Trump Presidency

[matthewfarmery]

Abolish or major overhaul of the SC, fixed terms for judges. major revisions to the constitution. Presidents should have a max age limit. presidents should be better held accountable for their actions. Presidents should release their tax returns (make it compulsory) And any health checks should also be revealed (and not some made up WH crap, which is what they are currently doing)

Basically bring the American constitution kicking and screaming to the 21 century. unlike now, were a lot of it was written in the dark ages. (there abouts)

If America survives this, and maybe it will, maybe it won't. There needs to be better safeguards. There needs to be a congress that functions, and not one that doesn't seem to give a crap. or allow an out of control president to break and be above the law.

Unless the above happens, then America will not survive. Because another president could wind up taking America back to brink and plunge it into the depths.

[Chips]

This isn't to say there's anything wrong, after all, I'm not American so I don't care

1) Does Section 4 Article 25 of the constitution not allow for the removal of a president? Therefore, does it need some... health checks revealed (after all, what are you looking for and what would be the criteria/cut off; does a second opinion come into it, or only 100% healthy with zero issues?).
2) Is the age limit in fear of mental degredation, or just discriminating against age? What makes (for example) 64 okay, but 65 not? Some people die in their 40's from dementia and illnesses, some in their 90's, some not at all. Is age therefore a suitable discriminator? Or is it a hard line and then a health check is the softer line? Does it require docs of various political allegiances?
3) What's the hope of the tax return publish? No rich presidents, or... a tax return indicates criminality? Or if it's published people can investigate where the tax service may not have and uncover something?
4) If the American constitution was written in the dark ages (aka a long time ago), is it only the bits about a president that need updating? or do more areas? What constitutes a requirement and does this need a public vote so the "people" agree (referendum), or is it uniliteral based on who is in charge? Who makes the decisions as to what needs updating? Is it a party in power?!
5) Isn't how many terms a president can have in the constitution? Would this be changeable based on (4).
6) Could changing the constitution mean whomever gets into charge with a majority in both houses is free to change how they see fit to adjust to their current political ideaology? Is there not a risk with this?
You can see where the latter 3 points are heading... something that seemed a good idea could go very off kilter.

On top of that, does this mean that regardless of what they campaign on and therefore get elected, do things need to be protected from such popular(!?) incidents? If so, what, and why - if it's against "the will of the people"? who decides then?

I absolutely understand where the thoughts are coming from, but what's that old saying about paved with good intentions and so on. I'm not expecting answers obviously, this isn't happening anyway so what's the point, but sometimes the knee jerk (to coin a phrase) reactions result in outcomes that weren't expected. In the UK we have that anti terror legislation that was rushed after 2001... and the first well known instance reported for it was to eject a man heckling at a political party conference... on anti terrorism grounds.

The thing was rushed, but promised it wasn't overreaching, wouldn't be abused - yet weeks later...

The SC issue definitely seems odd though. He should be blocked from a lot of this stuff if it wasn't so stacked?

[Mailo]

Regarding 2): Well, 65 is retirement age, so why not apply the same age to politicians? Also, I'm pretty sure the number of people dying of dementia at 40 is ever so slightly lower than the one at 80, so that is not really an argument. And there are many situations where age counts whether you can do something or not ... drink, vote, drive, joining the army, having to re-take a driving test, retirement, etc. Are those also age discrimination?
Funny side note ... I found a webpage listing the average age of politicians in parliament. Unsurprisingly, the US is almost on top of the list, with 63.9 for the senate, and 57.7 for the house of representatives. For comparison, in Germany the average ages are 54.8 for the federal council (senate equivalent) and 45.4 for the Bundestag. I'd claim there is age discrimination in politics in the US, in that younger people have no chance to be elected ...
Regarding 3): A tax return would for example show if the person running the office is personally profiting from his office, e.g., by giving speeches, accepting well-paid positions without having to actually work there, profiting from manipulating stock markets with the power of the office, and many more. So less against rich and more against crooked presidents.

