Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[Purple Train]

Way better with the economy? Not sure who would believe that tripe, that's for sure.

You'd have to have been living on Mars to believe that Trump is "the same" as all the other politicians!

Exactly! The trouble is that, according to my US acquaintances, that is a widely-held point of view Stateside. How, I don't know!

 

[najaB]

Exactly! The trouble is that, according to my US acquaintances, that is a widely-held point of view Stateside. How, I don't know!

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Inflation was lower when Trump was in office, and got higher when he left office, so clearly he was responsible. I mean, he's a multi-billionaire* so must be good at business**.

*According to himself.
** Who went bankrupt running a casino.

 

[birchesgreen]

Heh oh dear

Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

The Joe Biden White House rebuked the former president’s comments as ‘appalling and unhinged’

www.theguardian.com

Seeking a second presidency as the Republicans’ presumptive 2024 White House nominee, Donald Trump has said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations.

The White House described the remarks as “appalling and unhinged”. Trump made the statement on Saturday during a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, ahead of the state’s Republican presidential preference primary on 24 February.

The former president has voiced misgivings about aid to Ukraine as it defends itself from the invasion launched by Russia in February 2022 – as well as to the existence of Nato, the 31-nation alliance which the US has committed to defending when necessary.

On Saturday, Trump claimed that during an unspecified Nato meeting he told a fellow head of state that the US under his leadership would not defend any countries who were “delinquent”.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, adding “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’”

“No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

 

[dgl]

Heh oh dear

Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

The Joe Biden White House rebuked the former president’s comments as ‘appalling and unhinged’

www.theguardian.com

You've got to pay your bills!?!?!? Coming from Trump who's known for being a great bill payer isn't he?
I bet a lot of his creditors would like him to heed his own advice.

 

[birchesgreen]

You've got to pay your bills!?!?!? Coming from Trump who's known for being a great bill payer isn't he?
I bet a lot of his creditors would like him to heed his own advice.

Bill paying is for the little people not important people like Trump and Musk.

 

[Silenos]

Heh oh dear

Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

The Joe Biden White House rebuked the former president’s comments as ‘appalling and unhinged’

www.theguardian.com

Entirely consistent with Trump’s transactional approach, and with the bullying attitude to anyone seen as weaker that so resonates with his supporters. He truly would have made a great Mafia Don.

 

[jon0844]

Entirely consistent with Trump’s transactional approach, and with the bullying attitude to anyone seen as weaker that so resonates with his supporters. He truly would have made a great Mafia Don.

He has effectively been a mafia leader for decades. That's how he gets people to support him and work for him. People say how much they hate him, but support him in public out of fear - in the case of Trump, fear from his loyal followers.

Republicans are terrified of their own people, not the left.

 

[Chingy]

Putin must be ecstatic with the very real prospect of a Trump presidency 2. European leaders probably feeling the exact opposite.

 

[Bantamzen]

Entirely consistent with Trump’s transactional approach, and with the bullying attitude to anyone seen as weaker that so resonates with his supporters. He truly would have made a great Mafia Don.

A Don? Nah, he's a coward and wouldn't last a week without being wacked. He'd have been some rat that cozied himself up to them, until he got wacked of course...

 

[dgl]

I wonder if Trump needs reminding that we have nukes too.
As for Trump in the mafia, your supposed to be scared of a mafia boss not laugh at them!

 

[Busaholic]

Is it too late to amend the amendment to the American Constitution and prevent anyone who has served one term as President standing again more than once? It strikes me as totally illogical that a two-term President like Obama is never allowed to stand again but Trump is allowed a third attempt, which anyone with a brain and any concern for the welfare of the world would foresee disastrous consequences should he win.

 

[najaB]

Is it too late to amend the amendment to the American Constitution and prevent anyone who has served one term as President standing again more than once?

The Equal Rights Amendment hasn't been ratified yet, so good luck on getting something so contentious through.

