• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
The USA was born on excessive consumption and prosperity .... No one wants to believe climate change because many Americans don’t want to give up everything their country stands for.
Absolutely right, but who are we to criticise? I recently made a comment in another thread expressing concern about people driving short distances to take children to school, on the grounds that such trips waste fuel, whilst simultaneously depriving children of valuable exercise, and also preventing them from learning road sense. (I could have also bemoaned congestion, accident risks etc...)

My comments were met with concerns about being politically incorrect, and then when I tried to defend myself by expressing concern that political correctness often seems to trump (excuse pun) wholesome values, I was then accused of having Daily Mail opinions.

On this basis I have to accept that there are many, many UK citizens whose values really aren't so different from those that you've highlighted about the USA. No one really minds comfortable consumption and prosperity, but the excess of it breeds all manner of problems, and sadly those problems are all too often inflicted upon others, rather than being suffered by those who create them. (Daily Mail type pontification over ... for now ... ;))
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Which is why we (the people) need to keep a close eye on not just what they say they're doing but more importantly on what they are actually doing.

I agree. And I think we're both agreed that the changes the Tories are making to UK election rules are, on balance, bad.

But what you're (correctly) saying is not what thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments do. Generally, when you talk about something being the thin end of a wedge, you're not criticising what the Government are actually doing (or saying). Rather, you're inviting the other person to imagine what the thick end would be... in other words, inviting them to imagine stuff that the Government is actually not doing or saying, and to think how horrible that would be if they were doing that. It can be emotionally compelling, but fundamentally it's a straw man argument - and logically fallacious.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Generally, when you talk about something being the thin end of a wedge, you're not criticising what the Government are actually doing (or saying). Rather, you're inviting the other person to imagine what the thick end would be... in other words, inviting them to imagine stuff that the Government is actually not doing or saying, and to think how horrible that would be if they were doing that. It can be emotionally compelling, but fundamentally it's a straw man argument - and logically fallacious.
It's only a fallacy if there is no malintent. With this government I do not make that assumption. The only thing that I don't know is just how thick the wedge actually is.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
My comments were met with concerns about being politically incorrect, and then when I tried to defend myself by expressing concern that political correctness often seems to trump (excuse pun) wholesome values, I was then accused of having Daily Mail opinions.
For the third time, and despite having already been given a direct clarification, you fail to comprehend that most exponents of political correctness agree with you on the value of reducing fuel consumption and improving childhood health.

On this basis I have to accept that there are many, many UK citizens whose values really aren't so different from those that you've highlighted about the USA. No one really minds comfortable consumption and prosperity, but the excess of it breeds all manner of problems,
These are the people that make road pricing and increased regulation of traffic politically unacceptable, as @JonathanH was trying to tell you in the HS2 thread. Unacceptable, not incorrect. This entire perceived 'attack' on yourself centres on you not understanding the difference between those two concepts.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
258
Location
Birmingham
Presumably by 'extreme individualism', what you mean is simply, 'support for democracy, human rights, and free speech'? Yes?
I think the people of Laos and Vietnam are still waiting for those high values you speak of. Millions of poor people dead in those countries during the US conflicts there in the Cold War period.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Whaaaat? Can you please provide some evidence for that assertion. A mainstream Conservative blog that argues for going back to the pre-1928 situation would do nicely as evidence for example.

But I'm betting you can't provide any evidence because you've just completely made that up. I urge you to consider that, just because the Republicans in the US routinely make up complete falsehoods does not provide justification for you or anyone else to do likewise.
I don't read Conservative blogs, thankfully. Of course it isn't Conservative party policy, but it's embedded in ideas like "a property owning democracy" - and I have been told many times in conversation that the right to vote should be dependent on paying council tax, which amounts to a property ownership or tenancy qualification, which is precisely what was in place before 1928. So perhaps I should have said "some Conservatives". The requirement to produce voter ID is a step on a slippery slope. And while we are talking falsehoods, you need to look no further than the current occupant of 10 Downing Street and his crew to find quite a few!
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
It's only a fallacy if there is no malintent. With this government I do not make that assumption. The only thing that I don't know is just how thick the wedge actually is.
When you hear the Attorney General coming out with 'I'm in favour of juries but ...' (absolutely no pause between those last two words) you know the exact opposite is true. There are no grounds for government intervention (interference would be my choice of word) in the Colston statue court case. Interesting that, apparently, Dominic Lawson was advocating for all political statues to come down in today's Sunday Telegraph (heard review of papers on radio when half asleep this morning.) Combine this with the government's plans to prevent their actions being challenged in the court system and you have the 'in plain sight' aims of this government: no need to join in the conspiracy theories of the even-far-Righter covid loonies.
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
For the third time, and despite having already been given a direct clarification, you fail to comprehend that most exponents of political correctness agree with you on the value of reducing fuel consumption and improving childhood health.

