Trump 2.0

[Sarkus]

No doubt their first act will be to get Ukraine to stop waging war on Russia, and convince them (one way or another) to accept Russia's reasonable and peaceful terms.

Macron turned down the invite for France to be on that board, and Trump threatened 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne as a result. Macron cited the charter being wider than just Gaza, and that it clearly wanted to rival the UN.
Trump also wants members to pay $1bn to remain on it. So it's a scam.
Interestingly, most of those who say they have agreed to join are the less democratic regimes: china, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Belarus, Pakistan etc. A number of European nations have declined.
Naturally Trump put himself, Rubio, and son-in-law Kushner on the Exec committee, and himself as chairman with complete veto on the executive boards actions, and has final say on interpretation of the charter. So, basically, it's an agreement do what TACO wants, which will either be to reward him personally, or America.
It's a scam. It's just a boy's club for like-minded authoritarians.

 

[Olga]

Macron turned down the invite for France to be on that board, and Trump threatened 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne as a result. Macron cited the charter being wider than just Gaza, and that it clearly wanted to rival the UN.
Trump also wants members to pay $1bn to remain on it. So it's a scam.
Interestingly, most of those who say they have agreed to join are the less democratic regimes: china, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Belarus, Pakistan etc. A number of European nations have declined.
Naturally Trump put himself, Rubio, and son-in-law Kushner on the Exec committee, and himself as chairman with complete veto on the executive boards actions, and has final say on interpretation of the charter. So, basically, it's an agreement do what TACO wants, which will either be to reward him personally, or America.
It's a scam. It's just a boy's club for like-minded authoritarians.

Китай всё таки решил присоединиться?

 

[Seattle]

???
It's not a question of being "right" or not. This isn't a gameshow, or a quiz. We're discussing possibilities, and we're discussing what Trump says and does. Noone has expressed that they think the USA will definitely invade Greenland militarily, or even been confident that this is likely. But, sure, as said, you've told us so. Well done you.

As to what you subsequently added to your post:

The US is going downhill. That's not an opinion but fact. The economy is, on the surface, doing okay, but in terms of respect, of division, or world standing, all have suffered under Trump. The USA is more corrupt, and more disfunctional than it has been for a while (or perhaps ever?).
Will elections continue? Again, it's a possibility that Trump will find some means of delaying, postponing, or even cancelling them. Is it a certainty or even likely? No. But the fact that it's even being discussed with regard the USA as a possibility is disappointing and worrying.
And no, the world isn't going to end.

But yeah, you told us so. Well done you.

The system is being politically stress tested. When citizens are transparent and accountable, they get better politicians. When they are too emotional, populist, don't think rationally, they get ...this. Take Trump away and you still have the same problem.

As an aside, his negotiating "style" is erratic but you can break it down into textbook negotiating "styles", whether it's "anchoring, chaos, and it's mainly chaos or keeping everyone on their toes", it's "working" a little too well in an amusing way. Much of it is pointless or not needed but I think as time goes on more and more parties will just "ignore" the drama and then it will be less effective.

 

[Tiassa]

True, 'Dat

Take Trump away and you still have the same problem.

Yes, we will still have the problem of people like you.

You're not exactly telling us anything new:

The question of Trumpism fading is one of brand popularity; the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace even after the last trumpence is spent ....

.... Inasmuch as Trumpism is a brand experience, and the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace, the components of that underlying product are potsherds fashioned into vessels of bitter and poisonous draught. That people sympathize with this or that potsherd eventually adds up to the next iteration.

(May, 2021↗)​

And since we recently went through this↗ yet again, let us take the moment to be particular:

Even if we choose to take up one of these passionate but clueless advocates on whatever pretense of argument they bring, what happens when the next passionate advocate without a clue steps up and runs the circle all over again; and the answer is that it's up to you whether to engage or not. That is, there are ranges of discourse that are not obliged to any pretense of rational discussion because doing so would allegedly silence them, so if somebody wants to repeat what has already been debunked, there are times when that is allowed, and it's up to anyone else to decide whether or not to engage, thus resulting in an idyll by which certain crackpottery is not only allowable but potentially left to stand unchallenged because everyone else is sick of wasting their time on such bullshit.​

And, here you are, doing it all over, again:

When they are too emotional, populist, don't think rationally …

Right, and, just for instance, Reaganista↗, the line I did about Ben↑ Sasse↑ isn't the sort of cheap bit favored by those who prefer hiding in the overgrown weeds of "doesn't really matter"↗ bothsidesing. Blaming liberals for religious polarization in the United States because Democrats failed to properly reject atheism and atheists is literally the subject of Ben Sasse's dissertation. That kind of emotionalism and populism has been driving one side of American politics for generations, and it's one of the reasons why it does matter, why the problem is not "the same either way".

