What does President Trump do NOW?

[Pack Rat]

More real facts!


https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTATVjf2g/

[Apatheist]

The UK Labour government has a large majority, but this was won on a minority vote, because the new Reform party (which grew out of UKIP and the Brexit party) split the right-wing vote and consequently the Conservatives (who had been struggling) lost a lot of seats. We've had 7 prime ministers in 10 years, less time than Thatcher or Blair held office - yet another one (Andy Burnham) has just taken over the office from Sir Keir Starmer. The Daily Mail, in typical fashion, ran a poll asking how long people thought he would stay in office, and were asked for their view in terms of number of DAYS, which says much.
It should be noted that Burnham previously lost a leadership election to Jeremy Corbyn, who was then trounced in the election of 2019 by Boris Johnson.
Basically the UK has lost all trust in politicians. There is now a splinter party (Restore Britain) on the right, led by one of the founders of Reform, which is threatening to split Reform's vote; the Green party (who have an extremely dubious leader) have taken votes from Labour.
The next election will probably be won by the party that hides its scandals better than the others. As it stands, the government can do what it likes, but very few are liking what it is doing

[jusplay4fun]

Based on what Apatheist posted above, to me, basically, the US and UK have similar political problems.

[Apatheist]

Based on what Apatheist posted above, to me, basically, the US and UK have similar political problems.

With the one HUGE exception that we don't have an autocratic warmongering narcissist buffoon with the power of executive orders.
The good side of that is that the PM can't just do things without consultation; the downside is that it takes ages to get very simple things done.

[Pack Rat]

Based on what Apatheist posted above, to me, basically, the US and UK have similar political problems.

With the one HUGE exception that we don't have an autocratic warmongering narcissist buffoon with the power of executive orders.
The good side of that is that the PM can't just do things without consultation; the downside is that it takes ages to get very simple things done.

+1

[Dukasaur]

Based on what Apatheist posted above, to me, basically, the US and UK have similar political problems.

With the one HUGE exception that we don't have an autocratic warmongering narcissist buffoon with the power of executive orders.
The good side of that is that the PM can't just do things without consultation; the downside is that it takes ages to get very simple things done.

Actually, the "exception" is not about any one man. It's the comparative advantage of a constitutional monarchy over a republic.

Human are a tribal species. This is good in some ways, but it has the natural drawback that tribal strongmen can exploit our emotional loyalty to the tribe against us. In every republic, a tribal strongman will eventually rise up and become dictator. ALL republics will eventually degenerate into dictatorships. Some take longer than others, but it's the inevitable fate of all republics.

Constitutional monarchies short-circuit the problem. The irrational tribal loyalty is given to a powerless figurehead, while the real power is given to a prime minister who is treated like an average joe and gets no special loyalty. Europe's great constitutional monarchies -- Britain, Sweden, Holland, etc., will remain free societies as long as they don't f*ck it up and become republics.

[jusplay4fun]

Duk does make some good arguments here.

I am not convinced that constitutional monarchies are superior to a republic. They are different forms of Democracies and, by their very nature (sharing of power) are "messy" and rather inefficient.

Politics now, especially at the Federal level, is a MESS (full of vitriol and an inability to pass meaningful legislation), and that sets the tone for State and even Local Politics. Governing is done at a CRISIS Level.

The political stalemate in Congress has shifted much power to the Presidency (and to some extent, the Courts and the Judiciary). Congress can barely do their MAIN JOB which is to pass a Budget, and THAT has NOT really been done well LONG before Trump. I will credit President Clinton getting a BALANCED budget passed in Congress. NO ONE else has gotten close since.

Part of the problem is that the Congress in both chambers are so evenly divided.

The US Deficit very recently exceeded $40 TRILLION, and there is no appetite to rein in wasteful spending. Look at the criticism DOGE received as some evidence there.

I do not see the UK Government is showing superior results vs. that of the US.

I do think that Trump needs to END the attacks on IRAN, and SOON, as I posted elsewhere.

[Apatheist]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

[jusplay4fun]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

The US does not need a monarchy to reduce and avoid

the risk of civil war and anarchy.

We have the US Constitution, term limits (for the President), and the Courts to help prevent such things.

Our Federal Government has a similar record on lack of success on important issues, such as immigration reform and MUCH more.

