White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
It's the art of the deal. Eventually the resolution will be Denmark paying the US $1-2bn per year for a naval base in Greenland on a 100 year lease and a ratchet which gives the US some kind of mineral or drilling rights as part of it.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies. I don't think the Greenland deal will be different, the implied threat of military action will be used to remove the obstacles to a permanent US military presence and mineral/oil rights for US companies.
He is the deals president, everything is measured in short term billions for US companies and nothing more. He doesn't give a fuck about Greenland or the people who live there, it's all about getting Denmark to pay up for his protection racket and gaining rights to natural resources for US companies.
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
But are they supposed to pay for six months lessons? Or wait three months and pay for three? Or what? Whither "pass in two weeks" intensive courses? Seems dumb. Either it can be taught or it can't. We learn by some sort of time-osmosis?
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
@NatashaBertrand The White House says in new statement: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN.
Now that he's focused on Greenland and the USA's adversaries in the Arctic Circle, he sees Mr Putin as one of the adversaries. Formerly he was focused on a Russia/Ukraine peace deal at all costs and saw Mr Putin as the strongman bound to triumph.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies.
He really didn't though
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
£20 to a charity of your choice if no US oil companies are involved with any kind of oil drilling, exploration, or investment in Venezuelan oil fields (onshore or offshore). If there is £20 to a charity of my choice. Deal?
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
But are they supposed to pay for six months lessons? Or wait three months and pay for three? Or what? Whither "pass in two weeks" intensive courses? Seems dumb. Either it can be taught or it can't. We learn by some sort of time-osmosis?
Do nothing for five & a half months then do a two-week course.
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
One of the things that cuts against a US effort to seize Greenland by force is that I believe this is one of the few issues where you'd see serious high-level protest & resignations within the US armed forces. Every senior US military officer has experience with Europeans & with NATO. The legal contortions involved would also be more self-evidently absurd.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
I took lessons for a lot longer than 6 months and failed many times nonetheless, so not sure how much improvement it would lead to among those who are already slow at picking things up.
Now, introducing ten yearly retests for all drivers, that would be a good idea (if likely very unpopular).
Donald Trump has agreed to both **deter** attacks by Russia and - if it comes to it - **defend** Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia
Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, says that the commitment is 'as strong as anyone has ever seen'
'The president strongly stands behind security protocols. Those security protocols are meant to a) deter any attacks in Ukraine and b) if there are any attacks they are meant to defend. And they will do both.
'They are as strong as anyone has ever seen. The president does not back down from his commitments. He is strong for the country of Ukraine and for a peace deal. And we will be there for the Ukrainians in helping them to get to that final peace'’
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
I took lessons for a lot longer than 6 months and failed many times nonetheless, so not sure how much improvement it would lead to among those who are already slow at picking things up.
Now, introducing ten yearly retests for all drivers, that would be a good idea (if likely very unpopular).
There's an appalling lack of capacity for driving tests already, so that is a non-starter.
Motor vehicle accidents are way down on what they were, so is this a solution in search of a problem? Just what is the point?
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
Yes, it was a very curious case. I'd add that the reasoning to try to save him was weak - a lot of it relied on ignoring the case itself and playing on sympathy on a personal level for Paterson and MPs hating the standards regime - so the political capital to attempt it was that much higher than it would have been anyway. Like so many people in such situations Paterson relied on endless moaning about process (typically processes the subject has hindered as much as possible deliberately) as a cover for what comes down, in the end, to outrage that anyone dare upbraid them.
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
I took lessons for a lot longer than 6 months and failed many times nonetheless, so not sure how much improvement it would lead to among those who are already slow at picking things up.
Now, introducing ten yearly retests for all drivers, that would be a good idea (if likely very unpopular).
At the moment it would take you 10 years just to get a test slot. You would have to book your next test as soon as you passed the last one.
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
And that's our problem. We all know it, but those in power don't have the luxury of being able to say it. Because telling Trump that he's mad is likely to end badly.
I've got lots of sympathy for any Western leader trying to navigate their way round this. I've even got a bit (but only a bit) of sympathy for members of the US administration. Yes, it's obvious that they should call this out and/or leave. But anyone who has had a really sociopathic boss knows that, for all the right thing is obvious, it's never quite as easy as that.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
There was a lot of sympathy for Owen Paterson because of the suicide of his wife which was related to the investigation, nobody bothered to read the report, some really low IQ posters on here plus Tory MPs thought there was no appellate process (there was).
The spin was poor Owen has suffered enough, those of us who had read the report realise he had flat out lied to everybody whilst egregiously breaking the rules.
A nice utility called Inspire that shows you all the plot outlines in the country (I think), from the Land Registry.
I'm currently using it to understand the location of a row of dodgy (= several need to be removed) bollards in Congleton. The problem being that no one knows, who's land they are on, or who put them there.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
Are we talking about the Malvinas or Gibralter? I find it hard to keep up.
Donald Trump has agreed to both **deter** attacks by Russia and - if it comes to it - **defend** Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia
Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, says that the commitment is 'as strong as anyone has ever seen'
'The president strongly stands behind security protocols. Those security protocols are meant to a) deter any attacks in Ukraine and b) if there are any attacks they are meant to defend. And they will do both.
