Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

19589599619639641856

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭badabing106




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Seeing as Donald didn't give us the details, maybe you can?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭badabing106


    He gave the exact details if you watch the video



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Maybe you haven't watched the video then. He hasn't given details, because it is not a full trade deal, it is a framework.

    You know the difference, right?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭badabing106


    So its just a framework and doesn't mean anything?. Is that the way you want to spin it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    A framework is not a trade deal, sweetheart. There has been no mention of dates, timelines, all of it. All you have is a statement read out to the press, nothing was formally released with details of the trade deal…as there is no trade deal.

    So yes, it is more likely that the EU have pulled the wool over Trumps eyes, which isn't hard due to him being a dunce.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,572 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    The EU Fooled the Trump?

    You sound surprised. You do know he's so clever he thought about nuking a hurricane?

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,639 ✭✭✭✭retalivity


    Would not be surprised if in a weeks time, trump decided to raise the tarriff to 50% as Macron called him a bad name, so any deal with that clown's administration isn't worth the paper its written on. Van der Leyen treated him like the toddler he is - give him a lollipop to shut him up, and the adults will do the proper work in the background.

    We've seen this performative nonsense before with brexit



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭Flex


    With regard the EU-US trade deal, I was very disappointed with the headline summaries. However, I think much of it is just a concession to let Trump look like hes got a great deal

    • $600b of investment in the US by the EU looks like a huge headline. However,
      • none of that money will come from the EU budget, it will only be from private firms.
      • Currently EU firms invest $2.5t in the US, so this would be a 20% increase, which was forecasted to increase naturally.
      • The EU has been clear they cant and wont compell EU businesses to invest there,
      • so its just a nice PR headline for Trump

    • Similar the $750b of energy purchase from the USA was planned and in motion from the RePower EU plan in 2022 to pivot from Russian energy to Norway/Mid East/USA.
      • If anything its just accelerating what was already planned, not new demand.
      • Further, the US supplies about $60b of enery to the EU a year now, I amnt familiar with that industry or their infrastructure, but I think the US will struggle to quadruple their output to meet demand,
      • so I suspect this is just another headline number

    • The 15% tariff will include a lot of 'zero-for-zero' industries and sectors,
      • Ive read sectors identified account fo around 40% of EU exports.
      • Very simple maths here, but if successful, that would leave the other 60% of exports with a 15% tariff,
      • so weighted average means a total effective tariff rate of around ~9%.

    No public money committed, no structural shift in energy or investment policy, and real tariffs softened through exemptions.

    Still unhappy with this as it gives a dangerous and shameless regime a nice PR win, however to me this demonstrates that the EU’s greatest weakness its lack of deep political union. When negotiating with a single, centralised power like the US lead by an unstable dangerous narcessist and his lackeys, the EU’s need to balance the needs and wants of 27 members (some wanting a firm line, others to avoid trade wars at all costs, others to keep the US sweet so they dont abandon NATO yet, and others being stooges of Trumps acting like a Trojan horse to **** up and slow things down), its Parliament, and its Commission, means it need s to spend more time and energy just trying to establish a cohesive stable base and an actual set of concise objectives, unlike Trump and co.

    As the EU exists today it will have economic power but lack the political union and integration to be able to effectively stand toe to toe with the likes of the USA, China, BRICS nations soon…. We need deeper union in my view, and sooner rather than later



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,400 ✭✭✭newhouse87


    Top Class post. We will wait and see I suppose.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭badabing106


    Did tou watch the video? Trump in front of Von der Leyden outlined their agreement on camera ( unless you think von der leyden is going to renage on this face to face agreement)

    The Eu agrred to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil, and nuclear fuels, over three years (approximately $250 billion annually through 2028).

    The EU pledged to invest $600 billion in the U.S. by 2028, above existing commitments. These investments are expected to target sectors like infrastructure, technology, and manufacturing, potentially creating jobs and economic growth in the U.S.


    Military Equipment Purchases: The EU committed to buying “hundreds of billions of dollars” worth of U.S. military equipment, though specific amounts and timelines were not detailed in the announcements. This could include weapons, defense systems, or related technologies, strengthening U.S. defense industries.


    Market Access for U.S. Goods: The EU agreed to open its markets to U.S. manufacturers, with Trump stating that EU countries will accept U.S. imports at zero tariffs.


    Acceptance of 15% U.S. Tariff: The EU conceded to a 15% U.S. tariff on ~70% of its exports to the U.S. (e.g., cars, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals), down from a threatened 30% but up from 2024’s 1.2% average. This represents a compromise to maintain market access, with exemptions for certain goods (e.g., aircraft, some chemicals, generic drugs).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    My friend, none of this is a trade agreement. There are no dates, nothing.

    It is a framework, trade deals have extremely important amounts of details involved of them. This is a few paragraphs that were read out after they talked after his round of golf.

    You are struggling with reality here.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,131 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    maybe even a chance to chip away at that staggering national debt

    lol?

    The man is overseeing a record, off the charts increase in the national debt.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 917 ✭✭✭xl500




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭badabing106


    The U.S. initiated the tariff threat, forcing the EU to negotiate on its terms. The deal reflects U.S. priorities (e.g., energy exports, deficit reduction) more than EU ones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 492 ✭✭bluedex


    As has been clearly pointed out numerous times, there is no deal. Just an agreement on very broad principles of a framework, within which a number of trade deals will be negotiated, over the next few years most likely.

