UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
If the military is sent back to their bases by the State of California, following constitutional legal process, then that will be a massive relief
Yes that would only leave the Marines on the streets of LA Phew!!
and we aren’t quite sure exactly what the definition is yet
A kleptocratic oligarchy that is transitioning towards authoritarian dictatorship.
Yup, the only issue is whether the United States law enforcement agencies and military are loyal to the US Constitution or Donald Trump.
After sacking the previous incumbent, Trumps' nomination to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs; Dan Cairne
I think it's reasonable to assume Caine is loyal to Trump first.
Yes quite possibly. And it is also reasonable to point out that Dan Caine doesn't represent the entirety of the United States law enforcement agencies and military.
Donald Trump can fantasise about becoming US president for life as much as he wants but without a very substantial portion of the law enforcement agencies and military, probably the majority, it is never going to happen, it simply cannot happen.
Trump attempted a coup 4 years ago, all the law enforcement agencies remained one hundred percent loyal to the constitution. Even state officials who were loyal Republican Trump supporters refused his requests to rig the election results and remained loyal to the constitution, as even his vice president did.
What is quite remarkable is that a man who attempted to openly overthrow the US Constitution was allowed to stand for election again 4 years later, how many countries would allow that?
And surprise surprise he is now abusing the POTUS's very extensive and ill-defined powers.
The United States is parading its dirty laundry before the entire world as it provides an excellent example of how not to do this liberal democracy thing.
If the military is sent back to their bases by the State of California, following constitutional legal process, then that will be a massive relief
Yes that would only leave the Marines on the streets of LA Phew!!
They're part of the same deployment, so if the appeal court finds for California and they turn around as well then we'll have a better idea of what the regular military think (as opposed to just the NG)
There are more US troops deployed in California than in the whole of Syria
Donald Trump can fantasise about becoming US president for life
Does he?
Erosion of civil protections and circumvention of the law in the service of one man’s whims can take many forms.
And it doesn't make him a president for life
Trump will be gone in less than 4 years.
And it doesn't make him a president for life
Round and round the argument bot goes.
Donald Trump can fantasise about becoming US president for life as much as he wants
It's always important to remember that Trump has very little political ambition of his own - he has less interest in what he does as President than he has in being seen to be the President. His political skill really is just reading the room and reflecting what people think back at them and getting the appropriate boo or cheer.
I think all the 'third term' and 'president for life' stuff may be more him parroting the voices around him than any deep-seated ambition of his own. 'Always being president' would have an attraction to him as it'll keep his legal woes in check. But really it's the noises around him that he's voicing. Trump is a vehicle for a lot of other people's interests but theres no successor - in the sense that Trump himself has no interest in anyone other than him being president and he genuinely doesn't care what happens next, he fundimentally isn't a republican, so he has no interest in the future electoral success of the republican party (in fact he'd see their electoral demise as a personal endorsement - that they are nothing without him). He'd rather be a critic of whoever the next president is, and keep the conversation about him, than see the torch passed.
The republican primaries - which Trump won without even attending - revealed that theres a block of voters who don't want an alternative to Trump such as Haley, they don't want a facsimile of Trump such as Desantis. They want Trump. But theres no-one like Trump. So once Trump is either electorally out of contention- constitutionally unable to run for a third term - or incapacitated, or dead they've lost that block of voters.
There isn't anyone who is either as electable as him in the eyes of that base of voters, or as sufficiently empty a vessel for the political ambitions of the Heritage Foundation et al.
So they know once this term ends (or come the mid terms really) the game is pretty much up, which is why they are moving at such speed. They just have to make as much hay as they can between now and then. But that doesn't stop them at least running thought experiments about how this moment could be made to last and probing every possible weakness as they do so. The constitutional aspect they seem most interested in is a 'state of emergency' simply because the constitution doesn't outline anything regarding emergencies at all.
Trump's renowned for accusing people of things he'll go on to then do - so his condemnation of Zelensky for not holding an election because the country is in a state of emergency maybe shows that options are being explored to create conditions to justify doing the same thing.
Powers surrounding emergencies and declaring them were almost all devolved to the office President from Congress in the mid 1970s - and presidents have declared loads since then - nearly 100, more than half of them are still currently active. As it stands a declared emergency unlocks around 500 other political mechanisms to the President and the idea when the act was created was to try and streamline the nations response to emergency - remove red tape. But its Congress, not the Constitution, that gave those powers to the president and congress can also repeal it and take those powers back. A mechanism exists 'The Congressional Review Act' to repeal a previous act and unlike changing the constitution it only requires a simple majority to do it. Oddly and interestingly - a feature of the CRA is that anything repealed by the act is gone for ever - a bill that is in any way similar to the one repealed can never be put forward again. So should control of the the two houses return to the democrats next year they'll have the option to take those powers away from Trump and any future president.