And if "the system is being politically stress tested", well, yeah, it's for people like you.

 

[Seattle]

True, 'Dat



Yes, we will still have the problem of people like you.

You're not exactly telling us anything new:

The question of Trumpism fading is one of brand popularity; the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace even after the last trumpence is spent ....​

​

.... Inasmuch as Trumpism is a brand experience, and the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace, the components of that underlying product are potsherds fashioned into vessels of bitter and poisonous draught. That people sympathize with this or that potsherd eventually adds up to the next iteration.​

​

(May, 2021↗)​

And since we recently went through this↗ yet again, let us take the moment to be particular:

Even if we choose to take up one of these passionate but clueless advocates on whatever pretense of argument they bring, what happens when the next passionate advocate without a clue steps up and runs the circle all over again; and the answer is that it's up to you whether to engage or not. That is, there are ranges of discourse that are not obliged to any pretense of rational discussion because doing so would allegedly silence them, so if somebody wants to repeat what has already been debunked, there are times when that is allowed, and it's up to anyone else to decide whether or not to engage, thus resulting in an idyll by which certain crackpottery is not only allowable but potentially left to stand unchallenged because everyone else is sick of wasting their time on such bullshit.​

And, here you are, doing it all over, again:



Right, and, just for instance, Reaganista↗, the line I did about Ben↑ Sasse↑ isn't the sort of cheap bit favored by those who prefer hiding in the overgrown weeds of "doesn't really matter"↗ bothsidesing. Blaming liberals for religious polarization in the United States because Democrats failed to properly reject atheism and atheists is literally the subject of Ben Sasse's dissertation. That kind of emotionalism and populism has been driving one side of American politics for generations, and it's one of the reasons why it does matter, why the problem is not "the same either way".

And if "the system is being politically stress tested", well, yeah, it's for people like you.

You wrote all that to say, "no, you..."?

 

[exchemist]

American colleagues, this is your president:

Donald Trump appeared to confuse Greenland with Iceland during a speech to world leaders, as he continued his pursuit of the Arctic territory.
Addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, the president continued to argue that the US needed to take ownership of Greenland to ensure national security. During the speech, he referred to Greenland as a “big piece of ice”. But at one point, Trump also repeatedly referred to the country of Iceland.

“Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland, so Iceland has already cost us a lot of money,” he said. “But that dip is peanuts compared to what it’s gone up.” He went on to refer to Iceland multiple times in the speech at the World Economic Forum, as he spoke out about the continuing tense negotiations with Denmark over Greenland.


“Until the last few days, when I told them about Iceland, they loved me. They called me ‘Daddy’,” Trump said. “I went from running it to being a terrible human being. But now what I’m asking for is a piece of ice, cold and poorly located, that can play a vital role in world peace and world protection. It’s a very small ask compared to what we have given them for many, many decades.”


He went on to continue to attack Nato for not being “there for us on Iceland” despite “all of the money we expend, with all of the blood, sweat and tears”.

(From The Independent, 22/1/26)

Somebody's rambling grandad with dementia.

 

[exchemist]

The system is being politically stress tested. When citizens are transparent and accountable, they get better politicians. When they are too emotional, populist, don't think rationally, they get ...this. Take Trump away and you still have the same problem.

As an aside, his negotiating "style" is erratic but you can break it down into textbook negotiating "styles", whether it's "anchoring, chaos, and it's mainly chaos or keeping everyone on their toes", it's "working" a little too well in an amusing way. Much of it is pointless or not needed but I think as time goes on more and more parties will just "ignore" the drama and then it will be less effective.

The system is being not tested but destroyed. If Americans don't wake up there will be no way to change the government and you will lose your rights.

 

[Seattle]

The system is being not tested but destroyed. If Americans don't wake up there will be no way to change the government and you will lose your rights.

I think not. Sarkus thinks it's possible but not likely. You think it's likely?

 

[exchemist]

I think not. Sarkus thinks it's possible but not likely. You think it's likely?

Yes I think, looking at the classic autocrat's playbook and at Trump's track record to date, there is fair chance Trump and the Trumpies will find a way to postpone the mid term elections, at least in Democrat states. ICE seems to provide an ideal vehicle for whipping up riots, he has already been trying out the language of "extremists" to describe protesters and he has several times mused - in the way that he first floats ideas he later acts on - about invoking the Insurrection Act. Declaring a state of emergency is the classic way to suspend the processes of democracy. We've seen it so many times before around the world.

