Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[hypochondriac]

37 minutes ago, pingpong said:

It also means ihmane khelif can compete as a woman for the rest of her career (in the US at least, she could be banned elsewhere).

In practice, what does it mean for those who have already transitioned, such as musks daughter? Will they be deported as illegal people? Put in prison?

Does it mean everyone will now need to have their gender tested? There are a lot of intersex people who don't know it who could be breaking the law right now. When should that testing be? I reckon 13,14yr old would be most suitable.  I'm sure DT will volunteer to do some inspections himself that way.

 

They will be free to live however they like but will be legally recognised as the biological sex that they are. Nice and simple. I assume you're supportive of banning child abuse? 

Edited November 9 by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If Starmer had said that the money raised from the vat on public schools, the stopping of the winter fuel allowance and the inheritance tax on farmers was all going to be spent on defence, can you imagine the reaction? Badenoch had the brass neck to call Starmer out for not spending on defence in the budget (spoiler alert, he did) yet the armed forces have been under funded by her own party for the last 14 years. 

The armed forces have been underfunded for more than the Tory 14 years.

[skintsaint]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

In terms of the Ukraine war, Trump just wants to stop the financial side of supporting the Ukrainians

I may be wrong, but when the US 'gives' so many billions of $$ to Ukraine, it doesn't send it all in dollars - it gives old equipment to them and then uses a large portion of the $$$ to invest in US arms manufacturing to replace with new stuff for their own military. Its good for the economy. I read this somewhere so might be wrong as said.😅

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

I may be wrong, but when the US 'gives' so many billions of $$ to Ukraine, it doesn't send it all in dollars - it gives old equipment to them and then uses a large portion of the $$$ to invest in US arms manufacturing to replace with new stuff for their own military. Its good for the economy. I read this somewhere so might be wrong as said.😅

Also I expect it is more than in their interests to degrade Russia’s military and project their influence abroad, it’s not like they are donating billions to help Europe out of the kindness of their heart. Obviously Trump has different ideas about what their interests are but I doubt many in congress will want another Soviet Union which is what Putin clearly desires.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

I may be wrong, but when the US 'gives' so many billions of $$ to Ukraine, it doesn't send it all in dollars - it gives old equipment to them and then uses a large portion of the $$$ to invest in US arms manufacturing to replace with new stuff for their own military. Its good for the economy. I read this somewhere so might be wrong as said.😅

This is correct, but facts should have no place in political rhetoric. Producing 155mm shells or rockets for HIMARS keeps people employed in US armaments factories, but Donnie wants to create an alternative narrative. As John Bolton said recently, Trump has no Foreign Policy, he makes it up on the fly - everything is seen in the prism of local issues, generally immigratipn.

NATO currently requires members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, and most do. ( Mind you, if Luxembourg were to do so, everybody in the country would probably own a tank ).

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Also I expect it is more than in their interests to degrade Russia’s military and project their influence abroad, it’s not like they are donating billions to help Europe out of the kindness of their heart. Obviously Trump has different ideas about what their interests are but I doubt many in congress will want another Soviet Union which is what Putin clearly desires.

Plenty of Republicans are opposed to the level of support given to Ukraine. The idea of Mike Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Lauren Boebart feeling enabled by a Trump presidency is worrying, and not only from an international perspective.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If trump cuts and runs (which of course will not happen), it will take years for any increase in defence spending to be a tangible benefit.

 

Think how the money is spent is probably going to be more important going forward with the way drones are changing how wars are fought. Some of the footage online is nuts, there are drones that cost a few hundred quid taking out brand new multi million pound missile systems, armoured vehicles and tanks. I guess the main reason for the stalemate is the fact that any serious build up of troops is instantly spotted by drones and taken out by drones, missiles or artillery.

The US stopping finding is not good but Ukraine has been fighting with one hand behind their back and there are still cities just a few miles from the Russian border that haven’t been taken. The Russian army has been shown up as a paper tiger, I don’t think it would take a massive effort from Europe to keep them at bay.