These are the people that make road pricing and increased regulation of traffic politically unacceptable, as @JonathanH was trying to tell you in the HS2 thread. Unacceptable, not incorrect. This entire perceived 'attack' on yourself centres on you not understanding the difference between those two concepts.
Hmm, a clearer explanation than yours might have helped, as would answering my comments with something less offensive than "When you're done with your Daily Mail paint-by-numbers opinion piece...". So let's start again?

The point is that vast numbers of people in the UK drive short distances, but the fact is that the authorities are often too afraid to address this in case it upsets people by threatening their personal freedom to drive. I think this is worthy of a new thread since this is a bit off topic, and maybe I'll start one when I get chance. I'll also try to make myself a bit clearer, and I'll try to understand the responses a bit better. :D
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,688
Location
Devon
The point is that vast numbers of people in the UK drive short distances, but the fact is that the authorities are often too afraid to address this in case it upsets people by threatening their personal freedom to drive. I think this is worthy of a new thread since this is a bit off topic, and maybe I'll start one when I get chance.
It is somewhat off topic but there’s a climate change thread already in existence if you want to move the discussion there:
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Absolutely right, but who are we to criticise? I recently made a comment in another thread expressing concern about people driving short distances to take children to school, on the grounds that such trips waste fuel, whilst simultaneously depriving children of valuable exercise, and also preventing them from learning road sense. (I could have also bemoaned congestion, accident risks etc...)

My comments were met with concerns about being politically incorrect, and then when I tried to defend myself by expressing concern that political correctness often seems to trump (excuse pun) wholesome values, I was then accused of having Daily Mail opinions.

On this basis I have to accept that there are many, many UK citizens whose values really aren't so different from those that you've highlighted about the USA. No one really minds comfortable consumption and prosperity, but the excess of it breeds all manner of problems, and sadly those problems are all too often inflicted upon others, rather than being suffered by those who create them. (Daily Mail type pontification over ... for now ... ;))

We are certainly becoming a nation of self entitled people who think they can, and should, get whatever they want - even at the expense of others.

People are brought up and told 'don't let anyone tell you what you can or can't do' and have perhaps taken it literally. Did anyone remind them about responsibilities, or how their rights can't override the rights of others?
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
It is somewhat off topic but there’s a climate change thread already in existence if you want to move the discussion there:
Thanks for the pointer. I've had a look at that thread and seen those posts that are intended to be funny, and others from climate change sceptics, but I guess that's all part of the way these threads go.
My point isn't so much about whether climate change exists (although that's relevant), I believe in any event that exercise is beneficial, along with other things that the car pushes away from people. I may start a new thread, we'll see ;)
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,642
Location
Croydon
I fear that too, very much in fact, but I also feared when Osama Bin Laden was assassinated that the jihadists would seek vengeance in rage, but it never happened. Now, if he'd been taken captive I think all hell would have broken loose. Certainly if Trump were assassinated bloodbaths would follow in many locations, but to die in his sleep might see significant number of Republican politicians beginning to turn their backs on his tyranny. Of course, his death might well produce outrageous lies about the nature of it, some of them emanating from Moscow. Anyway, regardless, I would be so delighted, however momentarily, if and when it happens.
It is maybe important to avoid the possibility of e martyr. In the case of Trumps natural death I fear there will be many conspiracy theories to drown out the reality.
I saw a programme that showed a Republican saying she didn't believe in democracy but did believe in a republic. I am not sure I fully understand the difference, but I have noticed others seemingly trying to associate democracy as being a 'Democrat' thing and presumably that means a socialist, communist thing in their eyes.

So that's a good first step towards convincing the public the democracy is bad, and that the only solution is the republican party that can deliver a different type of governance.

When you see how divisive Brexit was here, I am sure there are many people who would give up our form of Government in favour of someone like Nigel Farage taking over and imposing strict rules on immigration etc - without realising that once he's finished with them, he'll come after you.
I noticed years ago that all these countries whose names are [country] Peoples Democaratic Republic (or PDR) all seem to be Communist !.
Meet my friend the wedge. Nice and thin, isn't it?
But in the end.... the other end !.
Which is why we (the people) need to keep a close eye on not just what they say they're doing but more importantly on what they are actually doing.
Yes. This is very important. People do need to learn their history and then take an interest in politics. It is all to easy to ignore what one feels is too complicated and does not (yet) effect them anyway.
I agree. And I think we're both agreed that the changes the Tories are making to UK election rules are, on balance, bad.

