Zompist Bboard Again

Starting this early for discussions of the new Trump presidency. I'll close the 46 thread at inauguration time.

If you're curious... there is precedent for the 47: Grover Cleveland is considered the 22nd and 24th president.

I'd ask that people avoid complaining about things that haven't happened yet. There will be plenty of actual outrages to talk about.

inauguration day protests happening around the country on jan 20, find one near you

So what does everyone think about Trump's efforts to acquire Canada, Greenland and Panama canal?

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:15 pmSo what does everyone think about Trump's efforts to acquire Canada, Greenland and Panama canal?

What "efforts"? I've heard about him grandstanding on the issue in speeches, but has there actually been any kind of official proposal, let alone an attempt to contact anyone who could conceivably entertain an offer?

Trudeau said there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that Canada would merge with the USA, the Prime Minister of Greenland has repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale, and President José Raúl Mulino says Panama has no intention of selling the canal. Granted, these could simply be hard initial bargaining conditions, but until there's an actual offer it's all nothing more than bluster from someone with a strong track record of not following through on his promises and proposals.

I don't really keep up with news all that closely, but hasn't there been a travel of a son of his to Greenland in the past few days?

And it's not like such speeches and "jokes" of a such public person are insignificant in and of themselves.

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:37 pmI don't really keep up with news all that closely, but hasn't there been a travel of a son of his to Greenland in the past few days?

And? He emphasised before he left that it was purely a personal trip and he didn't meet with a single official of the Greenlandic or the Danish government while he was there. It's just more pointless political theatre.

I so so much hope you're right

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:15 pm So what does everyone think about Trump's efforts to acquire Canada, Greenland and Panama canal?

Trump is a troll and/or a madman.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:34 pm
Trudeau said there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that Canada would merge with the USA, the Prime Minister of Greenland has repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale, and President José Raúl Mulino says Panama has no intention of selling the canal. Granted, these could simply be hard initial bargaining conditions, but until there's an actual offer it's all nothing more than bluster from someone with a strong track record of not following through on his promises and proposals.

That's sounds like a way of saying that Trump's proposals won't go anywhere as long as Trump plays by the rules. What makes you so sure that Trump will play by the rules?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:50 pmThat's sounds like a way of saying that Trump's proposals won't go anywhere as long as Trump plays by the rules. What makes you so sure that Trump will play by the rules?

What "rules" is he going to break that will achieve his aims in this situation? You think that if the USA forcibly annexes a territory of the Danish state the EU will just shrug its collective shoulders and let him keep it?

Conceivably, he could get away with invading and occupying Panama. After all, nothing much happened the last time the USA did that. I don't know if invoking the Monroe Doctrine is so much "breaking the rules" as it is dusting off one we haven't been playing by much lately.

Trump is a master of staying in the news by making outrageous statements. Which ones will be acted on is not always easy to tell.

In his first term, he continued and even escalated a number of wars, but didn't start any new ones. He's boasted that he'll stop wars more than that he'll start one. The only one to worry about, I suspect, is the threat to invade Panama— because that's the sort of thing Republican presidents have historically done.

The crazy ideas that are also dangerous are the ones with substantial backing in Congress or the GOP. E.g. he can't do all the harm he wants on immigration, but he can do a lot. There's a large constituency for this: Trump 45 deported fewer people per year than Obama did.

So the key question is probably, are other GOP leaders calling for war with Panama? I don't think so, though consies have a soft spot for using the military against Mexico.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:06 pmIn his first term, he continued and even escalated a number of wars, but didn't start any new ones. He's boasted that he'll stop wars more than that he'll start one. The only one to worry about, I suspect, is the threat to invade Panama— because that's the sort of thing Republican presidents have historically done.

To quote John Feeley (Ambassador to Panama during Trump's previous term of office), “To attempt to take it back today, I’d like to ask you, go find the MAGA constituency that’s going to support another foreign war because that is what it would take to get the canal back." So far I can't find any polling showing what percentage of Trump voters would support a military invasion of Panama. (Of course, it's not like he has to listen to the voters once elected.) Most Republicans seem to think this is simply more sabre-rattling. To quote Matthew Bartlett (a State Department appointee during his previous term), "But from a foreign policy context, crazy worked just fine the first time."

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:06 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:50 pmThat's sounds like a way of saying that Trump's proposals won't go anywhere as long as Trump plays by the rules. What makes you so sure that Trump will play by the rules?

What "rules" is he going to break that will achieve his aims in this situation? You think that if the USA forcibly annexes a territory of the Danish state the EU will just shrug its collective shoulders and let him keep it?

Er, yes. What are they going to do about it? OK, they might write a sternly-worded letter.

And that's assuming that "the EU" is actually a useful concept. You can easily argue that "the EU" doesn't really exist, only its member countries do.

Oh, pedantic note: While Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, and Denmark is a member of the EU, Greenland itself is technically not, or somehow not really, in the EU. They voted to leave shortly after getting their autonomy.

zompist: Occupying Greenland could probably be done with so little trouble that it wouldn't really be counted as a "war" by most in the US.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:26 pmEr, yes. What are they going to do about it? OK, they might write a sternly-worded letter.

That's funny. I could have sworn we were your principal trade partner or something.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:28 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:26 pmEr, yes. What are they going to do about it? OK, they might write a sternly-worded letter.

That's funny. I could have sworn we were your principle trade partner or something.

I don't think Trump is afraid of trade sanctions.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 3:34 pmTrudeau said there wasn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that Canada would merge with the USA

Every time I hear someone say Trump's wanting Canada to be the 51st State, I think back to the last times somebody tried to bring a huge nation into the USA...Texas and Deseret both had to accept being carved up in order to be admitted.

(also, I don't think the US Senate or the US Congress would want Canada admitted as is)

Heck, I'm not sure even the provinces of Canada are small enough to qualify...PEI and Maritimes excepted, I grant you.


Also, it took us over 200 years to accept the possibility of a Catholic President...we turned down the Philipines(sp), and have been doing a song-and-dance with P.R......does Trump think MAGA is going to accept Quebec?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:31 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:28 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:26 pmEr, yes. What are they going to do about it? OK, they might write a sternly-worded letter.

That's funny. I could have sworn we were your principal trade partner or something.

I don't think Trump is afraid of trade sanctions.

If anyone threatens him with sanctions, he'll just stomp his feet and raise the tariffs to 50% or more. And gripe in dozens more rallies about how everyone hates him.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:31 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:28 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:26 pmEr, yes. What are they going to do about it? OK, they might write a sternly-worded letter.

That's funny. I could have sworn we were your principal trade partner or something.

I don't think Trump is afraid of trade sanctions.

I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to evaluate this statement. Like COVID, they are effective whether he's afraid of them or not.

keenir wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:35 pm
Also, it took us over 200 years to accept the possibility of a Catholic President...we turned down the Philipines(sp), and have been doing a song-and-dance with P.R......does Trump think MAGA is going to accept Quebec?

A bit less than 200. How much depends on whether you count from the Declaration of Independence or from the first presidential election. I don't think MAGA-ts mind white, right-wing Catholics. They might mind French people, though.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:40 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:31 pm
I don't think Trump is afraid of trade sanctions.

I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to evaluate this statement. Like COVID, they are effective whether he's afraid of them or not.

Effective in the sense of having some kind of impact - probably yes. Effective in the sense of having an impact Trump would have to worry about? Not so sure. And the far-right European governments might well block sanctions from being passed in the first place.