    However, I don't expect this to sink in with people who've cherry picked the most negative opinion they can find and stated it as unequivocal fact, they've already made their mind up.

    Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    My wife showed me one of these yesterday. Some MAGA head saying that he obeys the constitution as it was originally written. So the other lad says something along the lines of “give me your guns then”. He had to explain what the Second Amendment was, an amendment!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,729 ✭✭✭francois




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,776 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    This just proves, AGAIN, that Trump was made a fool of.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    In fairness, that’s a fairly lousy response. At the time of the Founding, such things were the sole purview of the States, not the Federal Constitution (That change only came about with the 14th Amendment). Had he lived in, say, the Federal capital city (Philadelphia) in 1776, the operative Constitutional protection was “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” (Article 1, Declaration XIII at the time)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    In even more fairness, it's still a good response to the Maga-head who claims to obey the US constitution as originally written. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 isn't part of the US Constituion as origionally written, so if we take the MAGA-head at his word he would disregard it.

    Which makes sense: the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights also points out that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives". This is clearly not a document that a Trump supporter will embrace.

    Plus, given what I gather is your own situation, I wouldn't be drawing too much attention to the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights since, as well as affirming that the people have a right to bear arms, it also affirms that since standing armies "are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up". 😉



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Fear not! I’m technically in the militia (Two of them, actually).

    I don’t agree with your logic, though. Given that in 1776 the federal Constitution did not apply to the states, then the logical method of following the US Constitution as originally written is to leave the matter to State jurisdiction. Had the federal government in the absence of the Bill of Rights attempted to limit the state militias, the US would likely have had its first constitutional crisis right out the door… at a time that the States had almost all the guns!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,401 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, there's nothing magic (in this context) about the year 1776. The US constitution was approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and came into force in 1789 when enough states had ratified it. Somebody who says that he only obeys the US constitution as orginally written is not claiming any status for instruments that precede the US Constitution. Logically, since they are not "the US Constitution as originally written", the implication of his claim is that he doesn't obey them.

    If we ignore logic, and try to imply an acceptance of preceding instruments, the obvious candidate is not the Constitution of Pennsylvania, or the constitution of any other-arbitrarily selected state, but the Articles of Confederation, which regulated the powers and functions of the US government institutions. and the rights and responsiblities of the States, before 1789.

    Had the federal government in the absence of the Bill of Rights attempted to limit the state militias, the US would likely have had its first constitutional crisis right out the door… at a time that the States had almost all the guns!

    Not so sure about this. The Articles of Confederation required each state to "always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred" and to "provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage". So presumably there would have been a basis there for the feds to take steps if a state failed to maintain a militia or (more likely) if the militia wasn't properly regulated, properly disciplined (which in this context I think includes properly trained) or properly equipped and supplied.

    And there's more! Apart from the militias, the states were not to keep up any body of forces, except "such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state". The Articles go on to say that states must not engage in war without the authority of Congress, and must not maintain a navy. There are limited exceptions for necessary self-defence operations in cases of urgency. They also say that officers under the rank of colonel are to be appointed by state legislatures, the implication being, I think, that the apointment of more senior officers was to be controlled by the feds.

    In other words, there's a lot in the Articles about state militias, and about what the states must do, may do or may not do with regard to militias, and with regard to defence in general. And therefore there was an abundant architecture of legal provisions that the US authorities could invoke to justify attempts to control, limit, direct, etc what the states were or weren't doing in regard to these matters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,421 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Ghislaine Maxwell appealing to the Supreme Court, claiming a previous plea deal by Epstein was also supposed to cover co-conspirators and therefore she shouldn't have been prosecuted. I think she appealed on it before, but now appealing to the Supreme Court.

    A Supreme Court… which heavily favours Donald Trump… days after meeting with Trump's DoJ… which if the SCOTUS agree with her would see Maxwell's convictions overturned and her released without the need for Trump to pardon her directly…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN



    “which if the SCOTUS agree with her would see Maxwell's convictions overturned and her released without the need for Trump to pardon her directly”

    Funny when I read about that in a newspaper article yesterday, I thought the exact same thing- you’d wonder if this is a joint effort behind the scenes but ensuring Trump is seen not to interfere .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,421 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I'm sure Roberts, Thomas and the other Trump-judges will have some compelling argument that the Founding Fathers never intended for paedophile sex-traffickers to stay in prison in cases where that becomes a distraction for the sitting President in their duties, and therefore she should be released.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,793 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN




  • Site Banned Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    I wouldn’t even joke about it

    I can totally see these “judges” make the case that because some of the founding farthers bought and sold people of which some were children that child trafficking is a totally constitutionally cool thing to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,670 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    Didn't that agreement just apply to Florida whereas she was tried in New York?. And what kind of moron even suggested that plea deal that would allow sex traffickers to escape justice?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,421 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    The kind of moron who even suggested that plea deal was Alex Acosta, who then served as Secretary for Labor in Trump's first term, and is now on the Board of Directors for Newsmax. It was also negotiated by Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's lawyer, who has also been accused of having sex with women procured by Epstein (and has also argued several times himself as a lawyer that the age of consent should be lowered), and was also Trump's lawyer in one of the impeachment cases during his first term.

    Basically, SCOTUS freeing Maxwell would just be par for the course in what is one of the most f*cked up situations involving numerous powerful parties and individuals to cover up for paedophile sex trafficking. It's why it wouldn't be at all surprising if SCOTUS finds in her favour.



Advertisement
Advertisement