Skip to content

Alas poor Jenrick, I knew him – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,895
edited 4:14PM in General
Alas poor Jenrick, I knew him – politicalbetting.com

? Latest Opinium @spectator poll ?The public backs Kemi Badenoch’s decision to sack Robert Jenrick.? 59% say it was the right decision ?Just 11% say it was wrongSupport for the decision is high amongst both Conservative and Reform voters. pic.twitter.com/wEdqxzQxBd

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,449
    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,752
    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,752
    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,828

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Well, Jersey's more of a real country than Scotland is. And I believe Gibraltar is a member of UEFA.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,323

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Hey if you invent the sport, you get special treatment...

    And the remarkable thing about most sports is that you can trace their founding / commercialisation to the UK.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,468

    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    I am still convinced we could and should be tentatively scheduling an alternative World Cup in the UK for any teams which boycott.
    We have all the facilities and infrastructure ready to go.

    Its not that simple though. You need hotels (teams and fans). You need training facilities (ok lots of very good ones around the country). You need the grounds and that stops any club that is renewing its pitch over the summer etc. You need the police on board.

    Clearly could be done, but don't underestimate the challenge.
    Britain would find it easier than cancelling Ajax.

    Plus, also, there's lots of planning being done for Britain and Ireland to host the Euros in 2028, so you'd probably be able to pick up a lot of the work done for that.
    Cancelling Ajax would be easy.
    It just means admitting it's a complete ballsup.
    From what I understand, various parties are running round in circles, faster and faster, telling ministers they can't possibly cancel Ajax.


    Humphrey: "We'd have to get clearances! Security implications! Foreign powers, national interests. We have to consult our allies, top brass. NATO, SEATO, Moscow!"


    It appears a number of senior figures nailed their trousers to the mast head on this one. By signing off that Ajax was AOK. Which would make the cancellation charges huge.
    Yes, it's very clear that the idiots in procurement have laid down the line, which their subordinates are spouting as gospel.
    And it's equally clear that we'll end up binning it, after wasting another few hundred million on palliative efforts.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 21,635

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Technically Wales, Scotland and NI aren't either, nor is England (which I guess is your point).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,468

    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
    "A fellow of infinite jest" ?
    I guess he did take the piss quite a lot.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,738
    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,752

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Technically Wales, Scotland and NI aren't either, nor is England (which I guess is your point).
    Yup.

    I hate to be the one telling the Tartan Army that they’re being abolished and merged with England.

    I think rivers of blood might be the most optimistic scenario there.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,942
    Scott_xP said:

    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t

    This is a classic example of why the best and only option is simply not to engage with the US administration. There's simply no upside to it.

    (See: pidgeons.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,468
    President Putin, apparently dissatisfied with President Trump's failure to give a long speech outlining for the historical justifications for the annexation of Greenland, has done it for him. ..
    https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/2013278921811181931
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,588
    Jenrick seems to have dialled his rudeness up a notch since his defection.

    Not sure it’s a great look.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,153
    Scott_xP said:

    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t

    Second time I've seen this.
    What is FOIA?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,985
    Nigelb said:

    President Putin, apparently dissatisfied with President Trump's failure to give a long speech outlining for the historical justifications for the annexation of Greenland, has done it for him. ..
    https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/2013278921811181931

    Putin not willing to let recent humiliations in Venezuela and the North Sea prevent him from reinforcing the wedge between U.S. and Europe.

    Compare with China, who have criticized Trump outright as his revisionist ambitions.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,738
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t

    Second time I've seen this.
    What is FOIA?
    Freedom of Information Act
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,547

    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
    If anyone didn't, please dispatch them forthwith to ConHome!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,547

    Jenrick seems to have dialled his rudeness up a notch since his defection.

    Not sure it’s a great look.

