What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Nonetheless, decision makers in Canada and Mexico have to assess the possibilities and act accordingly 

Indeed, And keep their allies posted. Greenland should consider whether or not it is safe to continue to allow the US to operate a base there.

[Valmy]

Nonetheless, decision makers in Canada and Mexico have to assess the possibilities and act accordingly 

Mexico especially.

https://www.axios.com/2026/01/03/trump-maduro-venezuela-mexico-sheinbaum

After capturing Maduro, Trump hints at military action in Cuba, Mexico and Colombia

Hours after the U.S. invaded Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump sent a warning to the governments of Mexico, Cuba and Colombia that their countries could be next.

I am so tired of this imperial shit man.

All this shit about right wing populism America first bringing back isolationism was just more bullshit. More lies. And all the supposed peace people like Tulsi don't give a shit. More grifters and bullshitters.

Trump never ceases to disappoint me, no matter how low my opinion of him is. It is truly amazing.

This gamble succeeding will embolden them to do more of it. Which is why, despite having little love for Maduro and his regime, this whole incident is very depressing for me.

[The Minsky Moment]

Tulsi Gabbard has virtually disappeared from sight.  The only press mention she's had in months was when she identified the national security threat posed by Muslims living in Dearborn.

I guess it's mostly a good thing that it appears she's not in a position to direct policy (?) There is also no NSA  - Rubio is "acting" in the position while also serving at State.  As far as I can discern, foreign policy decisions are being driven by some combination of the Trump family, Hegseth, Miller and Rubio.  More to the point - there really isn't any foreign policy, properly speaking.  It's just a combination of (1) extension of the domestic culture war overseas + (2) maneuvering to maximize the monetary take for the Trump business and family interests. And not in that order.

[Valmy]

Tulsi was loudly banging on about how Biden was a warmonger for sending shit to Ukraine and how Trump would bring peace. And then the regime she supported actually directly attacks a country and crickets.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Tulsi is too busy sending all our national secrets to Putin to be doing anything else.

[The Brain]

Apparently the invasion of Greenland will be "soon".

I wonder if the Danish plan is to not resist the invasion, shrug it off as a fait accompli and that way rid themselves of the headache Greenland is. The alternative is drowning in attack waves of oiled shredded shirtless dudes.

[Syt]

https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/cuba-colombia-canada-greenland-where-will-the-president-of-peace-strike-next

Cuba, Colombia, Canada, Greenland...? Where will the 'president of peace' strike next?
America's actions in Venezuela are not simply those of a rogue state but something far worse: those of a rogue superpower

We can't say we weren't warned. Page 15 of the new US National Security Strategy (NSS) states: "The United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere." In the dead of night, that's exactly what US forces did in Venezuela.

The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and his wife – and the near silence so far from the rest of the west – may herald the end of any pretence that international law still matters.

Maduro's authoritarian rule has been a disaster for Venezuela. Elections have been shams, countless protesters have been jailed and the economy is a mess. The majority of Venezuelans wanted Maduro gone.

But Trump's military action was not about restoring democracy. In a rambling press conference in Mar-a-Lago, he said that the US would "run the country" – announcing an occupation that has no legal justification. He talked repeatedly about Venezuela's oil industry and how American companies would now be "very much involved".

More disturbingly, he argued that military action was necessary because "we want to surround ourselves with good neighbours". In the course of his press conference he threatened Cuba and Colombia, while in an earlier interview he even suggested Mexico might be next. What about Canada, the sovereign nation Trump has repeatedly referred to as America's "51st state"?

The impact of America's military action in Venezuela will reverberate across the world. If Trump's behaviour is now deemed acceptable, we are entering a dangerous international age, one in which the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and even Nato are no longer secure.

Over the past week, China has engaged in large-scale live-fire drills around Taiwan. Xi Jinping has made no secret of his desire to, one way or another, take control of Taiwan. What happens if he decides to mount a similar operation and try to capture Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te? Or if Russia, which attempted to capture or kill Volodymyr Zelensky on the first day of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, tries its luck once more?

What is happening in Latin America can happen here in Europe. What is stopping him sending troops to Greenland? What is stopping him threatening the UK with higher tariffs unless we elect Nigel Farage? Nato's Article 5 is supposed to protect us from outside threats. What do we do if the call is coming from inside the house?

Trump's actions in Venezuela present another test for Europe and all those who have traditionally viewed themselves as America's ally. It is a test that, in the first few hours, they are already failing.

