What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Legbiter]

So Trump doesn't rule out using military force to seize Greenland or the Panama Canal. He also said that Don Jr traveled to Greenland and was welcomed very warmly and that they'll make Greenland great again. (Greenland authorities say Jr visited as a private person and there were no meetings with officials.)

If the US were to seize Greenland then Denmark could just cut off the American Ozempic supply. 

[garbon]

So Trump doesn't rule out using military force to seize Greenland or the Panama Canal. He also said that Don Jr traveled to Greenland and was welcomed very warmly and that they'll make Greenland great again. (Greenland authorities say Jr visited as a private person and there were no meetings with officials.)

If the US were to seize Greenland then Denmark could just cut off the American Ozempic supply. 

That's one way to weight the scale in Lilly's favor over Novo Nordisk.

[Sheilbh]

don't feed the troll needs to become a worldwide buzzword

Ish. I don't think he's trolling on Greenland or Panama. I wouldn't be surprised to see efforts at a "deal". But it's not about feeding the troll but wanting to beat them because my side keeps losing.

I think we've not intellectualised enough. In the developed, democratic Western world the radical right is the most successful (and, in some ways, innovative) political force in the last 35 years moving from the fringes to government or close to it in many countries. I think the self-examination by liberals and the left is starting to happen (not fully convinced yet), but I also think we still need to move past the sort of "natural disaster" way of thinking about it (not least because there is no political response to that - it's just quietism-provoking).

Partly it may just be the traditional bias against taking the right intellectually seriously which is always an issue. But I think we lack useful theory or ideas about this beyond the purely electoral "this group of voter plus this group of voter" stuff.

And part of that, I think, is that none of these politicians - not Trump, not Meloni, not Farage - are self-made. They come from something and are surrounded by people. I think understanding the MSI is important to understanding Meloni. Same with Pat Buchanan, Taft, America First, all the Paleocon stuff and Trump (although very differently than Meloni). For that matter that the Panama Canal treaty was a weirdly big issue on the right of the Republican party in the 80s (I think it occupied a similar space as the "stranded"/"abandoned" Vietnam POWs conspiracy theory). Similarly I think the weird ideological soup around Silicon Valley matters. None of which is new.

So on Greenland - reportedly that was first suggested to Trump (when he started talking about it in his last term) by Tom Cotton. He was talked about as a potential Secretary of Defence or CIA Director but has stayed in the Senate to move up the leadership ranks and also chair the intelligence committee. That's where it and Panama comes from. Not Trump looking for attention on social media but someone in Congress for the last decade and a long standing grievance on the Republican right that was an attack line that Reagan was using against Carter.

[CountDeMoney]

You're now the laughingstock of the world. Admittedly one with nukes and a giant army, which does take away some of the laughs.

    

So, Russia.  Imagine that.

[Barrister]

Ish. I don't think he's trolling on Greenland or Panama. I wouldn't be surprised to see efforts at a "deal". But it's not about feeding the troll but wanting to beat them because my side keeps losing.

A Greenland deal isn't impossible to imagine - although I have my doubts Trump is patient enough to see it through.

Greenlanders desire independence, but far too much of their government budget relies on the Danish block grant for that to ever be realistic.  If the US came in, offered Greenland a deal that gave them an ever bigger block grant plus even greater autonomy, all in exchange for putting up a US flag in Nuuk and switching to the US dollar, they might take it.  You'd have to ratify it in a referendum though.

That's world's different from "buying Greenland from Denmark" however.

And part of that, I think, is that none of these politicians - not Trump, not Meloni, not Farage - are self-made. They come from something and are surrounded by people. I think understanding the MSI is important to understanding Meloni. Same with Pat Buchanan, Taft, America First, all the Paleocon stuff and Trump (although very differently than Meloni). For that matter that the Panama Canal treaty was a weirdly big issue on the right of the Republican party in the 80s (I think it occupied a similar space as the "stranded"/"abandoned" Vietnam POWs conspiracy theory). Similarly I think the weird ideological soup around Silicon Valley matters. None of which is new.

