Mr Trump wants the lowest interest rates in the world. Think we should all boycott US Treasury bills and see what happens.
If the US chooses not to pay to finance 25% of its debt externally, then it can simply adjust through a having a c 25% recession in GDP. That's OK though, the US capital markets represent just over 50% of global market capitalisation as against 25% of GDP, so the Maths is simple- sell the US by 50%. regardless. The tech bros are going to be taken apart by the EU courts anyway. The real economy in the US will just have to work round.... if they can.
Of course, if the US does want to finance externally, it can not cut rates, it will have to raise them. Either way Trump has just made the kind of fuck up that will cripple the US economy. In the middle of all this, the USD is looking like it is on a one way trip south.
Lutnick was booed at the dinner and Legarde walked out apparently, this is turning into an unbelievable disaster for the US.
Given the deficit, rising unemployment and inflation here in the UK we can hardly lecture.
I doubt Trump cares too much what the globalist elite in Davos thinks of what he and his team are telling them anyway
It is not the "globalist elite", it is something far more powerful: the bond market,
I don't think anyone wants things to fall out of bed, but a slow puncture seems more or less inevitable. I note the markets are happy that there will be no war, and Sterling is up a bit across the board, but the Americans will need to respond to the "concerns"* raised.
*namely, that their President is a senile lunatic surrounded by incompetent crooks.
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
Trump ordered some financial institutions to buy mortgage bonds in order to force down mortgage rates.
You could imagine something along those lines to force US banks to buy US Treasury bonds. Then extend that to profitable US companies that are hoarding cash, etc.
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
It’s not “The UK” that holds the treasuries though, it’s financial institutions - banks, fund managers, insurance companies, pension funds - in London. Including many US-headquartered ones.
Yep. Just let them make their own decisions. Remember what we're trying to preserve here. Uncompromised capital and talent will drift away from the US of its own accord if Trump and his accolytes continue on their current path.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
He's saying he can destroy any country economically if they don't do what we wants. A protection racket. And he's just said "protection" from his military.
Its like that Indycar commentary. "Wow wow wow! Five Wide!!!" Absolute incredulity.
He said he will not invade so the only option is for him to apply destructive tariffs
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
BREAKING: Sweden’s pension fund Alecta has divested most of its U.S. Treasury holdings, citing increased risk and unpredictability in U.S. politics. The sell-off totaled roughly 70–80 billion SEK ($7.7–8.8B) - Reuters https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2013954270010200224
There we go. It can be done. Dump the fuckers. Quick - before the price gets really low.
Its a valid question though. When there is a run on a collapsing company / country, who does buy their shit?
We hold way too many dollars to dump like that.
Not if you unwind. Trade oil in EUR/RMB. Start selling treasuries. Blanket policy not to buy any more treasuries. Start loading up on GBP/EUR etc
The UK is the second largest overseas holder of US treasuries after Japan, I think ? @rcs1000 will know a great deal more than me about the implications of that.
It’s not “The UK” that holds the treasuries though, it’s financial institutions - banks, fund managers, insurance companies, pension funds - in London. Including many US-headquartered ones.
Hence my comment about Robert. I have no clue of how that breaks down - and I expect it's quite hard to work out. But I wouldn't simply assume that we don't have significant exposure to a large, rapid fall in the value of treasuries.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
Vance doesn't really want to push the 25th yet because (i) he might fail and so be impeached or killed by a mob himself (ii) it doesn't count as a "term" if he takes over after >2 years, AIUI (iii) poor performance in the midterms will give more justification to an internal coup in the minds of those whose support he'll need. Right ?
Mr Trump wants the lowest interest rates in the world. Think we should all boycott US Treasury bills and see what happens.
Remember all the ridicule Diane Abbot received for her arithmetic errors over police funding?
It's so much worse than that.