 

[Silenos]

I wonder if Trump needs reminding that we have nukes too.

Errm - but we can’t use them without an OK from the Americans. They aren’t really independent.

 

[Busaholic]

The Equal Rights Amendment hasn't been ratified yet, so good luck on getting something so contentious through.

I'm sure there's no chance of this idea being implemented in my lifetime, just pointing out the illogicality of someone like Obama never being allowed to stand again, which many American Democrats are calling for, yet Trump seems able to bulldoze his way through. I now think Trump's arrest and immediate detention in secure conditions on the grounds of treason may be the only thing preventing him seizing power one way or the other.

 

[najaB]

Errm - but we can’t use them without an OK from the Americans. They aren’t really independent.

Annoyingly, the warheads are ours to do with as we please, it's the missiles that we depend on the Americans for, since they are a shared pool.

That said, they can't actually stop us from launching them, they would just be quite miffed about it.

I'm sure there's no chance of this idea being implemented in my lifetime, just pointing out the illogicality of someone like Obama never being allowed to stand again, which many American Democrats are calling for, yet Trump seems able to bulldoze his way through.

Something that might have some chance of being ratified is changing the 22nd Amendment so that it prevents more than two *consecutive* terms.

 

[JamesT]

I'm sure there's no chance of this idea being implemented in my lifetime, just pointing out the illogicality of someone like Obama never being allowed to stand again, which many American Democrats are calling for, yet Trump seems able to bulldoze his way through. I now think Trump's arrest and immediate detention in secure conditions on the grounds of treason may be the only thing preventing him seizing power one way or the other.

Obama had 8 years in charge, was that not long enough? Are there really people calling for the revocation of the term limits?
Though if they think they need him back in order to win, that suggests a paucity of talent amongst the party.
The only thing Trump is bulldozing through at the moment is Republican primaries. Which just suggests that he’s very popular amongst a section of the US population.
As the writer HL Mencken put it - “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Something that might have some chance of being ratified is changing the 22nd Amendment so that it prevents more than two *consecutive* terms.

Consecutive term limits is the system Russia uses. I’m sure you can agree that’s led to a far worse outcome than a total term limit.

 

[najaB]

Consecutive term limits is the system Russia uses. I’m sure you can agree that’s led to a far worse outcome than a total term limit.

Yeah, but that's Putin for you.

 

[brad465]

Consecutive term limits is the system Russia uses. I’m sure you can agree that’s led to a far worse outcome than a total term limit.

Was using, if it was honoured Putin would not be running this year, as he's served 2 consecutive terms since 2012.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The only thing that might stop Trump is if the Democrats wise up and ship Biden out otherwise its a done deal and the world will be entering a dark age again

 

[JamesT]

Was using, if it was honoured Putin would not be running this year, as he's served 2 consecutive terms since 2012.

Ah yes, there was a referendum on amending the Russian constitution to change it to a maximum of two terms like the US system in 2020. However it also reset back to zero anyone who had previously held the post, so Putin will be running for his first term this year.

 

[gg1]

The only thing that might stop Trump is if the Democrats wise up and ship Biden out otherwise its a done deal and the world will be entering a dark age again

I highly doubt he'll win, to do so he needs to convince people in the centre (by US standards, so centre right in most of Europe) who voted for Biden in 2020 to switch to him, I can't see any of his antics achieving that. Bear in mind that, as with the Tories in Britain, Republican support increase amongst older age bands so Trump will have lost more voters to old age than Biden, similarly 18-21 year old first time voters will be predominantly Democrat.

Biden's biggest threat is Trump being banned from running and the Republicans then nominating someone more eloquent and without anywhere near as many skeletons in their closet. They wouldn't necessarily need to have more moderate, sensible polices, someone like DeSantis (who I once saw aptly described as "Trump without the stupid") is every bit as right wing as Trump but would IMO stand a much better chance of winning.