All this talk about him being a President for life - he could have a heart attack next Tuesday, so he would then technically have been a President for life.
He'd rather be a critic of whoever the next president is, and keep the conversation about him, than see the torch passed.
I think this is quite brilliant succinct analysis of the last nine years. No idea if that might change with the team he has with him in office now, but they seem to have a better idea how to work "with" him, rather than just being Republicans doing a job for the leader they've been landed with.
but theres no successor - in the sense that Trump himself has no interest in anyone other than him being president and he genuinely doesn't care what happens next
That in itself is part of the problem, in dismantling the state so that it cannot resist his whims, it is handing power to a small group of oligarchs, whether he is head of state or not. This is what neoliberalism has done over the past 40+ years, it has chipped away and eroded the power of democracy and handed it to a small group oligarchs/elites/1%ers, whatever the term, power is concentrated within a small powerful group.
Trump is accelerating that process even further, dismantling even the weakened protection the state currently offers, and creating an authoritarian state. It probably doesn't whether Trump is himself dictator, as the authoritarian far right regime he is creating will be a "systematic" dictatorship, power will be concentrated within a small group that cannot be resisted by the law and state, even if the figurehead changes, the life impacts on people will be the same.
Good of Trump to give Netanyahu the nod to start bombing Iran yesterday, while everyone was looking at India.
He was well aware of it before the plane crash. He had started to pull diplomatic staff out of Syria knowing there would be reprisals against US targets.
All this talk about him being a President for life - he could have a heart attack next Tuesday, so he would then technically have been a President for life.
I understand there’s drugs to aid that sort of event….just saying……
So it looks like the court of appeal will decide on Tuesday whether to uphold the decision made yesterday that Trump had acted unlawfully in taking command of the Californian National Guard.
The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is Mary H. Murguia who was appointed judge by Bill Clinton and to the Court of Appeals by Barack Obama, so no Trump stooge it would appear.
Snip) The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is Mary H. Murguia who was appointed judge by Bill Clinton and to the Court of Appeals by Barack Obama, so no Trump stooge it would appear.
The panel is normally three judges.
The appeal overnight temporarily suspended the decision made by Judge Breymer, rather than overturned it, which is good
That panel was two Trump appointees and one Biden, dunno if they'll hear the full appeal on Tuesday. See^^
Doesn’t mean she makes the ruling. Not sure who’s on the panel for this, but it’ll be picked from a list stacked with Trump appointees.
I don't know if this link will circumvent the paywall but an interesting analysis here of how Trump the Evil Genius is doing on the international stage:
He must be hoping that he will have better luck on the domestic front.
On Thursday night, Israel launched a huge series of strikes on Iran that may have driven the Middle East closer to all-out war than it has been for decades. The assault’s success in killing several senior Iranian military leaders and scientists, as well as damaging key facilities, has left Iran embarrassed as well as assaulted, with its inability to anticipate the strikes laid bare for all to see.
But if Israel’s strikes are a humiliation for anyone, it is Donald Trump, who had made clear both privately and publicly that he did not want Israel – one of America’s closest allies in the world – to launch the attack. The US had been due to hold talks with Iran on Sunday, a process now undermined, potentially fatally, by the actions of Israel.
Israel’s relationship with the United States is essential to its survival. Military and financial aid from the US to Israel is worth around $4bn (£3bn) a year in “normal” times, but since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, the US stepped up its financial and military support to between $12-18bn (£8.9bn-£13.3bn), around a quarter to a third of Israel’s defence spending. Israel relied on direct military and intelligence assistance from the US (and UK) to successfully intercept Iran’s last missile salvo in its direction.
In other words, Israel is reliant on the US being on its side. And despite that, its government felt confident that it could publicly and spectacularly disregard the wishes of Trump, undermine his negotiations, and get away with it. As public displays of disrespect towards an ally go, there are few cases to match it.
What makes things worse for the US President is that this is neither an isolated incident nor is it confined to Israel. Trump campaigned through 2024 telling Americans that they were being humiliated and disrespected on the world stage – and that he was the man who could correct that.
Trump famously claimed on more than 50 occasions that he would be able to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on “day one” of his presidency. He suggested that Hamas would not have dared to carry out the atrocities of 7 October if he were in the presidency. He promised to achieve a lasting ceasefire in Gaza within days.
And, of course, a central pillar of Trump’s campaign was the suggestion that the rest of the world was taking the US for a ride on trade, and Trump would walk in and introduce tariffs that would quickly get the US a vastly better deal than ever before.