One of the revelations in Simon Hart’s book is that “woman of the people” Abbot and “crusader against injustice” Shami Chakrabati are regularly seen together at 7pm every evening necking down champagne in Parliament’s Pugin Room bar…
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
The priority is to do what is right, and what is needful. There may be occasions when doing so conflicts with public international law, (occupying neutral countries in wartime would be an example, the use of incendiary weapons could be another). And, public international law gives no protection whatsoever to anyone, unless it is backed up by force.
I think we have to worry less about the U.S. soap opera and more about steering into the future in a clear eyed manner. For me that means:
a) Reinvesting in defence and NATO (-1) structures such that we can treat Russia as the tiddler it is compared to us. That includes more nukes, and a very expensive move to a different UK deterrent in time, the cost of which we’ll have to share with like minded countries and break the non-proliferation treaty. Perhaps Japan and SK can join and it can be a truly global alliance of liberal democracies that also deters any eventual Chinese or Indian aggression; meaning;
b) As Carney says, align western economic policy is an improved win/win way. Something much bigger, but less integrated, than the EU. More of a global CPTPP+
We can start that process pretending the USA is still a valued partner and finish by telling them to piss off into isolation.
Also, he has to stop talking about the Western hemisphere or he’s staking a claim over everything from Aberystwyth to Greenwich. Though I am quite pleased he’s leaving my eastern hemisphere house out of it.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
Yes I thought Trump was quite clear and concise today on where he was going and what he wanted to do and avoided being totally insane. He also sensibly said he wouldn't invade Greenland.
Trump can't run again though so this is more about his legacy, it will be up to VP Vance or Sec Rubio to be GOP nominee in 2028
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
It's a weird logic, isn't it? You'd have to be stark raving bonkers to think something like the Law of the Sea (EEZs, freedom of navigation etc etc) isn't a good thing for the UK economy, and therefore something worth adhering to and encouraging the same from other countries (or at least to the principles that support it).
Something like the Genocide Convention (now 75 years old) hasn't stopped a number of genocides from happening, but nor has it given any wriggle room for those who make excuses for them - and that's really important to ensure we don't slide towards them becoming justifiable. Anyone who dismisses these conventions is deeply suspect - they're just trying to avoid facing some incovenient truths in most cases.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
The priority is to do what is right, and what is needful. There may be occasions when doing so conflicts with public international law, (occupying neutral countries in wartime would be an example, the use of incendiary weapons could be another). And, public international law gives no protection whatsoever to anyone, unless it is backed up by force.
Is the world better when countries are generally aspiring to follow international law, or is the world better with Trump ranting at Davos about invading Greenland/Iceland/Venezuela? The former seems better to me, ergo what is right and needful is supporting public international law.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Trump is saying Europe, go fuck yourself, sort out migration and energy, or you will kill your economies and countries. And anyway I’m taking Greenland, and that’s that, but we will pay and not invade, and you will accept
What are the Europeans gonna do?
Not buy his debt.
Then he's fucked. He can forget buying Greenland. Americans can't buy dinner.
As has been pointed out by many economists, this simply won’t work
Just selling his debt they hold now won't. But refusing to buy the $7 trillion he needs to roll over - that's a different matter.
China isn't buying it. Neither should anyone else who doesn't like being threatened. We used to buy it because it was the safest harbour on the planet. But a debt strike would terrify the US markets - because then that status goes.
We could also stop paying for energy in dollars.
AEP had a piece on all this in Telegraph this morning.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
It's a weird logic, isn't it? You'd have to be stark raving bonkers to think something like the Law of the Sea (EEZs, freedom of navigation etc etc) isn't a good thing for the UK economy, and therefore something worth adhering to and encouraging the same from other countries (or at least to the principles that support it).
Something like the Genocide Convention (now 75 years old) hasn't stopped a number of genocides from happening, but nor has it given any wriggle room for those who make excuses for them - and that's really important to ensure we don't slide towards them becoming justifiable. Anyone who dismisses these conventions is deeply suspect - they're just trying to avoid facing some incovenient truths in most cases.