So on Greenland - reportedly that was first suggested to Trump (when he started talking about it in his last term) by Tom Cotton. He was talked about as a potential Secretary of Defence or CIA Director but has stayed in the Senate to move up the leadership ranks and also chair the intelligence committee. That's where it and Panama comes from. Not Trump looking for attention on social media but someone in Congress for the last decade and a long standing grievance on the Republican right that was an attack line that Reagan was using against Carter.

So you brought up yesterday that Trump was in the "tradition" of that whole paleocon / "America First" heritage on the American right.  Now I don't think Trump really cares about ideas or intellectual history.  Early on though in Trump's rise Isaw the comparison that you could usually predict what Trump was going to say by imagining him as "Donny from Queens" - a called to a right-wing radio show.

Now while right wing-talk radio still exists, even the comparison is dated - but that still explains Trump.  Imagine him as "Donny from Queens" calling in to his favourite radio show back in the 80s or 90s.  So wanting the Panama Canal back is nobody's idea of a relevant political issue - but it was back then, and that's the last time Trump really thought hard about politics.

Which puts him in that whole "paleocon" tradition, even if Trump couldn't name the John Birch Society or Father Coughlin.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and the other thing I mean by that is that I think bringing up Russia can be a distraction when you're talking about a nativist, isolationist, populist politician with imperious attitudes to America's neighbours. That's a really strong, massive seam running through the history of American politics - it was in remission during the cold war and immediately after (which is why I think Buchanan is interesting in this). But I think you can overemphasis the extent to which Trump is a break or sui generis - because he's not.

Personally I think Trump's politics is just mob boss - it's all about loyalty and protection (which I think ties into that nativist, isolationist, populist style). So none of that means Trump's out there reading The American Conservative or the Claremont Review of Books - but the people who are most willing to defend him, staffing his administration or trying to influence him are.

I also think Taft in 1952 is always a what if I wonder about because I think it highlights how another world was very, very possible. He was almost the Republican nominee in 1952. He'd opposed lend-lease and all other types of aid to the allies (until Pearl Harbour) and opposed NATO or ongoing American involvement in Europe. It may be that there was enough Republican support in Congress to stop that from mattering too much politically and they would have just continued Truman's policies anyway, rather than it ending up like Wilson's plan for the world - but I think even just having a major party nominee running against it would politicise all of those issues around America's place in the world in the period we now think of as having a strong bipartisan consensus. As it is, with the exception of Buchanan, that tradition - which had bee dominant on the American right - basically lives on the fringes of the GOP until Trump.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's a really strong, massive seam running through the history of American politics - it was in remission during the cold war and immediately after (which is why I think Buchanan is interesting in this). But I think you can overemphasis the extent to which Trump is a break or sui generis - because he's not.

It's in plain sight:
America First (1930s/40s) --> Buchanan --> America First (2010/20s)

Relying on Americans' staggering ignorance of their own history to hide the authoritarian and pro-fascist sympathies of this political movement. Buchanan even wrote a book blaming Churchill for WW2, that the US should have stayed out and that Britain should have accepted peace with Germany in 1940.

[grumbler]

You're now the laughingstock of the world. Admittedly one with nukes and a giant army, which does take away some of the laughs.

    

So, Russia.  Imagine that.

Time is a flat circle.

I'll not give the "who the hell are you" greeting.

[Sheilbh]

It's in plain sight:
America First (1930s/40s) --> Buchanan --> America First (2010/20s)

Relying on Americans' staggering ignorance of their own history to hide the authoritarian and pro-fascist sympathies of this political movement. Buchanan even wrote a book blaming Churchill for WW2, that the US should have stayed out and that Britain should have accepted peace with Germany in 1940.

Didn't Tucker Carlson recently interview someone on the same point? The "secret history" of WW2, which I think was Churchill and Jews causing it.

Incidentally on this stuff, where I have an issue (though I fully get it) is, say Foreign Secretary David Lammy, saying "the rhetoric is often intense. The language is not what I might use [...] but sitting behind that is something serious. I suspect that Donald Trump is concerned about what he sees in the Arctic: the behaviour of Russia and China and their designs on Greenland where there are, of course, US troops and a US base. He knows that Greenland is within the Kingdom of Denmark. He knows that there is a debate within Greenland [...] around their own self-determination. Behind this is national economic security for the US and, actually, for the global community. That's the serious issue behind the rhetoric."

