Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[Falcon1200]

As for Greenland, what are they trying there? I

Utter madness!

Maduro is a wretched human being who's wrecked his country in nearly every respect, that much is clear.

Agree with this.

But at the same time, the US has no legal basis to just come swanning in and effectively kidnap him and his wife, with or without inside assistance.

And this.

 

[Tester]

As for Greenland, what are they trying there? I'd argue that Stephen Miller is every bit as unpleasant and extremist as Maduro, if not more so.

If Trump doesn't see any advantage of NATO to him, then taking Greenland is not irrational.

Stephen Miller is correct in saying that nobody is going to take on the USA militarily to prevent that.

The 'Donroe Doctrine' applies. The USA does what it likes in the Americas, and China and Russia do what they like in the rest of the world. Europe pontificates with a metaphorical hand tied behind its back.

Don't get me wrong - I do not support this in any way, and see it as pretty disastrous - but what is the fix?

I would like to think that the USA would come to its collective senses and cause this to stop, but I see no evidence of that.

 

[Strathclyder]

In today's episode of this never-ending nightmare, Trump is rewriting history with a page on the White House that claims the January 6th insurrection was all just 'peaceful patriotic protestors', no police officers died, and pushes the conspiracy that Biden 'stole' the election.



The White House page is here, if you're interested in reading revisionism.

Of course I mean no disrespect to you when I say this, but I'd sooner swim in a ice lake than read even one word of that.

If Trump doesn't see any advantage of NATO to him, then taking Greenland is not irrational.

Stephen Miller is correct in saying that nobody is going to take on the USA militarily to prevent that.

The 'Donroe Doctrine' applies. The USA does what it likes in the Americas, and China and Russia do what they like in the rest of the world. Europe pontificates with a metaphorical hand tied behind its back.

Don't get me wrong - I do not support this in any way, and see it as pretty disastrous - but what is the fix?

I would like to think that the USA would come to its collective senses and cause this to stop, but I see no evidence of that.

Civil War II that tears the country asunder is certainly possible, much as I hate to admit it. A bloody fix to the hole they've dug themselves that would almost certainly get other countries involved, but given their history, I can't really deny it anymore.

 

[styles]

In today's episode of this never-ending nightmare, Trump is rewriting history with a page on the White House that claims the January 6th insurrection was all just 'peaceful patriotic protestors', no police officers died, and pushes the conspiracy that Biden 'stole' the election.



The White House page is here, if you're interested in reading revisionism.

That page even takes a pop at the BBC for their editing fiasco.

Very bizarre to see an official government website used for such blatant propaganda. Usually it's much more subtle!

 

[martin butler]

Miller, is the brains behind trump, and he is an unapologetic white supremist who believes in might is right, that it's ok to bully and steal from those weaker than you,

Its now, when, not if the US attacks Greenland, and destroys Nato in the process, , Once again it's time to look at who is funding what, and where their funding actually comes from, Trump, clearly will not stand against Putin, but I do wonder is it the same mindset, of his inner circle, let Russia have Europe, China Asia, and we will have what's left? Except it's not going to end up like that its lunacy to think in that way,

Europe with its partners, are not going to allow the rebirth of the USSR, China, tends to prefer to achieve its goals economically, then by military means,that leaves America like a beached whale, helpless, powerless, slowly suffocation under its own delusions.

 

[nw1]

If lots of drugs are going to the US then there is a high demand for them. There would be no drugs going there if nobody wanted them. A more rational approach to stopping the drug trade would be to educate and provide support to those with addictions to get them off drugs and prevent others getting on them in the first place. But this is the US we're talking about, where "it's always someone else's fault" and military behaviour is the "answer" to everything.

Agree.

But I don't think the Venezuela incident is about drugs: that's just an excuse to make it look acceptable. More likely to be about oil, plus a bit of right-wing virtue-signalling (removing a dictator by force makes him look good in the eyes of some).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2026 ==

Civil War II that tears the country asunder is certainly possible, much as I hate to admit it. A bloody fix to the hole they've dug themselves that would almost certainly get other countries involved, but given their history, I can't really deny it anymore.