But what you're (correctly) saying is not what thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments do. Generally, when you talk about something being the thin end of a wedge, you're not criticising what the Government are actually doing (or saying). Rather, you're inviting the other person to imagine what the thick end would be... in other words, inviting them to imagine stuff that the Government is actually not doing or saying, and to think how horrible that would be if they were doing that. It can be emotionally compelling, but fundamentally it's a straw man argument - and logically fallacious.
Yes. Need to identify how thick the wedge is getting before too late.
It's only a fallacy if there is no malintent. With this government I do not make that assumption. The only thing that I don't know is just how thick the wedge actually is.
And how thick said wedge will get before it is too late for people to realise it is a wedge.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I don't read Conservative blogs, thankfully.

Riiiight.... So you don't read Conservative blogs, but you presume to know what lots of Conservative members think?

Of course it isn't Conservative party policy, but it's embedded in ideas like "a property owning democracy"

I've always understood 'property owning democracy' to mean a democracy where most people have the opportunity to own property. Popularised in the Thatcher days when an aim of her Government was to get more people owning property, and motivated by a belief that being able to own your own home and therefore being able to decide yourself on what your home was like (home improvements etc.) was an important part human dignity (Probably also motivated in part by political considerations: People who own their own home were more likely to vote Tory). I'm am *very* confident that it has never in recent times meant anything like, trying to restrict the right to vote to only people who own property.

- and I have been told many times in conversation that the right to vote should be dependent on paying council tax, which amounts to a property ownership or tenancy qualification, which is precisely what was in place before 1928.

Who has told you that? Were they Conservative Party members or just ordinary members of the public? I have to admit I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that.

So perhaps I should have said "some Conservatives". The requirement to produce voter ID is a step on a slippery slope.

Well yes, if you could provide some evidence that the Government has some secret agenda to do lots of bad things that they haven't yet revealed over and above a voter ID requirement, then it would be a slippery slope. As far as I'm aware, no such evidence exists - certainly no-one in this discussion has been able to provide any.

And while we are talking falsehoods, you need to look no further than the current occupant of 10 Downing Street and his crew to find quite a few!

Oh sure. Boris's rather difficult relationship with the truth is very well known. But 'So-and-so does X' is not a just a justification for 'So I can do X too'.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Well yes, if you could provide some evidence that the Government has some secret agenda to do lots of bad things that they haven't yet revealed over and above a voter ID requirement, then it would be a slippery slope. As far as I'm aware, no such evidence exists - certainly no-one in this discussion has been able to provide any.
Though, if such evidence was publicly available it wouldn't, by definition, be a secret agenda.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Let us play "associations"...

The word for flatulance is sometimes referred to as a "trump" or a "fart"

Donald Trump is 75 years of age.

Does that make Donald Trump an "old fart"?

Idea brought to mind by the 1995 comment by Will Carling that the English Rugby Union national body was run by "57 old farts".
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
Trump's latest attempt to get back on social media isn't going well:


In October, Donald Trump announced he was planning to launch a revolutionary technology company.
"I created Truth Social… to stand up to the tyranny of big tech," he said.
"We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter yet your favourite American president has been silenced."
The app launched on Presidents' Day, 21 February, but six weeks later is beset by problems. A waiting list of nearly 1.5 million are unable to use it.

Number 1,419,631​

Truth Social looks a lot like Twitter, a platform that banned Mr Trump after a mob of his supporters attacked the United States Capitol Building.
Twitter believed Donald Trump, by making false claims the election had been "stolen", had incited violence. He was banned for life on 8 January, 2021.
Truth Social might look like Twitter, but it isn't available on Android phones, web browsers or, apparently, to most people outside the US.
"It's been a disaster," Joshua Tucker, director of NYU's Center for Social Media and Politics, said.
And a Republican ally of Mr Trump's, who did not wish to be identified, said: "Nobody seems to know what's going on."
On 21 February, Truth Social was one of the App Store's most downloaded apps - but many who downloaded it were unable to use it.
There was an assumption this problem would soon be resolved and Mr Trump would start posting his "truths" in the coming days - but neither of those things happened.
My attempt to register, this week, was placed at number 1,419,631 on the waiting list.

While YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are among the 10 most downloaded apps, according to Similar Web, Truth Social is outside the top 100.
Users who find their way in can find the app a little empty, as many big voices on the American right have so far stayed away.
Another study found downloads have fallen by as much as 95%.
And many are feeling frustrated.
"Signed up for Truth Social a couple weeks ago and still on a waiting list," one Twitter user said, on Tuesday.
"By the time I'm off the waiting list and on to Truth Social for real, Trump will be President again," joked another.

