Donald Trump
Comments
-
-
Causes Panic
1 -
Heaven knows why
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
-
Wonder why Trump didn't use Bigmouth Strikes Again?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
I suspect that Trump is going to have rather large bill to pay for continuing to defame Carroll. As Carroll's attroney said, the court's job is to make him stop, referencing that he's not been able to, even as the case was in progress... now he's just making them stick some extra zeros on the end. Would be quite amusing if they put a claim on Mar-A-Lago if he refuses to pay.
0 -
-
After an $83m penalty, and 24 hours silence about it, Trump just can't help himself. I really do wonder if there is anything that will make him stop compounding his crime.
0 -
-
-
It'll be interesting to see what effect Nikki Haley's turning on Trump has (if she doesn't get 'persuaded' to back off) - she's started highlighting his mental capacity and psychopathy, and appears to be using her platform during the primaries to say he's not mentally fit to be President.
0 -
He's barely fit to be considered human
2 -
That has always been the case though, his supporters either don't care or think its all fake news.
0 -
From the comments I've seen, it's more about the floating voters who could sway swing states either way. IIRC, Trump's victory actually hinged on about 70k votes in those swing states. Mind you, how anyone could be 'undecided' about Trump is beyond me.
I think Haley's value might in in triggering Trump into unhinged ranting, as has Fanni Willis and E. Jean Carroll in the courts: he cannot stand to be challenged by any women, let alone those who aren't white. He can easily dismiss Willis as being a Democrat, but he can't do that with Haley.
0 -
The risks for Europe if Trump wins are really a lot higher than Europeans seem to be pricing in.
What do we think is the effect of immediate cessation of Ukrainian AND NATO support?
That is a major headache for Europe and no one seems to be doing anything about it. We have had 8 years to prepare for this.
The cost of peace has risen substantially and no one seems to have realised.
0 -
We have realised but it is out of our hands for decision making, and budgets for action.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If there’s a political will there is a way. I’d argue there is no political will, nor any political drive at govt level to articulate the argument to the public.
Of the 3 big economic markets, US, China and Europe, only Europe has an actual aggressor on their doorstep.
Their military spending is as if there isn’t.
0 -
-
Does Trump's road to the White House become a lot harder if every big arms company turns against Trump?
0 -
The military spending isn't where it has to be to go without the USA as we'd need a 50% (random figure) increase in taxes. That's not going to happen without war being actually declared. Then you'd need the increased manpower...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
In general the election ends up being a bit of a financial arms race, and arms companies are very important donors.
A weakening of NATO, and reduction in military aid would seem to be bad news for them.
0 -
I don't think you extrapolate support for Trump from disapproval of Biden. People are generally disapproving of politicians. The last IPSOS poll I just found shows Sunak have a favourability rating of 22% but Starmer's is only 30% so some of those numbers for Biden look pretty good in comparison.
0 -
They are historically bad for a sitting president. Worse even than Trump's when he was in. But these are odd times, and I suspect there will be a relatively low Republican turn out and a comparatively higher anyone but Trump turnout.
0 -
US spends 12% of their budget on defence but they are all over the world. So if European states integrated their resources I reckon we could hold off Russia without too much extra spending (ie a couple of %)
My very amateur analysis is based upon the assumption that Russia would struggle to reach the Channel if totally unopposed.
I can see Trump's point of why should American taxpayers stump up to protect western europe
0 -
nato was created to provide a multinational military force that would prevent the ussr picking off western european states one by one
the usa gained influence, political/commercial, a huge market for it's weaponry, together with intelligence and military bases, including early the warning systems that might help the usa by giving it more time to react in the event of first strike by the ussr, but were no use this side of the pond
imo uk/europe tended to freeload on this over time, especially the germans (long after the post-wwii resistance to rearming ceased to be sensible), but the usa gained a lot too and still enjoys significant benefits
uk/europe has also tended to support the usa globally in it's various military (mis)adventures, it's still going on
trump doesn't understand history or partnership
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Does Russia have any interest in western Europe?
0 -
Spaffer Johnson might have some info on that.
0 -
My guess is you've underestimated US involvement in Europe but I'll take 2% for the sake of discussion.
Are you happy with the UK borrowing an extra 2% of GDP to bolster defence? Let's face it, finances are strapped.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