[matthewfarmery]

1) I would assume the 25th amendment should allow for a removal of a president, if they aren't able to fully do the job at hand. Both physically and mentally. But as I'm not american either, well, maybe I don't fully understand what is involved.

But look at Biden when he was in office, Trump attacked him and his age. And for using an auto pen. and screen which he could read stuff from. Yet, Trump has done the same. As for his physical health, he can't walk in a straight line. (caught on camera) his body is clearly rotting from the inside. He has fallen down a few times and he had at least one stroke, (even the WH announcement on what going to happen to him when he got his checkup on Friday, said some strange things. And clearly not an usually checkup. So clearly they were doing more. And maybe a CAT scan? (which would fit if they going to see what damage the strokes have done on his brain)

Plus there is all the other issues. And for the WH to release a statement that he is in great shape, then, its not true. He will only get worse, and the WH is clearly covering something up.

As for his mental state, well, that is clearly worse. His father suffered from dementia. and Trump is clearly forgetting stuff. But with the WH covering up his true health, then ots very wrong that they are. As his former WH doctor also lied about his health. This is one reason why changes need to be made to reveal this to the public.

2) I think a lower age limit would be better. Trump attacked Biden's age, and so did many others. But I think the above question which I answered should override this.

3) Trump, is I think he first person not to release their tax returns, Trump didn't and some of it was leaked. But the problem with Trump is, he is a career criminal, has may have (even if is not really being proven) he has connections to putin, plus his connections to other shady figures. Lets not forget he bankrupted casinos. and other failed business. Tax returns would reveal if a person is brought and paid for, (a brought and paid for president) and one could say Trump is just that) Plus his connections to Epstein and Musk and others (putin) Revealing a persons tax returns would say, if the person is honest with their finances. OR if they have something to hide.

In Trump's case, he clearly had a lot to hide, which is why he never publicly made his tax returns public, then again, he didn't pay much tax. (from leaked reports) plus he had a lot of what appears to have been laundered money passing through his business. So if he had released his tax returns, this should have disqualified him. But because the rules and regulations were so lax, (written for another age) the rules weren't enforced. I will answer other questions another time. I think I will stop here for now.

[Chips]

So just to remember, I think Trump's an absolute arse and dislike him. A lot. Can't believe he was remotely ever near candidacy let alone President. Twice. I say that because people start to get the idea I may be a Trump supporter when I start to disagree with perspectives, or start to point out what I believe are holes...

Regarding 2): Well, 65 is retirement age, so why not apply the same age to politicians? Also, I'm pretty sure the number of people dying of dementia at 40 is ever so slightly lower than the one at 80, so that is not really an argument. And there are many situations where age counts whether you can do something or not ... drink, vote, drive, joining the army, having to re-take a driving test, retirement, etc. Are those also age discrimination?
Funny side note ... I found a webpage listing the average age of politicians in parliament. Unsurprisingly, the US is almost on top of the list, with 63.9 for the senate, and 57.7 for the house of representatives. For comparison, in Germany the average ages are 54.8 for the federal council (senate equivalent) and 45.4 for the Bundestag. I'd claim there is age discrimination in politics in the US, in that younger people have no chance to be elected ...
Regarding 3): A tax return would for example show if the person running the office is personally profiting from his office, e.g., by giving speeches, accepting well-paid positions without having to actually work there, profiting from manipulating stock markets with the power of the office, and many more. So less against rich and more against crooked presidents.

65 is not a mandatory retirement age. It's an age at which you can retire and have access to Govt backed retirement related things; so in the US that's social security etc. You do not have to retire. But at that age, you *do* have access to state provided age bound services. For example, the oldest service Police Officer in the US is apparently in his 90's... in the UK we have a community support officer in their 70's.