    It is if your audience are football hooligans and wife beaters. I'm not suggesting that is his audience, but...
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,658
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t

    Second time I've seen this.
    What is FOIA?
    Freedom Of Information Act at a guess.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,706

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Well, Jersey's more of a real country than Scotland is. And I believe Gibraltar is a member of UEFA.
    utter bollox
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,352

    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
    If anyone didn't, please dispatch them forthwith to ConHome!
    If nobody did, TSE would have been so shocked he would have looked like Banker’s ghost.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 7,044

    Nigelb said:

    President Putin, apparently dissatisfied with President Trump's failure to give a long speech outlining for the historical justifications for the annexation of Greenland, has done it for him. ..
    https://x.com/KKriegeBlog/status/2013278921811181931

    Putin not willing to let recent humiliations in Venezuela and the North Sea prevent him from reinforcing the wedge between U.S. and Europe.

    Compare with China, who have criticized Trump outright as his revisionist ambitions.
    In fairness that is self interest too. Every chance Europe lets China get on with being China, and guys a lot of goods, if it leaves Europe alone and gives some support to it on things about which it doesn’t care.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,588
    theProle said:

    Kemi Badenoch calls a meeting of her mps tonight at 6.00pm to demand loyalty or for those who won't to invite them to leave

    That might not work out entirely to her advantage. I think she would have been well advised to take the win from ditching Jenrick and stop there!
    The danger is she tries to stamp her authority on the party in this meeting, everyone tells her that they’re loyal, then 3 weeks from now they defect and her authority looks to be shot.

    Yes it will make them look duplicitous, but there’s a risk that happens by defecting anyway. The greater risk is it highlights Badenoch’s weakness at keeping the party together rather than projecting her strength.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,828
    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Anyone know why Jersey's application to join UEFA was refused?

    Because Jersey's not a real country.

    A lot of countries really resent the UK having four international teams, which impacts things like IFAB.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43183023
    Well, Jersey's more of a real country than Scotland is. And I believe Gibraltar is a member of UEFA.
    utter bollox
    About the only things Jersey isn't responsible for are foreign affairs and defence.

    Whereas we let the Scots have a parish council.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
    If anyone didn't, please dispatch them forthwith to ConHome!
    If nobody did, TSE would have been so shocked he would have looked like Banker’s ghost.
    Is that a typo, an autocorrect, or a pun?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,706
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Oh dear CBS has FOIA'd the full text exchange between Trump and the Norwegian PM

    https://bsky.app/profile/shadow.hedgie.social/post/3mcrz2zm5hk2t

    Second time I've seen this.
    What is FOIA?
    Freedom of Information Act
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

    Jenrick seems to have dialled his rudeness up a notch since his defection.

    Not sure it’s a great look.

    Interesting that his previous persona was Mr Nice Guy.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,235
    She only sacked him when he was already drafting his resignation letter.

    Hardly a demonstration of strength from Kemi.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 69,630
    The guys at Bulwark make an interesting point on this video: SCOTUS could save Trump from himself this week if they block and unravel all his tariff stuff. Will help him enormously in mid-terms if there is an economic boost in next few months.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2B-d8uNmqY
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,588
    edited 5:12PM
    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,389

    geoffw said:

    That's Horatio, not politicalbetting.com

    Yay, somebody spotted the subtle Hamlet reference.
    Hamnet, surely :lol:
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

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

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

    Oh dear.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 27,354

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,467
    edited 5:26PM
    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    What Mr Trump cares about is being centre stage on the day's news. Every day's news.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 27,354

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean mean that top politician, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Don't misunderstand me. I want them to say no. But I honestly think they won't say no.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,151

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

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

    Nothing will really help Trump except a cure for dementia. And if that happens most of us will be thinking more of other people (and ourselves) than of him.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,467
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean mean that top politician, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Don't misunderstand me. I want them to say no. But I honestly think they won't say no.
    Where does honesty come into it?

