Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 321K
  • Politics 
There is little to no strategic benefit having Greenland controlled by us vs. a NATO ally. We already have an AF base there.

This stunt does provide cover for Russia's and China's aspirations. Georgia and Taiwan are now in play much sooner than if he had kept his mouth shut. Soft power isn't the opposite of hard power. Soft power is the opposite of strategic debacle...
So, are you suggesting that as (a) Russia reassembles the Soviet Empire and (b) China asserts control over its wayward province (where 90% of the world's most advanced semiconductor chips are made), St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago will, instead of condemning/opposing these action will instead respond by seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal? That would really show the Chinese and Russians who's boss. Or maybe just confirm who's Putin's (female dog.)
 
At least Musk's attempt to dictate policy for the UK government by forcing a national inquiry of a sex-abuse scandal resolved years ago was a total flop
Largely because the British, unlike us, seem to have learned something of a lesson with Boris Johnson in charge and voted the Tories out in a landslide last year. It would appear that our incoming government and media system is far more vulnerable and pliable for someone like Musk to play with.
 


Before he even takes office, Trump has managed to convince politicians all over the world that their best political posture is to at least feign defiance of Trump and US policy (a lot are feckless or merely powerless against US pressure and will cave when the time comes).

Stupid politics.
 

Every Canadian needs to pay attention to this bit of American history. In one treaty, the U.S. annexed the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. It subsequently illegally invaded Indigenous territory in the west.


Read more: White U.S. citizens once flooded into Indian Territory, prompting calls for mass deportations


Canada could be next — perhaps not immediately as the 51st state, but quite possibly as a U.S. territory that would deny Canadians any voting rights for Congress or the presidency, allow only some autonomy and make questions of citizenship ambiguous. The constitutional architecture exists in the U.S. to make it happen.


Impossible? Unthinkable? Many pundits dismiss Trump’s bellicose rhetoric as hot-headed bargaining. It’s just tough talk, they say. Some have argued his bluster is simply part of his favoured “art of the deal” negotiating tactics.

That’s the wrong reading. How Trump could make good on the threat can be found in the U.S. Constitution. There is both potential and precedent for the U.S. to acquire territory through cession or subjugation.

Invading Canada​

The War Plan Red of 1930 was also drummed up by the U.S. Department of War on how to invade Canada if ever needed.

It included shocking details about kicking off the attack in Halifax with poison gas, quickly invading New Brunswick and then occupying Québec City and Montréal before claiming Niagara Falls.

Historically, America has made many Canadian leaders nervous. Queen Victoria felt that Ottawa, as a capital, would be sheltered from U.S. invasions. John A. Macdonald worried about Union forces attacks on Canada, as U.S. Confederacy spies and raiders were permitted to hole up in Montréal during the civil war.

In the 1911 election, when the Liberal party pushed for free trade with the U.S., they were shown the door by a wave of anti-American sentiment that backed Robert Borden’s Conservatives.

Treaties and congressional green lights​

Hypothetical paranoia aside, the ability of the U.S. to acquire territories is ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. It is straightforward. First, start with Article II, Section 2 of the constitution:

“He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”.
Treaties are the tools the U.S. uses to take “nothing by conquest” after the Senate ratifies those treaties by a two-thirds majority.

In 1848, President Zachary Taylor proposed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Congress to annex Mexican lands. Even though some wanted to take all of Mexico, Congress ratified the treaty.

In 1898, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 259. It ratified President William McKinley’s treaty of the annexation of Hawaii. Due to protest, petition and dissent, it took 60 years for Hawaii to become an official state in 1957.

The American origin story of a country born in revolution only applies to a small piece of the country. The rest of the place came to exist through annexation. The U.S. expanded to 50 states and 14 overseas territories through a mix of cession, occupation and purchase.
 




Trump is playing a pretty clever game of angling to get credit if there are any positive developments prior to his inauguration (but no doubt blaming Biden for anything negative). But it is pretty unusual to have an “envoy” for the incoming President involved in a foreign policy matter like this.

 

“…
Democrats on the committee that NBC News spoke with have been frustrated by the delay, and suggest the FBI report may not be thorough, particularly for a Cabinet pick that has been entangled in controversy. One person who worked closely with Hegseth in the past and another who was contacted by Congress regarding Hegseth told NBC News they are concerned the FBI has not reached out to them.

A spokesperson for the FBI declined to comment. …”
 




Trump is playing a pretty clever game of angling to get credit if there are any positive developments prior to his inauguration (but no doubt blaming Biden for anything negative). But it is pretty unusual to have an “envoy” for the incoming President involved in a foreign policy matter like this.


Not identical of course but kinda has an Iran Hostage feel. Isn’t something that swayed the election but seems like something that could possibly happen right around inauguration to give Trump an early boost.
 
Not identical of course but kinda has an Iran Hostage feel. Isn’t something that swayed the election but seems like something that could possibly happen right around inauguration to give Trump an early boost.
So in this case, the Israelis under Bibi are in the role of the Iranian mullahs who didn’t want Carter to get any credit and were willing to shove the knife a little deeper in his back by waiting until right after the inauguration to release the hostages? Sadly, that checks out.
 
So, Trump’s “envoy” is in Israel while Trump is likely calling Bibi and pushing ideas that run counter to American policy.
 
Back
Top