This picture though is the best bit, which is so Trump:

1649063509763.png
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,488
Location
Kent
Well isn't that a surprise
Isn't what a surprise?
That almost one and a half million want to read Trump's rants and ravings?
That a Trump enterprise doesn't work?
Or that Trump loves anyone other than himself (or claims to)?

'Your not just another number to us' (#2716) - true enough, you are a potential source of revenue!

Also Forbes reports that ...
Two executives working for former President Donald Trump’s social networking site Truth Social have quit their lead roles, Reuters reported Monday, as shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC), the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that has said it plans to take Trump’s company public, dropped more than 10 percent at the market open.

Josh Adams and Billy Boozer, the company’s heads of technology and product development, quit their posts, although the circumstance of their resignations — and whether they have been reassigned to other roles — is unknown, Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with the company.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madeli...reportedly-quit-as-companys-spac-stock-drops/

I've also read somewhere that Roger Stone (pardoned by Trump) has been prevented from contributing to the site.

At last some good news!
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,392
And naturally te kind of people Trump is marketing it too don't want to be shut away on a place with only likeminded folks as there is no one they can talk down, be downright nasty to and belittle.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
Elon Musk has said he would undo T****ps Twitter ban if/when he takes control:
Worst kept secret going I think, and unless Musk has other more credible plans, $44bn is a lot of money to just buy back someone's influence.

Also worth mentioning that, for all our talk about Biden's age, Trump is only slightly younger at nearly 76 (next month), so he may not actually be a round much longer to make Twitter a profitable long term project, if that's what Musk is banking on.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Just for purposes of clarification, what is the actual current USA legal position concerning Donald Trump and the after-effects of the subsequent storming of a state building?

Could he stand for any level of public office again ?
At the moment, yes he could. Even though he was impeached he wasn't convicted by the Senate, which means that that prohibition wouldn't apply.

There are, however, several legal actions working their way through the courts which, if/when he is convicted, would make it politically infeasible for him to run for office.

In addition, the January 6th congressional investigation could find that he supported an insurrection, at which point the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would take effect, which states:
Section 3 Disqualification and Public Debt
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
Interesting news items today about Trump and his actions after he was voted out of office, which lead to multiple deaths. And yet there has been recent talk of him standing for the next election.
How is it that someone whose actions have been proved to lead directly to several deaths, can even be spared jail, let alone standing to run the world's most powerful democracy? I'm genuinely interested to learn if there a reasonable explanation for how this can be allowed to continue ...
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
How is it that someone whose actions have been proved to lead directly to seeral deaths, can even be spared jail, let alone standing to run the world's most powerful democracy? I'm genuinely interested to learn if there a reasonable explanation for how this can be allowed to continue ...

Because US politics have become so polarised, at least as far as those involved in it are concerned, that they have completely lost their sense of right and wrong. If their man does something, he is in the right, and it the other side’s man does something, thence is in the wrong. Full stop. There are no shades of grey any longer: it is an ‘us v. them’ situation. To be one of us your must accept that our leader must always be right, if you don’t, you are one of the enemy. US patriotism has long been rather brash and flag-waving ‘My country right or wrong’ (embarrassingly so to British eyes) and this has taken it to its (il)logical conclusion. My leader represents my country and if it can’t be wrong, nor can he. I suspect that there is still a large, silent majority watching things with horror, but things have become so poisonous that they dare not speak or propound moderate ideas as they fear that the raving nutters will set on them. (This is my opinion. I have never been further west than Tralee.)
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Because US politics have become so polarised, at least as far as those involved in it are concerned, that they have completely lost their sense of right and wrong. If their man does something, he is in the right, and it the other side’s man does something, thence is in the wrong. Full stop. There are no shades of grey any longer: it is an ‘us v. them’ situation. To be one of us your must accept that our leader must always be right, if you don’t, you are one of the enemy. US patriotism has long been rather brash and flag-waving ‘My country right or wrong’ (embarrassingly so to British eyes) and this has taken it to its (il)logical conclusion. My leader represents my country and if it can’t be wrong, nor can he. I suspect that there is still a large, silent majority watching things with horror, but things have become so poisonous that they dare not speak or propound moderate ideas as they fear that the raving nutters will set on them. (This is my opinion. I have never been further west than Tralee.)
Your posting above reminded me of Pete Seegar singing the verses of the song "What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine" very many years ago.

Maybe YouTube might still have it.
 

Top