Obviously, with regards to workplaces, restrictions can be applied if there's valid exclusion (physical etc), but there is a reason that Age is protected under the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, the ADEA act in the USA, and Employment Directives in the EU. So for clarity, this is related to employment. Just like you cannot discriminate based on sex in the workplace either. There are 9 characteristics protected in the UK.

Why do I care about mentioning it? Because it's very easy (as we're observing) to suddenly start creating exceptions when it's convenient for us to do so. Does it matter? That depends, just as usual pointing out it's a potential slippery slope. Is eroding workplace protections due to a specific person a correct approach? Does it not feel... just a tad bit of a "wait, what?". It should as once we start on that path, why not also make sure no women can run for president - as they keep losing the elections and we ended up with Trump. Twice.

That doesn't mean, however, that it's not revealing that the overall population may go "do we really want a president who could be wheel chair bound and falling asleep 17 hours a day or should we have some form of provision other than what people will vote for to prevent this?" and there's absolutely no disagreement from me that (frankly) there should be some form of checks/balances to ensure they're a) fit for office, b) remain fit for office. But that same rule could then be rolled out and (mis) used for companies and employers across the country to oust people on spurious claims for the convenience of the company/employer wishing to do so. "Get a doctor to say they're suffering from something so we can force them out and start doing things that are bad!". It seems ridiculous when the current context is Trump/President, but it's how it happens...

The 25th Amendment does allow for removal of a president if they're incapacitated, but I believe it's entirely dependent upon their own party... so unlikely to ever happen unless they're in a coma. But once again, it'd be convenient to create new provisions based on Trump in order to oust him, but without having to repeat my caveat at the start, these need to be very careful. I've given the terror legislation in the UK as an example of how something everyone thought was a great idea/necessary at the time, was within weeks misused for the convenience of the Government in power...

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be some changes made to ensure medical grounds can occur for the removal of those deemed unfit for office though. But at that point, what tests, what's covered, what's the various "cut off point" and so on.

As for tax returns - maybe the US is different. It's related to income... and if you have companies set up that receive "payments" and are just sat on accounts (not paid as wage or dividend), or investments made that may appreciate in value but not pay out, or are inside tax wrappers (therefore don't require declaration), then it's invisible. Is it actually going to solve a problem? Isn't to say that publishing their returns shouldn't be mandatory/a good thing. Just "is it then going to be used as the absolute evidence of goodness -- look, his tax return shows nothing negative, so obviously he's a good guy totally above board!"

With regards to Trump's speech and walking - did wonder if it was early signs of ALS. But that's absolute speculation from a non medical doctor. Or any form of Doctor!

He's obviously got deteriorating health (don't we all ) and all his rhetoric during campaigning was nothing more than political point scoring to try and win via smears and the rest. Still baffled how it came to two geriatrics slugging it out politically, but it did. There's a cartoon that predated this that if I could find it I'd link

Personally I'd love him gone -- he's causing turmoil resulting in depressing the UK's GDP growth as his "twitter" mouth damages our companies, industries and Govt money as it has to prop stuff up - resulting in less for the public services we need - simply because whim x/y.

[matthewfarmery]

More evidence that Trump health isn't that great. Just seen footage of Trump strugging to get onto Air force one. and he couldn't even close his unbrella, he got someone else to do it. Even though he was trying hard to hide this fact.

I mean, if that had been biden, News Papers across the world and Trump and the GOP would have been shouting on the rooftops for Biden to go. Trump would have certainly would have demanded him to resign or to be removed.

This is the hypocrisy of the GOP, and state media, As its OK for Trump to be unwell, and strugging. with his strange out of touch press conferences. Silly and out of touch social media posts, like the Grim reaper one. and also a fake one image of a med bed that can heal cancer, that suppose to be from aliens (I'm not making this up)

He is totally living in a surreal world. But state media seems to ignore that. Partly because they are scared of him. And the first amendment, that America seems so proud of. Is under threat, mostly from Trump, and from the SC.