[Pack Rat]

Release the 3 million documents of Trump-Epstein Files, as ordered by Congress.




https://youtube.com/shorts/BRTgE13LDtg? ... -D49B0rN3F

[Evil Semp]

The US Deficit very recently exceeded $40 TRILLION, and there is no appetite to rein in wasteful spending. Look at the criticism DOGE received as some evidence there.

I think most of the criticism DOGE received was justified.

You don't fix your car engine with a sledge hammer. That is what I think DOGE tried to do. Try to figure out what isn't working and try to fix it.

Estimates indicate that roughly 25,000 workers cut or displaced under Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiatives have been brought back or asked to return after cuts were deemed too deep or random.

The National Nuclear Security Administration called back dozens of terminated personnel (around 70 to 100 workers) within 24 hour.

[Apatheist]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

The US does not need a monarchy to reduce and avoid

the risk of civil war and anarchy.

We have the US Constitution, term limits (for the President), and the Courts to help prevent such things.

Our Federal Government has a similar record on lack of success on important issues, such as immigration reform and MUCH more.

You don't need them - but since we have no written constitution or term limits, I think WE do.

[jusplay4fun]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

The US does not need a monarchy to reduce and avoid

the risk of civil war and anarchy.

We have the US Constitution, term limits (for the President), and the Courts to help prevent such things.

Our Federal Government has a similar record on lack of success on important issues, such as immigration reform and MUCH more.

You don't need them - but since we have no written constitution or term limits, I think WE do.

Only ONE US President ran from more that two terms: FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) during the Great Depression and then WWII. He was likely DYING as he ran for his 4th term in 1944 and died soon after the Election. George Washington declined to run for a third term, when many wanted to make him, basically, a KING. He set the precedent to limit to TWO four year terms, and the Congress made it OFFICIAL in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1951.

Without this Amendment, I think Trump would seriously consider running for another term.

We need term limits and I think we need them for Senators and Congressmen in the House, too. This is important for the chief executive, such as POTUS and for state Governors; some legislators commend much power in their arenas, for some good and more not good, imo.

[Dukasaur]

What does he do now? Tell more lies about Canada.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/25/politics ... ump-canada

Among other things, the president has falsely claimed that:

• the Canadian public likes the idea of becoming the 51st US state, which is overwhelmingly unpopular with the Canadian public;
• that Canada is one of the world’s highest-tariff countries, though it is actually low in world rankings;
• that Canada prohibits US banks from operating there, though more than a dozen US banks operate in Canada;
• that Canada doesn’t accept US agricultural exports, though Canada is the world’s second-largest purchaser of those exports;
• that Chinese and Russian ships are “constantly surrounding” Canada, though that never happened;
• and that “they don’t, essentially, have a military,” though Canada’s very-much-existent military jointly operates the North American Aerospace Defense Command with the US and fought alongside the US in Afghanistan, against ISIS in the Middle East and in various prior wars.

(bullets added for clarity)

In other posts, he went on:

Trump claimed in a Monday post: “Canada’s Unemployment Rate is now at 10%, and rapidly rising.”

That is wrong on both counts.

Canada’s unemployment rate declined to 6.4% in July. That was the third consecutive month it had gone down. It was also a two-year low.

In one of the Monday posts, Trump claimed of Canada: “Their ridiculously high tariffs on our Farmers and farm products has made life impossible for these great American Patriots, and has long created a 60 Billion Dollar Deficit between our two Countries.”

Here are four issues with that one sentence.

US agricultural trade with Canada is overwhelmingly tariff-free: The US Department of Agriculture notes on its website that “almost all” US agricultural exports to Canada face no tariffs at all; from the late 1980s to late 1990s, the USDA explains, free trade agreements “dismantled virtually all tariff and quota barriers to Canada-U.S. agricultural trade, with a few notable exceptions” on each side. According to World Trade Organization data, about 97% of US agricultural exports to Canada are duty-free.

Canada’s few high agricultural tariffs are rarely applied: Canada does have extremely high tariffs on a small number of agricultural products, notably including dairy and poultry products, that it protects from foreign competition using a system known as supply management. But the hefty tariffs are only applied after the US exports a certain maximum quantity of tariff-free products, and the US isn’t even close to filling its quota maximums on many products. For example, it filled just 22% of its milk quota over the past year, Trevor Tombe, an economics professor at the University of Calgary, noted in an email this week.