I think it's time for the USA to (peacefully) split up into three separate nations, to be quite frank, due to the geographical concentration of beliefs across the country. The East Coast/Chicago/Minneapolis area and West Coast/Colorado/New Mexico area can then become sane, prospering democracies and the MAGA bit in the middle and the south can then either choose to become a sane democracy too (and save itself economically), or die slowly in its own insignificance.

EU-style freedom of movement would have to be allowed, to make it easy for people to relocate.

It may sound radical but then again why should the likes of New York, New England, and California be dragged down by a politics which most of them probably dislike as much as we do?

 

[AndrewE]

Agree.

But I don't think the Venezuela incident is about drugs: that's just an excuse to make it look acceptable. More likely to be about oil, plus a bit of right-wing virtue-signalling (removing a dictator by force makes him look good in the eyes of some).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2026 ==

Yes, I think it's just a fig-leaf to cover the future theft of raw materials, as would be a foeced "peace deal" in Ukraine

I think it's time for the USA to (peacefully) split up into three separate nations, to be quite frank, due to the geographical concentration of beliefs across the country. The East Coast/Chicago/Minneapolis area and West Coast/Colorado/New Mexico area can then become sane, prospering democracies and the MAGA bit in the middle and the south can then either choose to become a sane democracy too (and save itself economically), or die slowly in its own insignificance.

EU-style freedom of movement would have to be allowed, to make it easy for people to relocate.

It may sound radical but then again why should the likes of New York, New England, and California be dragged down by a politics which most of them probably dislike as much as we do?

Have you read "The man in the high castle?"

 

[nw1]

Have you read "The man in the high castle?"

No, more a case of "desperate times call for desperate action"....

A quick look at that suggests the invasion of the US by Germany and Japan - I'm definitely not suggesting anything like that! Just suggesting a way for the more Democratic areas of the USA to achieve more autonomy.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I am not sure that talk by President Trump and some of his acolytes about taking over Greenland is in reality any more serious than the Gaza Riviera. Surely, under the United States Constitution, Congress would have to approve any occupation and annexation of Greenland.

President Trump claims he is now running Venezuela and he wants US oil companies to go into Venezuela but the USA is not occupying Venezuela which continues to be run by the existing regime under Delcy Rodríguez.

All USA did was carry out an enforced extradition of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores to put them on trial in the USA where they have been charged with drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. I do not know whether this particular action was in formal compliance with the laws of the USA but an armed occupation and takeover of Venezuela would have to be approved by the United States Congress.

 

[Gloster]

I am not sure that talk by President Trump and some of his acolytes about taking over Greenland is in reality any more serious than the Gaza Riviera. Surely, under the United States Constitution, Congress would have to approve any occupation and annexation of Greenland.

President Trump claims he is now running Venezuela and he wants US oil companies to go into Venezuela but the USA is not occupying Venezuela which continues to be run by the existing regime under Delcy Rodríguez.

All USA did was carry out an enforced extradition of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores to put them on trial in the USA where they have been charged with drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. I do not know whether this particular action was in formal compliance with the laws of the USA but an armed occupation and takeover of Venezuela would have to be approved by the United States Congress.

So are you suggesting (in that last sentence) that US law trumps international law and agreements? International norms and respect for other countries’ sovereignty have accepted that you do not go in and invade or even merely kidnap the leader of another country.

As far as oil is concerned, which I think is really the grounds for the kidnapping, the US has put itself in the position where it can now say: do want we want, or else… And what they want is favourable deals for Venezuela’s oil.

As far as Greenland is concerned, I am quite sure that the US wants the country’s mineral resources, one way or another. They just haven’t come to a final decision as to which option suits them best.

We have to face that we are dealing with racketeering on an unprecedented scale.