[matthewfarmery]

Its now coming to light that Ghislaine Maxwell is being getting special treatment, she is getting visits from secret guests, (we don't know who) some of the prison is been shutdown to accommodate this. The current inmates are been told to not harm or threaten Ghislaine Maxwell unless they want to be moved to a harsher prison.

So all this more more, is to keep her month shut. On top of everything else that Trump and co are trying to do to keep stuff hidden, like shutting down the government.

Pretty sickening, considering she doesn't even belong in that prison.

[matthewfarmery]

The blatant corruption of the Trump crime family continues. So, regarding Tiktok, so its going to get a new CEO soon, but guess who is being tipped to run it?

Barron Trump.

first. that just got to be one major conflict of interest. Secondary, remember the noise that Trump gave about Hunter Biden and his conflict of interest? But this seems pretty much the same. Plus B Trump has probably zero skill in managing a company.

So, no investigations, just another day and graft for the Trump crime family.

[matthewfarmery]

So, I know I posting yet again, but this is really serious.

And Trump is now basically a traitor to the American people.

I will try and break it down. China has been spying on America, or should I say certain military and US government Emails. As they found China hacking there. So America started to spy on the Chinese as a result. And John Bolton was partly behind this spying operation.

So, Trump has now indicted John Bolton. even though he denied all knowledge of his arrest. BUT, here is the kicker. In order to indict him, Trump had to reveal the surveillance operation to China, Which means Trump has very likely committed treason revealing secrets to an enemy power. Because along with John Bolton, some Chinese officials were also arrested in the US.

So, in order to do the indictment, this all had to come out, otherwise, it would have come out in discovery. All so that Trump could go after John Bolton. And PS, this spying game on the Chinese is still ongoing.

This is how depraved Trump is, comprise national security to go after a rival or enemy.

Trump needs to be charged with treason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L0ImuBTSYw

[CBJ]

As various people have pointed out, links to news articles would be appreciated far more than links to opinion pieces on YouTube. I want to read about what's happened, not listen to someone ranting about what they think about it.

[mr.WHO]

Sadly these days, most news articles are either opinion pieces masked as news...or worse, AI slop, that generate article with 90% trash copy/pasted from wikipedia and 10% of actual news at the bottom.

Not even main news agencies are safe from it - the cancer is slowly spreading to them as well.

[matthewfarmery]

Considering that Trump is trying to control the US media in fear. then news stories aren't all that easy to come by from other sources.

Still, there is another scandal that is blowing up in Trumps face. Trump has been seen and partly heard in a hot mic moment, talking to the Indonesian president. (when he was at the summit during the peace talks of Gaza) While not everything was heard. but the names of Trump's sons were heard. And they have nothing to do with the government. Yet watchdogs have been concerned with the Trump family enriching themselves during his presidency.

Just one news story after another. But this is another scandal, which should be easier to find, even in the UK.

[matthewfarmery]

Sadly these days, most news articles are either opinion pieces masked as news...or worse, AI slop, that generate article with 90% trash copy/pasted from wikipedia and 10% of actual news at the bottom.

Not even main news agencies are safe from it - the cancer is slowly spreading to them as well.

Especailly when Trump is basically threatening main networks with shutdown, and firing people if they say anything bad about him. You only have to see the Jimmy Kimmel episode, and the fallout from that.

Besides, news about Trump isn't that easy to come by in the UK. not all new channels cover it. and you cant always find a good new story on Trump, unless it sometimes on youtube or independent new sites. As most main stream are till threatened to even mention it.

[CBJ]

Besides, news about Trump isn't that easy to come by in the UK. not all new channels cover it. and you cant always find a good new story on Trump, unless it sometimes on youtube or independent new sites. As most main stream are till threatened to even mention it.

Maybe you should ask yourself where these people are getting their information, and how reliable it is. Why do you think they miraculously have access to the truth while "mainstream" media doesn't? Don't you think there is a chance that you're falling into the exact same trap that Trump's supporters fell into, listening to "alternative" media who just create their own stories if there aren't enough factual stories that support what they want to hear?

