Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 320K
  • Politics 
Huh? said:
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...
Click to expand...
Greenland is actually very strategic, despite Thule and Alaska. It gives us more access to the Arctic, which will become essential as we further destroy our planet in the decades ahead.

That being said, it's complete bullshit. Even assuming we get it. It's just a distraction from the fact he has not a fucking clue how to better the economy, which is already good. Just fuel for the Callatoroys and ramsousers of the world to think he's actually doing someting.

Slightly amusing sidenote, I have always thought the US and Canada should be joined. But that was mostly just a fantasy of mine that had no basis in fact. Very much doubt it happens, and it should not happen under any circumstance Trump is likely to establish.

Ultimately, Canada (especially) and Greenland will be ours. But that will be because things have gotten so bad, nothing matters anymore.
 
One of the points of NAFTA was to better integrate the US with Mexico and Canada. Obviously the MAGAs don't want tighter integration with the brown people, but Trump has whined a lot about how Canada benefits at their expense. So it's a little bit ironic and funny how they now want to get closer with the Canadians.
 
altmin said:
theconversation.com

How the U.S. could in fact make Canada an American territory

How precisely Donald Trump could make good on his threat to annex Canada can be found in the U.S. Constitution. There is both potential and precedent in American history.
theconversation.com theconversation.com

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:


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.
Click to expand...
This is fear mongering.
 
CarolinaFever said:
I am a little pissed Obama set next to him and had a conversation with him in the first place.
Click to expand...
Nah. Who had the BDE in the dynamic? It wasn’t the slumping, leaning in, whispering-in-the-ear guy with a failing combover. I think Obama knows shit is fucked, but he serves no one well by antagonizing. Obama, like millions of others, knows ttump is had by flattery and attention.
 
nycfan said:


Bannon using the populist anti-billionaire tack here is mostly on brand for him, but note also that Bannon is promoting his personal brand of xenophobia as “anti-racist” in his attack on Musk, Thiel and others.

I guess he sees an opportunity to undermine Musk’s influence over the easily manipulated Trump.
Click to expand...

Someone sounds like a jilted lover.

Steve Bannon explodes on 'evil racist' Elon Musk and pledges to 'take him down' before Trump's Inauguration Day​


www.dailymail.co.uk

Steve Bannon wants to 'take down' the 'evil, racist' Elon Musk

It's no secret that Steve Bannon, once a top aide to Donald Trump, isn't a fan of the president-elect's newest buddy Elon Musk.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
nycfan said:


Bannon using the populist anti-billionaire tack here is mostly on brand for him, but note also that Bannon is promoting his personal brand of xenophobia as “anti-racist” in his attack on Musk, Thiel and others.

I guess he sees an opportunity to undermine Musk’s influence over the easily manipulated Trump.
Click to expand...

Tonight Show Oh Snap GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
i agree episode 2 GIF by Star Wars
 
OGtruthhurts said:
take him down? lmmfao
Click to expand...
I agree with you — Bannon is the grossly outmaneuvered little fish with far less leverage here. His bravado about taking Musk down is horse shit.

But his only weapon is trying to drive a wedge between MAGA Trump supporters who also follow Bannon and Musk. As keeps being demonstrated, Musk has his own constituency of cultists who are more loyal to his vision(s) than to Trump, but Musk also has Trump’s ear full-on Wormtongue style and with his financial position has Trump by the short ones when Trump tires of the attention Musk gets at what Trump will view as at Trump’s expense.

The POTUS is still the POTUS, though, and loyalty only flows one way with Trump, so one day Musk might discover the important difference between even extreme wealth and presidential power. But we are far from that coming to a head, if indeed it ever does.

Trump is busy basking in his victory (everyone wants to be by friend and MAL is the center of the universe are two actual posts on Truth Social by him), as well as relishing potential vengeance on his many real and imagined enemies. But he must also be noticing the way Musk is building his own coalition in Congress and among X fanboys, and assuming roles no one has assigned him in transition and foreign policy matters.

But if Trump eventually decides to slap down or jettison Musk, it won’t be because of Steve Bannon. He might use Bannon as a spigot of anti-Musk propaganda if it suits the situation but he won’t really need him.
 
nycfan said:
I agree with you — Bannon is the grossly outmaneuvered little fish with far less leverage here. His bravado about taking Musk down is horse shit.

But his only weapon is trying to drive a wedge between MAGA Trump supporters who also follow Bannon and Musk. As keeps being demonstrated, Musk has his own constituency of cultists who are more loyal to his vision(s) than to Trump, but Musk also has Trump’s ear full-on Wormtongue style and with his financial position has Trump by the short ones when Trump tires of the attention Musk gets at what Trump will view as at Trump’s expense.

The POTUS is still the POTUS, though, and loyalty only flows one way with Trump, so one day Musk might discover the important difference between even extreme wealth and presidential power. But we are far from that coming to a head, if indeed it ever does.

Trump is busy basking in his victory (everyone wants to be by friend and MAL is the center of the universe are two actual posts on Truth Social by him), as well as relishing potential vengeance on his many real and imagined enemies. But he must also be noticing the way Musk is building his own coalition in Congress and among X fanboys, and assuming roles no one has assigned him in transition and foreign policy matters.

But if Trump eventually decides to slap down or jettison Musk, it won’t be because of Steve Bannon. He might use Bannon as a spigot of anti-Musk propaganda if it suits the situation but he won’t really need him.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. This is one of the many reasons I think Musk will end up being a major problem for Trump. There are a whole lot of MAGAs like Bannon who have been with Trump since the beginning, and they won't bend easily to Musk's ascendance. But Musk's money and platform gives him enormously more power than the Bannons will have going forward. I don't see how it can all be reconciled, and I don't think Trump has any interest in being the mediator.
 
MendotoManteo said:
Greenland is actually very strategic, despite Thule and Alaska. It gives us more access to the Arctic, which will become essential as we further destroy our planet in the decades ahead.
Click to expand...

FWIW, that's not what I said. Of course Greenland is strategic.

I said that there is little strategic benefit in having Greenland in official US hands rather than in the hands of a staunch NATO ally. I doubt it's a net positive when a transfer would (a) weaken the alliance (e.g. if we invade a NATO ally, do we declare war on ourselves?) and (b) provide succor for any bad actor in the world who wants to redraw national boundaries.
 
Trump's cabinet picks continue to focus with laser-like intensity on the pocketbook issues that the economically-anxious Americans are concerned about.


So you think we wasted $40 million to change the names of military bases to appeal to the woke crowd? Here's what we'll do. We'll spend ANOTHER $40 million to change them right back!!! That'll show those financially irresponsible communists who's in charge now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top