Every time I think it's reached peak crazy, Trump and the GOP are like "Hold my beer...". I think we're up to a crate and a half.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Thoughts on the Trump presidency
- Thread starter Gloster
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
FinsburyPark
Member
Surely any attempts to take over Greenland are just wishful thinking.
For now Greenland is connected to Denmark. Its not a full part of Denmark but I don't know all the details of how to explain the finer points.
All the while Greenland is connected to Denmark and not fully independant, if Trump tries anything not only will Denmark get involved but its likely so will the EU, and some of the bigger players in the EU, possibly like France, Germany and Spain.
That said Greenland wishes for independance from Denmark and if Greenland does secure independance it might not have the support from Denmark or allied countries in Europe.
For now Greenland is connected to Denmark. Its not a full part of Denmark but I don't know all the details of how to explain the finer points.
All the while Greenland is connected to Denmark and not fully independant, if Trump tries anything not only will Denmark get involved but its likely so will the EU, and some of the bigger players in the EU, possibly like France, Germany and Spain.
That said Greenland wishes for independance from Denmark and if Greenland does secure independance it might not have the support from Denmark or allied countries in Europe.
I'm not convinced Trump genuinely believes he can acquire Greenland. It has military/defence significance and fundamentally he wants it to be a strategic US military asset.
I imagine the net result will be some form of new military agreement, like allowing the US to station nuclear weapons nearby and/or significantly increase their territorial presence on the land.
Greenlanders may even be rather open to that idea, as they will themselves benefit from additional defence resources.
Denmark isn't going to sell it, and I don't honestly believe the US will invade it (though anything seems possible these days).
I imagine the net result will be some form of new military agreement, like allowing the US to station nuclear weapons nearby and/or significantly increase their territorial presence on the land.
Greenlanders may even be rather open to that idea, as they will themselves benefit from additional defence resources.
Denmark isn't going to sell it, and I don't honestly believe the US will invade it (though anything seems possible these days).
Given his residence in Mar-a-Lago, perhaps Convicted Felon Donald Trump is channelling his inner "Florida Man".
Gloster
Veteran Member
Trump may be only half-serious about taking over Greenland as he may only be aiming to get the access to its resources. He also talk about its importance to the USA’s defences. Against who: his friend Putin, Iceland, Canada, the united union of polar bears? The risk is that he won’t know where to stop and a crisis will build up: we will tiptoe into disaster because of his inability to say ‘enough is enough’.
Greenland is semi-independent, with Denmark’s responsibilities being largely foreign affairs and defence. It also provides considerable financial assistance, without which Greenland’s generous social system (health, education, social security, etc.) would almost certainly collapse. This last is something that the Greenlanders see as a major block to independence as they doubt they could afford it on their own. That is also a reason why they are less than luke-warm about an US takeover.
Greenland is semi-independent, with Denmark’s responsibilities being largely foreign affairs and defence. It also provides considerable financial assistance, without which Greenland’s generous social system (health, education, social security, etc.) would almost certainly collapse. This last is something that the Greenlanders see as a major block to independence as they doubt they could afford it on their own. That is also a reason why they are less than luke-warm about an US takeover.
Last edited:
That's putting it mildly. I think I saw that there's only like 3% of the population in favour of becoming a US territory.
Through all of this, along with Canada, Panama, Gaza, el al, Puerto Ricans must be wondering what the hell is wrong with them.
Over a hundred years and they can't get statehood (or any political representation).
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's the classic property developer move: propose something truly horrendous and after the predictable outcry offer to compromise with something that's merely very bad, which people will just accept out of relief.
The US can and does put whatever defence facilities and resources into Greenland that it says it needs to.
Noting of course that any of the above would be Democrat voting, except a Gaza now populated by American retirees. Canada on its own would add well over 50 to the electoral college. So if something resembling democracy still prevails, these moves would serve to lock the Republicans out of power.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
One thing worth pointing out is that Irish neutrality is rather based on the idea that in the event of a serious threat to Ireland, then they will quickly ally with the UK and let the UK take over their defensive structures.
This is why the Irish Defence Forces are intentionally kept at a low level, because it would be much harder to integrate a military that was on the level of a comparable country.
dangie
On Moderation
I just wonder that within the walls of the White House there are people walking around shaking their heads wondering ‘Bloody hell…. what’s the idiot said now…’
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Don't worry about that one. Any such people will soon no longer be within the walls of the White House.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,668
Vice president JD Vance's speech at the conference is ermmm, interesting.
I can't link it as it's across multiple BBC live updates but the feed is here:
www.bbc.co.uk
Headline part is below.
Wonder what European leaders are making of this?
I can't link it as it's across multiple BBC live updates but the feed is here:
More work needed to stop Putin, Zelensky says at summit meeting with Vance - live updates
The Ukrainian president and US vice-president reiterate their hopes for enduring peace in the Ukraine war while meeting in Munich.
www.bbc.co.uk
Headline part is below.
