What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dist]

I haven't had time to research it so I don't know if it's actually true, but if it's, it's going to be big news.

[Grey Fox]

How much does Japan have? Canada holds about 0.4%, iirc the figures. It's not going to make any difference.

[Maladict]

The only thing I'm seeing is that Japan is not ruling out selling them.

[Josquius]

How much does Japan have? Canada holds about 0.4%, iirc the figures. It's not going to make any difference.

A metric fuck tonne

[Legbiter]

Vance went on Fox to complain about Denmark and threaten Greenland. His wife just landed there having suddenly acquired an interest in the annual dogsled racing competition along with the US national security advisor...

Denmark just dispatched 100 extra police officers to help keep public order in Greenland.

[mongers]

Vance went on Fox to complain about Denmark and threaten Greenland. His wife just landed there having suddenly acquired an interest in the annual dogsled racing competition along with the US national security advisor...

Denmark just dispatched 100 extra police officers to help keep public order in Greenland.

It really is pitiful; trolling as state craft.

[grumbler]

Yeah well winning an election doesn't theoretically give the US President lawful power to do all sorts of things. But this President will try to do them anyway. So it is all rather academic.

True, but we have academic conversations here all the time.

[Norgy]

The subtlety of Trump's Greenland dunceplomacy is superb. You're doing great, America!

[viper37]

Trump Administration Eyes Move to Privatize Fannie, Freddie, WSJ Says


The original article is locked behind a terminal paywall which I do not have access to.
All I have is this.

Take it with a grain of salt, but it's still disturbing.  Not that it's the first time I'm hearing this from Republicans, however.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump Administration Eyes Move to Privatize Fannie, Freddie, WSJ Says

I'm not sure what this means.  Freddie Mac has always been a private corporation and Fannie has been one since the 1960s. During the 08 crisis, the Treasury acquired the majority of stock in both.  Presumably what is being talked about is not privatization but a sale of existing stock by Treasury onto the open market (?)   If this is done without imposing regulatory oversight - as many Republicans advocated prior to 2008 - it will simply replicate the same moral hazard problems that led to the federal bailout.

[Admiral Yi]

The moral hazard only existed previously because of the implicit federal guarantee.

[The Minsky Moment]

The moral hazard only existed previously because of the implicit federal guarantee.

Yes, but that still is in place.  Otherwise, there is no reason for either to exist.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, but that still is in place.  Otherwise, there is no reason for either to exist.

Securitizing mortgages is theoretically a profitable business without the guarantee.  It's fairer to say that without the hidden subsidy the public policy rationale ceases to exist.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, but that still is in place.  Otherwise, there is no reason for either to exist.

Securitizing mortgages is theoretically a profitable business without the guarantee.  It's fairer to say that without the hidden subsidy the public policy rationale ceases to exist.

I mean to say that anyone can set up a company to securitize mortgages.  There is no need for a special government sponsored entity to do that unless you want to convey at least an implicit message of government backing to lubricate the market.

[Sheilbh]

The subtlety of Trump's Greenland dunceplomacy is superb. You're doing great, America!

After Vance's comments on "random European countries who haven't fought a war" - and again after saying Denmark is "not a good ally" I'm seeing lots of people on the British internet asking "have you even said thank you once?"


This approach to diplomacy is not mainly annoying the freeloaders (because they're freeloaders ).

Separately Pete Hegseth accidentally added the Atlantic editor to a Signal group planning strikes on the Houthis:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/?gift=kPTlqn0J1iP9IBZcsdI5IVJpB2t9BYyxpzU4sooa69M&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Again Vance's role is very striking here - he really does seem to be the PM (just like Rubio adopting his language), while Trump spends his time chairing the Kennedy Center and pushing for performances "non-woke musicals" like Cats.

Edit: Incidentally again I don't agree with the way they're going about it - but there is a point there (not just from a Trump-y) perspective that the US is the only force capable of keeping Suez effectively open despite the fact that the main beneficiaries is European trade with China. I think even under Biden there were queries about that. I think this is part of why Europe needs to not just think of security as the European continent - we can't assume the US will be engaged in keeping trade lanes protected if they're not to and from the US. I'm not sure China would necessarily pick that up either.

So in the rush to say we don't need carriers or anything to project power it's all about very close defence to Europe that would actually just make us more vulnerable and equally reliant on US security. The UK sent destroyers and were flying out of Cyprus (our carrier at that time was supporting the US flying missions over Israel to shoot down Iranian attacks - not that this appears to have cut through in America). Other countries (Denmark, Canada, Finland) also contributed but the heavy lifting was absolutely done by the US.