Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
Is it not the nature of the beast? The template for the 21st century version of despotism is here on display. And people wonder why I cannot stand Trump. As always, I ask, just who does he think that he is?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tional-lawI can see why the 'teasers' in the Guardian article fired your jets. Did you do any follow-up to ensure the context didn't ruin the rant?
Just for info: Here's the NYT's Pres. Trump Interview Highlights Reel. It does a good job of offering the context behind each highlighted point.
I'm not sure which part triggered you first, but I bet you jumped up with an angry "Oh hell no!" when you saw this one:
"Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”*
*You better check the context before you go off on that one ;-)
GAGA, what context? The paragraph in italics, is that not what he said?
Is it always the case that we need an interpreter with a Trumpeze-english dictionary to hold him accountable for what he actually says?
why do conservatives always have to massage his comments to interpret them contrary to what he directly says?
So, I read the Times piece, what was the subtle context that was behind that comment that I missed?I didn't say there was mitigating context; I simply wondered if you looked deeper than the headlines. I'll forewarn you if you need to gird up for an argument. This was just for discussion.
When I read the part that included the quote, my thought was that, excepting our Constitutional limits, he's right. He might break the norms, but what's to stop him if he doesn't break laws?
To preempt an 'international law' argument, I bet it's fair to say that we both know the major nations only listen to the UN and ICC when it benefits them.
If Trump's actions are not deemed unconstitutional — in the realm of foreign affairs — who (other than our Congress) can stop him?
GAWell, GA, I got the gist of the story and there is no reprieve to be offered for Trump nor his statement.
So, this is OK with you, that this man should be able to make and interpret the laws as he sees fit, the very linchpin to tyranny and that does not concern you?
The most immoral man ever to assume the office of president wants us to rely on his faultless moral compass rather than the established laws both domestic and internationally?
Is it OK for Trump to go on a tyrannical rampage just because he is able to without opposition? Is this the conservative’s idea of what leadership is?
Can’t you folks see that this man is looking to accumulate power to himself.?I will have to review Nostradamus’ quatrains regarding future predictions and see where it speak of the orange faced usurper as the ruiner of the great nation. It has got to be there someplace.
The United States played a key role in the creation of the United Nations, real leadership finds a way to work within the framework of the gathering rather than dismiss it in favor of our own interests and agenda. If Russia, China and every other adversary big and small were doing this, you would all have “a cow”.
No, GA, might does not make right, at least not for long. Any bully can and will eventually be deposed whether it is on the playground or within the international community."I will have to review Nostradamus’ quatrains regarding future predictions and see where it speak of the orange faced usurper as the ruiner of the great nation. It has got to be there someplace."
I love it! It's not often these forums produce a belly laugh, but you did it!No, GA is sticking to the point of his entry. You told me you knew what 'sharpshooting' was, maybe you don't.
I wasn't picking at a vulnerable side-issue or trivial point; I was addressing his question.
Or, maybe Cred agrees with you, and someone will tell me the target of my sharpshooting?
GAI know, and it is half the fun. I would be bored to tears without the stimulation of our mutual snipes over many years now.
I am an intractable lefty, so being on the other side he needs to keep his ammunition close and his aim true to the mark.
In our exchanges, it might give others pause to deeply reflect upon what it is that they are buying into when they listen to rightwing attitudes and reasoning.
But, but, but ... the truth of the statement? If his actions are not deemed unconstitutional, what is to stop him — short of the ballot box?
Yes, as long as his actions are not unconstitutional, I am okay that "... this man should be able to make and interpret the laws as he sees fit ..."
Your "lynchpin" needs unconstitutionality to be true. Our checks and balances are still working. You might not think so, but the Courts haven't agreed with you yet.
Forget Nostradamus, here's a short-term prediction: Denmark will sell Greenland to the US. Soon.
And, European leaders will urge/force Denmark to sell in order to save NATO. Denmark will arrange and announce the offer.
It will break some traditional norms, but it will be a win-win-win worth the price. The Trump Corollary is about our future, not everyone else's. Consider how long folks have been complaining about paying to be the world's police.
Now whe're not, now we take care of our neighborhood first. That doesn't have to be at the detriment of our neighbors. Venezuela might be a good near-term example of that: turning a rogue state into a prospering democratic ally state*.
*(I didn't catch your answer before: best-case wish or worst-case scenario?)
GAI say that Trump will jump the guardrails to the point where even our own freedoms are at risk.
——
Forget Nostradamus, here's a short-term prediction: Denmark will sell Greenland to the US. Soon.
And, European leaders will urge/force Denmark to sell in order to save NATO. Denmark will arrange and announce the offer.
———-
Oh really, I will delight in having you eat crow without any condiments on this prediction of yours. The people of Greenland nor the Danish government cannot fail to consider the wishes of people and what it is that they want for themselves and the island that they inhabit. Giving in to Trump already dooms NATO and all that it was to stand for.
People as inhabitants cannot be owned and are not for sale, GA. This is not the 19th century.
We have been acting like a rogue cops on the international scene already, creating conflicts when we should mind our own affairs. Trump was the one speaking about limiting international entanglements like this in his campaign rhetoric just to ratchet them up now, instead. What is it that the people of Venezuela want? That has to be more important than what Trump and America wishes to impose upon them.
Trump will never get away with this…. That is a democratic principle: the self determination of people, anywhere and everywhere. Are we going to breach that as well?Europe — including the UK — is completely united behind Denmark and Greenland. Greenland isn’t a commodity Denmark can sell; it’s a self‑governing territory whose people have the right to determine their own future. European leaders have already stated this publicly and unambiguously.
If Trump were to push seriously for acquiring Greenland — whether through pressure, coercion, or some manufactured crisis — it would drive a deep wedge between the United States and Europe. The only beneficiaries of that fracture would be China and Russia, who would welcome anything that weakens NATO.
The uncomfortable truth is that Trump has already caused long‑term damage to European trust in the United States. That isn’t rhetoric; it’s reflected in the fact that European governments are now openly exploring alternative strategic and economic partnerships. In the long run, that shift will harm the USA far more than it harms Europe.
And the perception here is very direct. Across Europe — including here in the UK — Trump is widely viewed as behaving like an elected dictator. The comparison with Putin appears frequently in European commentary, not because the systems are identical, but because the leadership style, the disregard for democratic norms, and the willingness to override institutional limits feel uncomfortably familiar of a dictator to many Europeans.
One final point: the people of Greenland currently enjoy free healthcare, free education, and strong social protections under the Danish and wider European framework. Those are rights that would be lost if Greenland were absorbed into the United States. That’s a very real, very practical reason why Greenlanders themselves have repeatedly rejected the idea."Europe — including the UK — is completely united behind Denmark and Greenland. Greenland isn’t a commodity Denmark can sell; it’s a self‑governing territory whose people have the right to determine their own future. " - It is amazing how MAUGA forgets that truth (or probably just ignores it).
And they also ignore the fact that Trump's America is NOT anything a sane person would want to join, sorry to say.I'm not happy about Pres. Trump's Greenland push. A cheesy description would be because it's unseemly. It looks just as you describe: like a dictator.
I don't know why it is so important to own rather than just control, but I do understand the perception of a difference.
My comment wasn't a promotion or endorsement of the idea;* it is what I think will have to happen to save NATO.
*I do think it would be a good idea that benefits all involved, including Greenlanders
I think Trump will force the issue, which will lead to a NATO response that will destroy NATO. I think a sale is the only way out that saves NATO. If that's right, then European leaders have a choice: resist, break up, or facilitate the sale. I think they will promote the sale.
To be sure, this stuff is way over my head. I'm not claiming expertise or offering endorsement, but I very much like the idea of worrying about our hemisphere first, and no longer trying to be the world's policeman. (agree or not, that's a legitimate perception)
GAThe Danish government and Greenland have been more than accommodating in assisting in supporting defense objectives as defined by the United States and NATO allies, why the need to own the island? What are other strategic areas in Europe where there is a need to annex territory?
I have yet to hear how the American government is going to annex territory contrary to the will of the people living there. This sale idea is ludicrous on its face, Denmark will never accommodate such ideas.
If I were amongst the European leaders, I would rather continue to resist and break up NATO if need be. Giving in to bullying will never benefit you in the long term. If America becomes an unreliable ally in the pursuit of common goals, how are they to be trusted going forward?
Rather than to attempt to accommodate the very next outrage, they are better off on their own.The consequences of pushing for Greenland is basically a war with Europe.
This sounds strong, but all major countries in Europe have declared to back Denmark and Greenland.
So besides NATO that perhaps for Trump is not that important, the whole European market is. Europe is a powerful market and could definitely go nuclear against the US. (I mean financial nuclear with sanctions, import tariffs, information sharing, freezing assets, tough regulations on social media. etc) it will cost Europe a lot, but the US too. And how popular would make this Donald Trump in the US?
As we feel it and many politicians is that Europe is attacked on two fronts. By Russia and the US. Trump, Musk and Zuckerberg and Russia are attacking and influencing governments with social media. And this is not for nothing. Europe is a powerful force, one that Trump rather sees broken, and Putin is afraid of democracies and is promoting extreme right wing parties.
Brexit was influenced by Russia's campaign and today almost all elections in Europe have to be careful about external interference.
The bond between Europe and the US is broken. And it is not something you can easily fix. Even if there is a different president, Europe will not be working together with the US anymore on a level we did during the Gulf war for example.
This whole Greenland thing is sadly not a joke. It can rip apart the strong relationship that once existed between the US and Europe.
The simplest thing and what Europe should and perhaps does, is to send European boots on the ground in Greenland.Here is a dose of reality.
Europe needs the United States. The United States is the largest economy in the world. There is so much European capital tied up with US business interests to think of Europe even attempting to leave the United States is pretty silly. It would crash the economies of Europe. It's not going to happen.
NATO is nothing without the United States. The United States has the most powerful military in the world. It is more powerful than China, Russia or anybody else. Again, Europe need the United States for its own self defense. Without the US military Europe is simply a second rate power. Who will fight? The UK, France and maybe Italy. The rest don't fight. Trust me, I've seen it.
Greenland is a strategic necessity. If it benefits the United States, it will benefit Europe. You don't want China setting up in that area.
I don't think the United States will do anything without Europe agreeing to it. I'm sure a plan will be worked out that will satisfy the needs of the United States and appease Europeans.
Anybody who knows President Donald Trump knows his negotiating tactic. He claims to want the most outrageous things and that gets people's attention. Then he begins to negotiate. That is what is happening now.Taking Greenland is not so simple. It has huge consequences for the world.
Europe can't fight the US. But it is symbolic. If Europe had, let's say 1000 people there. The US could easily attack and kill those 1000 soldiers.
But what do you think the consequences will be?
The expulsion of diplomats. An economic war, which is also not good for the US. China invading Taiwan, etc.
Invading Greenland would be the biggest tactical and geopolitical blunder in centuries. It will fracture the complete economic and political stability in the world.I really don't think such a thing will happen.
I can honestly say the majority of Americans wouldn't support such an action and would fight against it.
I think President Donald Trump now has Europe's attention now and will begin to negotiate. As I said before, his goal will be to get a deal that satisfies the needs of Europe and the United States as well a Greenland.
One idea I read about was to make Greenland a US protectorate. This means the US has nothing to do with running Greenland but prevents any other power from establishing a military presence near or around Greenland. They will have the benefits of being part of the United States without actually being controlled by the United States. They would be a fully independent country and the US would have a treaty agreement to provide for their national defense and provide some funding and access to social services. They would even be able to send representatives to the US Congress to let their interests known to the US government. This is an agreement the United States has with the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau.Interesting, Mike, but there remains a bottleneck or two regarding that idea.
