by liberal japonicus
I read the news today, oh boy…
We are left with Kremlinology, but I assume this indicates the ascendance of the Rubio/Vance faction, though I don’t think there are any people who might have suggested restraint.
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
Trump’s abilities as a professional troll are incomparable.
with respect to all here, i find it completely baffling that anyone in the world thinks anything beyond “what a fucking attention-seeking clown” over this Greenland stuff.
There are two obvious possibilities here. First, the importance of rare earths, and the fact that China currently dominates supplies, may have simply escaped the notice of the the ignoramuses in the administration. So no reason to tell DOGE that USGS was off limits.
Second, the administration has shown across the board distain for competence, let alone expertise, After all, everything of importance has been known for decades. So obviously no need for anything like a geologist. A possible exception of everything already being known might be earthquakes. But since those only impact California, who cares. Certainly if we don’t care about knowing about hurricanes (which actually threaten Mar-a-Lago)….
What did I actually say about Trump’s negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded “Art of the Deal”)?
“Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here.”
bc, you did indeed say that. But what you said immediately before was ambiguous:
I’ve been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn’t prodding, it’s the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal.
That suggests that this (the Trump approach) is a strategy to get a better bargaining position, or deal. So it looks like you think that although it may not work, the strategy is not actually aimed at takeover.
I understand the wish to see it (and the current US approach in general) as something rational in intent. I too have had a tendency to do this in the past, perhaps because it is too uncomfortable to think that leaders are behaving in quite such a crazy or out-of-control manner. But, in the case of DJT, this is truly just sane-washing. And it is consistent with your approach to this administration in general; you do not approve of Trump’s “behaviour”, but you approve of (or rationalise) his intent. And people doing that about someone like him leads, for example, from “it is reasonable to take steps to deport criminal illegal immigrants” to armed groups of ICE agents swarming US cities against states’ wishes, detaining mainly US citizens and illegal immigrants who overwhelmingly have committed no criminal offences, mistreating and in some cases killing them. And similarly, the Trump approach to Greenland could end in breaking up NATO, a result that no US administration of any stripe has wanted.
I wanted to be fair to your view about the Greenland issue by posting that link with the interview by Freddie Sayers of Helen Thompson, Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl, because they are well-qualified to put all this in an accurate historical context long pre-dating Trump, and ignoring his specific rhetoric and approach. And I think that this is valuable and important.
But expressing more conservative views here, much as many of us favour hearing them, while also implicitly excusing Trump’s egregious and dangerous behaviour, is bound to come up against fierce opposition. The people commenting here accurately foretold what his first term would be like, and are once again in the devastating Cassandra-like position of watching while his second term proceeds to (as someone said to me at lunch today) “not only tear apart America, but also the world”.
Donald Trump, J D Vance, Steven Miller, RFKJnr, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi etc etc: are these people who you are content to see representing your country and your political views?
GftNC: Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
(blush)
bc: P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
I’m pretty sure I did. I’d be 100% sure if I knew which you’d pick if you were forced to choose between your preferred foreign policy (or tax policy, or immigration policy) and my civil rights. If you believe nobody will ever demand you make that choice at the polls, I worry you’re not paying strict attention.
Let’s not kid ourselves: the brutality of ICE, the invasion of
Venezuela, the threats to Greenland, and tax cuts for billionaires are
inseparable components of the Cult of He, Trump — which proclaims opposition is treason. It’s not a Chinese menu, it’s a cable bundle.
Of course I know you know that my civil rights are your civil rights too, so that eases my mind a bit.
–TP