Donald I, emperor of the world.

[briantrumpet]

This is what triggered my earlier post - "Man deported to El Salvador will never live in US, says White House".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20xzdxk53no

It's all done to terrorise certain parts of the population into submission or self-deporting. "This could be you!" It also has the benefit of drawing attention away from the cratering of the economy and the increasing likelihood of just about everything going wrong.

It's what happens when you put a mixture of incompetents and fascistic loons (who also hate government doing anything useful) in charge. It's unfortunate that it was also the world's biggest economy and widely trusted ally.

 

[CXRAndy]

All foreign nationals must register, illegal or not


View: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1911086918298947913?t=T-HhYf8yBmL9okzz9fSEkQ&s=19

 

[secretsqirrel]

Some commentators on discussion panels eg BBC Newsnight start on "Trump's just doing what he said he was going to do", but I don't think that's true, not even for areas he did mention.

eg he denied even knowing what Project 2025 was and denied following their plans but my impression is a lot of what he's doing is as proposed by Project 2025.

eg He might have talked about Tariffs but that's a very broad thing and most poeople would have expected use of Tariffs to be as a tool to accomplish specific needs in the interests of other aims he identified eg to bring down cost of living. But using it with ever changing intent, ever changing new rules is in effect just creating instability even for U|S companies and that was never in his election manifesto.

eg Did his election manifesto raise alienating closest US allies or largest US trading partners

etc.

Ian

It is quite stark, where BBC commentators and more specifically those who report on Americast podcast, say those things along the lines of “doing what he said he would do“. Even worse in my view they are apologists for his dishonesty and abuse of power by saying “He is so transactional”, “it’s all about the deal with Trump”, “he doesn’t always mean it literally”. etc……
In contrast during his first term, Americast was presented by the likes of Sopel and Maitlis who would more freely scrutinise the Trump regime, and provide a more valuable critique. Although the BBC is still my main news source, I go to the “News Agents“ and ”The rest is politics”, for some balance.

 

[secretsqirrel]

It's all done to terrorise certain parts of the population into submission or self-deporting. "This could be you!" It also has the benefit of drawing attention away from the cratering of the economy and the increasing likelihood of just about everything going wrong.

It's what happens when you put a mixture of incompetents and fascistic loons (who also hate government doing anything useful) in charge. It's unfortunate that it was also the world's biggest economy and widely trusted ally.

They really are caught in a spiral of distractions and deflections. Hopefully someone over there will realise that they have done nothing to celebrate.

 

[Pblakeney]

It's what happens when you put a mixture of incompetents and fascistic loons (who also hate government doing anything useful) in charge. It's unfortunate that it was also the world's biggest economy and widely trusted ally.

"was" is the key there, and the most disappointing part.

 

[briantrumpet]

"was" is the key there, and the most disappointing part.

If only they'd had a recent example of a country doing something similar.

 

[KingstonGraham]

Some commentators on discussion panels eg BBC Newsnight start on "Trump's just doing what he said he was going to do", but I don't think that's true, not even for areas he did mention.

eg he denied even knowing what Project 2025 was and denied following their plans but my impression is a lot of what he's doing is as proposed by Project 2025.

eg He might have talked about Tariffs but that's a very broad thing and most poeople would have expected use of Tariffs to be as a tool to accomplish specific needs in the interests of other aims he identified eg to bring down cost of living. But using it with ever changing intent, ever changing new rules is in effect just creating instability even for U|S companies and that was never in his election manifesto.

eg Did his election manifesto raise alienating closest US allies or largest US trading partners

etc.

Ian

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VecslyuwXDk



https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/

Would that include building new migrant detention camps?

Trump: We wouldn't have to do very much of that. Because we'll be bringing them out of the country. We're not leaving them in the country. We're bringing them out.

Let’s shift to the economy, sir. You have floated a 10% tariff on all imports, and a more than 60% tariff on Chinese imports. Can I just ask you now: Is that your plan?

Trump: It may be more than that. It may be a derivative of that. A derivative of that. But it will be somebody—look when they come in and they steal our jobs, and they steal our wealth, they steal our country.

When you say more than that, though: You mean maybe more than 10% on all imports?

Trump: More than 10%, yeah. I call it a ring around the country. We have a ring around the country. A reciprocal tax also, in addition to what we said.