A formal arrangement like the Compact of Free Association (COFA) that the U.S. has with the Marshall Islands could theoretically be a model for a future U.S.-Greenland relationship, but it would require Greenland to first become a fully independent, sovereign nation and is not likely to "work" under the current political climate.
Current Status
Greenland is currently an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. While it manages most domestic affairs, Denmark retains control over foreign policy, defense, and security.
Feasibility of a U.S. Protectorate
The establishment of an American protectorate over Greenland in a manner similar to the Marshall Islands faces several major challenges:
Sovereignty and Consent:
For a COFA-style agreement to be possible, Greenland would have to gain full independence from Denmark, which requires a referendum by the Greenlandic people and negotiation and approval by the Danish parliament. The current Greenlandic government has explicitly stated, "if we have to choose between the US and Denmark here and now, then we choose Denmark".
Public Opinion: Polls consistently show that while most Greenlanders favor eventual independence from Denmark, they overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of or being taken over by the United States.
NATO Dynamics: Denmark is a founding member of NATO. An attempt by the U.S. to take over Greenland against the wishes of the Danish government would cause a major crisis within the alliance and violate international law.
Existing Agreements: A 1951 defense agreement already grants the U.S. extensive military access and the right to establish defense areas in Greenland, which currently includes the Pituffik Space Base. U.S. officials can work within this existing framework to address security concerns, rather than pursuing a full protectorate.
Danish Financial Support: Greenland's economy relies heavily on an annual block grant from Denmark, which amounts to over 20% of its GDP.
Achieving full economic independence, a prerequisite for a sovereign nation capable of entering into a COFA, is a long-term goal that complicates immediate changes to its political status.
===============
In short, a U.S. protectorate is not a viable option because Greenland is a self-governing, democratic society whose people and government wish to remain part of the Kingdom of Denmark for now, and would have to voluntarily consent to any such future arrangement.And Trump quadruples down
"Trump says ‘anything less’ than US control of Greenland is ‘unacceptable’"
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics … to-denmarkYour point is well taken “the hard way” can mean nothing except by force.
I don’t believe that short of annexation, Trump himself stated that there are benefits to owning beyond mere leasing, Trump will not be satisfied.
Greenland and NATO have given the United States virtually free rein to operate and deploy whatever security measures needed, must he take their sovereignty and independence as well?
Canada sits in the middle, is it next?Just another CNN dog whistle.
In my view, Trump is not saying he will simply annex Greenland and take it by force. The language is forceful, but it fits much more closely with setting a hard negotiating position than announcing an intent to seize territory.
Here’s how I see it.
Trump is stating an end state, not a method. When he says “anything less than U.S. control is unacceptable,” he is describing what he believes the security outcome must be. He is deliberately not saying how that outcome would be achieved. That is very typical of his negotiating style: he opens with a maximal demand, frames it as non-negotiable, and then lets the process work toward some form of arrangement that moves in that direction.
I see Trump’s quote as very much aligned with a long-standing, realist national-security view: that geography still matters, especially in an era of renewed great-power competition. When he says “anything less” than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable, he is expressing the belief that passive influence or loose partnerships are no longer sufficient in strategically critical regions. That stance reflects a broader skepticism he has consistently shown toward half-measures in defense policy, he tends to favor clear control, clear responsibility, and clear deterrence rather than ambiguity.
From a strategic standpoint, his argument makes sense. Greenland sits astride the Arctic routes between North America and Europe, directly along the shortest missile and air paths from Russia to the United States. It already hosts U.S. military assets, including early-warning radar at Thule (now Pituffik Space Base), which plays a role in missile defense and space awareness. As Arctic ice melts and shipping lanes open, Greenland’s importance only increases, not decreases. In that context, Trump’s view is that leaving such a pivotal location outside direct U.S. control creates vulnerability, either to adversarial influence or to slow, consensus-bound decision-making that can come with multinational arrangements.
I also understand why he frames this as strengthening NATO rather than undermining it. His logic is that a U.S.-controlled Greenland would provide clearer command, faster response capability, and stronger deterrence, all of which benefit the alliance as a whole. In his worldview, NATO is strongest when the United States decisively anchors its northern flank instead of relying on indirect control or goodwill. That fits with his broader criticism of alliances that, in his view, depend too heavily on American resources while limiting American authority.
Whether one agrees with his tone or not, the underlying reasoning is coherent. He is prioritizing hard security realities over diplomatic symbolism and assuming that rivals respond to strength, not ambiguity. Given rising Russian and Chinese interest in the Arctic, his position follows a consistent internal logic: if the United States truly believes Greenland is vital to its security and NATO’s defense posture, then anything short of firm control looks, to him, like an unnecessary risk.
Let's hope there won't be any military craziness as this would be a massive disruption in geopolitical alliances.
The latest poll showed that the people of Greenland don't want to be ruled by the US.
They want to be an independent country. And at the moment it is part of Denmark, just as Puerto Rico is a part of the US.
Greenland has all the benefits of the European Union. So If Greenland decides to become independent, I'm pretty sure the European Union would give Greenland at the same time a membership of the European Union.
What Trump is actually doing with his aggressive behaviour is bringing Greenland closer to the EU than to the US.
And what would Canada think of this colonialist attitude? Nobody wants to have an aggressively expansionist neighbour.The problem is that Trump is not a rational man. He has threatened force so often, like with Iran, he may have to do it to save face.
He may have to fight through the Danes as they are moving troops and ships to the area.
I disagree with this framing, and I think it rests on a series of assumptions that don’t hold up when you look at facts more closely, the law, and recent history.
The idea that “pushing for Greenland” equals war with Europe is simply not grounded in reality. The U.S. has not proposed a military seizure of Greenland, nor has any serious U.S. policymaker advocated that. When Trump raised Greenland, it was explicitly framed as a purchase or negotiated arrangement, which is not unprecedented. The United States acquired territory through negotiation multiple times (Louisiana Purchase, Alaska). You may find the idea crude or politically clumsy, but equating a diplomatic or economic proposal with war is an enormous leap.
The claim that Europe could go “financial nuclear” on the U.S. ignores economic asymmetry and self-interest. The EU relies heavily on the U.S. market, U.S. security guarantees, U.S. intelligence, and U.S. military logistics. Sanctions, tariffs, or asset freezes against the U.S. would hurt Europe at least as much, and likely more, especially Germany and export-driven economies. This isn’t Russia versus Europe; this would be Europe deliberately attacking the backbone of its own post-WWII security and economic architecture. That is not a credible or sustainable strategy.
In my view, NATO is being waved away far too casually here. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark is a NATO member. Any militarization of Greenland by “European boots on the ground” outside NATO coordination would itself raise serious alliance and legal questions. Greenland already hosts U.S. military infrastructure under existing agreements. The idea that Europe would suddenly militarize Greenland against the U.S. is far more destabilizing than anything Trump ever said, and frankly far less likely.
The argument that the U.S. is “attacking Europe” alongside Russia through Trump, Musk, and Zuckerberg is more ideological than factual. There is no evidence that Trump or U.S. tech CEOs are coordinating with Russia to dismantle Europe. Meanwhile, documented Russian interference campaigns are real—but blaming every populist or right-wing movement on Russia is increasingly used as a way to avoid confronting domestic political dissatisfaction within European countries themselves. Voters are not puppets.
Brexit is a good example of this problem. Russian interference existed, yes, but it did not create the underlying conditions: EU overreach, immigration concerns, sovereignty issues, and long-standing UK–EU tensions did. Reducing Brexit to “Russia did it” is analytically lazy and politically convenient.
As for the claim that the bond between Europe and the U.S. is “broken forever,” history strongly disagrees. The transatlantic relationship has survived Vietnam, Iraq, Suez, Trump’s first term, Afghanistan, and massive trade disputes. Alliances between states are based on interests, not feelings. Europe still depends on U.S. military power, and the U.S. still benefits from European stability. That reality doesn’t disappear because of rhetoric.
The Greenland issue itself: Greenland is strategically critical for Arctic security, missile defense, and space tracking, especially as Russia and China expand Arctic activity. The U.S. interest in Greenland didn’t begin with Trump and will not end with him. Pretending this is a personal vendetta or a joke misses the broader geopolitical reality entirely.
If Europe genuinely believes the solution is to put boots on the ground in Greenland to counter the United States, then Europe would be the one escalating and fracturing the alliance, not Trump. Fortunately, cooler heads on both sides understand that cooperation, negotiation, and shared strategic interests, not hysteria, are what actually govern U.S.–European relations.Trump said " the US would take it “one way or the other”." - Now this can include military force.
Trump is not an ordinary president. He has a highly aggressive stand towards Europe.
The relationship between the US and the Europe have never been this bad and even after Trump has gone it will be difficult to rebuild this relationship of trust that was for a long time taken for granted.
Because of the terrible relationship we have with Trump, Europe takes the threats of annexing Greenland seriously.
Trump does not make jokes. He started this conversation of getting Greenland in his first term. And he wants it as a trophy.
Europe and the US have loads of economic ties. But yes, if the US attacks Greenland, something will happen.
For example 50% of the pharmaceutical sales in the US comes from Europe. Imagine if this would stop completely?
An economic war would be a disaster for both continents.
Annexing Greenland is simply of the table. It is one step to far for Trump.
And why should he? There is already a US military base there. And deals about resources are on the table.Personally, I think this sentiment is preposterous - "If Europe genuinely believes the solution is to put boots on the ground in Greenland to counter the United States, then Europe would be the one escalating and fracturing the alliance, not Trump. "
Talk about blaming the victim. Sort of like blaming Renee Good for the killer putting a bullet in her head. That is just not rational.
I suspect if Trump is to be stopped, Europe will need to go through some hard times. The gov'ts should start preparing its people.
I don't know if you have been following the commentary on Dr. Bandi Lee, a renowned and respected forensic psychologist who has spent a career studying dangerous people like Trump, but her analysis is spot on in predicting his behavior.
Once he wiggled out of his indictments and our Supreme Court turned him into a King, she said, and he is proving, there is no stopping him.As I read in the news today, Europe has indeed put boots on the ground in Greenland. And if only one soldier gets killed by the US it will have huge political consequences. And not just political but also social upheaval here in Europe against the US with unknown consequences.
Basically it was sadly enough the best solution for this whole ridiculous but dangerous flirting to take Greenland by Trump.
Hopefully he understands that and let it go.What’s actually happening here is being wildly overstated. Europe isn’t “deploying forces” in any meaningful sense. We’re talking about small, temporary planning and reconnaissance teams tied to a NATO exercise, about 30–40 troops in total. France sent roughly 15 mountain specialist soldiers, Germany around 13 reconnaissance troops, Sweden and Norway a handful each, and the UK has at least one officer embedded with the team. This is not hundreds or thousands, and it’s temporary, lasting only a couple of days according to reports. This kind of activity isn’t new and has happened in prior years under Denmark-led Arctic exercises.
You’ll also see the term “initial phase” thrown around, but that wording is misleading. In this case it simply means advance coordination and logistics teams, not a buildup or escalation. These teams arrive first, stay briefly, and either rotate out or fold into a scheduled exercise window. There is no follow-on permanent deployment because there is nowhere for one to exist.
That’s an important point: no NATO nation other than the United States has a permanent military base in Greenland. None. The only actual base is Pituffik Space Base, operated by the U.S. for decades under a defense agreement with Denmark, with about 150 U.S. personnel permanently stationed there, focused on missile warning and space surveillance, not combat operations.
And here’s the bottom line: the U.S. is a NATO member, so why would it attack other NATO forces that are conducting routine exercises in a friendly territory? It makes zero sense.
This isn’t a new militarization of Greenland, and it certainly isn’t Europe preparing for conflict with the U.S. It’s a small, routine, temporary exercise presence, entirely consistent with decades of NATO cooperation.
