending. Just because it isn’t ideological and some workers have had pay rises.

It depends on where the cuts are made, how many are made and how deep they are. In the previous austerity programme wages didn’t move and went down in real terms. Wages are currently going up.

[egg]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

I would gladly answer if I was an economic expert and had all of the figures of governmental department budgets and spending plans at my fingertips. Sadly I am in no position to answer but as said before, raising taxes in some areas could be an option.

That's a poor cop out. Your argument has been to make cuts elsewhere. You've then shifted to tax rises. Then to tax thresholds. You're all over the place.

 

[aintforever]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't know what victory looks like, it wasn't me who said that Europe would easily beat Russia in a war. The constant "we need US support to hold back Russia" mantra from western leaders doesn't suggest that they have that confidence though. 

Your re-arm point is my concern. I suspect Donny will gladly supply us on Donny's terms though. 

 

European leaders are righty worried because at the moment NATO is a massive deterrent, if that collapses and the US cut and run there is not a lot to deter Russia. Doesn’t mean they think we would lose, more that something is much more likely to start, and no one wants that.

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Which areas of public spending do you say should face cuts to keep foreign aid going? Please answer. 

I have responded time and again. You have had my answers and you know full well that I can’t give that kind of detailed answer without being a part of the Government’s cabinet with all of the information at their fingertips.

Why can’t we just agree to disagree. My point stands, the money needs to be found. There are a number of different ways to find it. I expect the LibDems will have a few ideas.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Egg, you’re taking far too many political statements as literal truth. All these European leaders saying we need America’s help to defeat Russia are quite clearly trying to put pressure on Uncle Sam to continue supporting Ukraine as they have historically been our strongest ally, the worlds largest economy and have a truly eye watering defence budget. If Russia was as strong as you’re making out, they’d have steamrollered all of Ukraine in a month, with or without western aid. They haven’t, they’re involved in a slow, grinding war of attrition, throwing North Korean troops and equipment into the meat blender.

You mention me saying that Russia is strong. It's you saying that we are, ditto Europe, but you can't support that opinion. You've mentioned the North Korean support (arms and personnel) as a negative. Getting arms and personnel support is a positive. Where can we look to for similar resources? Europe is limited to Europe, and without universal support within. 

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a poor cop out. Your argument has been to make cuts elsewhere. You've then shifted to tax rises. Then to tax thresholds. You're all over the place.

 

Christ you are starting to sound like the usual suspects again. You are badgering me for answers that I don’t have and neither do you. I have made some suggestions off the top of my head as I am giving you the basic respect of a response. There are plenty of well informed people out there giving plausible suggestions of where the money could come from. I have given an opinion as a layman. If I had more time I would point you in the direction of some proper informed arguments - I suspect Rory Stewart would be a good place to start.

[egg]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

I have responded time and again. You have had my answers and you know full well that I can’t give that kind of detailed answer without being a part of the Government’s cabinet with all of the information at their fingertips.

Why can’t we just agree to disagree. My point stands, the money needs to be found. There are a number of different ways to find it. I expect the LibDems will have a few ideas.

You haven't answered. You've flounced from one suggestion to another.

We agree that if we spend money on aid it must be found. As you're the one supporting that spending, it's on you to say where from, even in broad terms! That's how it works SoG. It won't be taxes, so it's from other areas of spending. That's austerity. Do you want less spent on the NHS? Less on courts? How about reduced welfare? Local authorities perhaps? Those areas cannot afford cuts, you know that. 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

You haven't answered. You've flounced from one suggestion to another.

We agree that if we spend money on aid it must be found. As you're the one supporting that spending, it's on you to say where from, even in broad terms! That's how it works SoG. It won't be taxes, so it's from other areas of spending. That's austerity. Do you want less spent on the NHS? Less on courts? How about reduced welfare? Local authorities perhaps? Those areas cannot afford cuts, you know that. 

 

Easy. It comes from the magic money tree.

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Easy. It comes from the magic money tree.

We could pretend we have Covid again?