I think you have to accept that international treaties are only meaningful in so far as they are implemented and given force by national governments. There can be no concept of an “international court” to punish a country that breaks a treaty; only the consequences that can be imposed by other parties to the deal they broke, jointly or separately. The role of a bod like the UN is to try and provide a forum to mediate those disputes, but any attempt to imagine a law that supersedes national sovereignty is naive.
That used to be the standard interpretation, and I think we need to accept it is the only one that works.
Sir Keir is a very lucky general. With Trump rescuing his premiership.
Trump moving now in the run up to the May elections must be one of the biggest strokes of luck of all time.
Too early to say. I think not being Farage is likely to benefit all of the other parties, but people are still fundamentally fed up with how the country is being run.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
Trump has just ruled out invading Greenland
What Trump says and what Trump does are not linked
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Another possible trade would be if the US gave a security guarantee to Ukraine in return for getting Greenland, like a new version of the rare earths deal.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
It took £350m a week for people to vote for Brexit. Do you really think they'll settle for a one-off $100k?
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
Excellent news! Now, we just need to await the Curse of Leondamus delivering for us, as it always has before….
Oh that's alright then. Phew, I was getting worried. Now that Trump, a man whose integrity and honesty is legendary, has ruled it out, I can sleep easy at night.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Make them all millionanires and you might have a deal. That said, they'd still have a mad President to contend with.
A million each - and they might all go en masse to Iceland. Although the native - and now poor - Icelanders might have something to say.
A million each and 20% of all net value extracted from Greenland going to Denmark might have been a decent proposal to get people considering it, without all the psychodrama. Bit late for that now.
Denmark should just put a stupidly high offer on the table. $10m per Greenlander - half a trillion - and 50% of all gross value extracted for the next 999 years.
THAT is the going price of Trump's legacy. He'd probably pay it. Well, the American public would.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
Naughty Leon, You are a card...
Trump will not survive his term. That is, of course, objectively a good thing.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
I suspect Team Carney may attract more applicants tho.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is in point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
I dunno. I can remember another election, in 2016, where I willingly voted for slightly slower growth. Peoples’ identity matters to them.
And anyway 100k each is meaningless unless the US also guarenteed to match the existing Danish subsidy. Finally, is he offering them a chance to be a U.S. territory or a chance to be a state? If the latter he’s his handed the Democrats another senate seat. If the former, they are less likely to say yes.
Actually there’s a point. He wants to grow the U.S. and go down in history as the man who added some states. Why about Puerto Rico and D.C? Someone suggested that to him. Who was the last President to add two states? Must be back in the 1880s as Hawaii and Alaska were decades apart.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
I dunno. I can remember another election, in 2016, where I willingly voted for slightly slower growth. Peoples’ identity matters to them.
And anyway 100k each is meaningless unless the US also guarenteed to match the existing Danish subsidy. Finally, is he offering them a chance to be a U.S. territory or a chance to be a state? If the latter he’s his handed the Democrats another senate seat. If the former, they are less likely to say yes.
Actually there’s a point. He wants to grow the U.S. and go down in history as the man who added some states. Why about Puerto Rico and D.C? Someone suggested that to him. Who was the last President to add two states? Must be back in the 1880s as Hawaii and Alaska were decades apart.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
I dunno. I can remember another election, in 2016, where I willingly voted for slightly slower growth. Peoples’ identity matters to them.
And anyway 100k each is meaningless unless the US also guarenteed to match the existing Danish subsidy. Finally, is he offering them a chance to be a U.S. territory or a chance to be a state? If the latter he’s his handed the Democrats another senate seat. If the former, they are less likely to say yes.