'They are as strong as anyone has ever seen. The president does not back down from his commitments. He is strong for the country of Ukraine and for a peace deal. And we will be there for the Ukrainians in helping them to get to that final peace'’
The guy is also talking about nicking NATO territory. Any commitment from him is essentially worthless.
Not to mention he's a serial, compulsive liar.
Yes, but unfortunately we at the point where without the USA everyone else cannot really step up to the same degree, so everyone will need to makebelieve that this time it will work longterm and is a happy event. Poor Ukraine will have to sell liking it (or something like it) as best they can.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
Why I don't know, but Paterson was the pet MP amongst the Spectator elite. For example, when Dave sacked Paterson back in the day the Spectator ran a shrill piece proclaiming that his sacking 'could only be great news for Nigel Farage'. Odd, because who would have known who he even was? But he certainly had this mysterious hold.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
By Algakirk's logic they should not as they are not the nearest nation. That honour belongs to the Maldives.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
By Algakirk's logic they should not as they are not the nearest nation. That honour belongs to the Maldives.
The Chagos, Maldives, and India's Lakshadweep are part of the same submerged mountain ridge:
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
Are we talking about the Malvinas or Gibralter? I find it hard to keep up.
Indeed, if you are near another nation you should be part of it. Whilst we're at it, why do we have islands in the world which are split between nations? A glance at a map shows that the Dominican Republic should run Haiti do there's only one government per island. And what do East Timor or Papua New Guinea think they are playing at not being part of Indonesia?
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies.
He really didn't though
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
£20 to a charity of your choice if no US oil companies are involved with any kind of oil drilling, exploration, or investment in Venezuelan oil fields (onshore or offshore). If there is £20 to a charity of my choice. Deal?
Since they're already talking about paying the oil companies to get involved, that would be a poor bet to take.
"Learner drivers in England and Wales could face a minimum learning period of up to six months before sitting their practical test, the BBC can reveal."
Driving age up to 17.5 by stealth.
In reality, most do about this anyway.
I took 5 months from my 17th birthday to pass my test.
I took lessons for a lot longer than 6 months and failed many times nonetheless, so not sure how much improvement it would lead to among those who are already slow at picking things up.
Now, introducing ten yearly retests for all drivers, that would be a good idea (if likely very unpopular).
There's an appalling lack of capacity for driving tests already, so that is a non-starter.
Motor vehicle accidents are way down on what they were, so is this a solution in search of a problem? Just what is the point?
More a matter of squeezing out self-drive as an option to clear the way for driverless cars.
A nice utility called Inspire that shows you all the plot outlines in the country (I think), from the Land Registry.
I'm currently using it to understand the location of a row of dodgy (= several need to be removed) bollards in Congleton. The problem being that no one knows, who's land they are on, or who put them there.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
Isn't the obvious solution staring us in the face? Denmark should give Greenland to us, and in compensation we can give the Chagos islands to Denmark.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
There was a lot of sympathy for Owen Paterson because of the suicide of his wife which was related to the investigation, nobody bothered to read the report, some really low IQ posters on here plus Tory MPs thought there was no appellate process (there was). .
It was a very frustrating time. So many people basically claimed he had not been allowed to put his case etc, and whipping MPs into, in one particular case, trying to avoid it by calling the whole system into question (whether one thinks it flawed or not) was just pathetic. I lost a lot of respect for many MPs given the government didn't even really do more than provide token justification, instead as you note bringing up personal reasons for sympathy.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
Isn't the obvious solution staring us in the face? Denmark should give Greenland to us, and in compensation we can give the Chagos islands to Denmark.
Also: Norway is NOT the closest country to Bouvet Island
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
You'll be saying Mauritius should own the Chagos next.
Isn't the obvious solution staring us in the face? Denmark should give Greenland to us, and in compensation we can give the Chagos islands to Denmark.
That's lucky, as I heard King Frederick and King Charles played a game of poker and that was the end result of their betting.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
There was a lot of sympathy for Owen Paterson because of the suicide of his wife which was related to the investigation, nobody bothered to read the report, some really low IQ posters on here plus Tory MPs thought there was no appellate process (there was). .
It was a very frustrating time. So many people basically claimed he had not been allowed to put his case etc, and whipping MPs into, in one particular case, trying to avoid it by calling the whole system into question (whether one thinks it flawed or not) was just pathetic. I lost a lot of respect for many MPs given the government didn't even really do more than provide token justification, instead as you note bringing up personal reasons for sympathy.
It was bizarre, I watched the debate and i was like which report had they read because it wasn't the same as the one I had read.
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
One of the things that cuts against a US effort to seize Greenland by force is that I believe this is one of the few issues where you'd see serious high-level protest & resignations within the US armed forces. Every senior US military officer has experience with Europeans & with NATO. The legal contortions involved would also be more self-evidently absurd.
There is a very obvious thing about Greenland that it is in no-one's interest to say at this moment: A glance at a map shows that the only country with a sensible geographical claim to it is Canada. They is only a few miles apart and, rather notionally, actually share a land border on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere.
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
Are we talking about the Malvinas or Gibralter? I find it hard to keep up.