"Denmark's foreign minister admitted he shares concerns with President Donald Trump and U.S. officials over Greenland's vulnerability to Chinese and Russian influence despite his firm opposition to a U.S. takeover.
"There's absolutely no Chinese footprint in Greenland," Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said on "Special Report" Wednesday. "Having said that … there's always a bit of truth in what he [Trump] is saying.
"We definitely share the concern that [the Arctic is not any longer a low-tension region. And, of course, we have to be aware of that. And that's why we have invested almost $15 billion U.S. dollars last year in capabilities in Greenland."
It seems that if China or Russia ever tried to seize Greenland, NATO could be drawn into a serious conflict. But what if the U.S. decided to stick strictly to “America First” and avoid involvement, prioritizing peace at home? In that case, European NATO members would largely be on their own to defend Greenland, a remote territory with harsh conditions and no standing military of its own. Any hostile action would pose serious challenges, both logistically and militarily. That said, I doubt Europe would simply cave; the political, economic, and strategic stakes are too high.
In my view, the Greenlanders should entertain Trump’s negotiations. Knowing they have the strongest nation in the world willing to work with them could help them sleep better at night, protected from the risk of war or, in the worst-case scenario, being taken over by China or Russia. I find Trump’s evaluation of this issue very much common sense: we need to secure Greenland to maintain peace in the region. The world has changed, rogue leaders now have more advanced capabilities, and while Greenland might seem small, controlling it has implications far beyond its size. It’s a sobering scenario worth considering, even if unlikely.In most people's view, they see the timing of this as a clear warning to Trump to back down.
Also, since Trump has set his sights on Greenland, the US has been disinvited to these exercises, ones in which we frequently participate in.
A rare joint statement by leaders of six European powers (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, UK) reaffirmed that Greenland’s future is for Denmark/Greenland to decide, which the Guardian characterized as effectively warning Trump to keep his hands off.
The Guardian
In the same reporting stream, European leaders stressed that any attempt to undermine Denmark/Greenland sovereignty violates international law and the UN Charter, and that Arctic security is a strategic EU priority.
The Guardian
Pretty clear to me.The U.S. sometimes sends troops to Greenland for specific exercises, but there is no rule requiring it to do so for every drill. It’s situational, based on agreements, strategy, and politics. In my view, Trump couldn't care less about drills; he is hopeful to take Greenland out of harm’s way by agreement. He solves problems; he does not ignore them and wait for them to bloom into huge problems.
No, the media has no right to use the term "hands off' that is misinformation. That is not a factual statement
"A rare joint statement by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Denmark reaffirmed that Greenland’s future is for Denmark and Greenland to decide."
“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
I have found no official quote that uses the term “hands off.” The joint statement from the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Denmark simply reaffirmed that Greenland’s future is for Denmark and Greenland to decide.
Yes, skewed reporting does exist, such as in the Guardian. Opinion pieces that seek to set a narrative, as they seem to in your case. The statement was factual --- Nothing else in that article is factual. It's a poorly written OP.You’re right on the narrow point: I’m not claiming European leaders issued a press release that literally said the words “hands off Greenland.” That was my shorthand.
But the substance is plainly there in their actual language. European statements have repeatedly stressed (1) Greenland/Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and (2) that Greenland’s future is for Greenland/Denmark—not an outside power—to decide. That is the diplomatic equivalent of “hands off,” even if they use the formal vocabulary of international law instead of a slang phrase.
For example, multiple European leaders have publicly reaffirmed Denmark/Greenland sovereignty and framed any attempt to take Greenland by coercion as unacceptable—Macron has explicitly spoken in terms of “solidarity” with Denmark’s sovereignty, and reporting on a joint statement by major European powers likewise treated it as a direct warning against outside pressure.
So: no, the exact idiom “hands off” may not appear in official quotes. But if you translate the diplomatic language into plain English, the meaning is the same: Greenland isn’t for the taking."Greenland isn’t for the taking."
That is your view.So, if I said "America isn't for the taking" you would respond "that is my view", imply that your view is that America IS for the taking? Very interesting viewpoint. Wrong, of course, but interesting and telling.
But she is right, though.
It is your view. And the view of the rational and decent people around the world.
Imperialistic PoS and the idiots that follow them do not share the same view."My Esoteric wrote:
So, if I said "America isn't for the taking" you would respond "that is my view", imply that your view is that America IS for the taking? Very interesting viewpoint. Wrong, of course, but interesting and telling."ECO
I simply pointed out "that was your view".... My context was clear. I added nothing of my thoughts on the subject. You projected... and now offered an analogy. That, in my view, is nonsensical. And again it has to do with context----
The context of the statement changes when one uses another example, such as America or Timbuktu, over Greenland.
America is a large Nation that pretty much dictates what goes on in the world. So, I would gladly say that, in my view, you're right. America is not up for the taking... See how one word can elicit another response, another view.
Now Greenland, in my view, could very well be up for the taking if a large nation such as China or Russia, or yes, even the US, wanted to take it... Your analogy is, in my view, a poor one, not well-thought-out.
What is interesting, and telling, is why you keep bothering me--- it's creepy. I would think you would become a bit embarrassed being corrected so frequently.
This is a classic case of projecting intent onto language that doesn’t actually say what is being claimed. Acknowledging Denmark and Greenland’s sovereignty is not the same thing as issuing a warning, much less a rebuke, to the United States or Trump. That language is standard diplomatic boilerplate, repeated routinely in response to any hypothetical discussion of territorial questions.
The leap from “reaffirming sovereignty” to “the diplomatic equivalent of ‘hands off’” is an interpretation, not a fact. It requires inserting motive and adversarial intent that simply isn’t present in the statements themselves. If European leaders had intended to issue a warning to Trump, they could have done so explicitly. They did not.
This is where the projection comes in. The argument assumes hostility first, then retrofits neutral diplomatic language to support that assumption. In other words, the fear or expectation of Trump overreach is being projected onto routine affirmations of international law, and then treated as evidence that such overreach has already been condemned.
Macron’s references to “solidarity” with Denmark’s sovereignty are not unusual, provocative, or new, they are exactly what one would expect between allied nations. Calling that a “warning” stretches the language beyond recognition. Diplomacy relies on precision, and precision matters here: affirmation is not admonition.
Translating formal diplomatic language into “plain English” is fine, but only if the translation is faithful. Recasting neutral statements into charged phrases like “hands off” is not translation; it’s editorializing. And once that editorial framing is adopted, it gets repeated as though it were a documented position, even though no such quote exists.
What I dispute is the claim that Europe issued a warning to Trump. That claim depends on projection and inference, not on what European leaders actually said.
Sharlee, the number of European soldiers in Greenland is irrelevant. It's just a symbol. It shows that the US can't invade Greenland while there is a European military presence. This would be perceived as an aggressive act of war against Europe.
It's basically a very smart move. Even if Europe sent 10,000 soldiers, the US could easily overrun them. The result would be the same: War with the US. Trump can't invade Greenland militarily. As previously mentioned, Greenland is not for sale.
The Greenlandic people don't want the US to rule their country.
There is nothing to negotiate, Sharlee.
Greenland is part of NATO, so if Russia or China were to make aggressive moves,which they won't, the other NATO members would protect Greenland.
As far as Europe is concerned, The US has a rogue leader who does not consult Congress before invading countries and kidnapping political leaders.
Sharlee, I appreciate the clarity of your argument, but it rests on assumptions that simply don’t align with political reality in Europe.
The most important fact is this: Europe — including the UK — is completely united behind Denmark and Greenland.
This isn’t rhetoric; it is the formal, public position of every European government. Greenland is a self‑governing territory whose people have the right to determine their own future. Denmark cannot sell it, and Europe would not permit it. That unity is one of the few areas where European politics is absolutely unambiguous.
Because of that, the idea that European leaders would “promote the sale” or quietly accept a forced change in sovereignty is not just unlikely — it is impossible. It would require Europe to override Greenlandic democracy, violate Danish constitutional law, and capitulate to pressure from the USA in a way that no European government could survive domestically.
If Trump were to push seriously for acquiring Greenland — whether through pressure, coercion, or some manufactured crisis — it would drive a deep wedge between the USA and Europe.
And the only beneficiaries of that fracture would be China and Russia, who would welcome anything that weakens NATO.
This is why European governments reacted so strongly the first time the idea was floated. It wasn’t treated as a quirky real‑estate proposal; it was seen as a destabilising move that signalled a disregard for allies’ sovereignty. From a European perspective, the threat is not hypothetical — it is based on Trump’s own language (“one way or the other”, “the hard way”) and his track record of escalating confrontations to save face.
Your argument also assumes that Europe could not respond economically. But Europe is the world’s second‑largest market, and the USA is deeply intertwined with it. If the USA attacked a NATO member’s territory, Europe would have no choice but to respond. That response would be economic, not military — sanctions, tariffs, asset freezes, regulatory pressure — and it would be devastating for both sides. Nobody in Europe wants that, but it would be unavoidable.
You also suggest that Europe militarising Greenland would be the destabilising act. In reality, any European presence would be defensive and symbolic — a signal that Greenland is not an unclaimed frontier. The destabilisation would come from the USA attempting to coerce or annex territory belonging to a NATO ally.
The uncomfortable truth is that the bond between Europe and the USA has already been damaged, and not by Europe.
Trust has eroded. European governments are openly exploring alternative strategic partnerships. Even with a different president, the relationship will not return to the Gulf War era. That is the context in which Trump’s Greenland rhetoric is heard here.
And finally, Greenlanders themselves have been very clear:
– they do not want to be ruled by the USA
– they value their rights under the Danish and European framework
– and they would lose free healthcare, free education, and social protections under U.S. governance
So while I understand the logic you’re applying, it doesn’t match the political, legal, or democratic realities involved. Greenland is not for sale, Europe is united, and any coercive move by the USA would fracture the transatlantic relationship in ways that benefit only Moscow and Beijing.One - Trump could care less what Greenlanders think, based on years of observation he certainly doesn't care what Americans think.
Two - In my opinion, I think Trump is fully aware of what you pointed out - "And the only beneficiaries of that fracture would be China and Russia, who would welcome anything that weakens NATO.". If I didn't know better and based on his actions so far, I would say he is the perfect Manchurian Candidate - and they (Russian and China) didn't even have to brainwash him.
Three - "75% of Americans oppose US attempting to take control of Greenland, CNN poll finds" - Apparently, only members of the Trump cult think it is a good idea (because he told them to.)
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/politics … d-cnn-poll
GA, I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your reply, and I understand you’re describing a hypothetical rather than endorsing the idea. But the scenario you outline rests on assumptions that simply don’t match the political or legal reality on this side of the Atlantic.
The first and most important point is this: Europe — including the UK — is completely united behind Denmark and Greenland. This isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s the settled position of every European government. Greenland is a self‑governing territory whose people have the right to determine their own future. Denmark cannot sell it, and Europe would not permit it. That unity is one of the few areas where European politics is absolutely unambiguous.
Because of that, the idea that European leaders would “promote the sale” isn’t just unlikely — it’s impossible. It would require Europe to override Greenlandic democracy, violate Danish constitutional law, and capitulate to pressure from the USA in a way that would be politically suicidal for every government involved. No European leader could survive that domestically, even if they wanted to.
The second assumption — that Trump “forcing the issue” would somehow obligate Europe to choose between selling Greenland or breaking up NATO — also doesn’t reflect how NATO actually works. If anything, a coercive push from Washington would have the opposite effect: it would drive a deep wedge between the USA and Europe, and the only beneficiaries of that fracture would be China and Russia. They would welcome anything that weakens NATO’s cohesion.
This is why European governments reacted so strongly the first time the idea was floated. It wasn’t treated as a quirky real‑estate proposal; it was seen as a destabilising move that signalled a disregard for allies’ sovereignty.