Actually there’s a point. He wants to grow the U.S. and go down in history as the man who added some states. Why about Puerto Rico and D.C? Someone suggested that to him. Who was the last President to add two states? Must be back in the 1880s as Hawaii and Alaska were decades apart.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Log term it would be a net negative for most. And that is ignoring all the mineral rights they'll be handing over.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
There are 535,000,000 acres in Greenland. That would be 17m....
Even allowing for a 100-fold increase, that is buttons.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
There are 535,000,000 acres in Greenland. That would be 17m....
Even allowing for a 100-fold increase, that is buttons.
But it requres a willing seller.
It also requires there "rumours" to be true rather than just random nonsense someone said on Twitter.
Putin said he wasn't going to invade Ukraine, right up until he did.
Not really, he never ruled it out eg 'Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.' http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
Indeed, the 1867 deal was ridiculed by some as "Seward's Folly", after Secretary of State William Seward.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
This isn't a debating forum. It's a place for people to talk about how politics might change in the future, and therefore which bets might consequently have value, with political debate to fill the time in between.
It's just possible that the recent defections to Reform will come to be seen as spectacularly ill-timed. Not often that rats are seen joining a stinking ship. Trump's increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour has the potential to drive Reform support down a bit further - and Farage's air of genial bonhomie isn't likely to survive the tide turning against him.
The main caveat to this is that if the small boat crossings of the Channel resume in earnest as the winter weather recedes, the political climate will favour Reform again.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
Apparently Napoleon made that seemingly mad sale because he was concerned that if the USA did not get the land, the Brits would roar down from the north and seize it, creating a huge new British colony in North America, bigger than the USA, and guaranteeing likely British dominance of the entire world for the next two centuries
Yes, he resented us that much. Also, he needed the cash
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
What a hypothetical parcel of scottish rogues would have taken isn't really relevant. We're talking here about a people that are so determined to live on sheet ice they used to starve their grandparents to death rather than move somewhere warmer. 100k ain't worth it, it's a stupidly expensive place to live without all the subsidies that would immediately disappear. Break your leg and need a helicopter evacuation and you've lost it (or your grandkids pretend not to have seen you). 1m would perhaps do it.
The questions: Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30* Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4* Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18 Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France *Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
The questions: Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30* Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4* Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18 Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France *Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
This isn't a debating forum. It's a place for people to talk about how politics might change in the future, and therefore which bets might consequently have value, with political debate to fill the time in between.
It's just possible that the recent defections to Reform will come to be seen as spectacularly ill-timed. Not often that rats are seen joining a stinking ship. Trump's increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour has the potential to drive Reform support down a bit further - and Farage's air of genial bonhomie isn't likely to survive the tide turning against him.
The main caveat to this is that if the small boat crossings of the Channel resume in earnest as the winter weather recedes, the political climate will favour Reform again.
The questions: Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30* Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4* Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18 Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France *Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
#competition
Ed Davey as PM! Good to see someone make a different prediction but that's a bold one! Ed Davey is 80/1 to be next PM - What's your scenario as to how he gets there?
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
This isn't a debating forum. It's a place for people to talk about how politics might change in the future, and therefore which bets might consequently have value, with political debate to fill the time in between.
It's just possible that the recent defections to Reform will come to be seen as spectacularly ill-timed. Not often that rats are seen joining a stinking ship. Trump's increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour has the potential to drive Reform support down a bit further - and Farage's air of genial bonhomie isn't likely to survive the tide turning against him.
The main caveat to this is that if the small boat crossings of the Channel resume in earnest as the winter weather recedes, the political climate will favour Reform again.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
Trump has just ruled out invading Greenland
There was a pretty solid Mafia style threat. *"I am not going to invade Greenland, but I am having Greenland, you can do this the easy way and give it to me, or the hard way and I shoot your kneecaps".
The questions: Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30* Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4* Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18 Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France *Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
The questions: Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30* Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4* Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55 Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38 UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18 Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10 The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2% Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France *Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
#competition
Ed Davey as PM! Good to see someone make a different prediction but that's a bold one! Ed Davey is 80/1 to be next PM - What's your scenario as to how he gets there?