There has been little European condemnation, while Keir Starmer's initial statement managed to both remind us of his principles ("As you know, I always say�– and believe – we should all uphold international law"), before reminding us of his weaknesses ("But I think at this stage it's a fast-moving situation... establish the facts and take it from there.)"

Just as the biggest European nations have belatedly realised they need a united front to stand up to Trump over his support for Vladimir Putin on Ukraine, they need to show the same urgency to protect the multilateral, rules-based system that has – albeit imperfectly – guided the world over the past 80 years.

Trump does not pretend international law or multilateralism mean anything to him. Indeed, as the security strategy makes clear, we are now entering a period where America wants to rule the world.

America's respect for international laws has always been far weaker than it has claimed. Almost every nation in Latin America has been invaded or bombed by the US since the second world war, while nations from Congo to Iran have been the victim of CIA-organised coups or regime change. Democratic presidents have been as guilty as Republicans – both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama backed dictators when it suited them. But this is different. America is in a dark place, ruled by an autocrat who is continually trying to destroy his country's democracy. As the NSS makes clear, he wants to reshape the rest of the world too.

Launching military action without national or international legal approval, kidnapping a head of state, boasting about how you're claiming his nation's natural resources: these are the actions of a rogue state. There is something more scary than a rogue state, though – that's a rogue superpower.

Back in 2003 George W Bush was castigated for his actions in Iraq – from the lies about weapons of mass destruction and the corrupting of intelligence, to the disdain for the UN and the disastrous failure to prepare for a post-Saddam Hussein regime. Yet we're in the bizarre position where � Bush's two-year bid to win international approval and build a case for Saddam's removal looks almost quaint.

At his inauguration in January 2025, Donald Trump pledged to be a "peacemaker and unifier". Although he has claimed to have brokered several – and in some cases, short-lived – peace deals, he also carried out military interventions with relish, bombing seven countries during the first year of his second term.

Somalia During his first stint as US president, Trump dramatically ramped up strikes against jihadists in Somalia. He has intensified this air campaign again since returning to the White House, with 118 strikes conducted in 2025 – more than the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations combined.

Yemen Trump launched a wave of air and naval strikes against targets in Houthi-controlled Yemen in early 2025, pledging to "annihilate" the Iran-backed militia group after it hit Israel and targeted Red Sea shipping in retaliation for the war in Gaza. One attack, against a fuel port in April, killed at least 80 people, according to Houthi-run health authorities.

Iraq In March last year a US airstrike killed a senior leader of Islamic State (IS) in Iraq. The operation was carried out with Iraq's intelligence services. Trump wrote on social media that it exhibited "peace through strength".

Iran During Israel's short war with Iran in June, the US struck three Iranian nuclear facilities. B-2 stealth bombers dropped bunker-busters and cruise missiles were launched from a sub. Trump claimed the country's nuclear programme had been "completely and totally obliterated", although the extent of the damage is still unclear.

Syria After IS killed two US soldiers and a US civilian interpreter in central Syria on 13 December, Trump authorised more than 70 strikes on the group. His rebranded "war secretary", Pete Hegseth, described them as a "declaration of vengeance".

Nigeria A US ship stationed in the Gulf of Guinea launched more than a dozen cruise missiles at two IS training camps in Nigeria on Christmas Day. Trump said the aim was to protect Christians who Maga figures say are being targeted for their faith. Nigeria's government denies this, but acquiesced to the strikes.

Venezuela The US began attacking alleged drug boats off Venezuela's Caribbean coast in September, carrying out 33 known strikes and killing at least 112 people so far. US forces also docked two sanctioned oil tankers, pursued a third and hit a Venezuelan port facility with a drone before yesterday's Saturday's operation.

[Solmyr]

You just know that instead of Somalia, Trump will attack Somaliland because he doesn't know the difference.

[Zanza]

He Doesn't Care
Trump Is Bored to Death by the Affordability Crisis
He's finally started to acknowledge the struggles of ordinary Americans, but he's incapable of staying focused on them.

Not long ago, President Trump seemed simply to be following the Joe Biden playbook on the affordability crisis: Deny Americans' lived experience. Despite poll after poll, and a mountain of bad economic indicators, he's called the affordability problem a "hoax" and a "con job" by Democrats, even mocking the concept in a speech in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, in early December—just days after yet another poll showed that his own voters were fed up and struggling to pay their bills.

Still, Trump has begun to address the issue a bit more—rhetorically, that is. He's never fully acknowledged that the affordability problem has continued into his administration, nor how his own policies—from tariffs raising prices on myriad goods to the chaotic interruptions in crucial benefits like food stamps—have contributed to Americans' economic sufferings. But he has been making more claims about what he's supposedly doing to bring down the cost of living, a tacit nod to the polling.