Indeed, if you are near another nation you should be part of it. Whilst we're at it, why do we have islands in the world which are split between nations? A glance at a map shows that the Dominican Republic should run Haiti do there's only one government per island. And what do East Timor or Papua New Guinea think they are playing at not being part of Indonesia?
There was a rather long and particularly brutal war of East Timorese independence. I thing there is a better case for Wrst Papua to be part of PNG. The Indonesians have been brutal there too.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
He's been bringing up Greenland all of last year. It's insane, but even a 5% chance is way too much to not treat very very seriously, even if it is in part a distraction from Venezuela .
Let's not forget people saying Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, even though they had very obviously built up an invasion force, because surely they wouldn't do something so crazy? Indeed, some were instead angry at the USA for warning it was going to happen.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies.
He really didn't though
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
£20 to a charity of your choice if no US oil companies are involved with any kind of oil drilling, exploration, or investment in Venezuelan oil fields (onshore or offshore). If there is £20 to a charity of my choice. Deal?
Since they're already talking about paying the oil companies to get involved, that would be a poor bet to take.
rcs and others have pointed out that it will take quite a lot of time and money to get Venezuela's oil industry going. And Trump generally likes quick wins.
They may have the most oil in the world but that's only one factor to consider when you also have cost of extraction, refining etc.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
Regarding Johnson, it was much more nuanced than you make out.
Yes, he won a majority in December 2019 by getting three quarters of the LEAVE voters and, more importantly, 20% of the REMAIN voters to support him and among the latter were traditional Tories and a number who, whatever reservations they had about Johnson, preferred him to the nightmare which would have been a Corbyn Government.
We will never know what would have happened had the virus not intervened but it did - the truth was, unlike Theresa May, who would, I think, have been well suited to dealing with the crisis, Johnson's personal style of governing wasn't suited to what was required and the measures he needed to take in March 2020 clearly went against every fibre in his being.
The irony was having schemed for 20 years or more to become Prime Minister, the role (or rather his experience of the role) turned out to be the antithesis of what he expected or wanted. In another time and mood, he would have been the perfect leader but the hand he was dealt with was personally and politically a nightmare.
He wanted to be Britain's cheerleader-in-chief but the time required gravitas more than levitas. In the end, he couldn't escape the person he was - gregarious, extrovert and in the mood of the time, when millions were effectively (though not actually) trapped in their homes obeying the rules he himself had promulagated, his failure to be anyone other than himself was his political failure.
In the end, the party which endorsed him so strongly in the summer of 2019 and many of whose MPs owed their success directly to him did what Conservatives tend to do when defeat looks inevitable.
A significant minority among the public really liked Boris - I once mused on here what a Boris Johnson Party would have polled in an election - and many of them have never forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in 2022 (just as some Thatcherites did after 1990) and from that group spawned part of the Reform Party of today - conservatives who are anti-Conservative.
Don’t disagree with your assessment. I’m specifically referring to the press coverage he got and how the press turned on him. Especially over so-called parties.
But Boris survived Partygate. The Conservatives didn't do that badly in the 2022 local elections, and he won the subsequent vote of confidence 211-148. He probably wouldn't have survived "telling lies about the parties"gate, but even that isn't what got him. It was "lying about keeping Pincher the Pincher in the Whips' Office"gate that brought him down.
OK, that was the one that affected Conservative MPs personally, but if my boss put a sex pest as the person I had to report to in HR, I'd be pretty narked as well.
TLDR: Boris was bound to bring Boris down. He couldn't help himself.
The start of the end for Boris, IIRC, was him going into bat for Owen Paterson after being persuaded to.
If he had not stood down in a fit of pique he’d have certainly faced a recall petition and it would have got the relevant signatures.
I've never understand why Boris did that.
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson 2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare 3) It didn't work in any case
There was a lot of sympathy for Owen Paterson because of the suicide of his wife which was related to the investigation, nobody bothered to read the report, some really low IQ posters on here plus Tory MPs thought there was no appellate process (there was). .
It was a very frustrating time. So many people basically claimed he had not been allowed to put his case etc, and whipping MPs into, in one particular case, trying to avoid it by calling the whole system into question (whether one thinks it flawed or not) was just pathetic. I lost a lot of respect for many MPs given the government didn't even really do more than provide token justification, instead as you note bringing up personal reasons for sympathy.
It was bizarre, I watched the debate and i was like which report had they read because it wasn't the same as the one I had read.
It would be one thing if they (and online supporters) were honest in not caring about the facts. Instead they had to still make up claims about the process - pretty sure they used the 'not allowed to defend himself' line verbatim at times.
Edit: Claiming acts were not criminal or proven beyond reasonable doubt is another good one, as people pretend conduct only matters if it is criminal level at a standard of a court trial.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies.
He really didn't though
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
£20 to a charity of your choice if no US oil companies are involved with any kind of oil drilling, exploration, or investment in Venezuelan oil fields (onshore or offshore). If there is £20 to a charity of my choice. Deal?
Since they're already talking about paying the oil companies to get involved, that would be a poor bet to take.