 

[nlogax]

I am not sure that talk by President Trump and some of his acolytes about taking over Greenland is in reality any more serious than the Gaza Riviera. Surely, under the United States Constitution, Congress would have to approve any occupation and annexation of Greenland.

The Trump White House deems its decisions are not subject to Congressional approval and traditional democratic process. What happened in Venezuela again proved that.

 

[AlterEgo]

And Maduro by all accounts appears to be a most unpleasant character, allegedly winning power by voting fraud, wrecking his country's economy and finances (but doubtless not his own) and causing millions of his fellow citizens to flee. Yet no-one had been able to remove him; Not his own people, neighbouring or indeed any Latin American nations, nor the UN. Should he have been allowed to retain his iron grip indefinitely?

It isn't America's job to abduct despots. How well has foreign regime change gone for the USA lately?

What if Putin had done the same to some other head of state he considered an illegitimate despot? How well might that have been received?

 

[weeklycommuter]

So are you suggesting (in that last sentence) that US law trumps international law and agreements? International norms and respect for other countries’ sovereignty have accepted that you do not go in and invade or even merely kidnap the leader of another country.

There is no world government that can enforce international law and agreements. The enforcement of international law and agreements is done by sovereign states and sovereign states only enforce international law and agreements in the way recognised by their own laws.

The hard reality therefore is that in the case of actions by the USA international law and agreements are whatever the laws and courts of the USA determine them to be. The armed forces of the USA act in accordance with the laws and constitution of the USA.

 

[adc82140]

The issue is that there really isn't any such thing as "international law", in the same way that "rules of war" are a fallacy. We've just been fortunate up to this point that the recent occupants of the White House have been rational people not prone to doing utterly stupid things, (excluding Bush Jr's Iraq adventure). All that has changed now with Trump 2.0.

 

[AlterEgo]

If Trump doesn't see any advantage of NATO to him, then taking Greenland is not irrational.

It is irrational if it is done without consideration of the hypocritical message this sends to other authoritarian states - ones whom the US has an interest in keeping at bay to protect its interests in the Middle East or the Far East, for example.

 

[Tester]

It is irrational if it is done without consideration of the hypocritical message this sends to other authoritarian states - ones whom the US has an interest in keeping at bay to protect its interests in the Middle East or the Far East, for example.

Fortress America may not care.

You know and I know that this all makes no sense - but we don't get to decide.

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely, under the United States Constitution, Congress would have to approve any occupation and annexation of Greenland.

Much of what Donald Trump and his acolytes are doing is illegal and unconstitutional. But if Congress and the Courts are unwilling to enforce the laws of the land and constitution there is very little that can be done. This would be similar. If Trump occupies and annexes Greenland and Congress and the courts refuse to act then it does not matter what the constitutional or legal position is.

This is why Trump is beginning to become vocal about the midterms. They have got to ensure that they maintain power in the midterms to avoid, at the very least, Congress taking action against the regime.

 

[brad465]

If we want to stop Trump going for Greenland, tell him that any American man who goes there will automatically undergo a transgender operation (i.e. the cold weather makes their "gentlemen's area" shrink out of view of the naked eye).

 

[jupiter]

This is rather like watching a gorilla at the controls of a running JCB. He's pulling, pushing and prodding and stuff's happening but he hasn't got a clue what or why.

 

[The exile]

In “Yes Prime Minister” vein, I wonder how long back to back state visits to Greenland by friendly powers could be sustained (friendly to Greenland tgat is and,at least in theory, to the USA)

 

[Annetts key]

There is no world government that can enforce international law and agreements. The enforcement of international law and agreements is done by sovereign states and sovereign states only enforce international law and agreements in the way recognised by their own laws.

The hard reality therefore is that in the case of actions by the USA international law and agreements are whatever the laws and courts of the USA determine them to be. The armed forces of the USA act in accordance with the laws and constitution of the USA.