Labour (and some Conservative) break-ups after the Conference season. Minority Government.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
* cough *
Having been posting about Trump’s rambling diatribe, which began just as this thread went live, I’ve now had the chance to listen to Carney’s speech as featured in the lead. Which was masterful - full of long words and metaphors that those with low IQ - whether in the White House or on PB - would struggle to follow, yet a clear call for action nevertheless. The bottom line, the ‘middle’ nations of the democratic world either hang together, or we get hanged separately. Time for everyone to step up.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Another possible trade would be if the US gave a security guarantee to Ukraine in return for getting Greenland, like a new version of the rare earths deal.
Would you buy a security guarantee from Trump, especially as the underwriter is Putin?
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
Apparently Napoleon made that seemingly mad sale because he was concerned that if the USA did not get the land, the Brits would roar down from the north and seize it, creating a huge new British colony in North America, bigger than the USA, and guaranteeing likely British dominance of the entire world for the next two centuries
Yes, he resented us that much. Also, he needed the cash
More to the point, he had no way to defend it, without command of the seas, and therefore was being paid for something that he could have lost for nothing.
Putin said he wasn't going to invade Ukraine, right up until he did.
Not really, he never ruled it out eg 'Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.' http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
If you think Trump's words today rule out an invasion than you are very naive
Trump's is a dangerous and unreliable so called member of NATO
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
* cough *
Having been posting about Trump’s rambling diatribe, which began just as this thread went live, I’ve now had the chance to listen to Carney’s speech as featured in the lead. Which was masterful - full of long words and metaphors that those with low IQ - whether in the White House or on PB - would struggle to follow, yet a clear call for action nevertheless. The bottom line, the ‘middle’ nations of the democratic world either hang together, or we get hanged separately. Time for everyone to step up.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
Apparently Napoleon made that seemingly mad sale because he was concerned that if the USA did not get the land, the Brits would roar down from the north and seize it, creating a huge new British colony in North America, bigger than the USA, and guaranteeing likely British dominance of the entire world for the next two centuries
Yes, he resented us that much. Also, he needed the cash
The funny thing was, the French obtained that land off the Spanish just a few years earlier.
The polling average is moving about all over the place again, with Labour moving back to tie in second place. LDs also overtake the Greens compared to previously.
Ref 28.5% Lab 19.4% Con 19.4% LD 13.1% Grn 12.5% SNP 2.4%
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Make them all millionanires and you might have a deal. That said, they'd still have a mad President to contend with.
A million each - and they might all go en masse to Iceland. Although the native - and now poor - Icelanders might have something to say.
A million each and 20% of all net value extracted from Greenland going to Denmark might have been a decent proposal to get people considering it, without all the psychodrama. Bit late for that now.
Denmark should just put a stupidly high offer on the table. $10m per Greenlander - half a trillion - and 50% of all gross value extracted for the next 999 years.
THAT is the going price of Trump's legacy. He'd probably pay it. Well, the American public would.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Thanks
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
100% true, the site was rather boring for a few months when you weren't here.
Actually there’s a point. He wants to grow the U.S. and go down in history as the man who added some states. Why about Puerto Rico and D.C? Someone suggested that to him. Who was the last President to add two states? Must be back in the 1880s as Hawaii and Alaska were decades apart.
Hawaii and Alaska were both under Eisenhower, and both in 1959.
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
I know you're only here to have fun, but please don't.
Look, we needed this speech. Listen to Carney yesterday, listen to this, and take the sign down from our window.
It's *OVER*
Carney's invocation of Havel is interesting because the equivalent "sign in the window" in the modern West is not simply a belief in the international order but an entire ideology about equality and progressive values.
Current Thing is not about your thing. This has nothing to do with the culture wars.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
The Septics bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre in 1867!
The Louisiana Purchase cost about 3 cents/acre in 1803. Given it covered a big part of the Great Plains, it was probably a better deal.