 

[sor]

someone like DeSantis (who I once saw aptly described as "Trump without the stupid") is every bit as right wing as Trump but would IMO stand a much better chance of winning.

I thought that too, until he actually tried campaigning on a national level. I consider myself a charisma blackhole and yet I'm positively Johnsonian compared to DeSantis. The competency angle is marred somewhat by his attempts to go up against one of (if not the) biggest employers in his state, one with a very well funded legal team, just because they said LGBT people weren't evil

 

[DC1989]

Wouldn't be surprised if Poland, South Korea and Japan begin working on making their own nukes

 

[ainsworth74]

Annoyingly, the warheads are ours to do with as we please, it's the missiles that we depend on the Americans for, since they are a shared pool.

That said, they can't actually stop us from launching them, they would just be quite miffed about it.

Quite. If Rishi woke up tomorrow and decided that he'd had quite enough of those pesky Luxembourgers so ordered the Royal Navy to delete Luxembourg from the map then there's very little that could be done to stop him.* Certainly the United States couldn't do it. The issue is more if Biden woke up tomorrow and decided to cancel the US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which underpins the sharing of Trident missiles then we'd cease to be able to use the missiles we have on hand as they came due to for maintenance. Therefore we'd either have to strike out on our own at that point or give up on being a credible nuclear state. That's the power that the US actually has over the independence of the deterrent but operationally it's independent.

*The old "Mad PM orders a nuclear strike" issue hasn't ever really been considered in our nuclear policy making to my knowledge. The suggestion I've heard is that if a PM ordered a nuclear strike which was manifestly without merit (i.e. the UK was not under nuclear attack or the direct risk of invasion) is that the matter would be sidestepped by relying on the PM not actually being the chain of command (in the way that a US President is) as they are not actually the commander in chief.

Wouldn't be surprised if Poland, South Korea and Japan begin working on making their own nukes

Add Saudi and Taiwan to that list. But yes that's the real risk of the foreign policy being pursued by those within the United States who advocate disengagement. It will act as fuel to the nuclear proliferation fire if various US allies feel that they cannot rely on the US to support them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Quite. If Rishi woke up tomorrow and decided that he'd had quite enough of those pesky Luxembourgers so ordered the Royal Navy to delete Luxembourg from the map then there's very little that could be done to stop him.* Certainly the United States couldn't do it. The issue is more if Biden woke up tomorrow and decided to cancel the US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which underpins the sharing of Trident missiles then we'd cease to be able to use the missiles we have on hand as they came due to for maintenance. Therefore we'd either have to strike out on our own at that point or give up on being a credible nuclear state. That's the power that the US actually has over the independence of the deterrent but operationally it's independent.

*The old "Mad PM orders a nuclear strike" issue hasn't ever really been considered in our nuclear policy making to my knowledge. The suggestion I've heard is that if a PM ordered a nuclear strike which was manifestly without merit (i.e. the UK was not under nuclear attack or the direct risk of invasion) is that the matter would be sidestepped by relying on the PM not actually being the chain of command (in the way that a US President is) as they are not actually the commander in chief.


Add Saudi and Taiwan to that list. But yes that's the real risk of the foreign policy being pursued by those within the United States who advocate disengagement. It will act as fuel to the nuclear proliferation fire if various US allies feel that they cannot rely on the US to support them.

Be delighted if Yanks cut us off then we can stop pretending that we need to be a big player. There are more pressing uses fir the money saved.

 

[najaB]

The issue is more if Biden woke up tomorrow and decided to cancel the US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which underpins the sharing of Trident missiles then we'd cease to be able to use the missiles we have on hand as they came due to for maintenance.

Though, that does bring up the question of how much knowledge-sharing has occurred over the last fifty-something years? Would we be able to maintain the missiles independently, in much the same way that Iran still flies F-14s and other pre-revolution tech.

