Cable Forum
Page 11 of 21 « First 78910 11 12131415 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   President Trump 2.0 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712850)

Hugh 05-02-2025 08:48
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cia...ts-2025-02-05/

Quote:
The Central Intelligence Agency offered buyouts to its entire workforce Tuesday, citing an aim to bring the agency in line with U.S. President Donald Trump's priorities, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

A CIA spokesperson said in a statement the moves were meant to align the agency with the goals of new CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

"Director Ratcliffe is moving swiftly to ensure the CIA workforce is responsive to the Administration's national security priorities. These moves are part of a holistic strategy to infuse the Agency with renewed energy," a CIA spokesperson said in a statement.

ianch99 05-02-2025 14:12
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36190703)
What normally happens in these situations is that the best and most able employees take the money (if it is there) and walk into a new job. The remaining, collectively less able, workforce then have to work harder to take up the slack which in turn leads to further attrition and a poorer service overall.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36190686)
Now he wants to "take over" Gaza.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clyn05y9x2xt
He's probably done a deal with Bibi. Remember that the slogan: "From the river to the sea", it applies very much to the Likud Party currently in power plus the religious extremists partners in the coalition.

A number of the Ultra-Zionist Israelis very much want the Arabs gone from Gaza in the same way they view the West Bank.

Hugh 05-02-2025 17:57
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://wapo.st/4aJaKvP

Quote:
A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to curb birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors, a decision that is likely to mean the executive order will not take effect as planned later this month.

U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary injunction after a court hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, in a lawsuit brought by civil rights groups aiming at stopping Trump’s order on the grounds that it violates the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

The injunction applies nationally and will remain in place as the case is adjudicated. The Maryland lawsuit is one of at least six federal cases brought against Trump’s order by a total of 22 Democratic-led states and more than a half-dozen civil rights groups.

Hom3r 05-02-2025 21:21
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
So Trump has become Transphobic?

Chris 05-02-2025 22:12
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36190751)
So Trump has become Transphobic?
There’s nothing transphobic about believing in fair opportunities for women and girls.

‘Transwomen’ are men, and have no place in women’s sports. It’s unfair. Simple as that really.

And ‘-phobic’ isn’t an argument for or against anything, the suffix is bandied about as a means of shutting down debate. Trans activists have been especially keen on there being no debate because their proposition is absurd.

Paul 06-02-2025 00:39
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36190751)
So Trump has become Transphobic?
Only if he has "an extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to, something." in this case "Trans".

Chris 06-02-2025 14:57
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
I’d be interested to hear the views of some of our left-leaning posters in response to this tweet by J K Rowling, who is politically on the centre-left but who is also a gender-critical campaigner for women’s rights.

I’ve heard others describe this as an ‘80-20’ issue - i.e. the vast majority of the ordinary voting public think it’s obvious common sense, and yet the activist left has decided that somehow, the defining human rights issue of our time is that of men (who claim to be women) to access female-only spaces. The US Democrats are continuing to shred themselves over this very issue.

I’m no fan of Donald Trump and I applaud this latest executive order because it is good, and overdue, and on the basis that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I heartily dislike the way he has been able to whitewash his deserved reputation as a womaniser with a PR win his opponents have handed him on a plate. As others have noted, money can’t buy photo ops like this one.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1738853698

pip08456 06-02-2025 16:53
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36190775)
I’d be interested to hear the views of some of our left-leaning posters in response to this tweet by J K Rowling, who is politically on the centre-left but who is also a gender-critical campaigner for women’s rights.

I’ve heard others describe this as an ‘80-20’ issue - i.e. the vast majority of the ordinary voting public think it’s obvious common sense, and yet the activist left has decided that somehow, the defining human rights issue of our time is that of men (who claim to be women) to access female-only spaces. The US Democrats are continuing to shred themselves over this very issue.

I’m no fan of Donald Trump and I applaud this latest executive order because it is good, and overdue, and on the basis that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I heartily dislike the way he has been able to whitewash his deserved reputation as a womaniser with a PR win his opponents have handed him on a plate. As others have noted, money can’t buy photo ops like this one.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1738853698
Both Trump and JKR are 100% right. A trans woman is a man full stop. They may want to think otherwise but biology cannot be changed. A man is a man and a woman is a woman, not amout of arguing can change that.

Itshim 06-02-2025 17:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36190781)
Both Trump and JKR are 100% right. A trans woman is a man full stop. They may want to think otherwise but biology cannot be changed. A man is a man and a woman is a woman, not amout of arguing can change that.
:D:D:D

Kursk 06-02-2025 17:54
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36190775)
I applaud this latest executive order because it is good, and overdue
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36190781)
A trans woman is a man full stop.
:tu:

Gis a kiss lads :kiss:

Pierre 06-02-2025 22:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
He’s very evil and a threat to the entire world……except for this bit…and other bits he has and has not yet done.

Some stuff he does may be good……..

But don’t forget, deep down he is a self centred, misogynistic, Orange dictator, who only cares about himself……….apart from this this stuff…………..but that does not in any way absolve him from being a self centred, misogynistic, Orange dictator.

Look, for the avoidance of doubt, we like some of the stuff he’s doing……but ultimately he’s the devil incarnate, apart from the bits we like.

I hope that’s clear.

Chris 07-02-2025 00:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
A truth spoken by a liar is still a truth. Sorry if that’s a bit too much nuance. :shrug:

1andrew1 07-02-2025 11:30
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Not sure why it (women's sports eligibility requirements) takes an executive order to do this kind of thing. Surely it wouldn't have any difficulties in passing Congress?