Apparently Napoleon made that seemingly mad sale because he was concerned that if the USA did not get the land, the Brits would roar down from the north and seize it, creating a huge new British colony in North America, bigger than the USA, and guaranteeing likely British dominance of the entire world for the next two centuries
Yes, he resented us that much. Also, he needed the cash
More to the point, he had no way to defend it, without command of the seas, and therefore was being paid for something that he could have lost for nothing.
That's not really true. It's rather that he lost his army for the Americas to the Haitian slave revolt (and rampant disease).
The sale might otherwise not have happened at all.
From previous thread: Montana may not be the best example of a place where it is difficult to mine, considering Anaconda Copper's long history there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Copper
As I have mentioned before, a Massachusetts company, Phoenix Tailings, has a promising rare earths refining operation going now. https://phoenixtailings.com/
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Another possible trade would be if the US gave a security guarantee to Ukraine in return for getting Greenland, like a new version of the rare earths deal.
Not easy to see how that works. Being a member of NATO did not and does not preclude a Trump threat to invade NATO territory, so how can he be expected to keep his word about anything? Once he has got Greenland he isn't giving it back if he breaks a related pledge in the contract.
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Make them all millionanires and you might have a deal. That said, they'd still have a mad President to contend with.
A million each - and they might all go en masse to Iceland. Although the native - and now poor - Icelanders might have something to say.
A million each and 20% of all net value extracted from Greenland going to Denmark might have been a decent proposal to get people considering it, without all the psychodrama. Bit late for that now.
Denmark should just put a stupidly high offer on the table. $10m per Greenlander - half a trillion - and 50% of all gross value extracted for the next 999 years.
THAT is the going price of Trump's legacy. He'd probably pay it. Well, the American public would.
"It was a horrible deal. Biden was the worst president. Just horrible. I'm not going to pay it."
There is however truth in the fact that all law (international and domestic) is enforced by violence. If we want to keep the current status quo of international law then we have to be prepared to defend it, with violence.
Yes. Otherwise, it is meaningless verbiage.
Reading and listening to some people going piously on about international law, in a world whose bad leaders do not give a toss about it, drives me nuts.
If bad leaders do not give a toss about international law, does that not imply that good leaders should care about it?
No, it means good leaders should invest in defence rather than international law to protect themselves.
We need to be spending on armaments and sending them where they're most useful, like Ukraine.
So, good leaders should do exactly the same as bad leaders...???
I disagree: while we do need to invest in defence (and send armaments to Ukraine), I don't think that's a reason to give up on the idea of international law. We should champion the idea of international law and counter those who wish to ignore it.
Bad leaders should be prepared to stand up to good leaders.
Banging on piously about international law does not do that.
Sending armaments to Ukraine does.
We should champion our values like the idea of democracy more than international law. Where our values like democracy and international law conflict, then democracy etc is more important.
Trump was democratically elected, and wants to invade Greenland in contravention of international law. Is that what you mean by democracy and international law conflicting?
No. We should champion the people of Greenland, Ukraine etc being free to democratically determine their own future.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
There are rumours Trump is gonna offer $100,000 per Greenlander to buy the island
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
Another possible trade would be if the US gave a security guarantee to Ukraine in return for getting Greenland, like a new version of the rare earths deal.
Not easy to see how that works. Being a member of NATO did not and does not preclude a Trump threat to invade NATO territory, so how can he be expected to keep his word about anything? Once he has got Greenland he isn't giving it back if he breaks a related pledge in the contract.
If it weren't for the fact that there are 56,000 people living in Greenland you could offer the place to Trump in exchange for defeating Russia in Ukraine and restoring Ukraine's 1991 borders.
Afternoon, all. Interesting to see Refiorm's share in apparently being affected by their support for Trunp, but Farage not flinching from his wanted role as viceroy. It must be very important to him.