I mean no shit, no US oil company has inhouse expertise for Venezualan oil today so the startup costs will be high. Didn't we call this an industrial strategy previously, initial subsidies to lower barriers to entry and then collecting 10x in tax afterward? Still the premise from the left is that Trump has made no difference to the oil industry by removing Maduro, I don't think that's true and believe there is now a clear path to US involvement in Venezuelan oil. Hence the bet offer. I mean it's only £20 and I'm being eaten alive by mosquitoes so I've got to run.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
I think it more useful to read tea leaves than to try to find a strategy in Trumps ravings.
It looks big and important on the Mercator projection. Also a very important space when playing Risk. That is all there is to it.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
And Maduros was all about distracting from Epstein.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
One of the things that cuts against a US effort to seize Greenland by force is that I believe this is one of the few issues where you'd see serious high-level protest & resignations within the US armed forces. Every senior US military officer has experience with Europeans & with NATO. The legal contortions involved would also be more self-evidently absurd.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
And Maduros was all about distracting from Epstein.
It's all a bit "There was an old woman who swallowed a fly..."
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
I think it more useful to read tea leaves than to try to find a strategy in Trumps ravings.
It looks big and important on the Mercator projection. Also a very important space when playing Risk. That is all there is to it.
Mercator ruins things again. I think there was a West Wing episode on it.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
Among other things, the polls in Greenland, of the actual Greenlanders, show that they want
1) Independence from Denmark 2) But that they are not so keen on independence, if it would reduce their living standards (as currently things are, it would) 3) They really, really don't want to be part of the US
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Yes. With the appropriate technology you can detect ridiculously low levels of some chemicals.
A threshold makes sure that the police don't prosecute for "He was in the same room as someone who'd taken cocaine, then come in the room and sneezed".
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
One of the things that cuts against a US effort to seize Greenland by force is that I believe this is one of the few issues where you'd see serious high-level protest & resignations within the US armed forces. Every senior US military officer has experience with Europeans & with NATO. The legal contortions involved would also be more self-evidently absurd.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Yes. With the appropriate technology you can detect ridiculously low levels of some chemicals.
A threshold makes sure that the police don't prosecute for "He was in the same room as someone who'd taken cocaine, then come in the room and sneezed".
Pretty sure some pro-cyclists have used that level of excuse, or close to it. Athletes can be super creative, as well as suffering rare conditions which don't affect their performance at all, but possibly even require odd medicines which coincidentally might help.
I give Starmer a strong chance of surviving this year but far less chance of leading into the election. The value exit bets are 27/28 imo.
Starmer is almost into his seventh year (in position six years from April) of absolute hatred from the hostile media. He was hated as Shadow Brexit Secretary (when Brexit was popular). He was despised for calling out Johnson during COVID (when Johnson was popular) and he won a landslide on a small percentage of the vote and since then his comms have been awful and it has been very much continuity Sunak, which isn't what we voted for.
Starmer hasn't overseen anything criminally disgusting or borderline traitorous and like one of his recent predecessors ( KGB parties) and the man leading in the polls ( friendship with Gill) he hasn't bet the nation on a hunch to protect the Tory Party like another, and whilst the country is bumping along the bottom, his government haven't crashed the economy in 49 days like Liz Truss, and he has towed a solid statemanlike line with Trump and wth Europe, yet he is vilified considerably more than any of them. Take the post Venezuela-heist, Starmer has trodden a diplomatic line, and what else can he do under the circumstances? Today's clarification over Greenland from European leaders was welcome but in the Tory media this has not abated his claimed equivocation. Yet Badenoch has made an absolute howler today which goes unpunished.
And for all that Starmer needs to go.
Not just that.
The right hate him because Boris blew himself up.
The left hate him because Jeremy blew himself up.
Much easier to blame Boring Old Starmer than admit that their own personally flaws destroyed both Bozza and Jez and the projects they embodied.
Starmer is just getting the same sort of media treatment Boris, Truss and Sunak got and should Farage or Badenoch become PM they’d get the same too. It’s all about polar extremes and driving engagement,
Starmer had a far kinder press before the 24 election, as did Reeves.
That is patently untrue. Mrs May got a rough ride, Sunak got a rough ride as did Starmer. The press and media were very supportive of Johnson and Truss (until they both unravelled). Probably 1 in 20 Starmer-negative stories in the Mail, Telegraph and GBNews have had any validity. Reeves has never been liked, but not with as much enthusiastic hatred as they had for Dodds.
Don’t agree and I am not in the habit of telling lies. I’m offering a view with support.
Johnson was taking flak over wallpaper and other trivia like his domestic arrangements from early on. He was regularly savaged over Covid by a press who wanted him to go further and faster and then we had all the crap about parties which was covered relentlessly. The public was supportive of him, if the media was supportive it lasted a very short time until Covid came along.
Truss, all I saw was criticism of her as a PM. Sure she got praise from some in her prior role for the trade deals she negotiated (rolled over) but even then there were reports of her conduct being a bit twattish. As a PM she was out of her depth and the public knew it so the press followed rapidly.
Sunak was loved as chancellor when he was giving people free money.