Chris 07-02-2025 12:30
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36190824)
Not sure why it (women's sports eligibility requirements) takes an executive order to do this kind of thing. Surely it wouldn't have any difficulties in passing Congress?
Apart from Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ PR strategy, the key to the hurry on this particular issue it seems to be the largely unnoticed provisions in clause 4, which bans the immigration service from giving entry visas to foreign male competitors intending to compete in female categories in any sport on US soil, up to and including the LA Olympics in 2028. They seem to intend to force the IOC to man up (pardon the pun) and reinstate sex testing rather than fudging it and passing the buck to sports governing bodies, and to do so before everyone gets too far down the road towards qualification and team selection for the next Games. Getting that out there now ensures any legal blowback will have been settled beforehand. On this issue, the administration genuinely seems to believe it is doing something for women’s rights across the whole western world where this genderist nonsense has taken hold, rather than just within the USA. Though it’s important to note that this rule would also exclude males with disorders of sexual development, such as 46,XY DSD from slipping into female categories. There is more than enough evidence now in the public domain to say that the Algerian boxer, Imane Khelif, is a biological male with 46, XY DSD. While that doesn’t make him transgender in any sense, it was nevertheless unfair for him to be allowed to box women, and under a simple sex testing regime managed by the IOC that would never have happened.

With regards to primary legislation, from what I understand it, an EO is just quicker, and while it’s reversible by a future president, the Trump admin seems to believe that it’s such a widely-supported issue it’s unlikely to be rolled back. I mean, you saw the photo (and presumably the TV footage that went with it). Presented as it was, who’s going to make an active argument against protecting women and girls from male advantage in sports? Any future Dem administration that proposes rolling this back will have that thrown right at them, and rightly so. It’s a scandal that boys and men, regardless of how they feel about themselves or their identity, have been indulged in this way and allowed to use their biological advantages against women and girls.

All that said, I have also seen some GOP politicians suggesting they might like to follow this up with legislation at some point.

1andrew1 07-02-2025 14:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36190825)
All that said, I have also seen some GOP politicians suggesting they might like to follow this up with legislation at some point.
I'll stick my neck out and say that this would get strong support across both parties.

ianch99 07-02-2025 15:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I think it is the extremists on both sides that have determined where we are today. First, the extreme trans supporters demanded, in various forms, that any man who "considers" themselves as a woman should be regarded as equal by society in all contexts. Clearly a dumb idea but it is this entitlement that drove and distorted the agenda and so set in motion the journey we see today.

Now it is a reasonable proposition that a man (or woman) who undergoes the long, difficult and painful process of gender reassignment (hormones, surgery, etc.) should be treated as a woman (or man) in the same way as society treats any another member of that group. If they are physically the same, in all meaningful senses of the word, and you still object then you are just discriminating on the basis on DNA. It is a separate discussion when the trans individual declares themselves to be the opposite sex but this is visibly not apparent. This is where the concerns, rights, safety, etc. of the target gender need to be addressed. It is this that the extreme trans supporters ignored and it is this that has led us here.

Now the turn of the extreme anti-trans supporters: while some are coming from a position of safety concerns, equality of opportunity (in sports, etc.), a lot are coming from a much darker place. The role of the Evangelical right and their wish to impose their world view on the majority is part of this.

At the end of the day, the modern world with its complexities and nuance will never be accommodated within the purview of the emergent MAGA/Christian Nationalist collective. Consequently, it must be changed. What was multi-coloured must now be black & white, or binary, to coin a phrase. This is a sinister direction: what might be next? Maybe banning gay marriage, or even being gay itself. After all, these all come from the same playbook.

Chris 07-02-2025 15:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36190839)
If they are physically the same, in all meaningful senses of the word, and you still object then you are just discriminating on the basis on DNA.
Disagree.

The basis of sex is biology (i.e. you always were, always are, and always will be either male or female, and the terms man and woman always and only mean adult human male and adult human female respectively).

Hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery may reduce or modify explicitly male or female behaviours and mask appearances, but serious studies have shown that in sports, especially, men retain biological advantages regardless of what medical treatment they have had. Reducing testosterone isn’t enough. Creating cosmetic sex organs does not reduce bone density.

Many women campaigning in this area also refer to what they call ‘male pattern aggression’; i.e. while the basis of sex is biological, a lifetime of being brought up according to natal sex inculcates patterns of behaviour which cannot easily be un-learned (and which medical treatment does not undo) and which are triggering especially for women who have suffered male violence.

Women seeking man-free spaces, especially where they are vulnerable and/or in intimate settings (medical treatment, toilets, rape crisis services, prisons) should not have to be concerned with whether the individual who enters that space alongside them is a man or not. Nor should they be forced to rely on an administrative process that creates a legal fiction (i.e. in the UK context, the Gender Recognition Act, which is increasingly being shown to be at odds with the rights and protections of the Equality Act). There simply is no way to draw a line between what is an acceptable intrusion by a man into an intimate female space and what is an unacceptable one. No man (i.e. adult human male) should ever be permitted to believe he may use such a space.

It’s worth noting that while this all applies equally to women who pretend to be men (no matter how sincerely they might believe it), the problems are asymmetric. A woman in a men’s toilet is, statistically, at risk. A man in a woman’s toilet is, statistically, a source of risk.

I could go on, and probably will. Meantime if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the objections from an avowedly atheistic point of view you could have a look at what Prof. Richard Dawkins has to say in this area. And I never thought I’d recommend Dawkins to anyone.

thenry 07-02-2025 15:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
You just crushed many people who have turned their dick inside out :LOL:

papa smurf 07-02-2025 15:55
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36190847)
You just crushed many people who have turned their dick inside out :LOL:
i think you mean gender reassignment;)

thenry 07-02-2025 16:02
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36190848)
i think you mean gender reassignment;)
It is fascinating. I kind of followed the journey of Rodrigo Alves now Jessica Alves

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Alves

You could tell there was no stopping how far he would go. I just think of the excruciating pain should he gender flip the coin :shocked:

Paul 07-02-2025 17:59
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Can we get back to the thread topic please.

ianch99 07-02-2025 18:04
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36190843)
Disagree.

The basis of sex is biology (i.e. you always were, always are, and always will be either male or female, and the terms man and woman always and only mean adult human male and adult human female respectively).

Hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery may reduce or modify explicitly male or female behaviours and mask appearances, but serious studies have shown that in sports, especially, men retain biological advantages regardless of what medical treatment they have had. Reducing testosterone isn’t enough. Creating cosmetic sex organs does not reduce bone density.