Comments
The staggering thing is that a few people (albeit not many) still supported Trump here after his first term.
I don't think anyone wants things to fall out of bed, but a slow puncture seems more or less inevitable. I note the markets are happy that there will be no war, and Sterling is up a bit across the board, but the Americans will need to respond to the "concerns"* raised.
*namely, that their President is a senile lunatic surrounded by incompetent crooks.
You could imagine something along those lines to force US banks to buy US Treasury bonds. Then extend that to profitable US companies that are hoarding cash, etc.
I have no clue of how that breaks down - and I expect it's quite hard to work out. But I wouldn't simply assume that we don't have significant exposure to a large, rapid fall in the value of treasuries.
With military support where required.
Banging on about international law does Jack Shit to achieve that.
Trump moving now in the run up to the May elections must be one of the biggest strokes of luck of all time.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-administration-news-01-21-26
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Trump we all remembered and love in our hearts
Today will be seen as a turning point, time to bet on Trump for 2028
a) Reinvesting in defence and NATO (-1) structures such that we can treat Russia as the tiddler it is compared to us. That includes more nukes, and a very expensive move to a different UK deterrent in time, the cost of which we’ll have to share with like minded countries and break the non-proliferation treaty. Perhaps Japan and SK can join and it can be a truly global alliance of liberal democracies that also deters any eventual Chinese or Indian aggression; meaning;
b) As Carney says, align western economic policy is an improved win/win way. Something much bigger, but less integrated, than the EU. More of a global CPTPP+
We can start that process pretending the USA is still a valued partner and finish by telling them to piss off into isolation.
Also, he has to stop talking about the Western hemisphere or he’s staking a claim over everything from Aberystwyth to Greenwich. Though I am quite pleased he’s leaving my eastern hemisphere house out of it.
Trump can't run again though so this is more about his legacy, it will be up to VP Vance or Sec Rubio to be GOP nominee in 2028
His meandering demented waffle yesterday was a tad concerning, but today he stormed back to form. Cogent, funny, likeable, clever - the Leon we all remembered and love in our hearts
Something like the Genocide Convention (now 75 years old) hasn't stopped a number of genocides from happening, but nor has it given any wriggle room for those who make excuses for them - and that's really important to ensure we don't slide towards them becoming justifiable. Anyone who dismisses these conventions is deeply suspect - they're just trying to avoid facing some incovenient truths in most cases.
As there are only 50,000 that’s just $5bn, a drop in the US military budget
I suspect that will be very very persuasive for lots of Greenlanders. In fact I reckon it would be very very persuasive for lots of Brits
Imagine a similar offer here. Everyone in your household gets $100k if they agree to become American. For a lot of families that would be close to lifetime financial security, just for changing a flag. Plus a huge surge in investment from the new owners. They would take it
Wasn’t there a poll that showed Scots could be swayed to Yes or No on Indy for about 5000 quid? Or less?
That used to be the standard interpretation, and I think we need to accept it is the only one that works.
A million each - and they might all go en masse to Iceland. Although the native - and now poor - Icelanders might have something to say.
A million each and 20% of all net value extracted from Greenland going to Denmark might have been a decent proposal to get people considering it, without all the psychodrama. Bit late for that now.
Denmark should just put a stupidly high offer on the table. $10m per Greenlander - half a trillion - and 50% of all gross value extracted for the next 999 years.
THAT is the going price of Trump's legacy. He'd probably pay it. Well, the American public would.
Trump will not survive his term. That is, of course, objectively a good thing.