 

[Gloucester Saint]

She’s paid a heavy price for not paying attention during the campaign 

‘I knew I was voting against other people’ but did it anyway and it boomeranged. Democrats were far more likely to deliver on IVF. Don’t agree with the online messaging she’s been getting but good chance to invest her payoff in a good education so some positives may still come out of it for her.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Lighthouse]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

You mention me saying that Russia is strong. It's you saying that we are, ditto Europe, but you can't support that opinion. You've mentioned the North Korean support (arms and personnel) as a negative. Getting arms and personnel support is a positive. Where can we look to for similar resources? Europe is limited to Europe, and without universal support within. 

We have 100 Typhoons in service and 35 F35s, with orders for over 100 of the latter. This is basic stuff you can find on Wikipedia but every time it’s pointed out to you, you just ignore it. Russia has nothing that capable and numbers of what it does have airworthy are questionable at best. They’re sending 50 year old Migs into combat with Garmin GPS’ that hikers buy from Amazon taped to their dashboard.

Or navy and army are well trained, modern and well equipped. Our soldiers are professionals, not conscripts scraped together from Dagestan because they’re brown, Muslim, poor and Putin doesn’t want to upset the white middle classes.

[CB Fry]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Err, yes. I haven't suggested that we have. I'm responding to someone's point that Europe, apparently, would easily beat Russia if there was a war. 

......and you're arguing against that based on things said about what we can spare to support defence of against an invasion. A war we aren't "in" and conspicuously not over committing to.

We haven't given Ukraine everything we have. Russia are giving everything and have got hardly anywhere.

But yeah, we wouldn't stand a chance against the unstoppable Russian war machine.

Edited 23 hours ago by CB Fry

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

We have 100 Typhoons in service and 35 F35s, with orders for over 100 of the latter. This is basic stuff you can find on Wikipedia but every time it’s pointed out to you, you just ignore it. Russia has nothing that capable and numbers of what it does have airworthy are questionable at best. They’re sending 50 year old Migs into combat with Garmin GPS’ that hikers buy from Amazon taped to their dashboard.

Or navy and army are well trained, modern and well equipped. Our soldiers are professionals, not conscripts scraped together from Dagestan because they’re brown, Muslim, poor and Putin doesn’t want to upset the white middle classes.

we do have some modern bits of kit and some excellent training.

Europe as a whole does have some power.

However, what it lacks without the USA is a coherent command and control, an appropriate level of sustainability, and should the USA actually pull support, assets like the F35 are not effective at all.

 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

we do have some modern bits of kit and some excellent training.

Europe as a whole does have some power.

However, what it lacks without the USA is a coherent command and control, an appropriate level of sustainability, and should the USA actually pull support, assets like the F35 are not effective at all.

 

Yep. This article touches on the intelligence issue. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/europe-nato-russia-trump-putin-forces-equipment-weapons/

[Tamesaint]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

we do have some modern bits of kit and some excellent training.

Europe as a whole does have some power.

However, what it lacks without the USA is a coherent command and control, an appropriate level of sustainability, and should the USA actually pull support, assets like the F35 are not effective at all.

 

So is it correct to assume that you are  now in favour of a European army? 

[egg]

50 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

......and you're arguing against that based on things said about what we can spare to support defence of against an invasion. A war we aren't "in" and conspicuously not over committing to.

We haven't given Ukraine everything we have. Russia are giving everything and have got hardly anywhere.

But yeah, we wouldn't stand a chance against the unstoppable Russian war machine.

We have conceded that we have see depleted our stocks. We cannot simultaneously have plenty of stocks and depleted stocks. 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

So is it correct to assume that you are  now in favour of a European army? 

No. I am in favour of proper defence spending by all the major powers in Europe, so that we do not have to get the begging bowl out to the USA to sort affairs in our own back yard

 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No. I am in favour of proper defence spending by all the major powers in Europe, so that we do not have to get the begging bowl out to the USA to sort affairs in our own back yard

 

Hypothetically, how would you have expected European powers to have reacted to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, had they held such a capability ?