Wonder what European leaders are making of this?
That is... well. Bizzare.
The equating of the influence of a teenaged (now young adult) climate activist to that of the literal richest man in the world is breath-taking. If anything, it gives some hope since it shows that they still fear the power of an informed, engaged and organised population.
generalnerd
Member
trainswitheddy
Member
"You have activists you should totally allow our guy to funnel millions into your election system to elect their preferred choice of leader it's totally the same guys I promise"
Absolutely grim.
brad465
Veteran Member
Him blaming mass migration mishandling is also rich, given a sizeable volume of the migration movement can be put down to botched US military involvement in the Middle East (and European involvement, but this was mainly at the US's orders).Vice president JD Vance's speech at the conference is ermmm, interesting.
I can't link it as it's across multiple BBC live updates but the feed is here:
More work needed to stop Putin, Zelensky says at summit meeting with Vance - live updates
The Ukrainian president and US vice-president reiterate their hopes for enduring peace in the Ukraine war while meeting in Munich.
Headline part is below.
Wonder what European leaders are making of this?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,668
Re reading the transcript it is frankly pathetic. Unbelievable that this is where we are and half the world is lapping it up.
As someone who thinks Trump to be a loathsome person, elected by isolationists and so on, I'm actually in agreement with what he and Vance have done recently.
Firstly, on Ukraine, of course he campaigned on the issue, but the reality is that everyone else - all the "western leaders" - have spent the last few years wringing their hands and trying not to do anything. Boris Johnson, another odious person in my opinion, at least also tried to do something. Let's stop the fighting, and some compromises will have to be made by all sides, but it's been going on for too long now to moan about these too much.
Vance, some of what he said is potty for sure, but on "free speech" he's basically right. This country has spent the last 20 years enacting laws which make what you say illegal rather than what you do, and I don't agree with it. That there are odious people who say odious things is undoubted, but we've gone to far in legislating against this. I think there are parallels in other countries.
I'm surprised with myself for agreeing with them both, and of course the proof of the pudding with Ukraine will be in the eating, but it's about time someone properly tried to put a stop to this idiotic and senseless carnage to no end. Others could have done something, but didn't. Biden certainly didn't.
Firstly, on Ukraine, of course he campaigned on the issue, but the reality is that everyone else - all the "western leaders" - have spent the last few years wringing their hands and trying not to do anything. Boris Johnson, another odious person in my opinion, at least also tried to do something. Let's stop the fighting, and some compromises will have to be made by all sides, but it's been going on for too long now to moan about these too much.
Vance, some of what he said is potty for sure, but on "free speech" he's basically right. This country has spent the last 20 years enacting laws which make what you say illegal rather than what you do, and I don't agree with it. That there are odious people who say odious things is undoubted, but we've gone to far in legislating against this. I think there are parallels in other countries.
I'm surprised with myself for agreeing with them both, and of course the proof of the pudding with Ukraine will be in the eating, but it's about time someone properly tried to put a stop to this idiotic and senseless carnage to no end. Others could have done something, but didn't. Biden certainly didn't.
Last edited:
Ending the war in Ukraine is right, but the method is off-the-scale wrong.
Trump has no mandate from anyone to negotiate on Ukraine’s behalf. He will only emerge with Chamberlain’s piece of paper, this time dated 2025.
Appeasing Putin gives him the green light to encroach on further non-NATO soil at will and, if Trump spurns them, possibly some NATO soil too.
This and the whole utterly sordid ‘Gaza resort’ crap are new lows for American politics.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
Personally I find it very hypocritical for someone who believes that Trump won the 2020 presidential election and was in favour of him instigating a riot in attempt to change the result to be lecturing other countries on free speech and democracy.
Does said "free speech" apply if we say things like 'convicted felons should not be allowed to be president'?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Indeed, the parallels with Ukraine and Czechoslovakia in 1938 are clear - if we back down, Putin won't just stop at the Donbas
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How many compromises do you think that Putin will make? A return to pre-2014 borders?
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,668
100% and that they punish those who speak out against them.
If MAGA want to say people should be hung for treason, others that immigrants should be rounded up and put into camps (or shot as they arrive on boats), or Reform voters (or is that leaders?) stirring up hatred on social media to trigger riots, then that's free speech which must be protected.
If you say something the above don't like, such as locking up rioters or those who stirred up hatred and division online, then that needs to be shut down and anyone saying it should be quickly removed from whatever platform they dared say it on. You might even suggest they should be hung for treason or suffer harm in some other way. That's fine, obviously.
If you say something the above don't like, such as locking up rioters or those who stirred up hatred and division online, then that needs to be shut down and anyone saying it should be quickly removed from whatever platform they dared say it on. You might even suggest they should be hung for treason or suffer harm in some other way. That's fine, obviously.
