Vermillion Posted January 10 Posted January 10 The irony that this is what's getting her in and not any multitude of other factors
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 10 Posted January 10 So just curious, what if Trump is being genuinely sincere about wanting to take over Greenland, Canada and Panama canal and it's not just a distraction. He can't just unilaterally declare war, an act of war has to happen before we can declare war (if I'm remembering social studies correctly) can there be a military coup if he tries to arm troops to fight? I mean the military is mostly right leaning but even they know that wanting to use military force to take over Greenland is cause for remov8ng Trump from his post, right? I hope this is all just a distraction so that people don't focus on cabinet picks.
hoax Posted January 10 Posted January 10 46 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: So just curious, what if Trump is being genuinely sincere about wanting to take over Greenland, Canada and Panama canal and it's not just a distraction. He can't just unilaterally declare war, an act of war has to happen before we can declare war (if I'm remembering social studies correctly) can there be a military coup if he tries to arm troops to fight? I mean the military is mostly right leaning but even they know that wanting to use military force to take over Greenland is cause for remov8ng Trump from his post, right? I hope this is all just a distraction so that people don't focus on cabinet picks. Well... it's complicated. Everything I've seen (and basically everything from most analysts) is that he's dead serious about Panama and Greenland, and that his rhetoric regarding Canada is more of an opening for renegotiated trade relations respectively, but that the threats aren't empty. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to undertake some military action for 60 days under certain conditions without a congressional war declaration or Authorization for Use of Military Force. It's entirely plausible that Trump could attempt to justify Chinese ownership of some facilities in Panama or the Panamanian Government's traffic restrictions in this light - and I'm pretty sure the Carter era handover treaty included a clause permitting US military action if a foreign power intervened in Panama. Ultimately I don't think these legal hurdles would matter, since an AUMF only requires a simple majority, which Trump has in both chambers of congress. To my eye, it seems like he's just trying to get concessions and reduced toll rates from the Panamanians, but the US did invade in 1989 to depose Noriega (which took 2 weeks, so... no congressional oversight required) under an excuse of "protecting the neutrality of the canal", which is a very clear precedent for what Trump could do today. We'll have to see how serious he really is about it, but I have a feeling the Panamanian government will capitulate to at least some of his demands before allowing the situation to escalate to an invasion, because the ultimate outcome will be the same, and they might as well try to get a payout instead of a war. Whether the US seizes control of the Panama Canal or not is entirely dependent on whether Trump remains interested in it next month. In the case of Greenland, it really depends on what happens with the independence movement. If they don't gain full independence from Denmark, I think we'll see dragged out settlement negotiations that eventually lead to nothing as the Danes try and outlast this administration, but Greenland has voted strongly in favor of pro-independence parties. If, in say 2026, Greenland votes for independence, then I think the options range from a compact of free association like the US has with some South Pacific island nations to a full peaceful annexation (the Greenlanders couldn't stage a resistance force even if they wanted to, and Trump can feasibly offer them billions of dollars in development aid, mineral extraction rights, and tourism flows that Denmark just can't capitalize on). Either way, the annexation of Greenland is something Trump wants for his legacy (and also for the resources), so I don't think he'll let it go, and odds are probably about even that an annexation happens at this point. It's a joke now, but so was the acquisition of Alaska in 1866 or Louisiana in 1800. Watch the rhetoric out of the Danish government on this topic, they seem to be treating it as a high likelihood event, and I think we should as well. As for Canada, that's basically a nonstarter at this point. If they weren't having elections this year and if Trudeau was going to stay on as PM for the indefinite future, then there's a hypothetical scenario of Albertans pulling the Quebec escape hatch and declaring independence on a referendum and then joining the US after that, at which case you'd probably see Saskatchewan go for similar reasons, and then Quebec would go independent because the equalization payments would fundamentally be over, and then the Maritimes because they'd be 300 miles from the next bit of Canada, and then most of country would fundamentally be annexed or independent. However, that's obviously not happened, and I'm sure Pierre Poilievre will be happy to bend over backwards and get ****** by Trump on the few remaining USMCA carveouts to reduce the trade deficit (I'm currently expecting the ultimate settlement to be a Schengen style freedom of movement for people and goods, with a single resource market that would immediately eliminate the concept of a trade deficit in that relationship). An invasion of Canada would be technically very feasible (go look into the history of Fort Drum, if you're curious) but doing so would destroy any value in the territory because it would create 40 million insurgents. There would be far more hesitation in the US military about invading a non-belligerent Canada (certainly moreso than Greenland or Panama, which are far more "foreign" to your average midwestern soldier than Ontario or Manitoba), but the president is the commander in chief, and if he ordered it (after stocking the leadership ranks with cronies), it would happen. Still, I don't think it's likely at all. The timing here is definitely a distraction technique away from H1Bs and Tulsi Gabbard, but he didn't pull any of these from thin air, and I think that these are things he actually wants and intends to do when in office 1 1
Thuggin Posted January 10 Posted January 10 We're not even day 1 into Trump's presidency and Trump and Republicans have dropped any pretense of being the "anti-war" party The fact that this was so many people's justification for voting for him. Also, Tulsi gets more and more shameless by the day, like she truly has zero principles. The biggest loser in politics. 4 1
Virgos Groove Posted January 10 Posted January 10 On 12/11/2024 at 8:30 PM, ClashAndBurn said: Hillary Clinton (and the entire Obama admin tbh) should be in The Hague for what they did to Libya. Sarkozy too, for that matter. But at least the French managed to bring him to justice for… what was it? Campaign finance? Yup. Ironically, they were bribes given by... Gaddafi's Libya. Tons of Western leaders (Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Blair, Zapatero, Sócrates) were besties with him in the 00s, but as soon as they smelled blood in 2011, they went for it. 2
hoax Posted January 11 Posted January 11 26 minutes ago, Vermillion said: Zuck is a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them. This is the way the winds of tech and capital are blowing, and considering that they were some of the most notable promoters of the social progress of the past 15-20 years (I mean... surely a majority of the companies that have ever had a DEI program only did so at the behest of Blackrock/Vanguard/State Street and the ESG scores, but those are quickly becoming a thing of the past in their own right). Maybe these moves are only happening to appease Trump and they'll all revert in 2029, but... I'm not feeling too good about the potential ramifications The rights were nice while we had them, I guess
Armani. Posted January 11 Posted January 11 On 1/9/2025 at 4:35 PM, Chemist said: Let's clap for the best opposition party of the world They already know that's not his agenda to lower costs, this is dumb
ClashAndBurn Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Not Orb Mother thinking she can still get a foot in the door. NOBODY wants you. You have a constituency of ZERO. You have never been elected to anything in your entire career and you NEVER will be. 2
Recommended Posts