I wasn't accusing you of lying. I just don't agree with your analysis particularly regarding some of Johnson's egregious behaviour which was not called out. Additionally Johnsonian errors were corrected by the BBC ( the Cenotaph) and of course when a Labour MP accused Johnson of lying, Laura Kuennsberg countered with "that is some charge". That said let's agree to disagree and return to the travails of Leyland Cars. We had a friend who worked for the marketing department in Redditch and later near the NEC. The Leyland Cars blue circular logo (derived from the British Leyland symbol) was commonly known as the ar**hole by marketing department staff.
Sure, I will agree Dodds had a terrible press.
Never realised the marketing department was based in Redditch, Tough job 😉 that blue circular logo was a classic.
One of the reasons I like old TV, I’m watching a Boon from 1987 at the moment on Rewind TV is the old cars. My wife and I went to the steam fair in Lambton grounds last year. We looked at all,the classic cars and I bored her to tears telling her which ones I worked on.
The lighting company I used to work for used to refer to one of the rearlamps as ‘ban the bomb’, a Ford one.
It was a tower block near the town centre in the late 70s. They moved to Bickenhill House by the NEC after that.
Ban the bomb rear lights was the MK1 Cortina, and it is essentially the CND symbol. Initially an angled teardrop which fitted neatly under the flared rear wing of the Cortina was to be used, but Ford being Ford worked out they could save a couple of pounds per unit with the CND lights.
Boon, Michael Elphick owned The White Swan coaching inn on the High Street in Henley in Arden. I used it quite a lot circa 1990. Nice place.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies.
He really didn't though
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
£20 to a charity of your choice if no US oil companies are involved with any kind of oil drilling, exploration, or investment in Venezuelan oil fields (onshore or offshore). If there is £20 to a charity of my choice. Deal?
Since they're already talking about paying the oil companies to get involved, that would be a poor bet to take.
rcs and others have pointed out that it will take quite a lot of time and money to get Venezuela's oil industry going. And Trump generally likes quick wins.
They may have the most oil in the world but that's only one factor to consider when you also have cost of extraction, refining etc.
I'm aware. I have serious doubts that the US will ever make a cent out of this venture, but it's not particularly unlikely that one of the oil companies has a crack at it, if their costs are fully underwritten.
They'd want to read the small print very carefully, and have any contract signed in blood, of course.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
That is your interpretation of emphasis. Could she have been clearer when PB pedants are marking her homework? Yes, but she didn't say anything controversial.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
That is your interpretation of emphasis. Could she have been clearer when PB pedants are marking her homework? Yes, but she didn't say anything controversial.
I didn't say it was controversial, just that it was helpful to the US.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
I feel like "It's clear that" is doing some heavy work here.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
Greenland is like The Faeroes an autonomous territory of Denmark, so the people are similtaneously Greenlanders and Danish.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that Greenland is owned by Denmark. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to Canada.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
So what is controversial about that statement in it's entirety? "Greenland belongs to it's people and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes"?
It's all in the emphasis. She says it belongs to its people, not to Denmark. It's only a matter for the Danes because they are the current custodians. She also omits any mention of it being a matter for the EU or any other European country.
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
That is your interpretation of emphasis. Could she have been clearer when PB pedants are marking her homework? Yes, but she didn't say anything controversial.
I didn't say it was controversial, just that it was helpful to the US.
Well of course it would be controversial IF she was flying the stars and bars over Greenland for Trump but she isn't. You might be wishcasting.
If you want full throated support for the Fuhrer look no further than Kemi Badenoch's eulogy to Trump's Venezuelan escapade.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Given the amount of cocaine flooding in to the country - we'd have to arrest everyone from the ports at Fort William southwards if we bothered enforcing the law.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze. Hence (locally - I'm sure elsewhere) football fans topping up the beer and lager with 'cheeky lines'.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that Greenland is owned by Denmark. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to Canada.
I don't see what is weird about it. There were Norse settlements on the island a thousand years ago, different cultures from North America existed before and after that, and then the last 3 centuries added more complexity to the mix.
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
God, the cybernats are going to be all over this, aren't they?
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Given the amount of cocaine flooding in to the country - we'd have to arrest everyone from the ports at Fort William southwards if we bothered enforcing the law.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze.
Which brings me back to one of my favourite Guardian articles almost glowing in (reluctant) praise for the business acumen of Albanian cocaine traffickers leading to both higher quality and lower costs, leveraging their, er, cutthroat reputations.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
Having recently rewatched "Running Blind" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182399/?ref_=tturv_ov_bk) based mostly in Iceland - I wonder what the US would 'compromise' on in terms of military bases, ports, fishing rights, mineral rights, etc. How much 'Ukrainian backstop' does one Greenland buy?
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Props to ITV for asking this question. They didn't get an answer.
Reporter to Kushner and Witkoff (and Starmer) during Ukraine summit: "I know there's a reluctance to talk about Greenland today, but what value do these commitments have on the very day that at the highest levels of govt in Washington they are talking about seizing the sovereign territory of a fellow NATO member?" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2008621457086222461
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that Greenland is owned by Denmark. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to Canada.
Like Britain they were a great seafaring nation.
