Best Of

The guys at Bulwark make an interesting point on this video: SCOTUS could save Trump from himself this week if they block and unravel all his tariff stuff. Will help him enormously in mid-terms if there is an economic boost in next few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2B-d8uNmqY

Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.

So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.

Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.

The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .

One solution could be to give a 999 year leasehold to a couple of bits of Greenland for US bases. So it just renegotiates the exisitng treaty. Trump dresses it up as a massive win.

A new American President might then dissolve it.

We gave 99 year leases on British (imperial) bases as part of the "destroyers for bases" deal in 1940, and the US handed most back in the 50s and 60s anyway.

I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.

However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.

The key problem is Ukraine.
So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.

The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.

I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.

We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.

Not everyone is as mad as him.

I don't believe they do.

The public support for the ICE cop who blew the mom away, even after they have viewed compelling evidence that it was unlawful, is around 50% on polls I have seen.

And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.

I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.

However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.

The key problem is Ukraine.
So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.

The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.

I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.

If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

Nobody is going to fire any shots.

That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.

Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.

What Mr Trump cares about is being centre stage on the day's news. Every day's news.

The more uncomfortable everyone else is, the more comfortable he is.

I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.

However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.

The key problem is Ukraine.
So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.

The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.

I don't think there are any limits to how far he'd go.

We have to be firm and hope the American electorate realise he's jumped the shark.

Not everyone is as mad as him.

The guys at Bulwark make an interesting point on this video: SCOTUS could save Trump from himself this week if they block and unravel all his tariff stuff. Will help him enormously in mid-terms if there is an economic boost in next few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2B-d8uNmqY

Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.

So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.

Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.

Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

If SCOTUS says that Trump's tariffs aren't constitutional, and President Peachface ignores them, what happens next?

Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...

I think the Court can apply a Writ of Mandamus. This is a court order that compels a government official to perform a legally required, non-discretionary act, such as stopping the collection of a tariff. So the tariff collectors could be told by the Court to ignore the President and stop collecting tariffs or risk a fine or even jail. But I'm not an expert and this is untested territory.

I still think it exceedingly unlikely that Trump is going to “invade” Greenland, not least because the idea is incredibly unpopular with the American public.

However, the man is a deranged sociopath, so it can’t be ruled out 100%. His administration is stuffed full of fascists, gangsters, and crooks, so we can’t rely on them to hold him back, and the same goes for the “GOP”.

The key problem is Ukraine.
So long as it is thought that the U.S. is an indispensable aid to Ukrainian defence, Europe (and the UK) have limited choices. They can’t break with the U.S. entirely.

The best bet is to appeal to the American public itself somehow. As I say, a Greenlandic conquest is not at all popular. And the midterms get closer one day at a time.

I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.

If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

Nobody is going to fire any shots.

That is why I worry he is mad enough to try it. Shock and awe, media headlines, attention, sycophants telling him how masterful he is.

Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.

Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?

The million dollar question.

But what happens if they say no? How far are they willing to push back? What dangers does that unleash?