“So, it’s true to say that Canada has massive tariffs on certain types of items. But this is only true for a very small subset of agricultural products…And even among those products, we don’t typically ‘charge’ those tariffs because the US doesn’t export enough for the tariffs to kick in,” Tombe said.

The US dairy industry argues that administrative shenanigans by Canada are to blame for the US inability to fill the quotas. Whether that’s true or not, massive Canadian agricultural tariffs clearly haven’t been the cause of the US trade deficit with Canada. Actually…

The US trade deficit with Canada is driven by US imports of Canadian energy: Specifically, the US trade deficit with Canada overwhelmingly exists because the US imports a lot of discounted Canadian crude oil – 3.9 million barrels of Canadian crude per day in 2025. The US imported $111 billion worth of Canadian energy and exported $26 billion of US energy to Canada in 2025, according to the US government’s Energy Information Administration. In other words, if the US didn’t engage in energy trade with Canada, it would have a trade surplus with Canada but its refiners would miss out on cheap energy from a convenient nearby source.

The overall US trade deficit with Canada isn’t ‘$60 billion’: Trump habitually focuses on trade in goods alone – without explaining that’s what he’s doing – and ignores the services trade at which the US excels. The US goods-only deficit with Canada has sometimes exceeded $60 billion; it was about $68 billion in 2024, according to US federal figures. But the US also had a surplus of about $29 billion in services trade with Canada that year, so the overall bilateral deficit was about $38 billion. Again, that’s still substantial, but it’s substantially lower than the number the president used.

[ConfederateSS]

--------------So TRUMP renames LAKE ONTARIO...LAKE AMERICA ..... ....GULF of MEXICO...LAKE ONTARIO ...
----------------WHAT'S NEXT....TRUMP RENAMES STATES.....NEW MEXICO,now NEW AMERICA.........

-----------------------------------BUT TRUMP ALSO MADE A LIST of USA PRESIDENTS.....YES, YOU GUESSED IT...45/47 TRUMP IS THE GREATEST U.S. PRESIDENT EVER....
-----------------------THEN A few next line....NEXT LINE.....THE BOTTOM LINE...WORST PRESIDENTS ON THE BOTTOM LINE....BIDEN,OBAMA.........YES , THIS MIGHT BE WHY TRUMP IS THE GREATEST......ALSO ON THE BOTTOM LINE.......GRANT("GOLD ANYONE ").... ............THE C.S.A. GETS THE LAST LAUGH ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

-----------------------GULF of MEXICO.......LAKE ONTARIO (Could TRUMP have done one of THE GREAT LAKES(Because CANADA is pissing Him off ...))...

[Apatheist]

They should rename the Straits of Hormuz as the Gays of Hormuz so that he stops talking about it.

[Apatheist]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

The US does not need a monarchy to reduce and avoid

the risk of civil war and anarchy.

We have the US Constitution, term limits (for the President), and the Courts to help prevent such things.

Our Federal Government has a similar record on lack of success on important issues, such as immigration reform and MUCH more.

You don't need them - but since we have no written constitution or term limits, I think WE do.

Only ONE US President ran from more that two terms: FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) during the Great Depression and then WWII. He was likely DYING as he ran for his 4th term in 1944 and died soon after the Election. George Washington declined to run for a third term, when many wanted to make him, basically, a KING. He set the precedent to limit to TWO four year terms, and the Congress made it OFFICIAL in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1951.

Without this Amendment, I think Trump would seriously consider running for another term.

We need term limits and I think we need them for Senators and Congressmen in the House, too. This is important for the chief executive, such as POTUS and for state Governors; some legislators commend much power in their arenas, for some good and more not good, imo.

When I said "you don't need them", I was referring to a monarchy.

You should be very grateful that you do have term limits for Presidents!