Don't forget they also owned the American Virgin Islands but handed them over a little over a hundred years ago in exchange for America butting out of Greenland. The architecture on the American Virgin Islands remains very Germanic compared to British, French and Dutch former colonies. If my memory serves me correctly all these huge left hand drive Ford F350 trucks and Chevy Suburbans drive on the left. Proof, whatever Donald Trump thinks when he least realises it, he is dancing to Britain's tune.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Given the amount of cocaine flooding in to the country - we'd have to arrest everyone from the ports at Fort William southwards if we bothered enforcing the law.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze.
Which brings me back to one of my favourite Guardian articles almost glowing in (reluctant) praise for the business acumen of Albanian cocaine traffickers leading to both higher quality and lower costs, leveraging their, er, cutthroat reputations.
They are notorious here for cutting their cocaine with Fentanyl. Led to quite a few... 'incidents'. Not sure if they've cut back on it or if the reporting has just stopped. For some reason. Probably good reasons and not just threats against body or threats against supply.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that Greenland is owned by Denmark. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to Canada.
Is it not just like Falklands, Gibraltar, it’s about people on it, not where it is?
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
He's been bringing up Greenland all of last year. It's insane, but even a 5% chance is way too much to not treat very very seriously, even if it is in part a distraction from Venezuela .
Let's not forget people saying Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, even though they had very obviously built up an invasion force, because surely they wouldn't do something so crazy? Indeed, some were instead angry at the USA for warning it was going to happen.
If Trump is the Russian asset many of us believe he might be, European NATO countries sending troops and hardware to Greenland would be distraction enough to allow Putin to Hoover up Ukraine and the Baltic States relatively unhindered.
I knew those cheap loans via Deutsche Bank and those two way mirror golden shower videos would come in handy at some point in the future.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Personally I think the Greenland line is being spun to distract us from the kidnapping of the Maduros. I really doubt that the US will invade Greenland, but it gives a more obvious issue for Europeans to focus on.
Why would they want to distract us from something they're loudly celebrating as a great victory, Nick ?
And if official statements of policy from the White House have no more value than trolling, as you suggest, why should we believe anything they ever say ?
This, from today, is fairly unequivocal, even if it leaves a bit of wriggle room.
The White House says in new statement: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN. https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/2008651405402497378
NEW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that recent administration threats against Greenland didn’t signal an imminent invasion and that the goal is to buy the island from Denmark, according to people familiar with the discussions.
If Greenland comes up for sale, doesn’t UK get first choice?
What about Trump not wanting all Greenland, just a part of it? What odds on a carve up?
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Given the amount of cocaine flooding in to the country - we'd have to arrest everyone from the ports at Fort William southwards if we bothered enforcing the law.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze.
Which brings me back to one of my favourite Guardian articles almost glowing in (reluctant) praise for the business acumen of Albanian cocaine traffickers leading to both higher quality and lower costs, leveraging their, er, cutthroat reputations.
And then flashing their ill-gotten Ferraris and bling on Instagram so HMRC & NCA knew where to look.
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
It's the art of the deal. Eventually the resolution will be Denmark paying the US $1-2bn per year for a naval base in Greenland on a 100 year lease and a ratchet which gives the US some kind of mineral or drilling rights as part of it.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies. I don't think the Greenland deal will be different, the implied threat of military action will be used to remove the obstacles to a permanent US military presence and mineral/oil rights for US companies.
He is the deals president, everything is measured in short term billions for US companies and nothing more. He doesn't give a fuck about Greenland or the people who live there, it's all about getting Denmark to pay up for his protection racket and gaining rights to natural resources for US companies.
It's a (maybe brutal) fact that Greenland is less likely to be taken over by China or Russia if it's being run by the USA rather than Denmark.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
Given the amount of cocaine flooding in to the country - we'd have to arrest everyone from the ports at Fort William southwards if we bothered enforcing the law.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze. Hence (locally - I'm sure elsewhere) football fans topping up the beer and lager with 'cheeky lines'.
Shroom chocolate is big these days. I was recently kept awake by a shooting party in a private dining room below me in a Berkshire pub. Went down and chatted to them. Nice enough chaps but all off their heads on shrooms. Don't think they understood that 3 squares should do the job...
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that Greenland is owned by Denmark. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to Canada.
There was a substantial Norwegian colony in Greenland from about 1000 to about 1400 at which point it died out. No-one knows what happened to it, but from genetic information it's possible survivors blended into the Inuit population. There were several attempts to revive the colony, with formal colonisation in the 18th century, by which point Norway was part of Denmark.
Curiously Tommy Ten names, Farage, Badenoch etc seem to have forgotton their obsession of "protecting our women".
I wonder why.
Badenoch has become an unserious politician. She keeps demanding resignations. If done regularly by a Party leader it makes them look lightweight
Badenoch would have had a better day today if she made it clear the party stood by international law. She has doubled down on Trump having the moral high ground in his adventure in Venezuela. Does she actually understand it at all? If an election was fraudulently won, leading to repression, Trump is actually doing a dirty deal with the regime wot stole it, not the opposition who were defrauded. He’s removed just 2 people, not the regime, he’s done the deal with the regime? Where’s the moral high ground there? Utterly ignorant and stupid from Badenoch today. And the dangerous precedent for UK and everyone else of law ripped up to do a deal with a bad regime.