To an unusual extent, Trump made America’s position on the world stage a major part of his pitch for the presidency, promising he could deliver unprecedented wins and denigrating the performance of Biden.
Now, mere months into his presidency, all of this has fallen apart in front of him. Any hopes of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine have faded into nothing, as Putin repeatedly embarrassed Trump by refusing to make even minor concessions – or stick to short-term ceasefires – to hand the President a “win”. Instead, Russia’s largest attacks on Kyiv have now come during Trump’s second presidency.
Trump’s idea that tariffs would deliver quick results has similarly come to nothing. The US briefly raised tariffs on China as high as 145 per cent, only to back down with zero concessions from China. Trump introduced and then suspended worldwide tariffs promising “90 trade deals in 90 days”, but so far has struggled to sign even a single one.
And on Israel, Trump’s team helped to secure a ceasefire in Gaza in the last days of Biden’s presidency, but this soon collapsed into a fresh occupation of Gaza, which has come closer to starvation in recent months than at any other time during the conflict. Prospects of any deal there now look remote.
In his desperate search for something he could sign, or anything he could sell to the American people as a win, Trump was exploring signing an Iranian nuclear deal similar to the one agreed by Barack Obama – which Trump withdrew from during his first term. Trump would surely have pretended an agreement was somehow new, different and better, but now even this option is lost to him, as Israel has essentially done what it wished and dared the President to do anything about it.
Trump has approached diplomacy as if it was reality TV deal-making as if a tough show for the cameras will do most of the work and the details will sort themselves – disregarding the slow, agonisingly detailed diplomacy that typically delivers real results.
The consequence is an America that is flailing, insulting its allies for no purpose, and flattering its enemies for nothing in return. Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to publicly show up Trump is the most blatant humiliation inflicted on Trump to date, but it is an inevitable consequence of the President’s own empty bluster. The man truly believes himself to be the world’s greatest negotiator and has come back with nothing. That must be quite the blow to the ego.
In other words, Israel is reliant on the US being on its side. And despite that, its government felt confident that it could publicly and spectacularly disregard the wishes of Trump, undermine his negotiations, and get away with it. As public displays of disrespect towards an ally go, there are few cases to match it.
Where we with that conversation about Israel and Putin pissing off Trump....
Though I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was on board with the attack on Iran just for his own posturing
Where we with that conversation about Israel and Putin pissing off Trump....
We were saying, at least I was suggesting, that it wouldn't be a particularly smart move to deliberately piss the president of the United States off. In the case of Israel that article explains why :
Israel’s relationship with the United States is essential to its survival. Military and financial aid from the US to Israel is worth around $4bn (£3bn) a year in “normal” times, but since the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023, the US stepped up its financial and military support to between $12-18bn (£8.9bn-£13.3bn), around a quarter to a third of Israel’s defence spending. Israel relied on direct military and intelligence assistance from the US (and UK) to successfully intercept Iran’s last missile salvo in its direction.
Israel’s relationship with the United States is "essential" to its survival the article claims, so Trump pulling the plug on Israel would be a total disaster for them.
Of course Netanyahu might feel that he can predict exactly what Trump's reaction will be but that makes no sense because firstly, the stakes are so high that he can't afford to get it wrong, secondly no one can accurately predict how Trump will behave, and thirdly because I can't think many, if any, personal negatives for Trump if he pulls the plug on Israel.
And Trump did after all snub Netanyahu and Israel in a recent Middle East tour in which he focused on the super wealthy Gulf States that unlike Israel which sucks up money from the United States are actually pumping large amounts of money into the US.
The truth I suspect is that Netanyahu despite being aware of all that simply doesn't care, he wants wars on multiple fronts because firstly it maintains his political survival and secondly because zionism is currently dealing with its worse crisis in its history and resorting to war and violence is their go-to solution. They have no long term plans and Israel's future as the world's new pariah state looks bleak.
Do you think that potentially alienating Trump is a smart move by Netanyahu? A lot of what Netanyahu does makes little sense it seems mostly driven by his ego and needs for self survival.
Wow! 😳
https://www.thepoke.com/2025/06/13/donald-trump-claimed-putin-fought-in-world-war-ii-reactions/
Of course Netanyahu might feel that he can predict exactly what Trump's reaction will be but that makes no sense because firstly, the stakes are so high that he can't afford to get it wrong, secondly no one can accurately predict how Trump will behave, and thirdly because I can't think many, if any, personal negatives for Trump if he pulls the plug on Israel
It doesn't make sense on several levels:
Bombing a nuclear facility. Fortunately Iran reported to the IAEA that there weren't any leaks
Bombing a nuclear facility without the bombs needed to destroy it. They're US inventory and were used to attack Houthi underground storage by the US to prove a point to Iran. Shirley that's Israel poking both tigers?