I think Trump might do something because he bullies those he considers weak and someone's told him there's oil, gas and natural resources in Greenland and Arctic (and probably that they're not allowed to extract them). Sadly the British government has to pretend it's for the good of the international community

[The Minsky Moment]

Incidentally on this stuff, where I have an issue (though I fully get it) is, say Foreign Secretary David Lammy, saying "the rhetoric is often intense. The language is not what I might use [...] but sitting behind that is something serious. I suspect that Donald Trump is concerned about what he sees in the Arctic: the behaviour of Russia and China and their designs on Greenland where there are, of course, US troops and a US base. He knows that Greenland is within the Kingdom of Denmark. He knows that there is a debate within Greenland [...] around their own self-determination.   Behind this is national economic security for the US and, actually, for the global community. That's the serious issue behind the rhetoric."

FFS there is no excuse for this in 2025.  The pretending that Trump has some rational strategy underlining his vocalized brain farts; rationalizing the unjustifiable. 

It's a real estate hustle - he sees a big piece of land and wants to grab it cheap, using threats and dirty tricks as needed. He knows fuck all about Arctic geostrategic competition; he was reading a magazine when that was briefed.

[HVC]

You're now the laughingstock of the world. Admittedly one with nukes and a giant army, which does take away some of the laughs.

    

So, Russia.  Imagine that.

Time is a flat circle.

I'll not give the "who the hell are you" greeting.

Not even under its drunkest rulers did russia threaten to invade Israel and buy Mongolia

[crazy canuck]

Incidentally on this stuff, where I have an issue (though I fully get it) is, say Foreign Secretary David Lammy, saying "the rhetoric is often intense. The language is not what I might use [...] but sitting behind that is something serious. I suspect that Donald Trump is concerned about what he sees in the Arctic: the behaviour of Russia and China and their designs on Greenland where there are, of course, US troops and a US base. He knows that Greenland is within the Kingdom of Denmark. He knows that there is a debate within Greenland [...] around their own self-determination.   Behind this is national economic security for the US and, actually, for the global community. That's the serious issue behind the rhetoric."

FFS there is no excuse for this in 2025.  The pretending that Trump has some rational strategy underlining his vocalized brain farts; rationalizing the unjustifiable. 

It's a real estate hustle - he sees a big piece of land and wants to grab it cheap, using threats and dirty tricks as needed. He knows fuck all about Arctic geostrategic competition; he was reading a magazine when that was briefed.

+1

[HVC]

Incidentally on this stuff, where I have an issue (though I fully get it) is, say Foreign Secretary David Lammy, saying "the rhetoric is often intense. The language is not what I might use [...] but sitting behind that is something serious. I suspect that Donald Trump is concerned about what he sees in the Arctic: the behaviour of Russia and China and their designs on Greenland where there are, of course, US troops and a US base. He knows that Greenland is within the Kingdom of Denmark. He knows that there is a debate within Greenland [...] around their own self-determination.   Behind this is national economic security for the US and, actually, for the global community. That's the serious issue behind the rhetoric."

FFS there is no excuse for this in 2025.  The pretending that Trump has some rational strategy underlining his vocalized brain farts; rationalizing the unjustifiable. 

It's a real estate hustle - he sees a big piece of land and wants to grab it cheap, using threats and dirty tricks as needed. He knows fuck all about Arctic geostrategic competition; he was reading a magazine when that was briefed.

Sheilbh is a smart guy. Can't envision a world where chaos reigns, everything must deep down have logic. Be it Trump or brexit

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh is a smart guy. Can't envision a world where chaos reigns, everything must deep down have logic. Be it Trump or brexit

I read his post as critical of Lammy.

Lammy is trying the old Trump whisperer game of trying to repackage Trump's B.S. as a rational strategic initiative, with the hope of deflecting him to some useful direction. Lindsey Graham's been trying to play that hustle for years, and every time, he's the one that gets hustled. 

[Norgy]

I would say Trump had a very lucid press conference where he spoke of all the dead soldiers and the flat land in Ukraine. It was incisive analysis. The best.

Best bit was him and Putin arranging a date. Getting the band back together, so to speak.