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
I watch a lot of YouTube channels like Occupy Democrats and the Lincoln Project. I have learned from them (and others) that Holland has curtailed drugs interception operations with the Americans, citing the quaint notion that the Dutch like to capture, try and imprison drug smugglers rather than blow random sailors out of the Caribbean.
Apparently since September the UK no longer furnishes the USA with intel on drug smugglers in the Caribbean. So on a diplomatic level we may still be kissing Trump's ring, but on a practical level we are already cautious.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that India was owned by Blighty. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to China.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that India was owned by Blighty. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to China.
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
It's the art of the deal. Eventually the resolution will be Denmark paying the US $1-2bn per year for a naval base in Greenland on a 100 year lease and a ratchet which gives the US some kind of mineral or drilling rights as part of it.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies. I don't think the Greenland deal will be different, the implied threat of military action will be used to remove the obstacles to a permanent US military presence and mineral/oil rights for US companies.
He is the deals president, everything is measured in short term billions for US companies and nothing more. He doesn't give a fuck about Greenland or the people who live there, it's all about getting Denmark to pay up for his protection racket and gaining rights to natural resources for US companies.
It's a (maybe brutal) fact that Greenland is less likely to be taken over by China or Russia if it's being run by the USA rather than Denmark.
That’s just not true. It’s integrated fully into NATO’s plans as a vital strategic asset, and already hosts a U.S. base. Any attempt to take it would already mean war with NATO, right on Canada’s doorstep. And that’s without mentioning that the US is already at liberty to reinforce its presence, and Denmark would not object to any help policing its waters and skies (or wouldn’t have done prior to any invasion threats).
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Props to ITV for asking this question. They didn't get an answer.
Reporter to Kushner and Witkoff (and Starmer) during Ukraine summit: "I know there's a reluctance to talk about Greenland today, but what value do these commitments have on the very day that at the highest levels of govt in Washington they are talking about seizing the sovereign territory of a fellow NATO member?" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2008621457086222461
I think the value of these commitments is to the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine. Obviously they are worth no more than similar commitments by Ribbentrop or Molotov.
They do establish that any ceasefire deal involves NATO troops on Ukranian soil, which Putin will find unacceptable. So Putin will have to reject Trumps deal, and Trump doesn't like his deal being rejected.
It is about manipulating Trump to break with Putin.
When you think about it, it is a bit weird that India was owned by Blighty. A small country in northern Europe being in charge of a massive landmass next to China.
Denmark and the UK are slightly different.
Yes. And at the time India had far more obvious treasures to plunder than Greenland. And a better cuisine. Greenland cuisine gave voice to that great wartime song “Whale Meat Again.”
White House: Trump and his team discussing options to acquire Greenland
Donald Trump and his team are discussing a range of methods for acquiring Greenland.
The US president has repeatedly made clear getting ahold of the territory is a "national security priority".
In a statement, the White House adds that "utilising the US military is always an option".
In response to queries from Reuters, it says:
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it's vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."
Efforts to take control of it include buying the territory or forming a compact of free association with the island, Reuters reports, citing a senior US official.
They add that Trump wants the US to get ahold of Greenland during this current term in office and the issue is "not going away", despite objections from other NATO leaders.
It's the art of the deal. Eventually the resolution will be Denmark paying the US $1-2bn per year for a naval base in Greenland on a 100 year lease and a ratchet which gives the US some kind of mineral or drilling rights as part of it.
Trump didn't invade Venezuala, he removed the obstacle that prevented a deal being done that would deliver billions for US companies. I don't think the Greenland deal will be different, the implied threat of military action will be used to remove the obstacles to a permanent US military presence and mineral/oil rights for US companies.
He is the deals president, everything is measured in short term billions for US companies and nothing more. He doesn't give a fuck about Greenland or the people who live there, it's all about getting Denmark to pay up for his protection racket and gaining rights to natural resources for US companies.
It's a (maybe brutal) fact that Greenland is less likely to be taken over by China or Russia if it's being run by the USA rather than Denmark.
Comments
Voicing this is not helpful to: Denmark, Greenland, the concept of Europe, EU, EuroNATO, USA, and most of all Canada.
What allows US companies to make billions is law and order, and he totally fucked that. Again.
Tomorrow, who knows?
The fact that we’re even discussing this shows the catastrophe of the Trump presidency .
Essentially the rulebook is being shredded . And what was unthinkable before is now reality . The UK and EU need to grow a spine and stop this pathetic and vomit inducing appeasement of Trump .
Second rule - until they do.
They already have a major base at Pittuffik (formerly Thule) with 150 US troops, down from 6 000 at its Cold War Peak.
What else would they gain by setting up another base?
Would they garrison places like Nuuk? For what purpose? Would they imprison those loyal to Denmark or independent Greenland?
Would they sink Danish ships approaching the coast without permission?
And do it midwinter?
It was reported at the time as "Boris has decided to use some of his political capital to save Owen Paterson" but:
1) Nobody cared about Owen Paterson
2) Boris didn't have that political capital to spare
3) It didn't work in any case
Now, introducing ten yearly retests for all drivers, that would be a good idea (if likely very unpopular).
Any commitment from him is essentially worthless.
Not to mention he's a serial, compulsive liar.