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

This is correct, but facts should have no place in political rhetoric. Producing 155mm shells or rockets for HIMARS keeps people employed in US armaments factories, but Donnie wants to create an alternative narrative. As John Bolton said recently, Trump has no Foreign Policy, he makes it up on the fly - everything is seen in the prism of local issues, generally immigratipn.

NATO currently requires members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence, and most do. ( Mind you, if Luxembourg were to do so, everybody in the country would probably own a tank ).

Most is not all....those who don't expect the USA to pay for it. 

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Most is not all....those who don't expect the USA to pay for it. 

Maybe Spain are relying on Poland's spending over 4%.

Unlike European economies, defence is a major integral part of the US economy, it is in their domestic interest to maintain a strong military-industrial manufacturing base, and their overall position is that they are contending on a peer basis with both Russia and China.

Is Trump demanding that Pacific nations increase their defence spending ?

Edited November 9 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

24 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Maybe Spain are relying on Poland's spending over 4%.

Unlike European economies, defence is a major integral part of the US economy, it is in their domestic interest to maintain a strong military-industrial manufacturing base, and their overall position is that they are contending on a peer basis with both Russia and China.

Is Trump demanding that Pacific nations increase their defence spending ?

No idea.

But isn't he just demanding all of NATO front-up to a commitment they made independently? Why should the US tax payer pay for NATO so that (in their view) snobby liberal European elites can look down at the USA whilst expecting the very same country to protect them.

 

[egg]

Trump's view on Ukraine. Predictable:

'A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump says the incoming administration will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine rather than enabling the country to gain back territory occupied by Russia.

Bryan Lanza, a Republican party strategist, told the BBC the Trump administration would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for his version of a "realistic vision for peace".

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said. "Crimea is gone."'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7o

 

[Tamesaint]

11 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The armed forces have been underfunded for more than the Tory 14 years.

Well according to you they are totally crap and wouldn't last a weekend against the Russians. We might as well give up on defence and just plough more money into social services and the NHS. 

[skintsaint]

21 hours ago, egg said:

 

"And if President Zelensky comes to the table and says, well we can only have peace if we have Crimea, he shows to us that he's not serious," he said. "Crimea is gone."'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxrwr078v7o

 

Do Ukraine get to keep Kursk then?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Listening to a Beeb cast where they were asked how they got the result wrong. They had said too close to call, and one said all swing state wins were in the tolerances, just that they went all one way.

One response from Justin Webb was revealing. He wondered if they had obsessed on the issues that were so important to what he called "the chattering class" such as sexism. racism, and transgender rights, which just weren't as important to the electorate.

He later said that the values behind their reporting are not shared by those voting.

The BBC seemed to send a small army across to cover the election. As much as they tried to remain impartial, the sheer amount of coverage makes opinions and tones difficult to hide, and they were very much leaning to Harris.

That podcast opinion was as honest as I've heard. However the tone of the programme still comes across as the values held by the voters being somehow wrong. One later voice using distinction between outcome and "normal" people.

One of them had asked some undecided voters to get in touch. They all voted Trump in the end, but they didn't chase those views, not getting them until after the last show before the election. Too busy finding a spot clear of another media team in a swing state, to set up a pop up studio.

[Tamesaint]

11 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Listening to a Beeb cast where they were asked how they got the result wrong. They had said too close to call, and one said all swing state wins were in the tolerances, just that they went all one way.

One response from Justin Webb was revealing. He wondered if they had obsessed on the issues that were so important to what he called "the chattering class" such as sexism. racism, and transgender rights, which just weren't as important to the electorate.

He later said that the values behind their reporting are not shared by those voting.

The BBC seemed to send a small army across to cover the election. As much as they tried to remain impartial, the sheer amount of coverage makes opinions and tones difficult to hide, and they were very much leaning to Harris.

That podcast opinion was as honest as I've heard. However the tone of the programme still comes across as the values held by the voters being somehow wrong. One later voice using distinction between outcome and "normal" people.

One of them had asked some undecided voters to get in touch. They all voted Trump in the end, but they didn't chase those views, not getting them until after the last show before the election. Too busy finding a spot clear of another media team in a swing state, to set up a pop up studio.