Many women campaigning in this area also refer to what they call ‘male pattern aggression’; i.e. while the basis of sex is biological, a lifetime of being brought up according to natal sex inculcates patterns of behaviour which cannot easily be un-learned (and which medical treatment does not undo) and which are triggering especially for women who have suffered male violence.

Women seeking man-free spaces, especially where they are vulnerable and/or in intimate settings (medical treatment, toilets, rape crisis services, prisons) should not have to be concerned with whether the individual who enters that space alongside them is a man or not. Nor should they be forced to rely on an administrative process that creates a legal fiction (i.e. in the UK context, the Gender Recognition Act, which is increasingly being shown to be at odds with the rights and protections of the Equality Act). There simply is no way to draw a line between what is an acceptable intrusion by a man into an intimate female space and what is an unacceptable one. No man (i.e. adult human male) should ever be permitted to believe he may use such a space.

It’s worth noting that while this all applies equally to women who pretend to be men (no matter how sincerely they might believe it), the problems are asymmetric. A woman in a men’s toilet is, statistically, at risk. A man in a woman’s toilet is, statistically, a source of risk.

I could go on, and probably will. Meantime if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the objections from an avowedly atheistic point of view you could have a look at what Prof. Richard Dawkins has to say in this area. And I never thought I’d recommend Dawkins to anyone.
I have already addressed the sport issue. I do not feel we diverge on this.

You are focusing on the pre-transition trans individuals which is the difficult one to address. Difficult but not impossible. You start addressing the transitioned individuals and then veer off into sports where the win is easy. You then apply an argument that assumes "men will always be men" and so can still be violent event though they have transitioned to women. I would argue this is a niche position especially saying that women are "triggered" by the prospect of a "man" in their company. You would probably find that you would have higher levels of violence from women on women.

The device used here is to say: "well, they were men, so they must always have the potential to be violent". I'm sorry, this is weak argument when applied on a macro scale and show no compassion for those who genuinely believe they were born into the wrong gender. We, as a society, should be able to accommodate those who are on this journey and, at the same time, ensure that women's rights, as most understand them, are protected. This is the definition of a civilised society.

As Paul mentioned, we are off topic so will say no more on this.

Pierre 07-02-2025 18:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36190861)
You then apply an argument that assumes "men will always be men" and so can still be violent event though they have transitioned to women.
Your argument falls down at this point.

Because men cannot transition to a women. It is totally impossible.

A man can pretend to be a woman, and surgically alter himself, in the hope to physically look like a woman. But he is not a woman in any way shape or form.

Quote:
You would probably find that you would have higher levels of violence from women on women.
A very quick google search would show you that is incorrect.

Quote:
The device used here is to say: "well, they were men, so they must always have the potential to be violent". I'm sorry, this is weak argument when applied on a macro scale
This is entirely correct, whereas…….

Quote:
and show no compassion for those who genuinely believe they were born into the wrong gender.
Has nothing to with it.

Quote:
women's rights, as most understand them, are protected. This is the definition of a civilised society.
operative word being women, not men, not Trans-women……which is a subset of men, not women.

Quote:
As Paul mentioned, we are off topic .
I don’t think he was referring to this side bar……..but if he was I apologise.

Paul 07-02-2025 22:03
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Ok, so again, back on topic please.

This topic is about Trump. Direct comments about his order are relevant. This current general gender talk is not.
I think we already have a topic for it, if not, feel free to start one. Anymore off topic posts in here are liable to be removed.

Hugh 08-02-2025 18:13
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...e-2025-02-07/#

Quote:
In response to a reporter's question about why DOGE needs access to Americans' personal information, like bank accounts and Social Security numbers, the president appeared to support DOGE's efforts while indicating that it did not need the data.

"Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily, I mean we don't have very good security in our country," Mr. Trump said. However, DOGE has obtained access to the information because of the president's orders allowing it, not because of a lapse in security.

Pierre 08-02-2025 18:42
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
However, DOGE has obtained access to the information because of the president's orders allowing it, not because of a lapse in security.

Do we have evidence of a direct order from Trump mandating that DOGE is given access to this data?

Hugh 08-02-2025 19:01
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190914)
Do we have evidence of a direct order from Trump mandating that DOGE is given access to this data?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...es-2025-02-05/

Quote:
Musk operates at Trump's pleasure. The president told reporters on Monday that the billionaire had to seek approval from the White House for any of his actions.

"Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval, and we'll give him the approval, where appropriate; where not appropriate, we won't. But he reports in."

A White House source said, "those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities."

Pierre 08-02-2025 20:19
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36190916)
Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said
Quote:
The president told reporters on Monday that the billionaire had to seek approval from the White House for any of his actions.
"Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval, and we'll give him the approval, where appropriate; where not appropriate, we won't. But he reports in."
But he also said

Quote:
they get it very easily, I mean we don't have very good security in our country
So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.

Stephen 08-02-2025 20:34
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190921)
Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said

But he also said



So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.
We all know Trump lies and doesn't remember stuff so him saying what he did to the reporter about poor security is likely rubbish.

Damien 08-02-2025 20:43
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
TBF I think it's worse if Musk is doing this without a Presidental order. Just means Trump has let him loose across government to do whatever he wants.

Pierre 08-02-2025 20:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190922)
We all know Trump lies and doesn't remember stuff so him saying what he did to the reporter about poor security is likely rubbish.
Well, that comment offers nothing, or adds anything. So we can ignore it.

I’m just looking for evidence to back up claims made. Not seen it yet…………

Stephen 08-02-2025 20:52
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Trump has given free reign to Musk and the DOGE.

Pierre 08-02-2025 21:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190927)
There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.
That’s not how it works..

If a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence to substantiate that claim.

If a claim is made is and there is no evidence to refute the claim, that does not mean that claim is valid ………..that is basic.

That’s a very….either naive or uneducated position to take……..which is it?

Quote:
Trump has given free rein to Musk and the DOGE.
Has he? And your evidence of this is?

TheDaddy 08-02-2025 21:59
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36190927)
There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Trump has given free reign to Musk and the DOGE.
What is doge, from what I can tell its five or six teenager's, that's not a security risk at all...