 

[briantrumpet]

It is quite stark, where BBC commentators and more specifically those who report on Americast podcast, say those things along the lines of “doing what he said he would do“. Even worse in my view they are apologists for his dishonesty and abuse of power by saying “He is so transactional”, “it’s all about the deal with Trump”, “he doesn’t always mean it literally”. etc……
In contrast during his first term, Americast was presented by the likes of Sopel and Maitlis who would more freely scrutinise the Trump regime, and provide a more valuable critique. Although the BBC is still my main news source, I go to the “News Agents“ and ”The rest is politics”, for some balance.

The BBC seem to have been more heavily self-censoring since Brexit.

 

[Psamathe]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VecslyuwXDk



https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/

In the video he isn't talking about tariffs as he said it's going "force them to pay us" - that's not tariffs as it's US companies that pay tariffs. He also talked about it being reciprocal yet UK was already reciprocal with both US and UK import tariffs being close to the came (little over 3%) and no significant deficit either way.

Ian

 

[icowden]

eg he denied even knowing what Project 2025 was and denied following their plans but my impression is a lot of what he's doing is as proposed by Project 2025.

I can believe he doesn't know what it is, or even care. Remember he doesn't read anything, he just does what he thinks is right based on what his advisors are telling him and what he reads on Fox News etc. Everything he does, he has been carefully massaged into doing this time. The Republicans have had 4 years to learn how to manipulate him and 4 years to plan what they want to do.

eg Did his election manifesto raise alienating closest US allies or largest US trading partners

Of course not, and I doubt he thinks that's what he has done. Remember he has spent his whole life surrounded by "yes" men. He isn't bright enough to do anything himself. He's a puppet. Remember Fred Trump didn't want Donald to inherit his empire originally, he wanted Fred Jr. Fred Jr couldn't step up and died from alcoholism, so he was left with Donald to work with.

 

[Bazzer]

Upping the ante even more. How long before they claim he was a gun-totin', child-raping head of the gang? I so would like these spiteful lying goons to be sued into oblivion. She's even claimed that his children will be better off without him. Evil canute.

View attachment 7951

Unfortunately Bondi and the other MAGAcolytes in government will be covered by immunity for acting in an official capacity. I would expect the rhetoric to increase, if only to try to influence public opinion ahead of Judge Boasberg's and the SC's considerations.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Some commentators on discussion panels eg BBC Newsnight start on "Trump's just doing what he said he was going to do", but I don't think that's true, not even for areas he did mention.

Are you talking about Douglas Murray on Newsnight last night?

He is a great fan of Trump.

 

[KingstonGraham]

In the video he isn't talking about tariffs as he said it's going "force them to pay us" - that's not tariffs as it's US companies that pay tariffs. He also talked about it being reciprocal yet UK was already reciprocal with both US and UK import tariffs being close to the came (little over 3%) and no significant deficit either way.

Ian

So your position is that when he says "I'm going to impose 10% tariffs across the board", you don't believe that's him saying that he's planning to impose 10% tariffs?
And when he says in the Time interview:
"China now is building plants in Mexico to make cars to sell into the United States. And these are the biggest plants anywhere in the world. And that's not going to happen when I'm President, because I will tariff them at 100%."
followed by
"You're considering a 100% tariff on Chinese and Mexican imports? Trump: I didn't say that. They charge us 100%." - that is somehow not an indication that the tariff policy is going to be batshit crazy and all over the place?

A lot of what he is doing people are surprised by because they assumed that he didn't mean it. It's not that he didn't say he would do it, it's just that it's either horrific or crazy or both.

 

[briantrumpet]

Unfortunately Bondi and the other MAGAcolytes in government will be covered by immunity for acting in an official capacity. I would expect the rhetoric to increase, if only to try to influence public opinion ahead of Judge Boasberg's and the SC's considerations.

I've seen somewhere reference to regulations (yeah, I know, how 'old school'!) on pronouncements made by government officials/lawyers, but I realise that there are no standards left for, well, anyone, apart from pleasing/pleasuring Trump.

I suspect Bondi could theoretically be disbarred, as it must violate pretty much every standard (there I go again!) for practising lawyers.

 

[KingstonGraham]

Isn't the "official capacity" card only valid for the president? Of course he can give a pardon, but that relies on him not falling out with you.