Definitely don’t rate him on having principles.
Yet I think Starmer will do okay.
however much I dislike the feeling.
I may have to sort out that betfair account.
Motor vehicle accidents are way down on what they were, so is this a solution in search of a problem? Just what is the point?
Just say no.
The spin was poor Owen has suffered enough, those of us who had read the report realise he had flat out lied to everybody whilst egregiously breaking the rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos–Laccadive_Ridge
Let's not forget people saying Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, even though they had very obviously built up an invasion force, because surely they wouldn't do something so crazy? Indeed, some were instead angry at the USA for warning it was going to happen.
They may have the most oil in the world but that's only one factor to consider when you also have cost of extraction, refining etc.
Edit: Claiming acts were not criminal or proven beyond reasonable doubt is another good one, as people pretend conduct only matters if it is criminal level at a standard of a court trial.
It looks big and important on the Mercator projection. Also a very important space when playing Risk. That is all there is to it.
https://x.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/2008661880227922160
Alongside our European allies, the UK made clear again today: Greenland belongs to its people, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes.
There is a 'cocaine limit'?
Surely the limit should be zero given it is an illegal drug.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/wall-explodes-after-nottingham-driver-who-was-five-times-cocaine-limit-crashes-into-it/ar-AA1TFKLb
Putting it together it's clear that we are batting for Trump on this matter.
The prosecutor said that Ashley, of Burton Joyce, who was also over the driving limit for cannabis
Turns out to be complicated I guess, but I assume this was the key to avoid bullshit excuses?
a zero tolerance approach to 8 drugs most associated with illegal use, with limits set at a level where any claims of accidental exposure can be ruled out
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/drug-driving
1) Independence from Denmark
2) But that they are not so keen on independence, if it would reduce their living standards (as currently things are, it would)
3) They really, really don't want to be part of the US
https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-not-want-be-part-us-2025-01-29/ - for example.
A threshold makes sure that the police don't prosecute for "He was in the same room as someone who'd taken cocaine, then come in the room and sneezed".
Ban the bomb rear lights was the MK1 Cortina, and it is essentially the CND symbol. Initially an angled teardrop which fitted neatly under the flared rear wing of the Cortina was to be used, but Ford being Ford worked out they could save a couple of pounds per unit with the CND lights.
Boon, Michael Elphick owned The White Swan coaching inn on the High Street in Henley in Arden. I used it quite a lot circa 1990. Nice place.
I have serious doubts that the US will ever make a cent out of this venture, but it's not particularly unlikely that one of the oil companies has a crack at it, if their costs are fully underwritten.
They'd want to read the small print very carefully, and have any contract signed in blood, of course.
If you want full throated support for the Fuhrer look no further than Kemi Badenoch's eulogy to Trump's Venezuelan escapade.
BBC News - Government demands Musk's X deals with 'appalling' Grok AI - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrn054nxe7o?app-referrer=deep-link
Curiously Tommy Ten names, Farage, Badenoch etc seem to have forgotton their obsession of "protecting our women".
I wonder why.
I remember as a youngster cocaine being de rigueur and a bit of an expensive status symbol. Now it's cheaper than booze. Hence (locally - I'm sure elsewhere) football fans topping up the beer and lager with 'cheeky lines'.
They didn't get an answer.
Reporter to Kushner and Witkoff (and Starmer) during Ukraine summit: "I know there's a reluctance to talk about Greenland today, but what value do these commitments have on the very day that at the highest levels of govt in Washington they are talking about seizing the sovereign territory of a fellow NATO member?"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2008621457086222461
Don't forget they also owned the American Virgin Islands but handed them over a little over a hundred years ago in exchange for America butting out of Greenland. The architecture on the American Virgin Islands remains very Germanic compared to British, French and Dutch former colonies. If my memory serves me correctly all these huge left hand drive Ford F350 trucks and Chevy Suburbans drive on the left. Proof, whatever Donald Trump thinks when he least realises it, he is dancing to Britain's tune.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1_HNY5LzkFI
George Conway, a former anti-Trump Republican, to run for Congress as a Democrat
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/06/george-conway-run-congress-democrat
I knew those cheap loans via Deutsche Bank and those two way mirror golden shower videos would come in handy at some point in the future.
And if official statements of policy from the White House have no more value than trolling, as you suggest, why should we believe anything they ever say ?
This, from today, is fairly unequivocal, even if it leaves a bit of wriggle room.
The White House says in new statement: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN.
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/2008651405402497378
What about Trump not wanting all Greenland, just a part of it? What odds on a carve up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
Apparently since September the UK no longer furnishes the USA with intel on drug smugglers in the Caribbean. So on a diplomatic level we may still be kissing Trump's ring, but on a practical level we are already cautious.
You won't see any of that on GB News.
They do establish that any ceasefire deal involves NATO troops on Ukranian soil, which Putin will find unacceptable. So Putin will have to reject Trumps deal, and Trump doesn't like his deal being rejected.
It is about manipulating Trump to break with Putin.
Greenland cuisine gave voice to that great wartime song “Whale Meat Again.”
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52879-few-americans-want-to-take-over-greenland-most-oppose-covert-operations-military-action-poll