If he manages to prevent control of Congress from slipping from his grasp, he has a further full two years to continue to intimidate the judiciary, the press and academia, which currently seem to be the only sources of resistance to his power, given that he has already purged the DoJ and the DoD and installed his placemen. He is already using the DoJ for intimidation, cf. Jay Powell, Lisa Cook, Adam Schiff. And he has his team of MAGA trolls - not instructed by him but indirectly incited via "Truth Social " posts - delivering pizzas to the families of judges or politicians who cross him or make decisions that don't go his way. Even Marjorie Taylor Green found that out the hard way.

And then, he will quite likely go for a 3rd term, or find some way to install his favoured successor. Last time it was only Mike Pence and Bill Barr who put a stop to his attempted coup. This time he hasn't repeated that mistake: he has Vance and Pam Bondi.

So yes I think there is, not a certainty, but a very significant risk, of democracy being lost or else transformed into a Putin-style fake with a crooked Congress populated with yes men. Of course I'm an outsider looking in, but if you ask me today for a % likelihood of major interference with the mid terms and/or the next presidential election to ensure the continuance of Trump or Trumpy despotism, I would put it at at least 30%.

It is possible that some of these Republican senators and congressmen may decide to stand up to him and reassert the primacy of Congress. But so far there has been very little sign of that. At present the main hope I see is that members of the Supreme Court have sufficient professional pride and integrity, regardless of their political inclinations, to uphold the law and the constitution.

 

[Seattle]

Yes I think, looking at the classic autocrat's playbook and at Trump's track record to date, there is fair chance Trump and the Trumpies will find a way to postpone the mid term elections, at least in Democrat states. ICE seems to provide an ideal vehicle for whipping up riots, he has already been trying out the language of "extremists" to describe protesters and he has several times mused - in the way that he first floats ideas he later acts on - about invoking the Insurrection Act. Declaring a state of emergency is the classic way to suspend the processes of democracy. We've seen it so many times before around the world.

If he manages to prevent control of Congress from slipping from his grasp, he has a further full two years to continue to intimidate the judiciary, the press and academia, which currently seem to be the only sources of resistance to his power, given that he has already purged the DoJ and the DoD and installed his placemen. He is already using the DoJ for intimidation, cf. Jay Powell, Lisa Cook, Adam Schiff. And he has his team of MAGA trolls - not instructed by him but indirectly incited via "Truth Social " posts - delivering pizzas to the families of judges or politicians who cross him or make decisions that don't go his way. Even Marjorie Taylor Green found that out the hard way.

And then, he will quite likely go for a 3rd term, or find some way to install his favoured successor. Last time it was only Mike Pence and Bill Barr who put a stop to his attempted coup. This time he hasn't repeated that mistake: he has Vance and Pam Bondi.

So yes I think there is, not a certainty, but a very significant risk, of democracy being lost or else transformed into a Putin-style fake with a crooked Congress populated with yes men. Of course I'm an outsider looking in, but if you ask me today for a % likelihood of major interference with the mid terms and/or the next presidential election to ensure the continuance of Trump or Trumpy despotism, I would put it at at least 30%.

It is possible that some of these Republican senators and congressmen may decide to stand up to him and reassert the primacy of Congress. But so far there has been very little sign of that. At present the main hope I see is that members of the Supreme Court have sufficient professional pride and integrity, regardless of their political inclinations, to uphold the law and the constitution.

Just to be clear. If Vance becomes the next President, are you going to still say you were right?

 

[exchemist]

Just to be clear. If Vance becomes the next President, are you going to still say you were right?

To be clear, I said I think there is >30% chance of the mid terms and the next presidential election being either scuppered or seriously meddled with so to ensure the desired outcome for Trump or his chosen successor. So it is not a question of me being "right". It is a question of whether or not my fears are realised.

If Vance were to stand and win, I would consider my fears realised if this took place in an atmosphere of coercion, intimidation, suppression or electoral meddling. If however the electoral process is not interfered with and he wins it fair and square, then democracy will be shown to have remained intact.

I hope that is clear enough.

 

[exchemist]

Macron turned down the invite for France to be on that board, and Trump threatened 200% tariffs on French wine and champagne as a result. Macron cited the charter being wider than just Gaza, and that it clearly wanted to rival the UN.
Trump also wants members to pay $1bn to remain on it. So it's a scam.
Interestingly, most of those who say they have agreed to join are the less democratic regimes: china, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Belarus, Pakistan etc. A number of European nations have declined.
Naturally Trump put himself, Rubio, and son-in-law Kushner on the Exec committee, and himself as chairman with complete veto on the executive boards actions, and has final say on interpretation of the charter. So, basically, it's an agreement do what TACO wants, which will either be to reward him personally, or America.
It's a scam. It's just a boy's club for like-minded authoritarians.

