Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[egg]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So Trump "cashing in his chips" in a childish tantrum allows him to seize another country, an ally of the US, at the point of a gun ?

Do the people of Greenland not have a say ?

We know they won't. 

Now onto the Chagos Islands. I think it likely that once our sovereignty ends, Trump will annexe all the islands. Being a sub tenant of just one of the islands won't be enough for him. 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Now onto the Chagos Islands. 

In May last year the US, and Trump personally, praised that deal as a "monumental achievement", now it is apparently "an act of GREAT STUPIDITY".

[egg]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

In May last year the US, and Trump personally, praised that deal as a "monumental achievement", now it is apparently "an act of GREAT STUPIDITY".

Indeed. His latest view is probably the better one though to be fair. Where it is daft is that it removes part of our leverage with the US. 

The Tories started that particular ball rolling, and I'm not sure what was ever on it for us. Feels like "doing the right thing" rather than anything beneficial to us. 

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

We know they won't. 

Now onto the Chagos Islands. I think it likely that once our sovereignty ends, Trump will annexe all the islands. Being a sub tenant of just one of the islands won't be enough for him. 

He's 100% right about Chagos but completely wrong and frankly nuts about Greenland. I'm hoping it's part of some negotiation and some of the European nations can convince him that they have enough to defend the island without him invading.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. His latest view is probably the better one though to be fair. Where it is daft is that it removes part of our leverage with the US. 

The Tories started that particular ball rolling, and I'm not sure what was ever on it for us. Feels like "doing the right thing" rather than anything beneficial to us. 

Even that is questionable given that as far as I am aware Mauritius never owned the thing.

[hypochondriac]

I wonder if they offered Greenlanders something like $500k each whether they would agree. I'd certainly think about it.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I wonder if they offered Greenlanders something like $500k each whether they would agree. I'd certainly think about it.

It seems that for Greenlanders the most important aspect of Denmark's control, the main thing holding back calls for complete independence, is the welfare state that Denmark extends to the Island; healthcare, pensions, and education. There is no way that would be sustained under US occupation.

[badgerx16]

Trump makes great play out of his ability as a deal maker. One thing clearly and publicly goes against this - whatever he paid for his hair, he was robbed.

[sadoldgit]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

In May last year the US, and Trump personally, praised that deal as a "monumental achievement", now it is apparently "an act of GREAT STUPIDITY".

This is what happens when you cross a narcissist. There is no “special relationship” unless you treat them as special 24/7.

As soon as Starmer stood up and told him that the tariffs were wrong yesterday that was it. He won’t be a happy bunny again until he gets his own way and we back down.

This is what happens when you give too much power to an unhinged megalomaniac.

Putin and Xi will be loving this.

I don’t agree with Batman. I don’t think we will back down over Greenland although I expect some deal will be struck to make it look like the spoilt brat has “won.”

Watch him threaten to pull the plug on Ukraine next.

 

[sadoldgit]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I wonder if they offered Greenlanders something like $500k each whether they would agree. I'd certainly think about it.

Why doesn’t that surprise me?

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Why doesn’t that surprise me?

I preferred it when you pretended to have me on ignore soggy. No surprise you know a lot about how a narcissist operates.

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It seems that for Greenlanders the most important aspect of Denmark's control, the main thing holding back calls for complete independence, is the welfare state that Denmark extends to the Island; healthcare, pensions, and education. There is no way that would be sustained under US occupation.

Good point. I still reckon this could be sorted with a larger American presence on Greenland and some collective agreement on security. Who knows with Donald but I can't see him actually invading.

[AlexLaw76]

57 minutes ago, egg said:

We know they won't. 

Now onto the Chagos Islands. I think it likely that once our sovereignty ends, Trump will annexe all the islands. Being a sub tenant of just one of the islands won't be enough for him. 

Do the people of the Chagos not get a say?

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do the people of the Chagos not get a say?

If the U.K. could be so stupid as to give Chagos away, at the behest of International law decided by Russian and Chinese judges, to an ally of China and Russia, pay them billions on an ongoing basis AND then agree IN LAW to tell that ally of Russia and China if the base is ever to be used militarily against anyone including Russia and China - what idiocy could Denmark be persuaded to do under the guise of complying with international law? 

I don't understand how someone can seriously make the case for the people of Greenland whilst simultaneously doing a deal on Chagos that ignores the wishes of the people who come from there.

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

54 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Even that is questionable given that as far as I am aware Mauritius never owned the thing.

We bought it from someone in 1965 so there was definitely ownership. 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If the U.K. could be so stupid as to give Chagos away, at the behest of International law decided by Russian and Chinese judges, to an ally of China and Russia, pay them billions on an ongoing basis AND then agree IN LAW to tell that ally of Russia and China if the base is ever to be used militarily against anyone including Russia and China - what idiocy could Denmark be persuaded to do under the guise of complying with international law? 