Stephen 08-02-2025 22:29
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36190932)
What is doge, from what I can tell its five or six teenager's, that's not a security risk at all...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depa...roductivity%22.

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190931)
That’s not how it works..

If a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence to substantiate that claim.

If a claim is made is and there is no evidence to refute the claim, that does not mean that claim is valid ………..that is basic.

That’s a very….either naive or uneducated position to take……..which is it?


Has he? And your evidence of this is?
Here is a link to the executive orders PDF signed by Trump and what DOGE was apparently crested to achieve.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2025-02005.pdf

Hugh 08-02-2025 23:14
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36190921)
Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said

But he also said

Quote:
they get it very easily, I mean we don't have very good security in our country

So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.
Musk undertook an action to access the data, and Trump said
Quote:
The president told reporters on Monday that the billionaire had to seek approval from the White House for any of his actions.
so, either Trump has given him permission and his actions are approved, or Trump hasn’t given him permission, and his actions are not approved.

They "got in very easily" because a Trump appointee ordered employees to give the access, not because of "they don’t have very good security".

Paul 09-02-2025 05:00
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Well (Prince) Harry is safe.

Trump has ruled out deportation, telling The New York Post "I'll leave him alone."

He then added "He's got enough problems with his wife. She's terrible." :)

Cant argue with that ...

thenry 10-02-2025 18:11
Re: President Trump 2.0
 


Aired during the whole super bowl broadcast.

$36trillion debt. How do they sleep at night :shocked:

Paul 10-02-2025 18:28
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I was also surprised to learn he was the first ever sitting president to attend the superbowl.
You would think at least one or two had previously done so, considering its their most popular sport.

He predicted the winner incorrectly tho. ;)

1andrew1 10-02-2025 18:30
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36191055)
I was also surprised to learn he was the first ever sitting president to attend the superbowl.
You would think at least one or two had previously done so, considering its their most popular sport.

He predicted the winner incorrectly tho. ;)
Yes, I would have thought that having tickets to sporting fixtures like this would have been a perk of the job!

TheDaddy 12-02-2025 01:44
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
A bill has gone through Congress empowering trump to aquire Greenland by any means necessary and re name it red white and blueland, wtf, who actually voted for this? Children causing chaos is fine for those hicks that voted for him but leave the rest of the world out of it

Mr K 12-02-2025 07:49
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36191127)
A bill has gone through Congress empowering trump to aquire Greenland by any means necessary and re name it red white and blueland, wtf, who actually voted for this? Children causing chaos is fine for those hicks that voted for him but leave the rest of the world out of it
Well, since the Republicans have a majority, I think we can guess... Maybe he's done a deal with Putin to split the world in 2?

We'll be OK, nobody wants the UK, the land of pensioners and no industry/jobs. Our nail bars are our best asset, might get mine done today :)

ianch99 12-02-2025 09:11
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
The most dangerous man in the world explains why the law does not apply to him:



In "President" Musk's world view, anything he wants to do is "democratic" and anyone that uses the law to stop him is undemocratic. This is the US sliding towards autocracy ...

Hugh 12-02-2025 09:28
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Article linked to the video above (Washington Post)

https://wapo.st/42MJOt2

Quote:
“We are going to be signing a very important deal today,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “It’s DOGE.” He said that his administration had found “billions and billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse.”

Beside him was Musk, who said: “If the bureaucracy is in charge, then what meaning does democracy actually have?”

“It does not match the will of the people, so it’s just something we’ve got to fix,” he added.

Neither Trump nor Musk provided specifics about the corruption they found or how they plan to address it.
Quote:
Last week, a federal judge halted the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation program,” which offers federal workers a way to quit and receive pay through September, while weighing a legal challenge. The program is the Trump administration’s most sweeping attempt yet to drastically cut the federal government.

“They’re getting a good deal. They’re getting a big buyout,” Trump said Tuesday of the program. “What we’re trying to do is reduce government. We have too many people.”

Trump said federal office space is “occupied by 4 percent.” But that number conflicts with a congressionally mandated report issued in August by the Office of Management and Budget, which found that federal employees who were eligible for telework were still spending more than 60 percent of their work hours on-site.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Interesting article from a lawyer who served as associate White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan and as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.

https://wapo.st/4hSE7Ox

Quote:
President Donald Trump, his appointees, acting officials and quasi-official outsiders are in the midst of a radical restructuring or termination of government employees, agencies and programs. Whether this is in all, many or some regards desirable is debatable. Also debatable is whether the 49.8 percent of the electorate who elected Trump want all of this, and whether the 50.2 percent who voted for Kamala Harris or a third-party candidate want any of it.

What is not debatable, however, is that Congress has not authorized this radical overhaul, and the protocols of the Constitution do not permit statutorily mandated agencies and programs to be transformed — or reorganized out of existence — without congressional authorization.

The Constitution is well known to interpose meaningful checks and balances and a separation of powers among the responsibilities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is also well understood that the respective branch’s powers and duties will intersect and overlap. Fundamentally, however, all legislative power belongs to Congress, and executive power to the president. The judiciary steps in when the parameters of shared authority get complicated or confusing and constitutional lines are crossed.

The radical reorganization now underway is not just footfaulting over procedural lines; it is shattering the fundamental checks and balances of our constitutional order. The DOGE process, if that is what it is, mocks two basic tenets of our government: that we are nation of laws, not men and that it is Congress which controls spending and passes legislation. The president must faithfully execute Congress’s laws and manage the executive agencies consistent with the Constitution and lawmakers’ appropriations — not by any divine right or absolute power.

Where the president identifies policy areas that need reform or spending that needs to be supplemented, reduced or eliminated, the Constitution empowers him to recommend such measures as he finds “necessary or expedient” to Congress for it to dispose one way or the other, or alternatively ignore.

Yes, the president may advance his own policy agenda — including, of course, the ability to recommend reforms to Congress that he believes necessary or expedient. But there is no reading of the Constitution that allows any president to claim that a political mandate, or a political promise made, obviates or supersedes the role for Congress. It is the House and Senate that “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for … the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Anonymouse 12-02-2025 10:02
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36191134)
The most dangerous man in the world explains why the law does not apply to him
I can't help but recall Kirk's words in The Omega Glory (shut up, for a terrible episode it had its points):

"These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!"
"The Kohms?"
"They must apply to EVERYONE, or they mean nothing!"