I was amused to see he has tried to launder it by inviting the pope - who is still, er,"considering" the offer. Starmer is also "considering" it, doubtless hoping it loses credibility before he has to snub Trump by officially declining.

What I'm intrigued to know is where do these $billions go? Into what bank account? And to be used for what purpose, and by whom?

 

[Sarkus]

I was amused to see he has tried to launder it by inviting the pope - who is still, er,"considering" the offer. Starmer is also "considering" it, doubtless hoping it loses credibility before he has to snub Trump by officially declining.

Starmer is delaying due to the involvement of Russia. I suspect many in Europe will do likewise. I would also think that many will balk at the idea of its scope/charter being wider than just Gaza, and many perhaps at the very idea of Trump being personally involved with such an opportunity for corruption. I mean, if the Gaza plan he's dreamt up doesn't already include "Trump Resort" in the prime location...

What I'm intrigued to know is where do these $billions go? Into what bank account? And to be used for what purpose, and by whom?

The money will probably go to the same Qatari bank that he's sending the money from sales of Venezuela's oil.
Congress should be all over that set-up, because Congress (or so I believe) is the one that deals with appropriations, yet here is Trump flagrantly setting up his own bank account, that he has said he will personally decide what is done with the funds, presumably to fund his own projects that Congress wouldn't otherwise allow.
So I suspect the "Board of Peace" billions, if anyone pays it (it's only for permanent membership after the 3-year term runs out, I understand), will go to the same place.

 

[billvon]

The system is being politically stress tested.

In the same way that pancreatic cancer stress-tests your body, yes.

When citizens are transparent and accountable, they get better politicians. When they are too emotional, populist, don't think rationally, they get ...this. Take Trump away and you still have the same problem.

In addition, when they are perfectly rational, but only want their own goals fulfilled (for example, white supremacy, a strong leader, the wealth of other countries taken by theirs, suppression of things that make them uncomfortable) you get this as well.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I think not. Sarkus thinks it's possible but not likely. You think it's likely?

Actually, a lot in this area depends on which way SCOTUS leans.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

About political violence.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/assassination-culture-rise-especially-among-women-study-warns

 

[TheVat]

About political violence.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/assassination-culture-rise-especially-among-women-study-warns

The NCRI this slanted journalism is quoting has been criticized as not being nonpartisan in its methods and agendas.

Media scholar Jack Bratich has criticized the NCRI for a lack of neutrality, accusing it of being used to target domestic dissenters labelled as threats. In 2021, the NCRI was criticized by Matthew Lyons of the anti-fascist project Three Way Fight for equating undesirable political views on the left and right, particularly in the wake of the George Floyd protests and for allegedly aligning with state security interests.

Disruption Network Institute found corporate records and tax filings showing that the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) paid the NCRI $335,000 in 2021.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

The NCRI this slanted journalism is quoting has been criticized as not being nonpartisan in its methods and agendas.

Media scholar Jack Bratich has criticized the NCRI for a lack of neutrality, accusing it of being used to target domestic dissenters labelled as threats. In 2021, the NCRI was criticized by Matthew Lyons of the anti-fascist project Three Way Fight for equating undesirable political views on the left and right, particularly in the wake of the George Floyd protests and for allegedly aligning with state security interests.

Disruption Network Institute found corporate records and tax filings showing that the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) paid the NCRI $335,000 in 2021.

But has anyone done a truly independent study that refutes this. One can have a large bias and still do a truthful study. And critics may not be free of their own biases. If a study came out equal on the left and right, would it be accepted by the right.

 

[TheVat]

One can have a large bias and still do a truthful study.

Not in the gathering and interpretation of social science statistics. When your research organization has big donors with highly partisan agendas, there is great pressure to "massage" the data and skew the wording of survey questions to get findings that please your sponsors.

I would consider using sources that are not central to Turnip's plans for Gleichschaltung, like look elsewhere than Fox News. Or, as we see today, posted on X by the WH.


"The White House on Thursday posted an altered photo of an attorney arrested after a Minnesota church protest, edited to make it look like she was crying, sparking concern among some forensic-image experts about the administration’s distortion of real-world imagery." - Washington Post



This is happening a lot. And it not only spreads propaganda memes, but undermines further the public's trust - even in legacy news outlets of the highest integrity.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I personally know people on both the left and the right that could do it unbiased. Being neither left nor right, with some of each, I know I could.