The issue is that there really isn't any such thing as "international law", in the same way that "rules of war" are a fallacy. We've just been fortunate up to this point that the recent occupants of the White House have been rational people not prone to doing utterly stupid things, (excluding Bush Jr's Iraq adventure). All that has changed now with Trump 2.0.

It's true that there is no international police force. The international norms are a combination of previous agreements and the United Nations Charter.

The U.S.A. is a member of the United Nations, therefore it is suppose to act in accordance of the United Nations Charter. Just like any other member of the United Nations.

Unfortunately the U.S.A. has the power of veto. But that does not stop other member countries from combining their efforts to resist the bad actions of another country. The U.S.A. may be big and powerful, but that does not make it all powerful.

Trump may TACO out if enough countries very firmly say no and back this up with action. So the real question is will NATO members (and other friendly countries) do this?

To the question of the U.S.A. law courts, the Trump administration has lost some cases. But it takes time for cases to follow the process.

The current problem is with Congress. We have to hope that some Republicans are willing to say in public that they would not agree with invading Greenland.

 

[nlogax]

This is rather like watching a gorilla at the controls of a running JCB. He's pulling, pushing and prodding and stuff's happening but he hasn't got a clue what or why.

..a JCB in a room littered with grenades, land mines and fireworks amongst piles of precious porcelain.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The front cover of the latest edition of Private Eye is worth a look.

https://x.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/2008811341495366005?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

 

[generalnerd]

And that oil tanker spoken of earlier…

Reuters has an exclusive: it’s being seized https://www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The United States is attempting to seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker with links to Venezuela after a more than two-week-long pursuit across the Atlantic and as a Russian submarine and warship were close by, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
The seizure, which could stoke tensions with Russia, came after the tanker, originally known as the Bella-1, slipped through a U.S. maritime "blockade" of sanctioned tankers and rebuffed U.S. Coast Guard efforts to board it.

 

[brad465]

The US is carrying out an operation to seize the empty Venezuelan-linked tanker, which could get spicy because Russian naval assets have been committed to protect it:

US carrying out operation to seize tanker in Atlantic linked to Venezuelan oil, official says - live updates

Earlier, several military aircraft were tracked over the North Atlantic heading towards the Marinera.

www.bbc.co.uk

US carrying out operation to seize Venezuela-linked tanker, official says
​

The US is carrying out an operation to seize the Venezuela-linked oil tanker Marinera, formerly known as Bella-1, a US official confirms to CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

This is a breaking development and we'll bring you more shortly.

 

[adc82140]

Time was ticking here. Russia has sent out naval vessels to escort the tanker, in a couple of days they would have rendezvous'd, making the operation impossible.

 

[SteveP29]

that leaves America like a beached whale, helpless, powerless, slowly suffocation under its own delusions.

I sincerely hope so, then hopefully something a bit more considered, with a level of humility rises from the ashes

How well has foreign regime change gone for the USA lately?

I got this response on Twitter when I asked for some successful regime changes by 'Western Powers' and by that I meant (and did state) beneficial for the country concerned, NOT the USA:

'Panama….Noriega, 1989-90. I lived in Panama for two years of my life so it’s near and dear to me. Made the country much better by getting him out. Here are some others in the 1900’s through war or simply deposing their leader. Japan. Germany. Italy. Chile. Brazil. Iran (1953). Guatemala (1954)'

Apparently Noreiga wasn't sworn in before he was removed (I have yet to confirm this claim, made by another Twitter user though)
Japan: retained their royal family (I think he was alluding to the end of WWII), so how did that change things for the the better for the population?
Germany: I can give him, but that was the direct result of the war, not at all comparable to Venezuela.
Italy: see Germany above
Chile: Not sure if this is when Pinochet ousted the Allende regime or when Pinochet was replaced
Brazil: I have no idea, will need to do some research
Iran: again, more research to be done but a quick Google search indicates that was about British and American interests in their oil, very similar to Venezuela, but look at what's gone on there since.
Guatemala: again, I have no knowledge, but Wikipedia suggests a military dictatorship was established after the coup, how is that beneficial to the country's inhabitants? It also suggests that the deposed Government had been described as Communists.