You’re absolutely right that the optics of the Greenland push look authoritarian. That perception is widespread here. But the conclusion that a sale is “the only way to save NATO” doesn’t follow. NATO’s strength has always come from shared values, mutual respect, and the understanding that allies don’t coerce each other’s territories. Undermining those principles would weaken NATO far more than any refusal to indulge an American president’s demands.
So while I understand the hypothetical you’re sketching, it’s built on a chain of events that cannot happen in the real political world:
– Europe will not fracture over Greenland.
– Europe will not pressure Denmark or Greenland to sell.
– Greenlanders will not vote away their rights.
– And NATO’s survival does not depend on Europe surrendering its own democratic principles.
If anything, the surest way to damage NATO would be for the USA to push this issue again.What a world Trump, "the Felon and Warmonger" has created. He has FORCED Europe to come to the defense of one one its territories because of his aggression.
"European nations send additional troops to Greenland as US annexation threats escalate"
"Several NATO countries are deploying small numbers of military personnel to Greenland to participate in joint exercises with Denmark as US President Donald Trump ramps up his threats to forcibly annex the Arctic island.
Trump’s declarations have thrown Europe’s decades-old, US-led security alliance into crisis, by raising the prospect of NATO’s largest and most powerful member annexing the territory of another.
Denmark, which is responsible for Greenland’s defense, has warned an attack on Greenland would all but end NATO, and announced on Wednesday that it was expanding its military presence “in close cooperation with NATO allies.”
Germany, Sweden, France and Norway have all since confirmed they are sending military personnel to Greenland this week. Canada and France have also said they plan to open consulates in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, in the coming weeks.
French President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday that a French military team was “already on the ground” and would be reinforced in the coming days with “air, sea and land components.”
It is not unusual for NATO countries to send troops to train in other NATO countries, and there has been a years-long push by allies, including the US, to ramp up joint exercises in the Arctic Circle. The US has about 150 troops stationed at its Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland.
But both the timing and symbolism of the latest announcements by European nations are a significant show of solidarity at a time of unprecedented tension within NATO."
I believe somebody here poo-pahed my observation that Trump seems to be wanting to declare war on Europe. If he carries through with his aggression to forceably annex Greenland, what else could it be. As I said then, I hope Europe is preparing its people for the consequences if Trump actually chooses war over backing down and stopping his stupid and very dangerous (thank you Dr. Lee of foreseeing something like this) activity.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/world/eu … o-intl-hnkYour closing sentence was the worry of my point. I think the issue is as potentially damaging as you say, and I don't know that the USA "push" is done.
There must be something about this 'push' that we don't understand. It has been repeatedly noted that all of the 'national security' issues are addressable now through treaty arrangements. So why is ownership so important?
Reason and logic say that, without an unknown, we don't need to own. Why risk this fracture? What is the unknown?
I think it is a mistake to chalk this up to "Trumpism." Or Trump's ego. It may be both, but I don't think we can know that yet.
As a side note, my thought about the European leaders wasn't one of a public policy stand, but more of a back-room-we-gotta-bite-the-bullet-type encouragement. That may also be unrealistic, but I never considered the idea as an "official" position.
GA
Authorities report that earlier on the same day, Good had been following and confronting federal officers. In addition to her activism, Good was involved with “ICE Watch,” a Minneapolis-based group that monitors and opposes federal immigration enforcement, according to Homeland Security sources. The group reportedly operates in multiple sanctuary cities across the country.
There was a new video released today, being run on Fox. It shows Ms. Goods ' partner outside the car verbally berating ICE. The video is easy to find if one has an interest.
"Kristi Noem and Department of Homeland Security officials, federal authorities have publicly claimed that Renee Nicole Good had been following, “stalking,” blocking and interfering with ICE agents throughout the day before she was shot, and that she had impeded their work prior to the fatal encounter."
Source https://chatgpt.com/c/69615f07-b0a8-832 … c461d1e4e7Shar,
I saw a video that showed the ICE officer's perspective. I can honestly say I would have done the exact thing. She was coming at him with her vehicle and he did what he had to do to defend himself.
The democrat leadership is trying to make this a big deal to deter from the billions of dollars in fraud they are guilty for letting happen.
The democrats in Minneapolis have gotten an immigrant community, made them dependent on government money so they keep voting democrat. It makes sense the democrats would have to use immigrants who struggle with the American culture and language. Then they teach them how to commit fraud. The democrats keep the cycle of immigrants entering the country, voting for them and keeping them on government benefits.
democrats know nobody wants their ideas so they have to stoop this low to maintain their political power. Cheating and scamming for political success is catching up with the democrats. It's a shame but interesting to watch them implode.This is from substack. The only thing missing is immediately with out any evidence to support it, Trump always blames the radical left.
First came the gunshot. Then came the press release. In Trump’s America, the order is sacred: violence first, narrative immediately after. Before the blood has cooled on the pavement, the administration reaches for its most reliable tool: not evidence, not restraint, not even curiosity, but the smear. A woman is dead, and within minutes she has been promoted—posthumously—to “domestic terrorist,” a title now so broadly applied it seems to mean “anyone unfortunate enough to be killed by federal agents.”
This is not a bug in the system; it is the system. The Trump administration has refined the art of character assassination into a muscle memory. No investigation, no waiting for facts, no acknowledgment that armed agents of the state might possibly have erred. Instead, there is the ritual incantation: “self-defense,” “riot,” “terrorism.” Say it fast enough, loudly enough, and with enough confidence, and perhaps the public won’t notice the inconvenient videos, eyewitnesses, or basic laws of physics contradicting the official story...
Please tell me what you see in this video with your own eyes.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000 … =url-shareI think it is broader than that. If they simply don't like you, you are a domestic terrorist. There is no meaning left to the phrase anymore.
They can't, otherwise they contradict their leader.
With the help of synchronization, it is clear the agent was what, a foot away from the car and she was pulling away from him. This falls somewhere between Grossly Negligent Homicide and Murder - in either case, a crime of huge proportions.
This is a new video that has been released. It shows the ICE officer hit, and he rolled up and then shot her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAwYour video does not clearly show that she hit the agent with her car. My video shows the agent stepping around in front of the car and shooting her through the windshield. You can clearly see the smoke from the muzzle of the gun. If she was trying to hit him why would there be a bullet hole in the windshield? There was no bullet hole when she was driving down the street.
Now they are not allowing an independent investigation. They only want the FBI to investigate so that Kash Patel can cover up what actually happened. Why did he have to shoot her in the head at point blank range?Oh, there are a hundred more questions.
Why did he violate his training and walk in front of the vehicle?
Why was he holding a gun and cell phone at the same time, I doubt that is in the training manual either.
Why didn't he follow his training and step away from the vehicle if it was moving?
Why did he shoot several times with innocent by-standers close by?
Why didn't he follow his training an De-escalate and avoid creating the hazard?
Why did he ignore she was clearly trying to turn the car away from him?
If it was SO dangerous, why didn't ANY other agent draw their weapon?
So many questions.
And with so many VIOLATIONS of procedure by the shooter, this should be a grossly negligent homicide case.Here is a much better video. That was just released today,
Clearly shows the officer being hit. I stopped the footage to make sure the car hit him, and his feet were off the ground. He was hit on the driver's side. It is very clear footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUMVtrCK_YCan't see it for sure myself, close, but no cigar. I did see an agent being where he isn't supposed to be - in front of the car.
However, another video, when synced with this one, clearly shows the agent who was in violation of standard protocol. not being hit. PeoplePower provided that video.I watched in slow motion, and froze it several takes consentrating on his feet. They did come off the ground, and he just as quickly rolled off the driver's side onto his feet. As he walked toward the car that crashed, he was visibly limping. There are also close-ups of Goods' face as the hit occurs, and she is looking at him, smiling as she hits him. Thus far, this video shows what happened more clearly.
Note, I am not making any assumptions about what either was thinking at the time.
So you are admitting that you would have violated numerous training rules that ended up causing this innocent woman her life.
See my list of questions below.In response to the rest of your BS.
This is a lot of allegation, almost no evidence. A few grounding points:
“Immigrants voting Democrat to keep benefits.”
Non-citizens can’t vote. Period. Green-card holders and refugees don’t vote in federal or Minnesota state elections. If you’re claiming illegal voting, instead of making things up - name cases and convictions.
“Democrats teach immigrants to commit fraud.”
That’s defamatory unless you can show who, when, and how. When fraud exists, it gets prosecuted (often by nonpartisan inspectors general and U.S. attorneys). Show the indictments or retract.
“Billions in fraud” as a smokescreen.
If you have audited numbers, cite them. Otherwise it’s a talking point, not an argument. Fraud is investigated by career auditors—under both parties—and those reports are public.
Dependency narrative.
Most immigrants work, pay taxes, and many naturalize and vote how they choose. Reducing a whole community to a political pawn dehumanizes law-abiding neighbors who are doing exactly what we say we want: working, learning English, starting businesses, and becoming citizens.
Elections and ideas.
If “nobody wants their ideas,” you should be able to win on policy without conspiracy theories. Make your case on budgets, schools, safety, and growth—not on smearing entire communities.
Bottom line: Bring evidence—case numbers, court filings, audited losses—or drop the blanket accusations. We can debate policy on immigration, welfare design, and election rules. But mass claims of teaching immigrants to cheat (without proof) are just scapegoating, and they poison any serious conversation.
Mike is correct; Good died in large part because she was egged on by liberals gaslighting her. Her own stupidity played a part, but so did the continual demonization of ICE and Trump, and the calls from high ranking liberals to interfere with the law as if there would be no negative results as a result.
So, you are joining Mike in passing on misinformation and lies, I see.
I think you may want to reconsider labeling Mike’s posts as misinformation. He is simply sharing his thoughts, and what is being reported by the media, it’s not fair to dismiss them outright.
From my perspective, you actually post more misinformation than anyone else here. Much of what you share is presented as fact when, in reality, it often lacks context or verification. I take it as an opinion, because without clear facts, that is what we end up with.Share with me the misinformation I post. Since I am not perfect, I suspect one or two slip in there on rare occasions, so give me say five examples.
I almost always fact check myself, so I can find my sources. When I use ChatGPT, it also provides sources. When I think something isn't obvious or is well covered in the MSM, then I often provide the source. You know this to be true.
If you think something I said is false, have the curtesy to say it is false and then point out how it is false and I will provide the verification you seek - as I always do when asked.
LOL I like your comment, the way it is filled with deep philosophy and reasoning.
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it. Instead of deep thought we get surface, shallow thinking that depends solely on feelings and hate rather than logic and reason.
Still, I do appreciate the effort, for it exemplifies exactly what Mike's meme said.My two cents. The optics of ICE is not a good one. They look like Storm Troopers and armed to the teeth, not only with guns but tear gas canisters. They are very intimidating in their actions. They also wear masks so we can't tell who in the hell they are.
Stephen Miller has issued a quota of at least 3,000 deportations per day. Trump wants to see it go up to 5,000 per day. That is quantity not justice.
ICE is offering up to $50,000 as a signing bonus to new recruits, an unprecedented incentive reflecting the scale and urgency of the administration’s deportation agenda. Wow!!! With a bonus like that, the incentive is to perform to meet the quota.
Miller/Trump have invoked the Insurrection act of 1807 to justify the deploying of ICE and also Troops.
Requirements before a president can invoke it:
Before using troops, the president must issue a formal proclamation ordering the crowd or insurgents to disperse.
This is a legal prerequisite.
I find it very interesting that Biden could have used the insurrection act against Trump on Jan. 6 Let's face it, Trump and his cohorts tried to overthrow the government. The only reason he is not in jail is because he was granted immunity as a sitting president by SCOTUS.