Like Trump, I do this not because I have to but because I feel a need to. This site is so fucking monumentally soporifically boring without people like me, or, indeed, me. Every single person says exactly what you know they are going to say, it is a bus load of utterly tedious centrist dorks dribbling their platitudes into the spittoon of irrelevance. You personally are one of the worst, you manage to be boring, middlebrow and witless while barely saying anything at all, which is quite an achievement
There really is no point to a “debating” forum when there is no debate. Just the rehashing of the same dull warmed over “sensible” opinions, seen a trillion times, and served with a mouldy side salad of preening liberal self regard
Pukeworthy. Not a single one of you, as far as I can see, has a brain that thinks for itself, with the noble exception of @williamglenn
And anyway 100k each is meaningless unless the US also guarenteed to match the existing Danish subsidy. Finally, is he offering them a chance to be a U.S. territory or a chance to be a state? If the latter he’s his handed the Democrats another senate seat. If the former, they are less likely to say yes.
Actually there’s a point. He wants to grow the U.S. and go down in history as the man who added some states. Why about Puerto Rico and D.C? Someone suggested that to him. Who was the last President to add two states? Must be back in the 1880s as Hawaii and Alaska were decades apart.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2013745523165897116?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Even allowing for a 100-fold increase, that is buttons.
But it requres a willing seller.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
It's just possible that the recent defections to Reform will come to be seen as spectacularly ill-timed. Not often that rats are seen joining a stinking ship. Trump's increasingly erratic and aggressive behaviour has the potential to drive Reform support down a bit further - and Farage's air of genial bonhomie isn't likely to survive the tide turning against him.
The main caveat to this is that if the small boat crossings of the Channel resume in earnest as the winter weather recedes, the political climate will favour Reform again.
Yes, he resented us that much. Also, he needed the cash
What a hypothetical parcel of scottish rogues would have taken isn't really relevant. We're talking here about a people that are so determined to live on sheet ice they used to starve their grandparents to death rather than move somewhere warmer. 100k ain't worth it, it's a stupidly expensive place to live without all the subsidies that would immediately disappear. Break your leg and need a helicopter evacuation and you've lost it (or your grandkids pretend not to have seen you). 1m would perhaps do it.
The questions:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30*
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4*
Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55
Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38
UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January
Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18
Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10
The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey
Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No
UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn
UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2%
Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France
*Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
France makes first interception targeting small boat crossings to UK
Ed Davey as PM!
Good to see someone make a different prediction but that's a bold one!
Ed Davey is 80/1 to be next PM - What's your scenario as to how he gets there?
* My precis.
OKC:
Totally O/t, but my competition entry:
The questions:
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House? 30*
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate? 4*
Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election? 55
Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election? 38
UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage? (British Polling Council registered pollsters only). I don’t think any party will beat Reform’s 14% in January
Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC? 18
Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026? 10
The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026? Ed Davey
Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026? No
UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025). £138bn
UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025).2%
Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. France
*Assuming the elections take place and are not rigged.
Don't be daft!
Trump's is a dangerous and unreliable so called member of NATO
Ref 28.5%
Lab 19.4%
Con 19.4%
LD 13.1%
Grn 12.5%
SNP 2.4%
https://electionmaps.uk/polling/vi
* Caveat emptor: probably not Russia.
It just encourages william.
Say what you will about Hitler, at least he knew which countries he was invading.
'World "more secure" if US was in Greenland'
Imagine if he tasks his lackies with buying Iceland and they return with a modest grocery retail chain from North Wales.
It's rather that he lost his army for the Americas to the Haitian slave revolt (and rampant disease).
The sale might otherwise not have happened at all.
As I have mentioned before, a Massachusetts company, Phoenix Tailings, has a promising rare earths refining operation going now. https://phoenixtailings.com/
(I learned of this company from a December 29th article in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/business/energy-environment/rare-earth-processing-phoenix-tailings.html )
You would probably need to search business and trade publications for more details. But I do have considerable faith in MIT engineers and scientists.
I'm not going to pay it."
https://bsky.app/profile/drjennings.bsky.social/post/3mcwuvqxqec2h
Siding with the mad "King". Brave...
Interesting to see Refiorm's share in apparently being affected by their support for Trunp, but Farage not flinching from his wanted role as viceroy. It must be very important to him.