Interesting. 

I think that we had a great example in thus election of confirmation bias. I admit that I was guilty of it and I believe that the BBC was as well. 

[benjii]

Trump appointing some absolute dangers to his administration.

Edited November 13 by benjii

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, benjii said:

Trump appointing some absolute dangers to his administration.

Which ones are you thinking of? 

[Sheaf Saint]

49 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Which ones are you thinking of? 

A Fox News host as Defense Secretary, and a guy who has previously advocated for the total abolition of the FBI and Dept. of Education to join Elon in the new Dept. of Government Efficiency, stick out as particularly 'interesting' picks.

[hypochondriac]

51 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

A Fox News host as Defense Secretary, and a guy who has previously advocated for the total abolition of the FBI and Dept. of Education to join Elon in the new Dept. of Government Efficiency, stick out as particularly 'interesting' picks.

Isn't the defense secretary pick a decorated war veteran? And pretty sure there's a bit more context to Vivek that you are missing out. 

[badgerx16]

Rich guy gives jobs to even richer guys with the intention of working out how to make the rich richer.

[Sheaf Saint]

25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Isn't the defense secretary pick a decorated war veteran? 

If he had been a General then perhaps his appointment wouldn't raise any eyebrows. But he only reached the rank of Major, and without wanting to belittle that achievement in itself, it's not exactly what you would call 'top brass' is it. 

Clearly it's his history of political activism, rather than his military career, that was the dominant factor in his selection.

 

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Rich guy gives jobs to even richer guys with the intention of working out how to make the rich richer.

Personally I'll be interested to see if they can have some success from making government departments more efficient. There's undeniably an obscene amount of waste. I'm an interested observer as I'm not directly affected by thing like their education policy 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Personally I'll be interested to see if they can have some success from making government departments more efficient. There's undeniably an obscene amount of waste. I'm an interested observer as I'm not directly affected by thing like their education policy 

Does austerity ever actually improve efficiency?  

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Personally I'll be interested to see if they can have some success from making government departments more efficient. There's undeniably an obscene amount of waste. I'm an interested observer as I'm not directly affected by thing like their education policy 

'X’ is apparently in a very bad way financially.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Does austerity ever actually improve efficiency?  

No.

( Speaking as an 'efficiency saving' ).

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

'X’ is apparently in a very bad way financially.

Not sure he ever claimed to buy X because it worked financially. Pretty sure he's said consistently that it was a terrible deal. 

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

No.

( Speaking as an 'efficiency saving' ).

Indeed. I'm not sure what "success" Musk can have. Anyone can slash spending, but nobody can slash public spending by $2 tr (or any large margin) and improve anything, let alone efficiency. He's the austerity minister with a more palatable name. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Does austerity ever actually improve efficiency?  

Have you seen some of the things the US government spends money on? Whatever side you are on hopefully everyone can agree that getting rid of some of that isn't a bad thing. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Not sure he ever claimed to buy X because it worked financially. Pretty sure he's said consistently that it was a terrible deal. 

Yep, and that suggests that his commercial judgement is a bit crap. Not ideal given his new job. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Have you seen some of the things the US government spends money on? Whatever side you are on hopefully everyone can agree that getting rid of some of that isn't a bad thing. 

There's waste in all public services worldwide, but saving $2 trillion is not efficiency in the true sense of the word. It's high level austerity. That said, their issue not ours largely, but I suspect one saving will be NATO contributions which impacts us. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep, and that suggests that his commercial judgement is a bit crap. Not ideal given his new job. 

That's only true if he bought it for financial reasons which he didn't. You could also look at his other businesses and say the opposite. 

[Picard]

Elon Musk's costly signalling.

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Picard said:

Elon Musk's costly signalling.

 

 

So Musk spending $130m on Trump's campaign was purely a sign of his honest intentions, and nothing whatsoever to do with buying his way into a position of immense power in the government with what is, to him, just pocket change. OK then.