[matthewfarmery]

Well, regarding the Trump being a traitor,

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/25/poli ... phone-data

Chinese hackers supposedly have hacked phones used by Trump and Vance. So that does appear real. Even if the story is old. (from last year) So with that evidence, we would assume that the US government would have done counter surveillance on the Chinese government in response to that, right?

But if that hacking / spying is ongoing, then it would be in secret.

Foreign hack of John Bolton’s AOL account
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/12/poli ... n-aol-hack

So up to now, that been true.

The problem is, Trump is basically going after his enemies as a revenge tour, granted that some youtube videos are opinion rather then fact. But in regard to the one I linked, that is from a professional lawyer who seems to have access to official court filings. and does cite other sources in the video.

I generally try and stay away from most youtube videos, as some are clickbait. But as independent media is still probably the most reliable way to understand what is happening.

[CBJ]

But as independent media is still probably the most reliable way to understand what is happening.

What exactly is it that makes you think it's "reliable"?

[matthewfarmery]

But as independent media is still probably the most reliable way to understand what is happening.

What exactly is it that makes you think it's "reliable"?

I already mentioned several points, the Jimmy Kimmel incident, when Trump demanded that he gets fired, (and did) only for disney to lose a huge amount of subscriptions. So he came back onto the air. And TRump again threatened him and other news services that they get removed.

Plus there was an incident with CNN, when they did a text only interview with Trump, several problems with that, they didn't verify it was Trump on the other end. And whoever was on the other end, was given the questions before hand. Even some other networks blasted CNN for that stunt. Plus Trump has threatened other networks with closure.

Which makes main stream media questionable. As for independent news sources. Some are and some aren't. But one thing is for sure, thanks to the SC, and Trump, freespeech is in the firing line. at least with some independent sources, Trump can't easy threaten them.

So one reason why, there are independent news networks. as the mainstream media is terrified of Trump and his regime.

Again, not all sites are good. But at least from the UK prospective, its hard to sometimes find stories about Trump and his corruption. Some sites are behind a paywall. or some sites don't want to really cover the full story for reasons like the above.

[CBJ]

You've told us a lot about why you don't trust mainstream media, but you have said absolutely nothing about why you think this independent media is somehow more reliable. You haven't even defined what you mean by independent, and given that you keep linking YouTube channels I can't help thinking that you just mean individuals that you have decided you trust because they keep feeding you material that supports your world view.

This isn't about Trump or not-Trump. It's about looking at how Trump got where he was, and watching people who dislike him falling into the exact trap as those who voted for him. Instead of looking at verified reports and making their own judgement, they are getting themselves worked up into a frenzy about talking points pushed by "independent" sources with little or no credibility. It's just a different echo chamber.

I'll ask another question. Why are you so interested in reading more and more about Trump's latest corruption scandal? Don't you have enough material already to be able to decide what you think of him? Is you having more of that material going to make any difference to what happens? OK, that's three questions, but they amount to the same thing.

[matthewfarmery]

If your challenging who can be trusted or can't be trusted in the media world. You might as well point a finger at every news source going. Take for example Fox News, which got banned in the UK for a few reasons. Yet in America, it still a trusted news source for millions of Americans. Even though it lost a defamation lawsuit from voting machine firm Dominion. Yet Even all that, plenty still trust them. So does that still make them a reliable news source? If you have smart TV and hooked it up to the internet, you may get other news sites like NewsMAX, But that too is a rightwing news service, can that be trusted for reliable news?

to answer you question, you can flip the coin either way. how can you really trust any news service these days? But then again, in the UK, you only have access to a limited number of news channels. BBC news, sky news. and a few others. Yet many of them don't always cover what Trump is doing. not the scandals, not the fallout from what stuff has been doing on in the SC.