[jusplay4fun]

The UK is not politically financially superior - the current (Labour) government is, like its Labour predecessors, economically illiterate, and spends money they don't have on things we don't need (such as free SIM cards for illegal immigrants). Ideology invariably gets in the way of good management.
We had an impasse over Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn thankfully resolved for us by making himself unelectable, leaving Boris Johnson with a big majority. Boris was then removed over attending a surprise birthday party during lockdown - which was utterly absurd, for him, and the party that removed him.
The remaining hope for dealing with immigration and woke silliness, Reform, has now also managed to shoot themselves in the foot with scandals.
Politically, it's hopeless, but faith in the monarchy reduces the risk of civil war and anarchy.

The US does not need a monarchy to reduce and avoid

the risk of civil war and anarchy.

We have the US Constitution, term limits (for the President), and the Courts to help prevent such things.

Our Federal Government has a similar record on lack of success on important issues, such as immigration reform and MUCH more.

You don't need them - but since we have no written constitution or term limits, I think WE do.

Only ONE US President ran from more that two terms: FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) during the Great Depression and then WWII. He was likely DYING as he ran for his 4th term in 1944 and died soon after the Election. George Washington declined to run for a third term, when many wanted to make him, basically, a KING. He set the precedent to limit to TWO four year terms, and the Congress made it OFFICIAL in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1951.

Without this Amendment, I think Trump would seriously consider running for another term.

We need term limits and I think we need them for Senators and Congressmen in the House, too. This is important for the chief executive, such as POTUS and for state Governors; some legislators commend much power in their arenas, for some good and more not good, imo.

When I said "you don't need them", I was referring to a monarchy.

You should be very grateful that you do have term limits for Presidents!

I am.

There is the burden of Leadership and the dangers of a dictator.

George Washington set a great Precedent as President, only TWO terms. He was a great Leader, but the fact that FDR died shortly after his FOURTH election shows the problem of too many terms. The US Constitution has in place an order of succession. Madison (et al) knew what he was doing when he wrote the Constitution. He was a Virginian, btw, as was Washington and Jefferson, and others.

[ConfederateSS]

------------Actually term limits for any office but President.........Where the others, act like a country club....House/Senate....Gov.......Mayor....Etc.....
---------------------THE PRESIDENT(USA) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFICE IN THE WORLD.......IT NOT LIKE A KING ETC...ETC........THE PEOPLE ELECT THE PRESIDENT of THE USA............EVEN IF MORE THAN 2 TERMS......NO ONE DID IT IN THE PAST EXCEPT ONE.........AS FOR CONGRESS....BACK WHEN THE USA STARTED....PEOPLE WOULD SERVE 2 TERMS IN CONGRESS....THEN GO BACK TO THE FARM(most were farmers)........NOW FDR.....THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOVED HIM....(A CRIPPLE no less).....HE HAD TO RUN AND WIN 4 times........HE GOT AMERICA OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION........LED AMERICA THROUGH WORLD WAR 2..........IMAGINE IF HE ONLY RAN TWICE........HOW THOSE STRUGGLES WOULD OF ENDED UP..........Not chopping trees like lumber jacks......But during The Great Depression.....He created jobs(before WW2,yes TRUMAN would end WW2) ,by cleaning up THE FORESTS OF THE NORTHWEST of THE USA.....Not cutting trees down, but clearing stuff on the ground.....YOU THINK WITH ALL THE FOREST FIRES TODAY......THIS WOULD BE BEING DONE...
---------------------------SO THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA....IS VERY LUCKY THERE WERE NO TERM LIMITS ON THE OFFICE of PRESIDENT....DURING FDR's TIME IN OFFICE... .... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
-----------------What if Republicans take huge control in CONGRESS this mid term in November.....THEY PASS(get ride of) NO TERM LIMITS for The Office of USA PRESIDENT.....AND TRUMP 2028 A.D.....BECOMES REALITY....

[jusplay4fun]

You do realize, right ConfedSS, that for Trump to run again in 2028, that a Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed? And these things do NOT happen Quickly. I doubt that 3/4 of the states will ratify in, ASSUMING it get passed on what is basically a deadlocked Congress. Is this even on the agenda of either Chamber in Congress?

The ratification of the 22nd Amendment took almost four years. It was proposed by Congress on March 24, 1947, and was ratified on February 27, 1951, after being approved by thirty-six out of forty-eight states.

The ratification of the 25th Amendment took approximately 18 months. It was proposed by Congress on July 6, 1965, and was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states by February 10, 1967.