A democracy is supposed to protect its people. One aspect of this is that no leader, however high, is above the law. This is how it protects - it recognises that no-one is perfect and/or incorruptible, and the higher in government you go, the more important it is that the law apply equally.

So what, may I ask, is the US now? I honestly don't think it qualifies as a democracy any more.

As I've said in the past, I have no intention of disappearing from public view in the near future. In a FanFic story (Doctor Who: Refugee), I suggested one result of the GDPR was to elevate Echelon to AI status. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened...yet.

If you're reading this, hi, Echelon!

Hugh 12-02-2025 10:05
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Elon Musk to reporter: “We post our actions to the DOGE website. All of our actions are maximally transparent. I don’t know of a case where an organization has been more transparent than the DOGE organization.”
doge.gov website (you have to use a VPN, as it blocks any non-US IP addresses)

https://doge.gov/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1739354586

That’s it - no links, no menu, just that page.

"maximally transparent"..

ianch99 14-02-2025 13:28
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36191144)
doge.gov website (you have to use a VPN, as it blocks any non-US IP addresses)

https://doge.gov/

<snip>

That’s it - no links, no menu, just that page.

"maximally transparent"..
This is actually hilarious :) Those DOGE wunderkind, you know, the ones who are hacking & mining the Federal databases, can't even host a secure website:

Cutbacks bite back as hackers play with Musk's DOGE site

Anyone Can Push Updates to the DOGE.gov Website

Hugh 14-02-2025 15:31
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I wonder how they are auditing Departments using only coders/software engineers, "entrepreneurs", lawyers, and HR people, with no auditors and forensic accountants?

Stephen 14-02-2025 15:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
It seems like they are classing as fraud is simply projects and departments they consider to be against their ideologies, such as Diversity and inclusion among other things.

ianch99 14-02-2025 15:50
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Tell me Musk does not have something on Trump? He sits silent in the Oval office, his tech bro rambling on and Musk's kid insulting him. Trump sucks it up ...

Elon’s kid tells Trump “You are not the president and you need to go away.”

Elon Musk’s child tells Trump “shush your mouth”

Even if this is AI, it's very funny :)

Interesting comment on one of these threads:

Quote:
Has there ever been a live televised speech from the president interrupted by a private citizen and his kid? Not to even start with the unseriousness displayed by wearing a t-shirt and a hat in the oval office?

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnfKnF85_B8&t=543s spreading this as this comment picked up a lot of traction

"The Sunday before the election, he met with Elon at his house. Elon told him that he had all this data and that he is responsible for this. The he is involved in every battle ground state, and we're going to win every battle ground state. Paxton said, I am convinced that whatever he did made a huge difference in this election. What exactly did Elon do BEFORE the election in every battleground state?? And what data? Is he saying the quiet part out loud?"

Paul 14-02-2025 17:47
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Those links require me to log in to reddit. Thats not happening.

Hugh 15-02-2025 20:35
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...ure-rcna192345

Quote:
Trump administration wants to un-fire nuclear safety workers but can’t figure out how to reach them

The individuals, who work in an agency that oversees the nation's nuclear stockpile, had been fired on Thursday and lost access to their federal government email accounts.

National Nuclear Security Administration officials on Friday attempted to notify some employees who had been let go the day before that they are now due to be reinstated — but they struggled to find them because they didn't have their new contact information.

In an email sent to employees at NNSA and obtained by NBC News, officials wrote, “The termination letters for some NNSA probationary employees are being rescinded, but we do not have a good way to get in touch with those personnel.”

The individuals the letter refers to had been fired on Thursday and lost access to their federal government email accounts. NNSA, which is within the Department of Energy and oversees the nation's nuclear stockpile, cannot reach these employees directly and is now asking recipients of the email, “Please work with your supervisors to send this information (once you get it) to people’s personal contact emails.”…


… The NNSA is tasked with designing, building and overseeing the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Maggy 15-02-2025 20:55
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36191405)
:D

Hugh 15-02-2025 21:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
Buckle up, looks like the ordure/air conditioning interface scenario is imminent… :shocked:



https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1739655444

Dingbat 16-02-2025 10:44
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
You know that when he quotes Napoleon, he’s really lost the plot.

Paul 16-02-2025 14:58
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I dont think he even had a plot to lose.

Hugh 18-02-2025 08:26
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.reuters.com/legal/white-...ns-2025-02-18/

Quote:
Billionaire Elon Musk's role in the Trump administration is as a White House employee and senior adviser to the president, and is not an employee of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and has no decision-making authority, the White House said in a court filing on Monday.

According to a filing signed by Joshua Fisher, director of the Office of Administration at the White House, Musk can only advise the president and communicate the president's directives.

"Like other senior White House advisors, Mr Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself," it said.

Fisher's filing, made in a case brought against Musk by the State of New Mexico, said that Musk was not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service, or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, and added: "Mr Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator."
Interesting…

tweetiepooh 18-02-2025 09:28
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I wonder if this tale is becoming more of a reality, The Cold Cash War. Or any of the other "futures" where businesses get more power than governments at actual governmental level.

Hugh 19-02-2025 00:32
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
In Software Development, "Move fast and break things" might work - not so much if you’re running a country…

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dog...ire-rcna192716

Quote:
The United States Department of Agriculture on Tuesday said that, over the weekend, it accidentally fired "several" agency employees who are working on the federal government's response to the H5N1 avian flu outbreak.

In a statement, the agency said it is trying to quickly reverse the firings.

"Although several positions supporting [bird flu efforts] were notified of their terminations over the weekend, we are working to swiftly rectify the situation and rescind those letters," a USDA spokesperson said in a statement. "USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service frontline positions are considered public safety positions, and we are continuing to hire the workforce necessary to ensure the safety and adequate supply of food to fulfill our statutory mission."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...ure-rcna192345

Quote:
National Nuclear Security Administration officials on Friday attempted to notify some employees who had been let go the day before that they are now due to be reinstated — but they struggled to find them because they didn’t have their new contact information.

