Trump madness? (Page 1/5)
Cliff Pennock JAN 09, 02:54 AM
First of all, I'm sure this has been discussed in P&R already. But I hardly ever come here and I'm sure as hell am not going to read all threads trying to find out where this has been or is being discussed.

That out of the way, let me start by saying I'm neither a Trump supporter, nor a Trump hater. To me he's just the POTUS. And just like any other president, he's done good things, he's done bad things. In my opinion that is.

That said, I just saw snippets of his press conference and at first I was like: "this must have been made with AI or something". Then I heard this was real and he was dead serious. And I'm of course talking about his whole Greenland/Canada/Gulf of America speech. Here's a guy talking about annexation of two sovereign countries (or parts thereof). Is he actually threatening to invade a country of the European Union? Really? How is that any better/different than what Putin is doing? And demanding Canada becomes a part of the United States? And of course there are benefits. Both military and economic benefits. That's the whole reason Putin is invading the Ukraine. It's the reason native Americans were all but slaughtered because it was beneficial. It's the reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.

That doesn't mean you should be even considering it.

So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
Patrick JAN 09, 03:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

Or because it benefits Canada.



Hell no.

The guy is a despicable human being, he's demented, and he's about to become POTUS again. What could go wrong?
Patrick JAN 09, 03:47 AM

Cliff, I won't mention a name and further embarrass the PFF member who posted the following video here in P&R, but this is the type of crapola that hard-core Trump supporters lap up.



Below the video at YouTube, it says right in the description the following...


quote


// ⚠️ DISCLAIMER 🚨 - The stories presented on this channel are entirely fictional and crafted solely for entertainment. Any resemblance to real events, individuals, or situations is purely coincidental and unintentional. These narratives are not intended to depict, reference, or represent any actual occurrences, persons, or entities.



Even without the disclaimer, five seconds into the video, any rational person would realize this is just AI generated hogwash. Read some of the comments under the video at YouTube. It's truly frightening how brainwashed these people are. And this is how megalomaniacs such as Trump and Putin are able to gain power and run rampant. It's like a mass hysteria.
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 09, 07:50 AM

quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:

First of all, I'm sure this has been discussed in P&R already. But I hardly ever come here and I'm sure as hell am not going to read all threads trying to find out where this has been or is being discussed.

That out of the way, let me start by saying I'm neither a Trump supporter, nor a Trump hater. To me he's just the POTUS. And just like any other president, he's done good things, he's done bad things. In my opinion that is.

That said, I just saw snippets of his press conference and at first I was like: "this must have been made with AI or something". Then I heard this was real and he was dead serious. And I'm of course talking about his whole Greenland/Canada/Gulf of America speech. Here's a guy talking about annexation of two sovereign countries (or parts thereof). Is he actually threatening to invade a country of the European Union? Really? How is that any better/different than what Putin is doing? And demanding Canada becomes a part of the United States? And of course there are benefits. Both military and economic benefits. That's the whole reason Putin is invading the Ukraine. It's the reason native Americans were all but slaughtered because it was beneficial. It's the reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.

That doesn't mean you should be even considering it.

So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.




HAHAH... no, he's not going to invade Greenland or Canada. There is a point to him doing this. A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.

So, Greenland for example... they say they're not for sale... but with all this, maybe Trump ends up with more favorable terms for a base expansion.
For Canada... for example... they're obviously not going to join the United States, but maybe it mobilizes the citizens to vote Conservative (replacing Trudeau) and they end up with a new leader in Canada who's more aligned with Trump's goals (border controls, etc.).


For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...

Gulf of America, I think that sounds awesome though... I already call it the Gulf of Florida. Hahah...
82-T/A [At Work] JAN 09, 07:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Cliff, I won't mention a name and further embarrass the PFF member who posted the following video here in P&R, but this is the type of crapola that hard-core Trump supporters lap up.



You're kind of being an ******* now Patrick, you're better than this.
olejoedad JAN 09, 10:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


You're kind of being an ******* now Patrick, you're better than this.



Well, you're the eternal optimist, aren't you?
blackrams JAN 09, 11:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
HAHAH... no, he's not going to invade Greenland or Canada. There is a point to him doing this. A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.

So, Greenland for example... they say they're not for sale... but with all this, maybe Trump ends up with more favorable terms for a base expansion.
For Canada... for example... they're obviously not going to join the United States, but maybe it mobilizes the citizens to vote Conservative (replacing Trudeau) and they end up with a new leader in Canada who's more aligned with Trump's goals (border controls, etc.).


For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...

Gulf of America, I think that sounds awesome though... I already call it the Gulf of Florida. Hahah...



I agree with most of Todd's posting. Most of DJT's bold statements (to me) are simply attention getters to achieve goals that will be better bargaining positions for the US. I don't believe most Americans really want to take on Canada's social issues, we've already got enough WOKE issues of our own. Greenland's location for better security IMHO is the primary goal. Although, that's true with Cananda also. Panama is walking toward China's influence; it appears US ships are having to pay much higher transition fees to go through the same canal as non-US ships. It should not cost a penny more for a US versus non-US ship to transition through the Canal.

Don't really care what the "Gulf" is called and I doubt most Americans do. I believe renaming the "Gulf" is simply a shot across the bow of Mexico to get serious with the program on border issues.


quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.



Well, there's a bold statement if I ever heard one. But, again it's all about perspective.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-09-2025).]

ray b JAN 09, 12:39 PM
they could call it the confederate gulf

as every rebel gulf touching state was part of the revolt of the slave culture

I suspect it will be called the gulf of mexico no matter what the rump said long term
and the rump reprise of racism will not last long


I would guess the natives in greenland may not like the way we treat our natives here
if they study our history

the canadians support far too many lib ideas and ideals for the magats liking in a union

they have real social med and gun control laws the con's will not allow
Raydar JAN 09, 03:44 PM
First... We (at least the rational ones) don't want Canada to be annexed. That would give the lefties a huge advantage.
Personally, I think Canada should annex the left coast, from Baja, all the way up to Vancouver. Give us all a damned break.

And no, Trump isn't serious about this stuff. Maybe 10% serious, as alluded to earlier. (Panama needs to shape up.)
But he so seems to enjoy getting a rise out of all the people who are just looking for something to scream about.

It's working well, isn't it?

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-09-2025).]

Cliff Pennock JAN 09, 05:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.



That’s an interesting perspective, and I get where you're coming from. The whole 'talk big to shift expectations' strategy does make sense in a negotiation context. I'm sure Trump used it successfully in business. But diplomacy, especially on a global scale, is a different game. Unlike business deals, where you can walk away or re-negotiate, international politics involves long-term alliances, trust, and public perception, especially with partners like Europe and Canada.

The problem is, if the goal is to gain leverage or favorable terms, this kind of rhetoric can backfire when you're dealing with countries that already view him unfavorably. Instead of softening their stance, it might just harden it. Whether he means it seriously or not, remarks like this don’t just stir the pot - they can damage credibility and relationships in ways that aren’t easy to repair.

So yeah, maybe it’s all part of a strategy. But when it involves talk of annexing parts of sovereign countries, it feels less like clever negotiation and more like reckless posturing.