Bombing a nuclear facility in circumstances bound to implicate the US. That'll please them!
Hoping that Syria, who you've invaded and bombed recently won't allow Iran to transit.
Bombing... there's a theme
That's the really odd thing about trump supporters...
I mean, let's just assume for whatever reason, for arguments sake, a person thinks 'yes I like those policies and ideas'.
But then he opens his mouth and talks abject nonsence... it's beyond lies, it doesn't even make any sense.
I mean, let's just assume for whatever reason, for arguments sake, a person thinks 'yes I like those policies and ideas'.
But then he opens his mouth and talks abject nonsence...
Because they see it from a different perspective. The fact that he isn't a slick speaking politician and seems to get a bit confused with detail is part of his appeal. It makes him appear to be more human and more like them, faults and all, and less like discredited but smooth talking mainstream politicians.
And because their starting position isn't hostility towards Trump they are likely to cut him some slack by recognising that Trump was referring to Putin as a representative of Russia and not suggesting that he personally fought in WW2.
The reference to 51 million dead is because Trump mistakenly used one estimate of the total deaths caused by WW2 rather than the figure for Russia.
As they say, one death is a tragedy a million deaths is a statistic.
Ronald Reagan also sometimes got quite confused when he was US president and that too was part of his appeal. Instead of seeing it as proof that he was a clueless halfwit it reminded many people of their dopey old grandad who everyone loved but sometimes got confused.
The difference is that Ronnie wasn’t actually a halfwit. He was an actor playing a part and he was good at the ‘gee, chucks…. ‘ folksy bollocks that got him where he wanted to be
Trump on the other hand….
It’s no act. I’ve seen more intelligent garden furniture
The difference is that Ronnie wasn’t actually a halfwit.
No he had Alzheimer's
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son
it reminded many people of their dopey old grandad who everyone loved but sometimes got confused.
And this is the bit I have a problem with...and why I put the 'blame' for a Trump style presidency on the voters, not Trump. Trump is the very definition of a Ronseal president. His persona and track record right back to when he became known in the '80s would lead you to knowing what sort of president he would be.
You might 'love' your dopey old grandad. You might 'forgive' him some of his pretty dodgy opinions, him being a racist or making some slightly 'rapey' comments. You might even 'forgive' him for imitating someone with arthrogryposis (remember that?). Because you love him. Oddly, other people's dopey old grandad's are rarely that appealing. But what sort of halfwit would propose putting their 'dopey old grandad' up for leader of the nation? You'd barely give his opinion any worth for your next car purchase or if its red or brown sauce in a burger, let alone give him the nuclear codes.
I really think it's an us and them thing. Some of us, even if exposed to someone like Trump for the first time without knowing his track record, would find him utterly repellent on first contact and would only become more repelled the more you knew. Others find him and his rhetoric desirable. It's an oil and water thing - neither will ever see the point of view of the other. I genuinely don't blame Trump - he is what he is. His presence in the top office however is the product of the judgement and values of the populous. The opportunity to vote for someone/something like Trump just exposed them for what they always were. And that has made me realise what a large proportion of the american population I dislike to the very core.
But then he opens his mouth and talks abject nonsence... it's beyond lies, it doesn't even make any sense.
Lots of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It shows a good salesman can sell shit to those that will buy it, it happens both sides of the Atlantic.
No he had Alzheimer's
There’s a big difference between having Alzheimer’s and just being as thick as mince
It's not a great look when you make even less sense than someone with alzheimers...
a bit confused with detail
That's a very polite way of putting it 🤣
The objective is to use force to control all middle east countries but with their small population that can only be a short-term gain. If they think they can bomb Iran into submission, they are dreaming. Both sides will not have upper hand over each others. To defeat a nation, each side will need soldiers on the ground.
The current bombing of Iran is actually just trying to halt the American leaving the region. They need the US B-52 to bomb the underground because their planes will have to fly over Iraq and even with their heavy bomb load will not be able or enough to destroy the underground infrastructure. But the Axis of the West will try all tricks in the book to get there ... as usual.
For now US aircraft carrier(s) is vulnerable to drone attacks and they know it, and even their F-35 was nearly down by drones too. The cost of a drone is vastly lower than conversational weapons and all they need is one proper hit, and the cost of repair will be huge. That's why US is merely acting as backup for now and as a cheer leader. Imagine one down F-35 or F-22 and the secret of the technology is gone.