By independent news, those that aren't affiliated with any networks. But even then, youtube sites could be deemed under threat from Trump, A because google settled with Trump over

YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5m (£18.6m) to settle a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump, filed after the video platform suspended his account

So even independent news sites could be under threat if they try and stand up to Trump. And that is the problem. Mainstream media isn't fighting back. again, too damn scared. Only a few still seem to speak out against him. And some like Lawrence O'Donnell. Even then, he been threatened by Trump.

The problem is, Trump is a wannabe dictator, what happens in America will effect the world stage, whether we like it or not. Everything he does reeks of corruption. Even the American economy has a big influence on the world. If that crashes, (which it probably might, or go into a recession at the very least. It will certainly effect everywhere else. Because of the dollar, and that is used to influence the world stage, like oil and so on.

Trump and co are profiting from all this, one way ot another. While many media soruces don't seem to want to cover everything that Trump says and does. (or threatened with shutdown or people getting fired) then places like some youtube channels, still try and give an independent view on what happening. But even that will likely change soon.

So everything that Trump does, has a knock on effect. if we like it or not. From his court cases, which he has many loses in the lower courts, but from the SC prospective. he winning there. especailly through the shadow docket system, which the SC judges are clearly abusing. So one channel, that I linked, that person tries and breaks it down, from the court filings, to stuff that Trump has posted on his truth social account. To other news outlets. at least try and say, this is where I got my sources from. And some of those sources are from Trump himself.

[Chips]

Sadly these days, most news articles are either opinion pieces masked as news...or worse, AI slop, that generate article with 90% trash copy/pasted from wikipedia and 10% of actual news at the bottom.

Not even main news agencies are safe from it - the cancer is slowly spreading to them as well.

Well, unsurprisingly, if you expect to be told what to think, you'll be more susceptible to it - and more likely to be served it from various "social" sites. It's their bread and butter money maker.

Seeing the slop coming out of some of the YT channels people rely upon for their "news" is... depressing, but not surprising. Confirmation bias is absolutely in force. Doesn't mean there isn't insanity going on in the world, nor genuine stories behind it! Far from it. But people should learn to recognise the loaded terminology and start filtering that out in what they see/hear. If you cannot find correlation in more traditional *news* sources, then you're firmly entrenched in a companies algorithm to keep you consuming what benefits them most. Your viewing time.

BBC meanwhile has charters and more which should mean it's impartial, and it can receives complaints and challenges from sources if they believe bias - so it has checks, balances, and a fairly robust political bias counter. Doesn't mean you won't find a strong UK bias against opposing views (e.g. Russia will complain it's anything but unbiased). Most EU states should have similar? There will still be opinion pieces though, can't escape them - but not on the news itself. So I certainly wouldn't start believing YT channel X over conventional sources on "but they're all AI generated so..." and such arguments are a tad bit reductive.

(btw there's nothing wrong with opinion pieces per se as long as you consume a wider scope too. I read the Guardian, mainly as it's still free to access, but also I dislike several of their journalist's opinion pieces. But I read them simply because it means... I get an opinion from a source I may not hear often and it may (does) challenge my own opinion. Doesn't mean I remotely agree with it though, nor accept it - but it does make you think/consider alternatives But everything in moderation! But I genuinely believe you can find decent sources and pick out truth from fiction if you're willing to invest a little time - though time is not a luxury everyone has, and frankly any engagement over apathy imo.

btw none of this being said means I don't want to read/see/hear it. I'd just prefer better sources However, I'll wade through and probably find some correlation where applicabl - and at least I'm hearing something I may not remotely be aware of otherwise, and can decide if it's accurate later. There's never smoke without fire, just that the fire may be more a bit of tinder than a full on forest fire - and as said in para above, I'd always prefer hearing *some* engagement than no-one caring at all! At least you can engage and talk with people who give a damn! And to Matthew in particular, I don't mind multiple posts with different content to each - it splits it up and makes it easier to digest. So unless the mods object, I'm all for it. Easier reading/responding.