He says inflation has "stopped." He says his policies will cut drug prices by "400, 500, even 600 percent." He says he has brought down the price of food and gas. He says that electricity costs "will fall dramatically." He says that wages are up and that manufacturing jobs are flooding back to the United States.

Trouble is, none of that is true.

Inflation has not "stopped." Grocery prices are up even from the Biden era. His claims about drug prices are not only false but, as CNN points out, "mathematically impossible."  Wage growth for workers without college degrees slowed, from January to September, and within the same time frame, workers lost 361,000 jobs. From April—the month Trump announced his "liberation day" tariffs—to September, manufacturing in the U.S. fell by 58,000 jobs. On gas, his claims are exaggerated, as are his claims on egg prices. Electricity has spiked by 9 percent during his administration, and while it's impossible to predict the future, there's certainly no reason to believe his claim that he's just about to bring it down.

But an equally big problem is that Americans' struggles just don't interest him. That's why he can't stay focused on them. That's why he rolls his eyes when he says the word "affordability." It's also why in every recent speech, when he's not lying about the affordability problem, he's changing the subject. Trump raises the issue only to pivot to his preferred topics: tariffs (which he said recently was his "favorite word"), immigration, his personal beefs, himself, Ilhan Omar, Somalians in Minnesota, and so on. In his December 17 speech on the economy, he opened with three sentences on the cost of living, and immediately after saying the word "affordability," he launched a rant about immigrants, as if to wake himself up. Two days later, in a speech in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, he shifted from affordability to his weird obsession with immigrants coming from insane asylums (presumably he is equating those seeking "asylum" with mental patients, a long-standing Trumpian muddle) without even the pretense of a logical transition, just because he couldn't wait to get there.

Hardship bores Trump. And why wouldn't it? He's a rich guy who likes to hang out at Mar-a-Lago with other rich guys. He doesn't have any answers to the affordability crisis because he doesn't care—he really should borrow his wife's infamous jacket—and because some of the easiest and most obvious solutions to the crisis involve rolling back his own policies, not to mention alienating Republican donors. No wonder he'd rather rant about Somalis in Minnesota—or reminisce about the good old days of his attempted assassination.

Trump's utter disengagement and mendacity on the affordability crisis create a huge opportunity for Democrats, and some have been running with it. On Thursday, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as the new mayor of New York City. He campaigned on making New York more affordable through universal childcare, free buses, a rent freeze for rent-stabilized buildings, as well as increasing the supply of housing for poor, working-class, and middle-class New Yorkers. He is backed by a grassroots campaign to tax the rich to make all this possible. On January 20, Mikie Sherill, the Democratic governor-elect of New Jersey, will also be sworn in. She too campaigned on lowering costs while also strongly opposing the construction of new data centers, which will increase energy bills, line tech billionaires' pockets, and only flood the world with more slop.

In a sense, they will face the same challenge that Trump is facing: how to deliver on their campaign promises to address the affordability crisis. The difference is that they have actual policies they plan to advance in their respective legislative bodies. All Trump ever had was his favorite word, and every respected economist knew back in 2024 that astronomical tariffs were certain to accomplish one thing: higher prices on American consumers. But the president is not one to acknowledge his mistakes, let alone learn from them. So it's a safe bet that he's not going to suddenly find any solutions to the affordability crisis, not when he can barely bring himself to say those words.

Not really news, but I feel this is the one thing that might stop Trump: Even -or probably especially - his voters feel this pain and (some) realize that his posse will not do anything about it.

[Admiral Yi]

I listened to an NPR story about affordability and it seems like nothing more than an attempt to complain about inflation while inflation is low.

[Duque de Bragança]

You just know that instead of Somalia, Trump will attack Somaliland because he doesn't know the difference.

At least Puntland should be safe from attack.

[Jacob]

I listened to an NPR story about affordability and it seems like nothing more than an attempt to complain about inflation while inflation is low.

So from your point of view the affordability crisis is not really a thing?

[Admiral Yi]

So from your point of view the affordability crisis is not really a thing?

I would need a workable definition of thing before I an answer.

[HVC]

Rumour going around that trump made 400k by betting on Maduro getting kidnapped.

[HVC]

So from your point of view the affordability crisis is not really a thing?

I would need a workable definition of thing before I an answer.

Before that is there a situation where you'd agree theres an affordability crisis?