Not that I'm defending Oprah BTW. Can't stand the woman anyway, and in this case the guy has a point. Ostensibly supporting someone's election campaign while outrageously profiteering from it is really not a good look.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If he had been a General then perhaps his appointment wouldn't raise any eyebrows. But he only reached the rank of Major, and without wanting to belittle that achievement in itself, it's not exactly what you would call 'top brass' is it. 

Clearly it's his history of political activism, rather than his military career, that was the dominant factor in his selection.

 

Word is that even with a GOP majority in the Senate, Trump is already concerned that he might not be confirmed as his first pick due to the top paragraph above with some significant objections from senior Republicans in the security and defence sphere. Also some stirring in the House and Senate against more tariffs. 

Edited November 13 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

7 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

If he had been a General then perhaps his appointment wouldn't raise any eyebrows. But he only reached the rank of Major, and without wanting to belittle that achievement in itself, it's not exactly what you would call 'top brass' is it. 

Clearly it's his history of political activism, rather than his military career, that was the dominant factor in his selection.

 

You're right. It's not like there's ever been lesser qualified individuals or people with a history of political activism hired by an administration before. 

[Sheaf Saint]

13 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You're right. It's not like there's ever been lesser qualified individuals or people with a history of political activism hired by an administration before. 

I have no idea who these people are, so you'll have to be a little clearer about what point you are trying to make.

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I have no idea who these people are, so you'll have to be a little clearer about what point you are trying to make.

exactly

[sadoldgit]

If Trump wasn’t totally fireproof before, he soon will be. The fears are being realised. This is basically going to be a dictatorship for all intent and purposes. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If Trump wasn’t totally fireproof before, he soon will be. The fears are being realised. This is basically going to be a dictatorship for all intent and purposes. 

🤣

[hypochondriac]

31 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I have no idea who these people are, so you'll have to be a little clearer about what point you are trying to make.

The fact you have no idea who they are speaks for itself somewhat. They have both been appointments by the current Democrat administration. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If Trump wasn’t totally fireproof before, he soon will be. The fears are being realised. This is basically going to be a dictatorship for all intent and purposes. 

 

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The fact you have no idea who they are speaks for itself somewhat. They have both been appointments by the current Democrat administration. 

So a non-story then as clearly no one bothered?

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, whelk said:

So a non-story then as clearly no one bothered?

Who said anyone was bothered? I was just challenging the idea that Trump's picks are unique because some appear to have been picked for their activism and political views. 

[badgerx16]

35 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If Trump wasn’t totally fireproof before, he soon will be. The fears are being realised. This is basically going to be a dictatorship for all intent and purposes. 

You do understand the principle of democracy ?

[whelk]

39 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who said anyone was bothered? I was just challenging the idea that Trump's picks are unique because some appear to have been picked for their activism and political views. 

Do you think Gaetz is a good selection?

[Sheaf Saint]

51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who said anyone was bothered? I was just challenging the idea that Trump's picks are unique because some appear to have been picked for their activism and political views. 

Ah, so your post was just pure whataboutery then.

Nobody said anything about Trump's picks being unique - just questionable.

So who are they anyway?

Edited November 14 by Sheaf Saint

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

🤣

Funny? Where are all of the checks and balances? Unless his own party grow a collective pair, which looks unlikely given where we are today, who is going to stop Trump going full Trump?

[sadoldgit]

52 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You do understand the principle of democracy ?

Yes. What has that got to do with an elected head of state doing exactly just what he wants to do now that he is in power? We have already seen what Trump thinks of democracy when he was beaten by Biden previously.

[aintforever]

15 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You're right. It's not like there's ever been lesser qualified individuals or people with a history of political activism hired by an administration before. 

How is Rachel Levine not qualified to be Assistant Secretary for Health?

From Wiki: Levine is a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine, and previously served as the Pennsylvania physician general from 2015 to 2017 and as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health from 2017 to 2021.

Seems quite appropriate to me.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

You do understand the principle of democracy ?

I can confirm he has no idea.

Anyone elected that he doesn't like is a far right Nazi sympathiser that got there by hoodwinking people.