That's why in my book; he is never going to leave the job as president. His fat ** will be nailed to a wall when he does and he knows it. Trump’s immunity has now set a precedent for any future presidents. But Trump doesn't care about that, he only thinks of himself.I asked AI Is the insurrection act justified in Minneapolis. Here is the answer
You’re asking a sharp, mechanism level question: Does the ICE deployment and the Minneapolis unrest meet the legal threshold for invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807? That’s exactly the kind of structural analysis you excel at, so let’s break it down cleanly and without political opinion
No. Nothing in Minneapolis meets the statutory requirements for invoking the Insurrection Act.
And the law is very specific about what must be true before a president can use it.
What the Insurrection Act actually requires
The Act allows a president to deploy the military domestically only under three narrow conditions:
1. A state requests federal military assistance
This is the “governor asks for help” pathway. Minnesota’s governor has done the opposite—he has explicitly opposed the federal presence.
2. An insurrection makes it “impracticable” to enforce federal law
This requires:
• Widespread, organized, violent resistance
• Civil authorities unable to function
• Courts unable to operate
Minneapolis protests—while tense—do not meet this threshold. Local police, state police, and courts are all functioning.
3. A state is denying people their constitutional rights and federal intervention is required
This was used in the Civil Rights era to enforce desegregation. Nothing in Minneapolis resembles that category.
Why the Minneapolis situation does not qualify
Even with:
• A fatal ICE shooting
• Protests
• Clashes between federal agents and demonstrators
• Political conflict between state and federal officials
…none of this constitutes an “insurrection” under the law.
To qualify, you’d need something like:
• A breakdown of state authority
• Organized armed rebellion
• Courts unable to operate
• State government refusing to enforce federal law
None of that is happening.
The deeper structural point
The Insurrection Act is designed for state collapse, not federal state disagreement.
Minneapolis is experiencing:
• Federal overreach
• Local resistance
• Political conflict
• Civil protests
But not the kind of systemic breakdown the Act was written for.
Bottom line
The ICE deployment in Minneapolis does not justify invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. The legal thresholds are far higher than anything occurring there.
.
"So, you are joining Mike in passing on misinformation and lies, I see."
ROFL
Good comedy you should go on tour.
Now, when someone chooses to stop their vehicle in the middle of a federal enforcement operation, and their partner exits the vehicle and verbally confronts ICE officers, and then the driver refuses to get out, those are choices, and in this context they were unlawful and dangerous ones. Personal decisions were made by these two individuals that day, and yes, those choices played a significant role in what happened.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the broader political atmosphere , the ongoing rhetoric about ICE, immigration enforcement, and how far people are encouraged to go in “resisting” federal agents does matter. When leaders at the local level and national level loudly defend actions and statements that escalate tensions rather than calm them, it shapes how both sides behave in real time. Many local officials have sharply criticized federal enforcement and called for ICE to leave Minneapolis, and protests have continued in the aftermath of Good’s death.
By framing ICE as inherently villainous and encouraging active confrontation with federal law enforcement, even suggesting that interference carries no serious consequences, some voices effectively give implicit permission to break laws set by Congress. Whether that is intentional or not, it contributes to an environment in which people feel emboldened to challenge federal operations directly.
So I think Mike is right that Good’s own actions intersected with a highly charged political climate, and that climate, amplified by liberal voices attacking ICE and portraying clashes with federal agents as heroic resistance, helped create the conditions in which her decisions led to this tragic outcome.I let ChatGPT modify what I was writing and integrate additional facts while it got across the points I wanted to make:
You’re framing this as if two private citizens “made bad choices” and the rest is inevitable. That flips the burden. In a constitutional system, the greater power carries the greater duty—and armed federal agents have strict rules for exactly these tense situations.
First, on “illegality.” I’ve already said her parking may have been improper. If so, that’s a citation—or at most an arrest—not a death sentence. “Refused to exit” (if proven) is still adjudicated in court, not by muzzle flash. DHS’s own rules strictly limit shooting at/into vehicles to imminent lethal-threat scenarios with no safer alternative. That’s the standard—not opinion about who “escalated.” Another DHS policy violated by ICE on the ground is let a moving car keep on moving and DO NOT shoot at the occupants unless there is an immediate threat that cannot be dealt with ANY OTHER WAY!
Second, on the partner “confronting” agents. Filming officers in public is lawful. Calling that “confrontation” is rhetorical inflation. The verified clips show her outside the vehicle, recording. None of that authorizes lethal force.
Third, climate and responsibility. You want to talk climate? Fine. It wasn’t city hall that flooded Minneapolis with federal operators and labeled a neighborhood mom “domestic terrorist” within hours. Leadership from the top set the tone: maximalist raids, incendiary language, and an investigative posture that shut out the state’s own BCA. If we’re assigning atmospheric blame, federal power shapes the weather.
Fourth, on ICE/DHS themselves. You keep portraying the agencies as the default “good guys.” They’re institutions; they’re only as good as their training, supervision, and command climate. Long-time pros who follow policy exist—absolutely. But there’s also a pipeline of rushed recruits and a political message that rewards “crack heads” heroics. And let’s be honest: DHS/ICE earned their reputation for heavy-handed, militarized, fear-based tactics—the kind of authoritarian, secret-police-style behavior (door-kicking raids, public intimidation, courthouse grabs) that communities remember. They didn’t get that image by accident; they built it.
Bottom line: Yes, civilians’ choices matter. But the law is crystal clear on this: traffic and compliance issues go to court; deadly force requires an imminent lethal threat and no safer option. Until you can show that threshold was met, blaming the dead while absolving the feds isn’t “law and order”—it’s excusing summary punishment.
If we actually want accountability, here’s the grown-up list:
• Release the full, unedited videos and a synchronized timeline.
• Publish the forensics (trajectories, round recovery, impact evidence).
• Explain policy compliance: why a shot into/at a moving vehicle was the only option, with bystanders present.
Short of that, the “she made choices” line is just moral cover for an outcome the rules are designed to prevent.
On intent: You don’t have to guess what Trump “had in mind” to see the predictable effect of the operation: fear, chaos, and a chilling message to an immigrant neighborhood. The administration chose a maximal show of force—about 2,000 federal agents deployed to Minneapolis in what ICE called its largest operation ever—branded opponents as “domestic terrorists” within hours, and then walled off state investigators. Those are policy choices with foreseeable consequences—no clairvoyance required.
And let’s be blunt about basic judgment: A rational leader doesn’t surge 2,000 armed agents into a city where crime has been falling to “crack down” on alleged fraud; you task auditors, HSI case teams, and prosecutors—not a paramilitary-style sweep that predictably terrifies neighborhoods. Minneapolis’ own 2025 data show serious crime down; yet the White House paired the surge with high-decibel fraud rhetoric and benefit freezes. That’s not calm, targeted enforcement—that’s performative intimidation.
“It’s naïve to call this ‘normal enforcement.’ Only the inept and irrational deploy ~2,000 agents to a city with declining crime to stop ‘fraud.’ You send auditors and prosecutors. Flooding streets with secret police tactical teams is a choice to maximize fear - i.e. to terrorize, not public safety.”
This is from a Subscription Only CNN article and is worth pondering about what Trump is turning America into.
"Farewell, forever wars, hello empire? The week that changed the world"
In January 1899, the American gunboat USS Wilmington set out on an expedition to Venezuela, steaming up the Orinoco River toward the country’s interior. On board was an American diplomat, Francis Loomis, the US envoy to Venezuela. The mission was to show the flag, explore commercial opportunities – including routes to supply gold-mining operations – and display a little firepower.
An article in Naval History described how Loomis liked to demonstrate the ship’s Colt machine guns to local officials.
“This gun, firing some 500 shots a minute, produced a vivid impression here,” Loomis wrote in a report. “I made a point of having this gun fired anytime there were any army officials on board.”
“Gunboat diplomacy” has become a convenient shorthand for US President Donald Trump’s coercive foreign policy backed up by the threat of military force. Buoyed by the successful raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump is now pushing aggressively for ownership of Greenland – and signaling that the US will not be constrained as a global power. - just what isolationist MAGA wants to hear - [/i]Trump’s words and actions now have observers reaching for the history books. The events of the past week stirred memories of long-forgotten chapters of US imperialism – from gunboat diplomacy and banana wars to full-scale colonial rule – that have left Washington’s traditional allies wondering if the world is returning to an era of great powers and vassal states.
Gunboat diplomacy was not limited to the Western Hemisphere. After World War I, the US Navy operated the Yangtze Patrol, a flotilla of gunboats that protected American interests – including missionaries and oil companies – inside China during a lengthy period of warlordism and instability. Those patrol boats also had a place in the American popular imagination, in part due to a film released in 1966: The Sand Pebbles, a Hollywood epic starring Steve McQueen as an enlisted sailor aboard the fictional USS San Pablo.
Trump’s intention to take control of Venezuela’s oil is also reminiscent of another era of American foreign policy: the so-called Banana Wars, a series of military expeditions and constabulary missions in Central America and the Caribbean that enforced US business interests. US Marines, for instance, would sustain deployments in Honduras, Nicaragua and Haiti. US forces landed in and occupied the Mexican port city of Veracruz in 1914.
Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, a legendary Marine and twice Medal of Honor winner, fought in those campaigns, as well as in the brutal Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. Following his retirement, Butler became an outspoken critic of American military adventurism, famously describing himself as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism” during his long military career.
“The record of racketeering is long,” Butler wrote. “I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”
That critique of American foreign policy – that US high-mindedness and democratic idealism conceal naked corporate interests – persisted through the Cold War and into the 21st Century. So the perhaps most interesting development of the past week is the US administration’s shedding of lofty rhetoric around the Venezuela raid, as Trump did in an interview with The New York Times, asserting, “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need.”
The protesters who held “no blood for oil” signs in 2003 to protest the US-led invasion of Iraq would no doubt have been surprised to see a sitting president saying that it was in fact about the oil.[/i]
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/10/world/an … latam-intlThe courts come to the rescue again - this time to stop Trump from starving children who live in Democratic states. Sooner or later Trump apologists will see Trump for what he is - a Demon.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/politics … lt-lawsuitHow more AUTHORITARIAN and Putinesque can Trump "the FELON" get?
"US will take Greenland the ‘hard way’ if it can’t do it the ‘easy way,’ Trump says"
Trump is threatening war on Europe!!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/10/politics … trump-says" Trump is threatening war on Europe!!" ECO
Really, how is that? I will admit this is one of your better ones. LOL
I assume at this point you are speaking for NATO. What does not surprise me is that you think you can speak for NATO.
OMGOMG yourself. Use your head. Who does Greenland belong to? DENMARK. Is Denmark part of Europe? YES. Is Trump threating to take over Greenland by force? YES!! If that is not threatening war, I don't what is.
BTW, were did NATO get into this? Did I say NATO or is that one of your assumptions?No --- Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It is not part of Denmark proper and is not governed like Denmark’s regions. But it seems to be one of your facts. So you just continue to believe that. LOL
In my view, Trump’s comments on Greenland are less reckless talk and more a blunt way of forcing a serious conversation that most leaders have avoided. I don’t take his words as a literal threat to “take” Greenland, but as an acknowledgment that the Arctic has become strategically critical and that the U.S. cannot afford to be passive while Russia and China expand their influence there. Trump has always spoken in terms of leverage and outcomes, not diplomatic niceties, and I think that style is meant to signal urgency rather than intent to violate international law. Greenland’s autonomy and the rights of its people matter, but so does honest discussion about security realities. From my perspective, raising the issue publicly, even uncomfortably, is better than pretending the stakes don’t exist until it’s too late.
No, he has not declared war on Greenland. But you have fun with that...
I assumed you were referring to NATO when you made -
"How more AUTHORITARIAN and Putinesque can Trump "the FELON" get?