In an email sent to employees at NNSA and obtained by NBC News, officials wrote, “The termination letters for some NNSA probationary employees are being rescinded, but we do not have a good way to get in touch with those personnel.”

The individuals the letter refers to had been fired on Thursday and lost access to their federal government email accounts. NNSA, which is within the Department of Energy and oversees the nation’s nuclear stockpile, cannot reach these employees directly and is now asking recipients of the email, “Please work with your supervisors to send this information (once you get it) to people’s personal contact emails.”

TheDaddy 19-02-2025 02:29
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36191524)
In Software Development, "Move fast and break things" might work - not so much if you’re running a country…

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dog...ire-rcna192716



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...ure-rcna192345
Vicious rumour on twitter that the doge twerp that sacked the nuclear experts is Luke Farritor because he didn't know what they did :banghead:

Paul 19-02-2025 04:04
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
The incompetance is staggering.

Hugh 19-02-2025 10:05
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
Latest Executive Order

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1739959487

Maggy 19-02-2025 10:37
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
We are doomed!

Stephen 19-02-2025 16:34
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Trump's latest attack on Zelensky shows he lives in cloud cuckoo land. Trying to call Zelensky a dictator as his presidency ended last May. However with the martial law ongoing all voting ceased. Also that he has done a terrible job as his country is shattered and apparently millions died unnecessarily.

Suggests to me Trump wants Ukraine to rollover and just given in to Putin's Russian invasion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62e2158mkpt
Ukraine latest: Trump calls Zelensky a 'dictator' as he hits back at 'disinformation' criticism

daveeb 19-02-2025 16:48
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36191562)
Trump's latest attack on Zelensky shows he lives in cloud cuckoo land. Trying to call Zelensky a dictator as his presidency ended last May. However with the martial law ongoing all voting ceased. Also that he has done a terrible job as his country is shattered and apparently millions died unnecessarily.

Suggests to me Trump wants Ukraine to rollover and just given in to Putin's Russian invasion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c62e2158mkpt
Ukraine latest: Trump calls Zelensky a 'dictator' as he hits back at 'disinformation' criticism
Some serious projection going on there. He's also said Zelensky has a 4% approval rating in Ukraine, it's actually in the high 50's, something Trump would give an orange arm or leg for.

Mr K 19-02-2025 18:43
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I'm not sure who's worse, Trump or Putin. Think Trump edges it. Confirmation of what we all knew, they are best buddies and will split Ukraines goodies between them.

Chris 19-02-2025 19:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36191576)
I'm not sure who's worse, Trump or Putin. Think Trump edges it. Confirmation of what we all knew, they are best buddies and will split Ukraines goodies between them.
Well they will certainly try, but I think Donny’s ego is so big it won’t have occurred to him that anyone might say no. There are definitely circumstances in which he could have sold this to Europe, if not Ukraine, but his problem is he has rather given the game away in the last 24 hours. Waffling on about how Ukraine shouldn’t have started it has left his apologists with nowhere to hide - he’s parroting Putin’s talking points without any gloss or evasion.

Hugh 19-02-2025 20:41
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
From the White House Instagram account

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1739997636

Hugh 19-02-2025 21:48
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...-through-2030/

Quote:
White House eyes annual 8% cut to defense budget through 2030

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military officials to develop a five-year budget plan that would slash defense spending by 8% annually, a dramatic cut which could reshape military end-strength and readiness for decades.

In a memo first obtained by the Washington Post, Hegseth ordered the proposed cuts to be compiled by Feb. 24. Seventeen categories would be exempt from the budget reductions, including military operations at the southern U.S. border, nuclear weapons and missile defense programs, and acquisition of certain drones and munitions…

… Past Defense Department projections put military spending plans at close to $900 billion by fiscal 2030. Under Hegseth’s reduction proposals, that mark would be closer to $560 billion, the lowest defense budget since fiscal 2006.

Earlier this year, Trump publicly suggested that all NATO countries spend at least 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, a figure that would mandate a nearly $1 trillion military budget for the United States.

1andrew1 21-02-2025 15:31
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Looks like Elon Musk is going to add censorship to his toolbox as well as his existing tools of spreading misinformation, if this report in the Telegraph is correct.
Quote:
Elon Musk vows to ‘fix’ X after users correct Trump’s Ukraine claims

Elon Musk has vowed to crack down on X users who have tried to correct false claims by Donald Trump that Volodymyr Zelensky’s approval ratings have collapsed.

The billionaire said he planned to “fix” the social network’s system of community notes, which allows users to label fake news and add fact-checks or further context. Mr Musk claimed the system was being “increasingly gamed by governments [and] legacy media” and said he was “working to fix this”.

On X, users have pushed back on the US president’s claims that the Ukraine president’s approval rating has collapsed to 4pc. One widely shared poll from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology suggested his popularity was closer to 57pc.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...b829b47d&ei=10

Hom3r 21-02-2025 15:47
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
The crazy thing is that Ukraine's constitution allows for elections to be suspended in a war.

Pierre 21-02-2025 19:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36191645)
The crazy thing is that Ukraine's constitution allows for elections to be suspended in a war.
Allows it, but does it mandate it?

Zelenskyy could run elections, and perhaps he should.

Mr K 21-02-2025 19:24
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36191655)
Allows it, but does it mandate it?

Zelenskyy could run elections, and perhaps he should.
I think they have better things to do atm. Like surviving.

Chris 21-02-2025 19:31
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36191655)
Allows it, but does it mandate it?

Zelenskyy could run elections, and perhaps he should.
The relevant law does indeed mandate the suspension of all elections. This was discussed on BBC QT’s Ukraine special last night, which had a Ukrainian opposition MP on the panel. Elections are banned while the country is under martial law. So while Z could technically lift martial law and hold an election, why in the merry heck should he do so just because Donny and Elmo are jumping up and down in the playground calling him chicken? The country is invaded, 20% occupied and under daily bombardment. Even if Z had some legitimate choice about holding elections it would be daft to do so.