No, but an important concession for fascist Russia would be accepting Ukrainian sovereignty and national identity, with some sort of US-backed guarantee. Whether the greatest negotiator in history can (or wants to) secure that is questionable, but in the circumstances a dirty messy compromise is probably the best outcome.
Countries have lost territory in war, but still exist. If Putin had had his way, Ukraine would not.
brad465
Veteran Member
What did Boris Johnson try to do to stop this conflict? If anything the Putin acolytes keep claiming he was the barrier to peace after some supposed deal in April 2022.
I have more sympathy with "free speech advocates" if they were not, by and large, hypocrites. Others above have already cited examples of this.
If ending wars was that simple, almost every conflict in human history would either never have happened or ended much quicker than they did. The reality is some players in a war cannot be trusted or dealt with. The war in Ukraine also didn't start in 2022, this was just when it escalated significantly. It started in 2014 when Crimea was annexed and fighting in the Donbas commenced.
We all want this war to end, but the rhetoric that's come from Trump's camp in recent days is the approach that, as shown throughout history, won't end the war, it will just put it on hold for a few years then lead to a bigger more expensive conflict when the aggressor comes back for more.
If we're applying the "Damn me for what I do, not what I say" standard, how about these free speech, first amendment types ejecting press organisations that they don't like from the Pentagon briefing room or banning the AP from White House press briefings because they won't use "Gulf of America"?
Or the fact that co-president Musk files lawsuits against people who write "negative reviews" of or make "negative comments" about Tesla vehicles - including where they've just factually stated that they crashed or caught fire!
The phrase "Budapest memorandum" and the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." both come to mind for some reason.
Ukraine already has sovereignty guarantees from both the US and Russia, they were signed in exchange for disarming its inherited stockpile of Soviet nuclear weapons. What makes you think that will be different this time?
The narrative that even a lot of UK people have been saying the last 24-48 hours or so seems to be that Ukraine is part of Russia, most people speak Russian and therefore Russia has every right to take it back. It's quite clear what the narrative now is on the various forums where people are discussing this alongside all the other 'great' things Trump is doing. Richard Tice also spoke about it, and seemed to suggest Russia was fine meddling in Ukraine's business and not seeing the irony of saying that when he'd not like anyone telling us what to do.
I wonder why people on the right are now so openly supportive of Putin, but this is where we are and with nobody in the USA daring to stand up to Trump, and a lot of the damage already being done, I can't see any outcome other than Putin getting what he wants but coming up with some ridiculously trivial concessions to make Trump look like a Nobel Peace prize candidate.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Putin is WAY smarter than Trump. I have no doubt he will scale back the conflict while Trump is in power, while actually gaining concessions and possibly even having sanctions lifted, just as he did when Trump came to power last time. To Trump, this makes him look strong and Biden and Obama look weak - when it is anything but.
Then whatever Trump does to harm Ukraine, Europe, NATO etc, come 2028 we may have a LOT of work to do undo the damage done. That's assuming Trump hasn't got his third term or Elon hasn't been allowed to run for President.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The spin now is that the White House is inviting new and upcoming influencers and content creators to have access to ask questions, and it's time for those old legacy media types to give way. Influencers are usually paid to influence people and promote whatever they're paid to say, and content creators/bloggers/podcasters are hardly going to risk having their access taken away by asking anything controversial.
As for X, it's been full of double standards since before Elon took over, but was never as bad as it is now. I'm glad more and more companies are moving to Bluesky so I can use X as little as possible - and eventually close and delete my account entirely.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What worries is me is how the narrative seems to be that Ukraine is not sovereign, and Russia has every right to the country because of the past. With Trump facing no opposition, it doesn't matter what treaties there may have been to date. He will ignore them and press on regardless.
I guess it's not dissimilar to Israel wanting to take over Gaza, which it now will get to do at last - but only after Trump acts as go-between to facilitate it.
Last edited:
We are where we are. The US does not care about Ukraine. It may care that Russia should not have total victory.
Options:
Ukraine defeats Russia, boundaries revert to 2014. How, without US support?
War continues, Ukraine gradually battered into submission.
Deal which preserves a Ukrainian state, but with Russian domination built-in.
Deal which preserves a Ukrainian state, with economic and defence independence, albeit vulnerable to a further attack.
It's absolutely crazy for anyone that looked at WW2 in history lessons, including the build-up to it, and can't see how it's almost like following that as an itinerary for Trump and the Project 2025 crowd.
As time goes on and each new generation remembers less and less about it, and therefore can't see the parallels and are unaware of how things take time to change bit-by-bit, it worries me more how we're seeing not just this but so much else play out.
So many things Trump has done thus far is being defended, even though it has entirely undone all the checks and balances that maintains a democracy - and Trump and others, including Elon Musk, have been targeting Europe for some time to undermine it.
Meanwhile, we have Nigel and Richard saying we must cosy up with Trump if we want to be safe, when it's clearer than ever that we must form a closer alliance to Europe.