The American carrier(s) is leaving because they are rather vulnerable just sitting there in the water. The Houthis will use them as target practice and eventually they will hit their targets. They Americans also want to concentrate on Asia Pacific and the Far East because they are losing grounds fast in that region. As far as negotiation with China is concerned, Americans will not have the upper hand nor can they use force to intimidate China. Yes, think of the second/third most advance fighter jet French Rafale (behind F-22 or 35) easily got shot down by J-10C (a 4th class fighter jet). In the technology war, the American carrier is considered old school that can only intimidate and bully lesser nations. As for Taiwan, there will be no war. Taiwan will return to China. Aircraft carriers? China mainland is "the aircraft carrier".
If Iran is out of the way, the next will be Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
conversational weapons
Do you have an example of a conversational weapon?
Taiwan will return to China.
Ah, you do.
Do you have an example of a conversational weapon?
Anything not that does not resemble a small drone.
Ah, you do.
That's from the local news in the Far East.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt due to a language barrier, but that is so funny!
Thank you for the laugh in these uncertain times! 😎
A conversational weapon seems a decent description of a few politicians to my mind
There’s a big difference between having Alzheimer’s and just being as thick as mince
There's a huge difference between the two but when it comes to who to vote for as head of state the differences are fairly irrelevant, I wouldn't vote for either.
Although I guess the thick geezer could maybe rely on the advise of those with a bit more savvy, not remembering what your job is is probably a bigger handicap!
trump just looks so weak
he's utterly in Putin's pocket, his dream ofca Nobel peace prize is long gone, netenyahu is ignoring him completely
just a senile old man picking fights with his own states and shouting 'tariff' really loudly
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt due to a language barrier, but that is so funny!
Thank you for the laugh in these uncertain times!
Glad that sounds funny to you.
It will be funnier if I can see a drone sinking an aircraft carrier. Btw Old man Nimitz (class carrier) is retiring and getting old for the game.
What is also really funny to me is the Western denial of the mess they created in the last 200 years. What a mess, but the slow turning point has started.
I hope I get to see an aircraft carriers sank, don't care which side, during my lifetime before I become fertiliser.
Thank you for the laugh in these uncertain times! 😎
It was a little beauty even if unintentional! But to be fair much of what chewkw says isn't much off the mark imo, except probably this :
As for Taiwan, there will be no war. Taiwan will return to China.
I would be very surprised if Taiwan returned to China without a bloody war. Although having said that China has had decades to plan, prepare, and rehearse, for the invasion in fine detail, and they won't move until ready to do so, so who's to say that it won't go like clockwork for them with minimal bloodshed, however prepared Taiwan might think they are?
I hope I get to see an aircraft carriers sank, don't care which side, during my lifetime before I become fertiliser.
Dude, as someone who has served on an aircraft carrier and often thought how terrifying it would be to be stuck in the middle of one as it sank (you might get lucky and just burn to death or get asphyxiated by fumes, or blown to bits by a mini explosion before you get trapped in an air pocket waiting for the inevitable) that is one sick bucket list wish......no matter which 'side' does the sinking.
I would be very surprised if Taiwan returned to China without a bloody war. Although having said that China has had decades to plan, prepare, and rehearse, for the invasion in fine detail, and they won't move until ready to do so, so who's to say that it won't go like clockwork for them with minimal bloodshed, however prepared Taiwan might think they are?
I am sure there will be no war between Taiwan and China, in order for Taiwan to reunite with China. Current view is 50-50 split. i.e. 50 for reunification, 50 for independence. The latter is slowly losing grounds.
The American/NATO/West are trying their best to spark trouble, but there is really no chance of that happening.
The current or next negotiation will be very interesting as China is going to talk about Taiwan with USA (they are negotiating now and I doubt there will be any conclusion). As for tariff etc, that's just minor issue because USA has no advantage.
Dude, as someone who has served on an aircraft carrier and often thought how terrifying it would be to be stuck in the middle of one as it sank (you might get lucky and just burn to death or get asphyxiated by fumes, or blown to bits by a mini explosion before you get trapped in an air pocket waiting for the inevitable) that is one sick bucket list wish......no matter which 'side' does the sinking.
It's inevitable because of technology advancement. If aircraft carriers are still using the old technology (old man Nimitz) or less advance technology they will just be a big target sitting duck, especially when they are within range. The drone war is scary. "cheap as peanut" to make and as devastating as they can be.
It's inevitable because of technology advancement.
That's not what convert was referring to. It's this comment :
I hope I get to see an aircraft carriers sank, don't care which side, during my lifetime before I become fertiliser.
You even say that you don't care which side it is.