Elections is a Kremlin talking point, and if Trump has done one good thing this week it has been to allow himself to be goaded into showing his hand consists entirely of Kremlin talking points.

Pierre 21-02-2025 19:49
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Difficult to know what the country wants though isn’t it? If the population are unhappy with the way the war is being prosecuted they have no way of expressing it.

And none can offer an alternative.

Just an observation.

Paul 21-02-2025 19:56
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I'm sure Putin will declare a ceasefire while all the soldiers vote, and civilians are gathering in the voting booths.

1andrew1 21-02-2025 20:05
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36191658)
Difficult to know what the country wants though isn’t it? If the population are unhappy with the way the war is being prosecuted they have no way of expressing it.

And none can offer an alternative.

Just an observation.
There's opinion polls and still a Parliament with Opposition MPs.

It's just a bit hard for some of those MPs from the Donbas and Crimea to get to Parliament.

Chris 21-02-2025 20:16
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36191658)
Difficult to know what the country wants though isn’t it? If the population are unhappy with the way the war is being prosecuted they have no way of expressing it.

And none can offer an alternative.

Just an observation.
It’s not just an observation though, is it. It’s another Kremlin line - one of the ones that seeks to normalise the idea that an election in a country under occupation and bombardment is reasonable. If you genuinely can’t see that your “just a reasonable guy making observations” routine is just a laundering operation for Russian propaganda, you might want to have a careful think about which wells you’re drinking at. Because the FSB is doing a proper number on you.

No European government - except for the one or two which are openly Russia-orientated - has suggested this would be a good idea. Neither did the US, until it elected a man known to admire Putin and who has spent a lot of time trying to do business in Russia.

Suspending elections in wartime didn’t do the UK any harm and it isn’t doing Ukraine any harm either. Holding them, however, while the free parts of the country is being bombed, and a fifth of it is under Russian occupation, would certainly do so.

Damien 21-02-2025 20:39
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
As has been pointed out the UK didn't hold elections during WW2 and we didn't even have the complicated of being partly occupied. How do you hold elections when a lot of your people are at war, fled abroad, under occupation or being bombed? Even if they held elections the next thing would be 'millions of postal votes! rigged!'

It's complete nonsense.

1andrew1 21-02-2025 21:13
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I'm not concerned by anonymous forum posters repeating Putin's talking points, but I am a little concerned when the President of the USA does.

pip08456 21-02-2025 21:48
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36191657)
The relevant law does indeed mandate the suspension of all elections. This was discussed on BBC QT’s Ukraine special last night, which had a Ukrainian opposition MP on the panel. Elections are banned while the country is under martial law. So while Z could technically lift martial law and hold an election, why in the merry heck should he do so just because Donny and Elmo are jumping up and down in the playground calling him chicken? The country is invaded, 20% occupied and under daily bombardment. Even if Z had some legitimate choice about holding elections it would be daft to do so.

Elections is a Kremlin talking point, and if Trump has done one good thing this week it has been to allow himself to be goaded into showing his hand consists entirely of Kremlin talking points.
Could he though? He didn't implement Marshal Law. Ukraine parliament did. It is also they who have extended it several times.

Damien 21-02-2025 22:04
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
It's incredible how much Trump doubles down on this.

I wasn't optimistic when he was elected but I thought that his ego would mean that he wouldn't want to be seen to have been played by Russia. That he might actually come up with something workable even if it meant Russia getting more than any of us would like. But he has completely been taken in by Putin, he repeats his talking points, he slams Ukraine and today he refused to agree with a Fox News interviewer that Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine.

With Elon Musk demanding access to everything within the Government and Trump doing whatever Putin wants at what point do our intelligence services hold back sharing information with the US?

Hugh 21-02-2025 23:01
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36191668)
Could he though? He didn't implement Marshal Law. Ukraine parliament did. It is also they who have extended it several times.
And in January 315 out of the 404 MPs voted to extend it until May 2025.

Chris 21-02-2025 23:33
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36191668)
Could he though? He didn't implement Marshal Law. Ukraine parliament did. It is also they who have extended it several times.
:tu:

thenry 22-02-2025 00:46
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36191667)
I'm not concerned by anonymous forum posters repeating Putin's talking points, but I am a little concerned when the President of the USA does.
I'm going to be one of those anonymous posters. Zelenskyy has gone everywhere crying about his countries position and all I've seen is mugs lap it up. He's yearning for strength to fight otherwise he's done for. Trump rightly pointed out he hasn't got the means to negotiate.

With regards to Zelenskyys approval rating, I bet it's high having successfully taken hand outs left right and center. That will however drop significantly if support were to be withdrawn. Trumps probably got something in mind and is talking of the consequence of those actions.

Hugh 22-02-2025 08:24
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...utType=comment

Quote:
The Trump administration abruptly dismissed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior officers on Friday night, as the Pentagon moves to bring the military’s leadership in line with its “America First” agenda.


In a post on social media, President Donald Trump said he would replace Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and would take the unusual step of tapping a little-known, retired three-star officer, Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, as the next chairman.


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement distributed shortly after Trump’s post, said he would dismiss five other senior officers, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve as chief of naval operations, and Gen. James Slife, a top Air Force officer.
Meanwhile…

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-...ay-2025-02-22/

Quote:
[/b] US could cut Ukraine's access to Starlink internet services over minerals, say sources[/b]

U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Ukraine's continued access to SpaceX-owned Starlink was brought up in discussions between U.S. and Ukrainian officials after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy turned down an initial proposal from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the sources said.

Starlink provides crucial internet connectivity to war-torn Ukraine and its military.
The issue was raised again on Thursday during meetings between Keith Kellogg, the U.S. special Ukraine envoy, and Zelenskiy, said one of the sources, who was briefed on the talks.

During the meeting, Ukraine was told it faced imminent shutoff of the service if it did not reach a deal on critical minerals, said the source, who requested anonymity to discuss closed negotiations.