The ratification of the 24th Amendment took approximately 1 year and 5 months.
The amendment was proposed by Congress on August 28, 1962, and ratification was completed on January 23, 1964, when South Dakota became the 38th state to approve it.

The 26th Amendment was ratified in just 100 days. It was proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and ratification was completed on July 1, 1971, when North Carolina became the 38th state to approve it. This rapid process remains the fastest for any amendment in U.S. history.

btw:

The ratification of the 27th Amendment took 202 years, 7 months, and 12 days. It was proposed on September 25, 1789, and finally ratified on May 7, 1992, making it the longest ratification process in U.S. history

[riskllama]

no. no he does not realize, because idiot.

[ConfederateSS]

-------------Another Way.......TRUMP 3rd TERM............TRUMP runs for REP...HOUSE.....WHERE HE LIVES IN FLORIDA....THEN BECOMES SPEAKER of THE HOUSE....THE PREZ...AND VICE PREZ...SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM......TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT AGAIN.... ....
--------------------IF HE WAS GOING TO CHANGE ONE GREAT LAKE....WOULDN'T IT BE LAKE MICHIGAN...THE ONLY ALL AMERICAN LAKE....HE IS RENAMING THINGS IN HIS HEAD...THE ROCKIES....ARE NOW THE BIG BUMPS.......HE(or anyone ) can call anything what they want....I doubt anyone who doesn't work for Him , could care what He calls stuff...One of His staff called The GULF,GULF of MEXICO....Was let go , that day.... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
-----------------I said if Congress gets rid of The 2 term clause.................THE MAIN POINT.....IT ISN'T ,WASN'T NEEDED.......BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECT THE PRESIDENT........Sure..Local offices...A SENATOR...or REP....COULD KEEP GETTING ELECTED.....BUT THE PRESIDENT IS NATION WIDE...It is harder to keep getting the whole country behind you.... THE PRESIDENT IS BLAMED FOR A LOT OF CRAP....ONE TERM....SOMETIMES 2 TERMS....TRUMP ,NIXON, CLEVELAND had to Win 2 lose 1...in 3 elections....WHICH MAKES WHAT FDR DID, EVEN GREATER...SO THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT 2 TERM ACT BY CONGRESS....THE OFFICE of PRESIDENT IS VOTED ON BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...TERM LIMIT IS TAKING THAT POWER AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...IF THE PEOPLE WANT SOMEONE TO BE PRESIDENT(#1 JOB),1,2,3,4,5 times....IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...NOT AN ACT of CONGRESS OR ANYTHING,OR ONE ELSE....ONCE AGAIN...IT IS A NATION WIDE OFFICE....IT'S HARD TO GET THE COUNTRY TO AGREE ON ANYTHING....3 have had 2 and 1 elections...GET RID OF TERM LIMITS....

[DirtyDishSoap]

"Get rid of term limits!" Anyone that has even the slightest grasp on American history will tell you that we have term limits for a reason. You'd know that if you were an actual American and not some knob that has a thing for your lord and savior, Trump.

[jusplay4fun]

1) Trump is NOT the Saviour some think he is.

2) Getting RID of Term Limits for Trump OR ANYONE is simply not rational.

3) I think getting rid of the Filibuster "Rule" for the US Senate is also a BAD IDEA.

This is something that Trump has complained about for months. Trump thinks what he WANTS is more important the Future after he leaves the Office of the Presidency. And the Filibuster may be important if Trump loses control of the House or the Senate. Trump again uses short-term thinking.

from AI:

The filibuster is a legislative tactic used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block a vote on a bill or nomination. It allows one or more senators to prolong debate on a measure, effectively preventing a final vote unless a supermajority agrees to end the debate.

Key Aspects of the Filibuster:

Purpose: The filibuster is intended to protect minority opinions in the Senate by requiring a higher threshold for passing legislation, typically 60 votes out of 100.

Cloture: To end a filibuster, senators can invoke cloture, which requires a petition signed by at least 16 senators and a subsequent vote where 60 senators must agree to end the debate.

[Apatheist]

I would find it highly amusing if he renamed New Mexico as New America. Americans are bad enough at geography as it is; it would have to become NA, which is also used for North America and of course Not Applicable, so many online forms would get very confused.