"US will take Greenland the ‘hard way’ if it can’t do it the ‘easy way,’ Trump says"
Trump is threatening war on Europe!" ECO
WAR ON EUROPE - This is really very silly. What were you referring to --- all of Europe?
Why do you put yourself through the wringer with comments like this?Even your play8ing with semantics to hide the truth won't work. What you did was agree with my assessment. Greenland belongs to the Danish realm, but it’s self-governing rather than a normal region of Denmark.”
In my opinion your view of Trump is very dangerous because it normalizes the behavior of an unstable, power hungry authoritarian who is following the destructive pathological path that Dr. Lee and her hundreds of collogues predicted he would and will.
This is the path to today that we, not part of Trump's cult of personality see:
* First there was family separation—a deliberate ‘zero tolerance’ policy that tore kids from parents as deterrence.
* Then came the ‘enemy of the people’ drumbeat against the press and vows to ‘dominate the streets’ with force during protests.
* His mishandling of the pandemic left the U.S. among the worst-hit major countries, by both per-capita deaths and total deaths
* Then it escalated to the pressure campaign to overturn an election—the Georgia call to ‘find 11,780 votes.’”
* After that, he called to ‘terminate’ parts of the Constitution to stay in power.*
* Then a HUGE escalation in causing and leading an insurrection against the United States of America
* Once on the campaign trail to a second term he promised to be a ‘dictator’—even if ‘only on day one’—and laid out plans to rule by fiat. - a plan he is carrying out as I write this.
* He started his campaign of aggression against the world with his tariff/trade war with the world
* He’s turned our civil service backward a century by reinstitution the spoils system
* He knowingly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousand of people in 2025 and millions more in the future by shutting down USAID.
* He began terrorizing America, Americans, and other innocent people by unleashing a Gestapo-type forces on major US cities
* He is carrying out his planned and publicized retribution campaign on his political enemies
* He moved from indirectly causing deaths to directly taking lives—using a fabricated ‘drug-stopping’ pretext when the real aim was toppling Maduro by invasion in order to steal their oil.
“ He then escalated from that to threatening Cuba, Columbia, Greenland, and Mexico
* And his latest move is to tell Demark that he is taking Greenland from them by FORCE if he has to.
That’s the pattern: punish the vulnerable, delegitimize watchdogs, overturn rules when inconvenient, centralize personal power, and boast about seizing assets. You don’t need a psych eval to see it—the behavior matches exactly what Dr. Lee warned about: what an unstable, power-hungry leader with his pathology would do - and those who accpet that is just normalizing authoritarian methods.Deleted
You are absolutely right about each one of your statements. Welcome to Project 2026 and Trumplandia. He always wanted to be a Dicktator and now he is one. He also has Stephen Miller as his puppeteer pulling all his strings. They are both pathological crazy in my book. All one has to do is hear and see it with their own senses. He also has created many clones in his administration. He has people in critical positions who are totally unqualified to do their jobs. The only qualification Trump requires is fealty to him.
I need to respond very strongly and share my view, because I do not agree with your assessment, and I reject the claim that disagreeing with you is somehow “playing with semantics” or secretly agreeing with your conclusions. Precision is not evasion, and refusing to inflate rhetoric into proof is not denial. What you are doing is redefining authoritarianism until it simply means “a president whose behavior I find alarming,” and that is neither accurate nor responsible.
I reject the idea that Trump is an unstable, power‑hungry authoritarian on a pathological march toward dictatorship. I also reject the claim that defending constitutional reality somehow “normalizes” authoritarian behavior. The real danger is labeling everything authoritarian until the word loses all meaning.
On Greenland specifically, yes, Trump has used aggressive, provocative language. But words alone are not power seizure. No troops have moved. No emergency powers have been invoked. No invasion has occurred. No constitutional process has been bypassed. Provocative rhetoric, even reckless rhetoric, is not the same thing as authoritarian action. If we start treating rhetoric as equivalent to force, then we abandon evidence altogether.
Your list of grievances repeatedly confuses policy disputes, moral outrage, and offensive language with actual dictatorship. Family separation was a morally wrong policy, but it was carried out under existing law, challenged in court, publicly condemned, and ultimately reversed. Dictators do not reverse course because courts and public pressure force them to.
Trump’s attacks on the press were irresponsible and corrosive, in my view, but the press continues to operate freely, attack him daily, publish investigations, and influence elections. That is not suppression. That is an adversarial press doing its job.
I perceived his pandemic response was very good, not in any respect incompetent.
The Georgia phone call was improper, but it did not overturn the election. Courts rejected the claims. States certified the results. Trump left office. A dictator does not lose power because judges say no.
Claims that Trump “terminated parts of the Constitution” are rhetoric, not reality. No constitutional provision has been suspended. No elections have been canceled. No branch of government has been dissolved.
January 6 was a disgrace and a violent riot, but it was not a successful coup. There was no seizure of institutions, no military backing, and no consolidation of power. The system held, which directly contradicts the claim of dictatorship.
Tariffs, aggressive foreign policy, civil service restructuring, and executive orders are not evidence of authoritarianism. Every modern president has expanded executive power and reshaped the bureaucracy. If that alone makes someone a dictator, then the term is meaningless.
You argue there is a “pattern,” but what I see is a pattern of exaggeration, taking every controversial statement or harsh policy and treating it as proof of totalitarian intent. That approach does not protect democracy; it weakens it by replacing analysis with fear.
Authoritarianism is not defined by rhetoric that offends, policies that anger, or leaders who break norms. It is defined by unchecked power. And power in the United States remains checked by courts, by Congress, by states, by elections, and by an openly hostile press.
If Trump were truly a dictator, none of this debate would be happening freely, publicly, and without consequence. The fact that it is tells us far more than the labels being thrown around.
I refuse to pretend otherwise."The real danger I see is this: when we label every norm-breaking president a dictator, we train the public to stop recognizing the real thing when it arrives. Authoritarianism is not defined by behavior we dislike—it is defined by power that cannot be checked."
Thank you, that is exactly what Trump has. He has power that can't be unchecked. Scott is right, you take others statements and apply your own definition to them. You can call it semantics or anything you want, but that is what you are doing to normalize a dictators actions.Regarding " He has power that can't be unchecked. " PP
Honestly, when you look at the record, there isn’t a clear, documented instance where Donald Trump’s actions completely went unchecked in the U.S. system. The checks and balances, Congressional oversight, courts, federal investigations, the Justice Department, and the media—always intervened in some way. Even controversial executive orders, emergency declarations, or policy maneuvers faced pushback, lawsuits, or political scrutiny.
What people sometimes call “unchecked” is really delayed or imperfectly enforced oversight, not a total absence of accountability.
I think it is odd to feel that anything Trump would do that appeared untoward would not be handled within our Congress.
" Scott is right, you take others statements and apply your own definition to them. You can call it semantics or anything you want, but that is what you are doing to normalize a dictators actions." PP
NOTE ( I would not openly critique Scott with anyone else. I am always honest and share with him directly what I think about his way of communicating. However, you have brought him into this conversation.)
This is Scott’s opinion. In my view, Scott sometimes struggles to fully understand written context. I recognize that words on a page can be interpreted in different ways, but I feel that Scott has difficulty distinguishing when someone is sharing a perspective versus stating facts. I understand this can happen, but I think it’s worth pointing out. This conversation is a good example: if one reads his comment, he suggests that I take others’ statements and apply my own definition to them. Yet it’s very clear throughout my comment (the one he refers to) that I am simply sharing my perspective.
I truly feel that there is a barrier that prevents some people from even considering that others might hold an opposing opinion. I can accept an opinion without agreeing with it; I recognize that everyone has the right to their own thoughts. In the end, does it really matter what you think or what I think? It’s unlikely that either of us will change our view. I believe this has become a broader societal issue.Yup.
Btw, this was interesting.
Trump’s ‘Superstar’ Appellate Judges Have Voted 133 to 12 in His Favor
President Trump promised to fill the appeals courts with “my judges.” They have formed a nearly united phalanx to defend his agenda from legal challenges.
President Trump has found a powerful but obscure bulwark in the appeals court judges he appointed during his first term. They have voted overwhelmingly in his favor when his administration’s actions have been challenged in court in his current term, a New York Times analysis of their 2025 records shows.
Time and again, appellate judges chosen by Mr. Trump in his first term reversed rulings made by district court judges in his second, clearing the way for his policies and gradually eroding a perception early last year that the legal system was thwarting his efforts to amass presidential power.
The president’s appointees voted to allow his policies to take effect 133 times and voted against them only 12 times. Ninety-two percent of their total votes were in favor of the administration. That figure far outstrips support for Mr. Trump’s agenda from appeals court judges appointed by other Republican presidents, and from Mr. Trump’s appointees to the district courts.
The uniformity of the judges’ votes is “reason for serious concern,” said Mark L. Wolf, a former federal judge nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Wolf recently retired so he could speak more freely about what he has characterized as the threat that Mr. Trump posed to the rule of law.
“If you’re an impartial judge, the same party is not going to win every time,” he said. “Because the facts are different, the law is different, and so the result is often going to be different.”
Mr. Trump’s appellate appointees allowed him to deploy the National Guard in cities over the objections of state and local leaders. They delayed for more than six months a judge’s inquiry into why planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador did not turn around, despite a court order. They signed off on the withholding of millions of dollars in federal funds from public school districts.
Changes to the judicial confirmation process have made it easier for more ideologically extreme judges to win Senate approval. Mr. Trump has nominated judges who are aligned with his maximalist view of presidential power, part of a long-running conservative project to concentrate more authority within the White House. And a trio of Trump appellate appointees in Washington, where many lawsuits over the administration’s agenda have been filed, have voted for a large number of rulings in his favor.
Mr. Trump has also taken an unusually active role in trying to shape judicial behavior.
He has called judges who ruled against his administration “radical” and “lunatic.” He has praised judges who rule the way he wants, calling them “highly respected” and “brilliant.”
“You could have court of appeals judges auditioning in case a Supreme Court seat opens up,” said Morgan Hazelton, a political science professor at Saint Louis University and the co-author of a book on collegiality in the appellate courts.
Appeals court judges work in randomly chosen groups known as panels, which review appeals of final decisions by district court judges, who work alone. Panels, as well as the Supreme Court, can also intervene in the middle of cases, ordering district court judges to take specific actions while litigation over an issue proceeds.
When Mr. Trump’s policies are temporarily blocked by district court judges, appeals courts can issue “administrative stays,” temporary rulings that effectively reverse the lower court’s orders and let contested policies take effect. Administrative stays are supposed to be temporary but can remain in place for weeks or even months. In many cases, they are replaced by a more lasting stay, known as a “stay pending appeal,” that remains in place while the appellate court considers the case.
The Times analysis tracked both kinds of stays, as well as the final rulings that appellate courts made after considering arguments from both sides.
Mr. Trump’s nominees sided with him consistently across all three kinds of rulings, voting in his favor 97 percent of the time on administrative stays, 88 percent of the time on stays pending appeal, and 100 percent of the time on final rulings.
If the parties in a case disagree with an appeals court’s final ruling, they can seek further intervention by the Supreme Court, which accepts roughly 1 percent of the thousands of petitions it receives each year. That limited bandwidth means that the appeals courts — which handle more than 40,000 cases annually — are powerful gatekeepers that serve as the main check on district court judges. And the legal precedents they set are binding on the individual circuits they oversee.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump helped convince traditional Republican voters that he was reliable by promising to pick conservative judges, forging an alliance with the leaders of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, to identify candidates.
“If it’s my judges, you know how they’re going to decide,” Mr. Trump told leaders of evangelical Christian groups in June that year.