I stand to be corrected/ educated on all these points, but to me, the countries listed with the exception of Germany and Italy don't seem to have benefitted from those American actions much, if at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

I sincerely hope so, then hopefully something a bit more considered, with a level of humility rises from the ashes



I got this response on Twitter when I asked for some successful regime changes by 'Western Powers' and by that I meant (and did state) beneficial for the country concerned, NOT the USA:

'Panama….Noriega, 1989-90. I lived in Panama for two years of my life so it’s near and dear to me. Made the country much better by getting him out. Here are some others in the 1900’s through war or simply deposing their leader. Japan. Germany. Italy. Chile. Brazil. Iran (1953). Guatemala (1954)'

Apparently Noreiga wasn't sworn in before he was removed (I have yet to confirm this claim, made by another Twitter user though)
Japan: retained their royal family (I think he was alluding to the end of WWII), so how did that change things for the the better for the population?
Germany: I can give him, but that was the direct result of the war, not at all comparable to Venezuela.
Italy: see Germany above
Chile: Not sure if this is when Pinochet ousted the Allende regime or when Pinochet was replaced
Brazil: I have no idea, will need to do some research
Iran: again, more research to be done but a quick Google search indicates that was about British and American interests in their oil, very similar to Venezuela, but look at what's gone on there since.
Guatemala: again, I have no knowledge, but Wikipedia suggests a military dictatorship was established after the coup, how is that beneficial to the country's inhabitants? It also suggests that the deposed Government had been described as Communists.

I stand to be corrected/ educated on all these points, but to me, the countries listed with the exception of Germany and Italy don't seem to have benefitted from those American actions much, if at all.

That's asking a different question from how it went for the United States. There is a good case to be made that the Cold War was more detrimental to the USA than a stagnant Nazi regime in place after a stalemate WWII or even German hegemony in the lebensraum. Of course the USA was right to fight, but the Allies won WWII yet lost the peace.

 

[martin butler]

What i think needs to happen is this, When the First boots land on Greenland, every American ambassador is called into every Nato Country, and given a note, that says you have 48 hours to remove your forces back to a peacetime level, or you will be required to leave every base on Nato soil, failure to do so, will see your forces surrounded and disarmed

in addition, The Nato countries should terminate Nato, and set up an European defence accord, along with other former Nato members, including Ukraine, Western European forces will then be free to aid Ukrainian forces on the ground to take back their country, and stabilise it,

The US will loose every european base, all arms contracts, lose all diplomatic advantages they have, possible travel bans, and limits on American travel beyond the US. the US economy would likily collapse, especially if countries started to shift debt they held.

 

[brad465]

What i think needs to happen is this, When the First boots land on Greenland, every American ambassador is called into every Nato Country, and given a note, that says you have 48 hours to remove your forces back to a peacetime level, or you will be required to leave every base on Nato soil, failure to do so, will see your forces surrounded and disarmed

in addition, The Nato countries should terminate Nato, and set up an European defence accord, along with other former Nato members, including Ukraine, Western European forces will then be free to aid Ukrainian forces on the ground to take back their country, and stabilise it,

The US will loose every european base, all arms contracts, lose all diplomatic advantages they have, possible travel bans, and limits on American travel beyond the US. the US economy would likily collapse, especially if countries started to shift debt they held.

A problem we have is too much defence kit currently in our possession is US-made and/or has US parts in it, so the US effectively has a kill switch on their use.

However, invading Greenland will still cause US economic trouble, as a large part of the economy is built on global trust. When that trust goes, the dollar and bond markets will collapse, further driving US inflation, especially if Europe also start sanctioning US companies operating there and China see this as a green light to go for Taiwan. For this reason, one has to wonder why neither US Congress nor US big business have a backbone, considering the US will lose an awful lot more than it gains through such an annexation.