Wonderland Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 18 minutes ago, VOSS said: Fashion Icon Rita (E)ora is defending her? She's doomed 4
justin. Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago Popping in to ask a stupid question. Why is Trump's team so adamant about blocking the special counsel report from being released? It's clear that the average voter does not give a damn, and the case has already been dismissed. Yeah, whatever is in the report might be bad optics, but I'm confused why they are pretending to care (unless I'm missing something). I know one of my smart ATRL sisters can help me understand.
MP3 Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago Trump is profiting the actual weakness of Canadian politics to fool around but once Trudeau will be out and Poilievre will be elected he will probably keep some restrain He's just acting like a highschool bully against a weak kid (Trudeau) but once somebody his similar will come he will calm down 1
Blankspace2010 Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago So is Trump going to invade Greenland, Mexico and Canada?
Cesar Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago 1 hour ago, Blankspace2010 said: So is Trump going to invade Greenland, Mexico and Canada? he's just all talk, unless he wants to spread american resources thin
Cesar Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago gonna give him his roses if he actually manages to pull it off though
dman4life Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago I long for the day that a politician actually calls MAGA the brainless idiots they are and stands on it. These ppl are garbage and it's time to stop normalizing this foolishness for the sake of being "politically correct". Too bad Democrats collectively want to be the opposition party and cater to their rich donors instead. Is there anyone on that side of the aisle who isn't beholden to special interests and not afraid to call it like it is? I seriously don't see the US coming back from this division he has caused in fact it's going to get progressively worse. 1
Relampago. Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago (edited) This Canada, Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Panama Canal, Denmark talk is just a distraction from his H-1B visa policy— something he actually wants to enact. It's like Americans have the memories of goldfish. Trump's strategy as president is so simple: say something ludicrous, do something that isn't as ludicrous but is still ludicrous and be seen as sensible and moderate and "reeling in" his ambitions. ****ing awful. It's "Make Mexico pay for the wall!" all over again. Maybe we should invade Canada though, **** it, let's end the United States in the next four years, YAAAAS /s Edited 15 hours ago by Relampago. 2
Relampago. Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 1 hour ago, Cesar said: gonna give him his roses if he actually manages to pull it off though "Economic force" against Canada is homicide-suicide for the US/Canada. They're such close trading partners, I cannot really fathom how that would play out well for either party, probably even worse for the US if other allies get fed up too. He will get no roses even if this, by some twisted miracle, happened. He will drive the US into the ground. 1
nadiamendell Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 6 minutes ago, Relampago. said: This Canada, Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Panama Canal, Denmark talk is just a distraction from his H-1B visa policy— something he actually wants to enact. It's like Americans have the memories of goldfish. Trump's strategy as president is so simple: say something ludicrous, do something that isn't as ludicrous but is still ludicrous and be seen as sensible and moderate and "reeling in" his ambitions. ****ing awful. It's "Make Mexico pay for the wall!" all over again. Maybe we should invade Canada though, **** it, let's end the United States in the next four years, YAAAAS /s Exactly this. Trump does this **** ALL the time when he needs to distract from something. 1
wastedpotential Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago 25 minutes ago, Lightbringer007 said: @god send the flood He couldn't even get a map with Greenland on it Re the military conquest talk - it's been somewhat lost to history but there was a US invasion of Panama well within living memory in 1989 to topple the Noriega government. It would spit in the face of basically every sovereignty norm that the US has even pretended to give a **** about during the post-war consensus, but it would take a week or two, probably even less this go around because it's basically just securing the mostly uninhabited land surrounding the canal and the lake. Greenland would be even easier to "conquer", in the sense that it would take 10 (of the USN's 73) destroyers parked to block the ports of the 10 most populous settlements (which are home to a combined 43k of the 56k total population) in Greenland, and that would be that. Again, not pretty and highly hypocritical, but if "civil" negotiations fail, there's really nothing that could stop Trump and there's nothing the Danes or Greenlanders could do but capitulate. As for Canada, I don't think a military option would make any sense nor be particularly feasible without an unprecedented build-up and mobilization that would have to overcome several barriers of domestic opposition (and would preclude any peaceful cooperation from the... conquered Canadians - I can't believe we have to entertain this hypothetical ), and any sort of 51st statism (though it should be 60 statism for obvious reasons) would have to come about as a merger of relative equals a la the two Germanys. Because the power is so lopsided, the two societies so relatively homogenous, and the economic relationship so vast, it would take a serious negotiation failure between Trump and a prospective Poilievre government to actually lead to all-out conflict. Honestly, if we have to go down this route, someone needs to start whispering in his ear about how the best option for everyone would be some sort of Schengen-style relationship and not an outright annexation, but I fear he's too bird brained 2 1
Communion Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago (edited) There is a kind of irony that Trump is basically the encapsulation of everything that is America, no matter (or for the purpose of) how bad it is changing the accuracy. Like what do you mean Trump wants treat Canadians like Afghans and invade and bomb them? The accelerationists kind of winning in this timeline literally exposing the absolute worst contradictions of America. Ready for complete global ostracizing. Edited 14 hours ago by Communion 2
wastedpotential Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago (edited) 29 minutes ago, Relampago. said: This Canada, Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Panama Canal, Denmark talk is just a distraction from his H-1B visa policy— something he actually wants to enact. It's like Americans have the memories of goldfish. Trump's strategy as president is so simple: say something ludicrous, do something that isn't as ludicrous but is still ludicrous and be seen as sensible and moderate and "reeling in" his ambitions. ****ing awful. It's "Make Mexico pay for the wall!" all over again. Maybe we should invade Canada though, **** it, let's end the United States in the next four years, YAAAAS /s I mean... I do think he wants do to do these things, and I think he's learned enough lessons from his first term to pull some of them off. Unlike "... and we're going to make Mexico pay for it", these are all theoretically within his capability. Military options in Greenland and Panama wouldn't be all that expensive (in global goodwill they certainly would be, but not in terms of resources), and though peaceful purchase agreements could number in the tens of billions for either, if they take it from one of DoD's money black holes we probably wouldn't even notice ddd. the Gulf of Mexico thing would require a phone call to the Board of Geographic Names at the USGS and maybe an act of Congress at most, though that wouldn't convince any other country to go along with it. The way he's framing the Canada conversations - which has been different to how he's discussed Greenland/Panama - seems to be his opening salvo in some sort of re-negotiated trade relationship (I hope ). An invasion of Canada would be technically feasible, and there are almost certainly plans in some file cabinet in the basement of the Pentagon outlining a strategy (and like... we do have several very conveniently placed military facilities in New York, North Dakota, and Washington state ), but it would just be a clusterfuck and would cost a lot of money and lead to tens or hundreds of thousands of pointless deaths on both sides and would turn every Canadian population center into an insurgency zone (though if what he wants is to conquer some mines in the Arctic for Elon, then I guess that's an acceptable result?) He probably is trying to force it into the media cycle to get the focus away from the H1B conversation and to shake the shiny manifest destiny keys in front of his populist followers, but that doesn't mean these aren't on his second term wishlist Edited 14 hours ago by wastedpotential
Recommended Posts