In all, Mr. Trump selected 54 appellate judges in his first term, the most of any president in a four-year term since Jimmy Carter, who had the one-time advantage of a federal law that expanded the judiciary. Mr. Trump in his second term has appointed another six.
Mr. Trump signed 225 executive orders last year; Mr. Biden signed 162 over four years in office. The scale of Mr. Trump’s new policies drew consistent pushback from district court judges. They issued dozens of nationwide injunctions — when one judge’s ruling blocks administration policies everywhere, for everyone, a power recently pared back by the Supreme Court. That was more than in any previous presidency except for Mr. Trump’s first term.
Those injunctions put tremendous power into the hands of the appeals courts, the government’s first stop when it believes a judge has gone too far.
MORETrump’s appellate judges ruling in his favor isn’t shocking—it’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. Presidents always appoint judges who share their philosophy, and appellate courts exist to review lower court decisions, often using procedural tools like stays to manage cases. High alignment with the administration reflects political norms, not corruption or judicial misconduct. Predictable outcomes along ideological lines are a feature of the judiciary, not a bug.
"Predictable outcomes along ideological lines are a feature of the judiciary, not a bug."
I would disagree here, calling it a very LARGE bug. Judges should never, ever, make decisions based on ideology, personal morality or anything but the law. I can recognize that words are not black and white, that there IS some leeway in interpretation (particularly older laws like the constitution), But for the most part the law should not be that difficult to decide.
Personally, I believe that the liberal side of the equation is far, far worse at this than the conservative. It is liberals that think our Constitution is variable with varying political winds, not conservatives. It is the liberal side that is so well known for making decisions based on their personal beliefs, not conservatives.
So...are these Trump appointed judges deciding law based on law or on ideology? I'm sure ideology plays a part - judges are imperfect humans - but for the most part I believe they are deciding based on law.So, I agree with the principle you’re laying out, and in an ideal world, judges would decide cases based on nothing but the law. That should be the standard. But realistically, presidents don’t appoint judges in a vacuum; they appoint them with the expectation that they’ll generally interpret the law in a way that aligns with the agenda voters sent that president to Washington to pursue. That doesn’t make it right, but it is how the system has operated for decades.
I see that as a flaw in the system, not something to celebrate. Law should come before ideology, and I wish it always did. But O think we might agree that pretending ideology isn’t deeply embedded in our judicial process ignores reality. We’ve all watched this play out over time, across administrations of both parties.
So when rulings fall along predictable lines, I don’t automatically see corruption, but I also don’t think it should be brushed off as a “feature.” It’s a tension we live with: the ideal of impartial justice versus the reality of a judiciary shaped by political appointments.In other words, don't say impartial justices, say judiciary shaped by political appointments. This reminds me of Frank Luntz who wrote the republican playbook called Don't Say That, Say This.
Here are some of his guidelines.
Replace emotionally negative terms with softer ones.
Reframe issues to make Republican positions more palatable.
Focus on storytelling over technical accuracy.
Examples from his guidance:
“Climate change” instead of “global warming” (because it sounds less frightening).
“Death tax” instead of “estate tax” (to trigger emotional reaction).
Emphasizing values like “freedom” and “responsibility” rather than policy details"In other words, don't say impartial justices, say judiciary shaped by political appointments. This reminds me of Frank Luntz who wrote the republican playbook called Don't Say That, Say This." PP
I shared my view, which may sound cynical, but I believe it’s realistic. It reflects how I perceive our judicial system today. I don’t believe it was always as troubled as it appears now, nor am I disputing the sentiments Dan shared or those you expressed. I’m simply being candid about what I see happening within the system itself. My criticism is directed at the system as a whole, and I don’t believe either party comes out as the clear winner. And neither do "We The People".
I don't say "Don't Say That, Say This." I just say, say it as you see it.
While I agree with much of what you say, your "liberal side" comment is just conservative myth repeated over and over again. In fact, a large meta-analysis of 51 experiments (~18,000 participants) found strong support for “symmetry”: liberals and conservatives showed similar average levels of partisan bias (very close effect sizes).
"Trump’s appellate judges ruling in his favor isn’t shocking—it’s exactly how the system is supposed to work." - Did you really just write that??? You sure you aren't living in Russia and thinking of their "judicial" system?
If that is the way it is "supposed" to be, then Trump is certainly picking poor trial court judges and an indication of how badly he is breaking the law given the enormous number of Republican appointed judges that have ruled against him.You’re taking that statement out of context and then arguing against a meaning that was never intended. Saying it isn’t shocking when appellate judges rule in someone’s favor does not mean judges are supposed to rule for Trump personally or protect him from the law. It means the appellate system exists to correct legal and procedural errors, regardless of who the defendant is.
The number of rulings against someone does not, by itself, prove how “badly” they are breaking the law. Many rulings are procedural, jurisdictional, or later overturned. Without citing specific final judgments or statutory violations, that conclusion is interpretation, not fact.
This is exactly the issue I was pointing to earlier—opinion being framed as truth by stripping away legal context and replacing it with assumptions about motive and guilt.
AI Second Term (2025) Court Case Outcomes
Overall Adjudicated Lawsuits (Lower & Appellate Courts):
• About 530 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration as of late 2025.
• Of those, about 32 have been fully adjudicated (final rulings).
• 8 rulings in favor of the administration
• 24 rulings against the administration
— with the vast majority (≈500 cases) still pending or awaiting decision
U.S. Supreme Court Emergency / Shadow Docket Rulings
At the Supreme Court level on emergency applications (preliminary stays or emergency orders):
• Administration has filed ~28 emergency docket applications.
• 19 wins (full or partial relief) for Trump admin.
• 2 losses
• 4 still pending or mixed outcomes
Key Numerical Summary
Category Admin Wins Admin Losses Pending / Mixed
Fully adjudicated lawsuits ✓ 8 24 ~500 still pending*
Supreme Court emergency docket 19 2 ~4
Ultimately to soon to dictate if he will win more than lose, with so very many pending. He certainly, in my view, is doing well in the Supreme Court. As sources indicate.I didn't take anything out of context, you were quite clear in what you meant.
As long as I can remember, and it is my view, presidents have appointed judges who generally align with the agenda they were elected to carry out. That isn’t a flaw in the system; it is the system. Voters choose a president knowing that judicial appointments are one of the most lasting ways that a president influences policy and interpretation of the law.
Again, what I always suspected was the case is proving to be true, it is not about Democracy but about the oil…..
https://www.salon.com/2026/01/09/trump- … d-the-oil/Honestly, this article oversimplifies a very complex situation and paints Trump’s strategy as reckless, when in reality it’s quite smart. First, Venezuela’s problems aren’t just “third-world chaos”, the country’s infrastructure and institutions have been destroyed over decades of corruption and mismanagement. Elections held in that environment without stability would be chaotic and likely illegitimate. Trump’s point about rebuilding the country, particularly the oil industry, before holding free and fair elections makes strategic sense. It’s not about delaying democracy; it’s about creating the conditions for one that actually works.
Critics are right to say that $100 billion is a huge number, but it’s supposed to come from private oil investment, not taxpayers. Companies like Exxon or Chevron won’t commit without clear legal protections and a functional infrastructure, so this is a practical, step-by-step approach. And yes, Venezuela’s oil reserves are some of the largest in the world, restoring production there strengthens U.S. influence in the hemisphere, reduces dependence on adversarial countries like Russia and China, and can help stabilize global energy markets.
Frankly, the media makes it sound like Trump’s plan is just about control or greed, but when you think about it, this is smart geopolitics and energy strategy. Rebuilding Venezuela first isn’t reckless; it’s a calculated move to protect U.S. energy security, attract private investment, and set up the country for elections that actually matter. The article misses all of that nuance and instead focuses on a misleading narrative.Frankly, the media is correct when they report Trump's plan "is just about control or greed"
When I do think about it, it stinks like modern day imperialism.
Trump says the quiet part out loud—“keep the oil.”! And it isn't just Venezuelan oil. Trump has repeatedly argued the U.S. should “keep the oil,” including in Syria (“we’re keeping the oil… left troops behind only for the oil”) and even floated cutting a deal with Exxon to do it. International-law experts flagged that as pillage. He said the same thing about Iraq.
Oil-before-democracy—explicitly.
In 2026, Trump told Fox he’d rebuild Venezuela’s oil sector first and be “in charge of it,” with elections “later.” That’s not subtext; it’s the plan.
$100B carrot to Big Oil—using U.S. power as the stick. Colonial Intentions
Trump urged U.S. major oil company's to pour $100B into Venezuela, promising “total safety/total security,”. How can he do that unless Venezuela is a protectorate or colony of the US? Exxon’s CEO called Venezuela “uninvestable” without sweeping legal changes. All but Chevron nodded their heads politely and smiled. That’s a bid to align state muscle with corporate extraction.
Trump doesn't even hide (although you can't see it) his intention of controlling Venezuela for their oil.
Don't forget, he has his eyes set on Cuba, Columbia, and Mexico as well.
Oh it's normal, it's reality, it's how the system is supposed to work... Unless the rulling is against Trump. Then, the judges are corrupt, leftist, political activists, radical rogue judges, judicial warfare, etc.
Hypocrites.And if it is FOR Trump the exact same words come from the other side!
There is no truth, no honesty, no morality in our government. On either side of the aisle.What is so hilarious is that those people come on here all the time and expect us to believe that the leftist cabal does not lie. Lies are by no means confined to conservatives.
That may be true, but conservatives lie much more consistently and in more volume which makes it much, much worse.
For example, Noem goes on Jake Trapper and lies incessantly for 20 minutes. - that can be proved, just google it.
People who count these things have determined that Trump is now averaging a lie every three minutes when he speaks for 10 minutes or longer - that can be proved, just google it.Your context in this comment indicates you are sharing facts. But ultimately, you are not. I ran your comment through AI. Facts are very different from opinions.
1. He opens with an unproven generalization presented as fact
“Conservatives lie much more consistently and in more volume which makes it much, much worse.” ECO
This is a broad claim stated as a conclusion, not an opinion. There is no data, metric, or definition of what “more consistently” or “more volume” means. Because he doesn’t frame it as his belief (“I think” or “in my opinion”), he is presenting a subjective judgment as an established truth.
2. He uses a single anecdote to justify a sweeping conclusion
“For example, Noem goes on Jake Tapper and lies incessantly for 20 minutes.” ECO
Even if one accepts his criticism of that interview, a single example does not logically support a claim about all conservatives. This is a classic case of hasty generalization—using one incident to validate a broad accusation against an entire political group.
3. “That can be proved” ECO --- is asserted without proof
“That can be proved, just google it.” ECO
This shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the claim. Saying something “can be proved” is not the same as actually proving it. He provides no specific false statements, no timestamps, no fact-checks—only an instruction to search until agreement is found. That’s not evidence; it’s an appeal to confirmation bias.
4. Context is missing and assumed
He does not explain:
Which statements were lies
According to whom
Based on what verified facts
Or whether the interview involved disputed interpretations rather than factual falsehoods
Without that context, the claim relies on his interpretation of the interview being treated as objective reality.
5. The core issue: opinion framed as truth
The problem isn’t that he dislikes conservatives or believes they lie more—that’s his right. The issue is that he writes as though his interpretation is settled fact, not opinion. By stating conclusions first and offering vague examples later, he presents a narrative rather than an argument.
A concise way you could say this to him:
A concise way you could say this to him:
You’re stating subjective judgments as though they’re objective facts. You make a sweeping claim about conservatives as a whole, then support it with a single example without providing specific evidence or context. Saying something “can be proved” isn’t proof, and telling someone to “google it” doesn’t establish truth—it just assumes agreement. What you’re presenting is interpretation, not verified fact, and that distinction matters.