 

[JamesT]

Quite. If Rishi woke up tomorrow and decided that he'd had quite enough of those pesky Luxembourgers so ordered the Royal Navy to delete Luxembourg from the map then there's very little that could be done to stop him.* Certainly the United States couldn't do it. The issue is more if Biden woke up tomorrow and decided to cancel the US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement which underpins the sharing of Trident missiles then we'd cease to be able to use the missiles we have on hand as they came due to for maintenance. Therefore we'd either have to strike out on our own at that point or give up on being a credible nuclear state. That's the power that the US actually has over the independence of the deterrent but operationally it's independent.

*The old "Mad PM orders a nuclear strike" issue hasn't ever really been considered in our nuclear policy making to my knowledge. The suggestion I've heard is that if a PM ordered a nuclear strike which was manifestly without merit (i.e. the UK was not under nuclear attack or the direct risk of invasion) is that the matter would be sidestepped by relying on the PM not actually being the chain of command (in the way that a US President is) as they are not actually the commander in chief.

I would expect somewhere along the line someone in the military would refuse such an order if the PM tried giving it, regardless of his status. Ultimately it's the captain on the sub that decides to launch.

 

[brad465]

Ah yes, there was a referendum on amending the Russian constitution to change it to a maximum of two terms like the US system in 2020. However it also reset back to zero anyone who had previously held the post, so Putin will be running for his first term this year.

It definitely has the look of helping him cling onto power. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump did try to stay in power for longer if he got back in, but his age will limit that regardless.

 

[ainsworth74]

Be delighted if Yanks cut us off then we can stop pretending that we need to be a big player.

Not sure the US reneging on that agreement would change anything in that regard!

Though, that does bring up the question of how much knowledge-sharing has occurred over the last fifty-something years? Would we be able to maintain the missiles independently, in much the same way that Iran still flies F-14s and other pre-revolution tech.

I think it becomes a question of willingness. If the US declined to renew the agreement (it's up for renewal this year in fact) then we would be faced with the decision as to whether we wished to maintain the missiles on our own or not. I think we could do it but the costs would be significant compared to the present sharing arrangement where we piggyback off the US. For instance France spends in the region of 12.5% of it's defence budget on maintaining the nuclear deterrent (though they do maintain a limited air launched capability which we ditched in the 1990s) whilst we spend in the region of 6% of our defence budget on the nuclear deterrent. We were to have to pick up the full costs of maintaining and modernising the Trident missiles you can assume that the costs would increase to more in line with France (if not more seeing as they have a well established missile programme!). With consequent implications for our wider defence posture.

Of course we could always try and form a partnership with France and see if they'd let us be involved in the M51 missile programme and piggback off the French instead. I'm sure that wouldn't cause ructions within the Tory Party

I would expect somewhere along the line someone in the military would refuse such an order if the PM tried giving it, regardless of his status. Ultimately it's the captain on the sub that decides to launch.

Probably? It's a safer bet within our system anyway than the US system that someone will refuse and that will put a stop to it as there's that fig leaf to hide behind that the PM isn't the Commander in Chief. It's harder in the US system where firstly the President is the boss, can easily fire people in the chain of command who refuse the order in the hopes that their deputies will follow through and, beyond the top level or so of the leadership the entire system is designed and the people running it trained not to question the order to fire.

 

[Gloster]

I would expect somewhere along the line someone in the military would refuse such an order if the PM tried giving it, regardless of his status. Ultimately it's the captain on the sub that decides to launch.

Probably? It's a safer bet within our system anyway than the US system that someone will refuse and that will put a stop to it as there's that fig leaf to hide behind that the PM isn't the Commander in Chief. It's harder in the US system where firstly the President is the boss, can easily fire people in the chain of command who refuse the order in the hopes that their deputies will follow through and, beyond the top level or so of the leadership the entire system is designed and the people running it trained not to question the order to fire.

This is beginning to sound like an old episode of Yes, Prime Minister. That was forty years ago and we still don’t know what we are doing.