[CB Fry]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

We have conceded that we have see depleted our stocks. We cannot simultaneously have plenty of stocks and depleted stocks. 

We can, though, have the stocks we have and still be able to take on Russia.

Those two concepts can exist simultaneously quite easily.

[Tamesaint]

19 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No. I am in favour of proper defence spending by all the major powers in Europe, so that we do not have to get the begging bowl out to the USA to sort affairs in our own back yard

 

But surely a European army would provide the coordination of resources and the "coherent  command and control", that your previous post wanted. 

[egg]

30 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

But surely a European army would provide the coordination of resources and the "coherent  command and control", that your previous post wanted. 

Surely we've learned recently that reliance on other nations is not the way to go? We need to be self reliant, as do other nations, but have a commitment to join forces where necessary. A European army is the last thing I would want. 

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Surely we've learned recently that reliance on other nations is not the way to go? We need to be self reliant, as do other nations, but have a commitment to join forces where necessary. A European army is the last thing I would want. 

But if the US allies with Russia surely a European Army would be vital to provide any similar sort of deterrent? NATO would be finished.

There is no point a bunch of small countries all increasing spending and acting on their own.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Hypothetically, how would you have expected European powers to have reacted to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, had they held such a capability ?

Having the capability means we wouldn't be reliant on America and it acts as a deterrant. 

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

Surely we've learned recently that reliance on other nations is not the way to go? We need to be self reliant, as do other nations, but have a commitment to join forces where necessary. A European army is the last thing I would want. 

Agreed. On top of anything else, our interests do not always align with the other countries of Europe as shown by German reluctance to get involved against Russia and the likes of Hungary not agreeing to any of this. 

[badgerx16]

How disrespectful ......

[badgerx16]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/norwegian-fuel-supplier-refuses-u-s-warships-over-ukraine/

"Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.

In a strongly worded statement, the company criticised a televised event involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, referring to it as the “biggest shitshow ever presented live on TV.”

Haltbakk Bunkers praised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his restraint, accusing the U.S. of “putting on a backstabbing TV show” and declaring that the spectacle “made us sick.”

As a result, the company stated: “We have decided to immediately STOP as fuel provider to American forces in Norway and their ships calling Norwegian ports. No Fuel to Americans!” Haltbakk Bunkers also urged Norwegians and Europeans to follow their lead, concluding their statement with the slogan “Slava Ukraina” in support of Ukraine."

[hypochondriac]

Interesting that Mandelson is now calling for Ukraine to announce a ceasefire. 

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Interesting that Mandelson is now calling for Ukraine to announce a ceasefire. 

Pretty sure it's not up to Ukraine - unless I missed the bit where they invaded themselves?

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Pretty sure it's not up to Ukraine - unless I missed the bit where they invaded themselves?

“Ukraine should be first to commit to a ceasefire and defy the Russians to follow”.

Mandelson also calls on European governments, led by the UK and France, to make a major commitment of their forces to Ukraine’s land, airspace and sea, as a deterrent to Putin making future incursions, with - he hopes - the US providing the “ultimate” backstop if all were to go to hell (the backstop being American intelligence, air cover and access to its long range missile tech, I understand).

The close ally of Keir Starmer also urges President Zelenskyy to sign the Trump “commercial” deal assigning mineral and energy rights to the US, to give “the US a stake in Ukraine’s future”.

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed. On top of anything else, our interests do not always align with the other countries of Europe as shown by German reluctance to get involved against Russia and the likes of Hungary not agreeing to any of this. 

Absolutely. The US have shown that partners can be unreliable, and Hungary are about as loyal as Judas. 

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Absolutely. The US have shown that partners can be unreliable, and Hungary are about as loyal as Judas. 

You can add Slovakia to that.

[Gloucester Saint]

7 hours ago, whelk said:

It is the same thing. Labour are cutting spending on many public services to protect their NHS spending. Just because it isn’t ideological and some workers have had pay rises.

Even then trimming 15% off NHS England’s budget as well.