If you want, I can also help you rewrite this as a shorter, more conversational response—or a more formal rebuttal. AI
I find AI very useful in offering helpful information and facts. Otherwise, I like to share my view.That was short-hand. I more precise, since you are sharpshooting, claim is - “That may be true, but from 2016–2025 the Republican ecosystem—especially Trump-era messaging—has produced and amplified more false or misleading claims than the Democratic side, and conservative/Republican users have shared more low-quality misinformation online in multiple studies.”
One such study: A 2025 PNAS study using X’s Community Notes found Republicans’ posts were flagged as misleading more often than Democrats’ (the paper reports a sizable gap), and argues this cannot be explained simply by “fact-checker bias” because the ratings are crowd-based.
On elite volume, Donald Trump is a documented outlier: the Washington Post Fact Checker database counted 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first term (2017–2021).
And I see it here, on these forums, As Dr. Mark pointed out, right-wing "false or misleading claims" have been pointed out than left-wing ones.
So, as you can see, I am not opining, I am stating facts. All you had to do was google it and you would have saved yourself a lot of copy and paste.
It is amazing how you will come on here and tell us how anyone you disagree with is a liar, and yet never come on here and point out the lies of the left. They are lucky they have sycophants backing up their lies.
Doc, it really is astonishing. I have repeatedly pointed out that I see a serious problem with his habit of calling others liars. I would have expected that, at some point, he might feel embarrassed by his own behavior. I also agree that he tends to ignore the lies that are clearly prevalent.
The problem here is that president Trump is a notorious liar. (You simply have to look at his tweets and comments and compare them with statistics and facts). And people who agree with him, copying his phrases, are easily called liars too! And they are, perhaps without knowing, but if you copy someones tweets without fact checking or support them, you can be called a liar too!
To follow a leader and you accept everything at face value is a dangerous thing to do.
Trump is saying such bizarre things that often it is taken for a joke. Joke or not, it is not the truth if you say something that is not supported by facts.That is your job - pointing out lies from the left - but you never do, I wonder why?
BTW, that last part is called projection.If I came on here everytime some leftist was trying to pass a lie I am afraid I would not have time to do anything else. CNN and the liars at MS would provide enough on their own, but the rest of the lefticles are also busy telliing lies.
Deflection and a non-response. Since you can't produce anything, that is pretty clear evidence that you can't.
Now you are just being stupid. I guess you are not able to understand something so clear.
Doc, in my view, and based solely on observation, I believe some liberals are more inclined to accept opinion as fact, particularly when the person sharing those opinions presents them as truth within a given context. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to dig below the surface.
When opinion is treated as fact, and talked about using context that indicates what they are sharing is fact, it inevitably becomes a problem.
"That may be true, but conservatives lie much more consistently and in more volume which makes it much, much worse.
For example, Noem goes on Jake Trapper and lies incessantly for 20 minutes. - that can be proved, just google it." ECO
This is a perfect example of what I have attempted to share. Note the context of his sentences, note his statements are matter constructed as matter a fact. But it appears those comments should be written as on opinon, due to there is no proof of what he has stated. He calls Noem a liar, not knowing what evidence she may have to back her claims. He openly claims --- "conservatives lie much more consistently and in more volume, which makes it much, much worse." Again, which, in my view, I would think would be impossible to prove.Doesn´t it remind you of those followers of the Soviets that would call the Americans liars, but never point out that the USSR was supported by lies?
Doc, It does, and that’s exactly what troubles me. I feel we now have a certain number of Americans who follow left-leaning ideologies and are more than willing to label almost anyone who disagrees with them a liar. Worse, they often go a step further and actively vilify those who refuse to buy into what I see as irrational or extreme narratives. Yes, much like the Soviet example, there’s little willingness to examine the lies within their own ideological framework, only a fixation on accusing others, as if disagreement itself is proof of dishonesty.
It might be opinion had I not heard it myself.
No, none of us knows what information is being withheld from the media while the investigation is ongoing. You’ve chosen to believe a particular narrative, but the truth is that we don’t have all the facts yet. I know I don’t. It just often comes across as though you believe you do.
Ok, conservatives, you can dispense with your bullsh!t artistry. Trump HAS threatened military action against the island. If it is an option, it is a threat, is it not? What part of “NO” is it that the rightwinger fails to understand?
========
No, Donald Trump has not ruled out military action against Greenland. Both he and the White House have repeatedly stated that military force remains an option to acquire the Danish territory, which they cite as a national security priority.
Key facts regarding Trump's position:
Refusal to rule out force: When asked about using military force, Trump has explicitly refused to rule it out, stating the U.S. will take control "the easy way" or "the hard way".
White House stance: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that "utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief's disposal".
National security justification: Trump argues the U.S. needs to "own" Greenland to prevent Russia or China from taking it over and that ownership is necessary to defend the island properly.
International opposition: Both Greenland's Prime Minister and Denmark's Prime Minister have firmly rejected any notion of the island being for sale or a target for military action, warning that a U.S. attack would likely end the NATO alliance.
Trump has consistently favored a purchase deal but has maintained that all options, including military force is on the table.
============
The focal point here is on the Trump administration seizing Greenland by force, thinking that it could acquire the territory contrary to the wishes of the residents there.
No one is ruling out concepts of negotiations and such, but the bottom line is that any annexation proposals must have the approval of Greenlanders, Denmark says as much and I agree with them.I think this hinges on how we’re defining a threat versus a theoretical option. In U.S. foreign policy, presidents routinely say they won’t “rule out” military force in the abstract, even when there is no intent, plan, or authorization to use it. That language is standard deterrence posture, not the same thing as issuing a threat to a specific population. A threat normally involves a clear intent to coerce or compel action; saying an option exists does not, by itself, meet that threshold.
In Trump’s case, the repeated public emphasis was on purchase and negotiation, not seizure. Greenland was framed as a strategic asset, yes, but always in the context of acquisition through agreement. Refusing to rule something out is not the same as signaling it would be used, especially against a NATO ally, which would require congressional authorization, alliance rupture, and overwhelming political support, none of which existed or, in my view, will exist.
I also agree with the core point that matters most: Greenlanders’ consent is essential. On that, Denmark’s position is correct, and I agree with it as well. Any change in sovereignty without the will of the people would be illegitimate and unacceptable. Where I differ is the leap from “option not ruled out” to “Trump threatened military action.” That leap collapses nuance and assumes intent that was never operationalized or directed at Greenlanders themselves.
I agree. It’s fair to criticize Trump’s rhetoric as careless or provocative, as his use of blunt and confrontational language has become a defining feature of his governing approach.Trump is a mafia mob boss and he talks and acts like one. When he says "the hard way" other than to a Trump apologist, nobody will mistake for meaning he will tickle them into submission. Has he did with Venezuela, he WILL put boots on the ground (or use the ones that are already there) to take control.
History shows that to not believe Trump's threats of violence is extremely naive. I counted at least nine times he threatened to do violence to others and 56% of the time he followed through on it
So, since Trump has threatened violence (by not ruling it out) on Greenland, then there is a 56% chance, based on his past actions, that he will be violent.Great delusional response based on nothing more than your imagination.
ROFL
He has don't MORE than not rule it out - he has directly threatened to use force - what do you think the "Hard Way" is?
"Trump feels obligated to take action on Iran as administration weighs risks of retaliation"
He must save face. In my opinion, the course he ought to take is cyber-warfare. But, I don't think he will because it isn't theatrical enough.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics … etaliationTrump opens up another front to expand his Authoritarian state.
He invades a reporter's home via a trump-up search warrant, to take her cell phones and computers.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/media/fb … search-dojAmericans are FINALLY catching on about Trump's dangerous mental illness.
Polls show that recently 14% +/- 3.3% (source previously provided) regret their decision to vote for Trump. Had they realized he was conning them at the time, America, under Harris, would be prospering and well thought of by the world instead of hated as it is now.
Further, they are now realizing how dangerous his foreign policy is and seriously don't approve. It seems the only ones approving of him now are members of his cult.
"Nearly six in ten Americans are concerned that Trump has gone too far in trying to expand America’s power over other countries. Only a third think his efforts in that regard have been about right. And most (55%) say he has already gone too far in using the US military to achieve his goals. A growing share says Trump’s foreign policy decisions this term have hurt America’s standing in the world: 57% say so now, up from 53% last summer."
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/politics … d-cnn-poll
Trump's overall poll numbers are really bad for obvious reasons.
I asked ChatGPT to summarize the latest polls:
[b]Where Trump stands overall
Gallup: Trump hit a second-term low of 36% approval and 60% disapproval (Nov. 28, 2025 Gallup release).
Quinnipiac: By Dec. 17, 2025, Quinnipiac had him at 35% approve / 57% disapprove (net -22).
AP-NORC (Jan 2026): Overall approval is about 40%, with broad majorities saying he’s focused on the wrong priorities.
Quinnipiac (Jan. 8–12, 2026 field): 40% approve / 54% disapprove (net -14).
Interpretation: There’s evidence of a late-2025 slump (Gallup/Quinnipiac) and a modest rebound to ~40% in early 2026 (AP-NORC/Quinnipiac), but his standing remains weak and underwater.
The issue areas driving the decline
Immigration handling and ICE tactics
AP-NORC: Approval of Trump’s handling of immigration fell from 49% to 38% over the first year back in office.
Reuters/Ipsos (Jan. 2026): Trump’s approval on immigration dipped to 40%, described as a record low in their tracking, amid backlash to aggressive enforcement tactics.
Cost of living / inflation (economic management)
Navigator Research (Dec. 18, 2025): 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of inflation and the cost of living, and the report frames this as a central drag on his standing.
AP-NORC (Jan 2026): Only 37% support his economic policies, and about 6 in 10 say he has worsened the cost of living.
Foreign policy / use of force
AP-NORC (Jan 2026): About 60% disapprove of his foreign policy approach.
Quinnipiac (Jan 2026): The poll also shows strong resistance to military action in Iran and to force-related ideas tied to Greenland.
Bottom line
Trump’s overall approval fell to the mid-30s in late 2025 in major polling, then recovered slightly to ~40% in early 2026—but remains net-negative.
The clearest areas of deterioration are immigration/ICE tactics and cost of living, with additional drag from foreign-policy concerns.
If you want the sources, just ask.Trump Cabinet secretaries conspired to violate Constitution, judge says
A federal judge Thursday decried what he said were “breathtaking” constitutional violations by senior Trump administration officials and called the president an “authoritarian” who expects everyone in the executive branch to “toe the line absolutely.”
In remarks laced with outrage and disbelief, U.S. District Judge William Young said Donald Trump and top officials have a “fearful approach” to freedom of speech that would seek to “exclude from participation everyone who doesn’t agree with them.”
Young, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, leveled the searing critique during a hearing in Boston to determine the appropriate remedies for the administration’s detentions of pro-Palestinian students last year. The judge had ruled in September that senior administration officials engaged in an illegal effort to arrest and deport noncitizen students based on their activism.
On Thursday, he again denounced the administration’s conduct in unusually stark terms. “Talking straight here,” he said. “The big problem in this case is that the Cabinet secretaries and ostensibly, the president of the United States, are not honoring the First Amendment.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to deprive people of their rights, Young said. “The secretary of state,” he noted, his voice full of incredulity, “the senior Cabinet officer in our history involved in this.”
MORE
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 10 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 5 months ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 40
Trump: One way or another Mexico will pay for the wall? Yeah right..
by Credence2 8 years ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on Mexico?https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-leaders- … 42941.htmlI say that this whole thing was a 'crock' from the very...
- 3885
Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
by Sharlee 1 minute ago
My post is a summary of an article I came across on Fox News. He is coming out running! Day one, President-elect Trump is set to sign over 200 executive actions, marking a major shift in U.S. policy across a range of areas, from border security to energy to cutting costs for...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 6 months ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...