I don't understand how someone can seriously make the case for the people of Greenland whilst simultaneously doing a deal on Chagos that ignores the wishes of the people who come from there.

  Because UK, and Western Europe, are oh so pious and virtuous on the world stage. 

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do the people of the Chagos not get a say?

The only people on the Chagos Islands are US and UK military personnel and civilian contractors. The native population were dispersed many years ago. 

The annexation of the archipelago was the last dying spasm of British colonialism.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

We bought it from someone in 1965 so there was definitely ownership. 

The UK gained the islands from France over 200 years ago.

the BIOT administration was formed in 1965

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

We bought it from someone in 1965 so there was definitely ownership. 

We got it off the French in 1814, and administered it as part of Mauritius until it was formally made into an overseas territory of the United Kingdom in 1965.

[egg]

32 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do the people of the Chagos not get a say?

What people? We booted them off the island. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The only people on the Chagos Islands are US and UK military personnel and civilian contractors. The native population were dispersed many years ago. 

The annexation of the archipelago was the last dying spasm of British colonialism.

Right so it was the British that moved them off. So really the island belongs to those people so they should be the ones that have a say on this.

[badgerx16]

48 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Right so it was the British that moved them off. So really the island belongs to those people so they should be the ones that have a say on this.

Correct, but the US won't let them because they "need" the base on Diego Garcia. They perceive a threat due to Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

39 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Correct, but the US won't let them because they "need" the base on Diego Garcia. They perceive a threat due to Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.

Eh? It's Britain that won't let the Chagossian people have a say. They don't want to be part of Mauritius. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Eh? It's Britain that won't let the Chagossian people have a say. They don't want to be part of Mauritius. 

The Chagossians are not on the islands. The only residents are US and UK military, and civilan defence contractors. The islanders are mostly on Mauritius or in the UK. 

The civilian population were removed as a security measure for the Diego Garcia base. The issue for the US, which leases the base, is that the UK is transferring the archipelago to Mauritius, which has close economic ties to China.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

The Chagossians are not on the islands. The only residents are US and UaK military, and civilan defence contractors. The islanders are mostly on Mauritius or in the UK. 

The civilian population were moved as a security measure for the Diego Garcia base. The issue for the US, which leases the base, is that the UK is transferring the archipelago to Mauritius, which has close economic ties to China.

Correct. They aren't there because the British moved them off. How can they boot out the people that live there and then give away their homeland to someone they don't want to give it to ?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Correct. They aren't there because the British moved them off. How can they boot out the people that live there and then give away their homeland to someone they don't want to give it to ?

It was wrong, but the US supported the move at the time, and last year supported the agreement with Mauritius, which Trump has now done a complete 180 on.

However, linking this to Greenland is a false equivalence.

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

It was wrong, but the US supported the move at the time, and last year supported the agreement with Mauritius, which Trump has now done a complete 180 on.

However, linking this to Greenland is a false equivalence.

Why is it? This deal has never sounded like something that Trump would support. The Republican admin were obviously being diplomatic last year because Britain asked them to. It seems very hypocritical to care about self determination for one group of natives but not another with the main difference being that one group are the ones we kicked out in the first place.

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why is it? This deal has never sounded like something that Trump would support. The Republican admin were obviously being diplomatic last year because Britain asked them to. It seems very hypocritical to care about self determination for one group of natives but not another with the main difference being that one group are the ones we kicked out in the first place.

Greenlanders don't want to join the US, Trump is threatening to take it by coercion, if not force.

How would he react if the Chagossians were given a vote, and decided that they wanted to return home and the US had to give up Diego Garcia ? In his own words, "we had a boat that sailed there".

Edited 3 hours ago by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Greenlanders don't want to join the US, Trump is threatening to take it by coercion, if not force.

How would he react if the Chagossians were given a vote, and decided that they wanted to return home and the US had to give up Diego Garcia ? In his own words, "we had a boat that sailed there".

Doesn't sound like there's any chance of that happening:

 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Doesn't sound like there's any chance of that happening:

 

But would Trump allow them to return ? The population were originally removed by the UK at the request of the US.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But would Trump allow them to return ? The population were originally removed by the UK at the request of the US.

The letter isn't asking for that.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The letter isn't asking for that.

I know, and the agreement with Mauritius has dubious validity, but there is no way they will be allowed to return, either by the US or UK, so to an extent their opinion is ( sadly ) moot. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I know, and the agreement with Mauritius has dubious validity, but there is no way they will be allowed to return, either by the US or UK, so to an extent their opinion is ( sadly ) moot. 

So if Trump removes all the Greenlanders their opinion on the future of Greenland becomes moot because he won't let them return? Someone should tell Donald that sounds like a great deal for him.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So if Trump removes all the Greenlanders their opinion on the future of Greenland becomes moot because he won't let them return? Someone should tell Donald that sounds like a great deal for him.