Pierre 22-02-2025 08:34
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36191665)
As has been pointed out the UK didn't hold elections during WW2 and we didn't even have the complicated of being partly occupied. How do you hold elections when a lot of your people are at war, fled abroad, under occupation or being bombed? Even if they held elections the next thing would be 'millions of postal votes! rigged!'

It's complete nonsense.
We were still at war in the Pacific, the war didn’t end in 1945, but I take your point.

Chris 22-02-2025 11:11
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36191678)
I'm going to be one of those anonymous posters. Zelenskyy has gone everywhere crying about his countries position and all I've seen is mugs lap it up. He's yearning for strength to fight otherwise he's done for. Trump rightly pointed out he hasn't got the means to negotiate.

With regards to Zelenskyys approval rating, I bet it's high having successfully taken hand outs left right and center. That will however drop significantly if support were to be withdrawn. Trumps probably got something in mind and is talking of the consequence of those actions.
Based on your apparent belief in the above, for you to call anyone else a mug is … brave.

Hugh 22-02-2025 13:09
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36191693)
Based on your apparent belief in the above, for you to call anyone else a mug is … brave.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2025/02/3.jpg

:D

Chris 22-02-2025 13:40
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36191681)
We were still at war in the Pacific, the war didn’t end in 1945, but I take your point.
The war in the Pacific did end in 1945, 3 months after the end of the war in Europe. There was no existential threat to the UK despite Japan’s decision to keep fighting on in the face of defeat after defeat. Churchill’s decision to go to the country after VE rather than waiting for VJ rather underscores the point though don’t you think - an existential threat to the homeland is a vitally important determining factor. Just as Ukraine is facing now.

Hugh 22-02-2025 14:15
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
1 Attachment(s)
Trump is channeling Judge Dredd…

Quote:
I’m… we are the Federal Law


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...vernor/681799/

Quote:
As Trump lectured the audience on his executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, he paused to single out Maine Governor Janet Mills.

“Are you not going to comply with it?” he demanded of her. “I’m complying with state and federal laws,” she replied. To this, Trump shot back, “We are the federal law.”

It is entirely possible that, if the state of Maine challenges the executive order, Trump will prevail legally. But what is important about this exchange is not whose interpretation of Title IX and the Administrative Procedure Act has a better chance to win five votes on the Supreme Court. It is that Trump is treating the law as coterminous with his own desires.

Trump then threatened Mills with the prospect of stripping away federal funding for her state: “You better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.” Legally, it is possible for the federal government to deny states certain funding streams under certain conditions. But Trump cannot simply cut Maine off financially because the state chooses to challenge a federal policy.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1740233677

Chris 22-02-2025 14:59
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
A plague on both their houses.

Men do not belong in women’s sports. Boys do not belong in girls sports. Not ever, for any reason. Claiming ‘gender’ to get access to a sex category you do not belong to can never be allowed to be grounds for an exemption. Sports categories are sex based because sex is the necessary category for fairness, safety and inclusion.

Nevertheless, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The EO mandating respect for sex-based categories might be the only decent thing Trump has done. It doesn’t give him the right to behave like a Bourbon.

daveeb 22-02-2025 16:15
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36191701)
A plague on both their houses.

Men do not belong in women’s sports. Boys do not belong in girls sports. Not ever, for any reason. Claiming ‘gender’ to get access to a sex category you do not belong to can never be allowed to be grounds for an exemption. Sports categories are sex based because sex is the necessary category for fairness, safety and inclusion.

Nevertheless, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The EO mandating respect for sex-based categories might be the only decent thing Trump has done. It doesn’t give him the right to behave like a Bourbon.
Absolutely this. :tu:

Maggy 22-02-2025 17:23
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
I think Trump has become senile.

papa smurf 22-02-2025 17:27
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36191705)
I think Trump has become senile.
i think he's gone insane and elevated himself to Godhood, he seems to think he rules the entire planet

Hugh 24-02-2025 21:39
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
https://wapo.st/3F5KxeQ

Quote:
Trump administration tells agencies they can ignore Musk order on email reply

The Office of Personnel Management told HR officials that employees wouldn’t be let go for not replying to an email asking what they did last week.

The Trump administration has told federal agency leaders that they can ignore the public decree from Elon Musk to effectively fire employees who do not send in bullet-point summaries of their work last week, according to three people familiar with the matter, a break with the billionaire who has exerted significant power to slash the 2.3-million-person federal workforce.

The Office of Personnel Management, a federal agency that functions as the government’s HR department, delivered the news to agency chief human capital officers on a call midday Monday, according to one of the people, an agency official on the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

Another person briefed on the call said that OPM is also looking at weekly reporting for government departments. But the person said that OPM was unsure what to do with the emails of employees who responded so far and had “no plans” to analyze them.

Musk on Saturday posted on his social media platform, X, that federal employees would receive an email asking for a list of what they did at work last week and would be considered as having resigned if they did not reply by Monday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. Shortly thereafter, the email blast went out to millions of people, including federal judges and workers in the legislative branch — prompting confusion as agency heads struggled to apply the guidance to their particular work. Even before the latest directive, some agencies told workers not to comply, fearful that they might, at OPM’s behest, be disclosing information that was sensitive or important to national security.

Paul 24-02-2025 23:45
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Musk overstepped, what a shocker .... :dunce:

1andrew1 25-02-2025 00:02
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
How those potential millions of email responses were going to be analysed , no one knows. Just looked like playing to the audience.

Hugh 25-02-2025 00:26
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36191785)
How those potential millions of email responses were going to be analysed , no one knows. Just looked like playing to the audience.
AI - what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dog...tum-rcna193439

Quote:
Responses to the Elon Musk-directed email to government employees about what work they had accomplished in the last week are expected to be fed into an artificial intelligence system to determine whether those jobs are necessary, according to three sources with knowledge of the system.

The information will go into an LLM (Large Language Model), an advanced AI system that looks at huge amounts of text data to understand, generate and process human language, the sources said. The AI system will determine whether someone’s work is mission-critical or not.

Paul 25-02-2025 01:50
Re: President Trump 2.0
 
How long before they start going on strike I wonder.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:18.
Page 11 of 21 « First 78910 11 12131415 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum