US Foreign Policy Trump47 | Threatens all hell to break loose in Gaza; won't rule out military force in Panama, Greenland, threatens economic force

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 271
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
So mortgage rates remain high despite the Fed cutting rates twice because Trump just wants to troll the American people?
What kind of person would believe this and at the same time support it?
 
I still blame drunk ass Ted Turner 6/1/1980 for the end of media as a source of information and transitioning to 100% soap selling. Once media found scary news sells adds and combined that with fear mongering talking heads....here we are.

Read a book people.

Didn't know he was in bad health but he turned the evening news into 24/7 fear mongering advertising. Also basically resurrected "wrasslin" from local to "world wide"
Not a hater but not a fan.... except for the America's Cup win!
 
Last edited:
SmilingJack said:
I still blame drunk ass Ted Turner 6/1/1980 for the end of media as a source of information and transitioning to 100% soap selling. Once media found scary news sells adds and combined that with fear mongering talking heads....here we are.
Read a book people.
Click to expand...
William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer excelled at using yellow journalism in the 1890’s. They didn’t invent it; they did use it. The papers from Jefferson’s time could certainly be called yellow journalism.

If Ted Turner didn’t create 24/7 television news, Roger Ailes would have.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

He's literally talking like a New York mob boss from an old movie - "you don't play ball here, we're going to burn your shop down." The notion that this is going to force Denmark to give up Greenland - or even that if they did this is somehow an appropriate or long-term effective way for America to deal with other countries - is both ridiculous and frightening, or it ought to be for anyone with a brain and sense of ethics. How is pissing off Denmark and alienating them going to benefit us in the long run? Why do we really need Greenland - we've done just fine without it until now, why the sudden urgency? It's Putin-style blustering and bullying, and will almost certainly lead more to alienating and isolating us from our allies rather than helping us, which is likely the end goal here - of our enemies, not our friends, that is.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
He's literally talking like a New York mob boss from an old movie - "you don't play ball here, we're going to burn your shop down." The notion that this is going to force Denmark to give up Greenland - or even that if they did this is somehow an appropriate or long-term effective way for America to deal with other countries - is both ridiculous and frightening, or it ought to be for anyone with a brain and sense of ethics. How is pissing off Denmark and alienating them going to benefit us in the long run? Why do we really need Greenland - we've done just fine without it until now, why the sudden urgency? It's Putin-style blustering and bullying, and will almost certainly lead more to alienating and isolating us from our allies rather than helping us, which is likely the end goal here - of our enemies, not our friends, that is.
Click to expand...
the sopranos smile GIF
 
Mulberry Heel said:
He's literally talking like a New York mob boss from an old movie - "you don't play ball here, we're going to burn your shop down." The notion that this is going to force Denmark to give up Greenland - or even that if they did this is somehow an appropriate or long-term effective way for America to deal with other countries - is both ridiculous and frightening, or it ought to be for anyone with a brain and sense of ethics. How is pissing off Denmark and alienating them going to benefit us in the long run? Why do we really need Greenland - we've done just fine without it until now, why the sudden urgency? It's Putin-style blustering and bullying, and will almost certainly lead more to alienating and isolating us from our allies rather than helping us, which is likely the end goal here - of our enemies, not our friends, that is.
Click to expand...
No mob boss or soldier would say, “If you don’t play ball here, we’re going to burn your shop down.”

The statement would be, “Nice place you have. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

That’s how Trump talks.
 


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.
 
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:

“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…”.
Click to expand...
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.

 
nycfan said:




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.

Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top