Deflection.

Should Trump be allowed to take Greenland by whatever means if the population reject his advances ?

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Deflection.

Should Trump be allowed to take Greenland by whatever means if the population reject his advances ?

How so? Obviously he shouldn't be allowed to. Whether we can actually stop him though is another question. Personally like I said I don't think it will come to that as I don't believe he will actually invade. You never know though with Trump.

[hypochondriac]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, the smart play from Labour now would be to 'give in' to Trump and let him think he's won over Chagos as a tactic to try to prevent any more rubbish over Greenland. It's an unpopular move anyway so it won't cost them much politically. Announce you're listening to the leadership of Trump and all get together and announce a big ramping up of troops and assistance in partnership in Greenland. Call Trump the honourary custodian of Greenland or some other made up title so he's satisfied and they can move on to something else.

[tdmickey3]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, the smart play from Labour now would be to 'give in' to Trump and let him think he's won over Chagos as a tactic to try to prevent any more rubbish over Greenland. It's an unpopular move anyway so it won't cost them much politically. Announce you're listening to the leadership of Trump and all get together and announce a big ramping up of troops and assistance in partnership in Greenland. Call Trump the honourary custodian of Greenland or some other made up title so he's satisfied and they can move on to something else.

Pandering to ego of the orange cretin is last thing anyone should do, he will just ask for more and change his tune, once he knows everyone is weak..

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Pandering to ego of the orange cretin is last thing anyone should do, he will just ask for more and change his tune, once he knows everyone is weak..

As opposed to getting into a trade war with one side who holds almost all the cards (even before you mention Ukraine, Russia etc.) unfortunately reality is shit and the reality is that America largely has us by the balls due to lack of investment in defence and relying on America forever by thinking that they would always be there to bail us out. It's rather blown up in our faces and that's the fault of all government over the last couple of decades at least- probably longer.

Finding a middle ground where Trump can feel like he has taken a win is the smartest thing to do and it looks like Starmer is attempting to do something along those lines. It's not something that anyone should be overly happy about but it's called diplomacy. Sometimes you have to hold your nose and do what's right for the good of the country and imo this is one of those moments. Having said that, if he does actually invade Greenland then all bets are off.

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

When Starmer praises trump in public or when Trump leaks private communication with flattering things leaders have said do you think those leaders really believe those things? Dipmacy is a delicate balance and it often means doing and saying things you'd rather not do because the consequences of telling Trump to fuck himself and cutting off diplomatic ties with America could be much worse than trying to keep them onside whilst not just rolling over and letting Trump do whatever he likes. I'm surprised more people don't realise that. 

There's also the fact that Britain in reality has very little influence or importance in the modern world and it really would be better if Trump was directing his ire elsewhere.

Edited 2 hours ago by hypochondriac

[whelk]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

There's also the fact that Britain in reality has very little influence or importance in the modern world

To a degree but we still are the 6th largest economy in the world which often people overlook in their desperation to put down their own country.

[spyinthesky]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

To a degree but we still are the 6th largest economy in the world which often people overlook in their desperation to put down their own country.

We are but something like 31st in the world when it comes to revenue per head whereas Russia is 48th and has (or perhaps had) a much bigger military than we have.
The UK used to have a relatively strong balance sheet but we now have a debt to GDP ratio hovering around the 100% mark due to burgeoning Social Services costs.
 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, whelk said:

To a degree but we still are the 6th largest economy in the world which often people overlook in their desperation to put down their own country.

I love this country I think it's brilliant. I also accept that from an American point of view-particularly Trump -has very little incentive to listen to what we want if he disagrees.

[whelk]

34 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

We are but something like 31st in the world when it comes to revenue per head whereas Russia is 48th and has (or perhaps had) a much bigger military than we have.
The UK used to have a relatively strong balance sheet but we now have a debt to GDP ratio hovering around the 100% mark due to burgeoning Social Services costs.
 

GDP is the understood standard of measuring size. The US has larger ratio than the UK at something like 120%

[whelk]

33 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I love this country I think it's brilliant. I also accept that from an American point of view-particularly Trump -has very little incentive to listen to what we want if he disagrees.

Don’t disagree regarding Trump. There is lots to be gloomy about economically but we are not yet irrelevant 

[warsash saint]

I long for that moment when this prick is not involved in 3 or 4 or the main news stories every day !!

Edited 7 minutes ago by warsash saint

[hypochondriac]

46 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t disagree regarding Trump. There is lots to be gloomy about economically but we are not yet irrelevant 

We aren't irrelevant we just think we have more influence and importance than we have in reality. If Trump wants to go over our heads, collude with Putin and xi and start some sort of new world order then it's going to be difficult to stop that. Trump could easily ignore anything Britain ever does if he really wanted to. Hopefully it doesn't happen.