    Perhaps unkind to @viewcode. I see what he(?) means.
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,058

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,482
    AnneJGP said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    What Mr Trump cares about is being centre stage on the day's news. Every day's news.
    The more uncomfortable everyone else is, the more comfortable he is.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,254
    I wonder what fresh hell this evening will bring
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,671
    The Economist's take on Trump

    Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,294

    theProle said:

    Kemi Badenoch calls a meeting of her mps tonight at 6.00pm to demand loyalty or for those who won't to invite them to leave

    That might not work out entirely to her advantage. I think she would have been well advised to take the win from ditching Jenrick and stop there!
    The danger is she tries to stamp her authority on the party in this meeting, everyone tells her that they’re loyal, then 3 weeks from now they defect and her authority looks to be shot.

    Yes it will make them look duplicitous, but there’s a risk that happens by defecting anyway. The greater risk is it highlights Badenoch’s weakness at keeping the party together rather than projecting her strength.
    Trouble is, I'm not sure she has thought this through.

    If dishonourable members tell her that they are definitely 100% faithful and wouldn't dream of defecting, and then subsequently defect, what sanction is the leader of the Conservative Party going to apply? The defectors will look like snivelling ratbags, but that will be the case anyway.

    Two lessons from the education sector (among others):

    1 Performative strength is often a sign of weakness.

    2 If you need to threaten someone, it has to be a threat you can enact.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,783
    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,805
    Barnesian said:

    The Economist's take on Trump

    Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.

    While Trump may well believe that there is something rotten in the sate of Denmark, the USA needs to neither a borrower nor a lender be if not to be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,336

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,467
    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Must be among the less attractive postings. Mid-winter, close to the North Pole.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,294
    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,336
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    The Economist's take on Trump

    Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.

    While Trump may well believe that there is something rotten in the sate of Denmark, the USA needs to neither a borrower nor a lender be if not to be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
    Trump perhaps skipped straight to the last line:

    Go, bid the soldiers shoot.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,588
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    The million dollar question.

    But what happens if they say no? How far are they willing to push back? What dangers does that unleash?
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,058
    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Which bears no relevance at all to my comment.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,783
    The government should issue the Fxck Trump Bonds .

    Those that can afford to do so should buy them to help support the UK economy whilst we extricate ourselves from the USA .

  • TazTaz Posts: 24,058

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
    He’s already said, if they’re overturned, ‘WE’RE SCREWED’
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,482
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    They don't really have a choice, they will say yes.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,783
    edited 5:49PM
    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Which bears no relevance at all to my comment.
    Under what guise is there a national emergency? . Greenland can be defended by NATO and the USA can put as many troops there as it likes .
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,783
    edited 5:50PM
    The SCOTUS can rule against Trump but at the same time it can rule that this only applies from the date of the ruling so not retrospective.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,671

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
    I think the Court can apply a Writ of Mandamus. This is a court order that compels a government official to perform a legally required, non-discretionary act, such as stopping the collection of a tariff. So the tariff collectors could be told by the Court to ignore the President and stop collecting tariffs or risk a fine or even jail. But I'm not an expert and this is untested territory.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 26,482
    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Which bears no relevance at all to my comment.
    Under what guise is there a national emergency? . Greenland can be defended by NATO and the USA can put as many troops there as it likes .
    It is clearly a national emergency because if this goes wrong the USA will lose all its allies and enter a trade war that can destroy its economy......
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Must be among the less attractive postings. Mid-winter, close to the North Pole.
    Yebbut spring is on the way.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,336

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
    in the technical sense what has to be considered and litigated next is (1) the relevance of Trump's alleged immunity from more or less everything - which would take ages and (2) the various actions which would be begun to enforce the ruling in respect of actual cases.

    In the end where the peaceful separation of powers breaks down entirely, which it might, it will be resolved by constitutional change either de facto or de jure, threats or force or any combination thereof.

    The very top level of the USA armed forces, who look a tough bunch to me, may of course at some point consider the significance of their oath to uphold the constitution.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,313
    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    The Economist's take on Trump

    Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.

    While Trump may well believe that there is something rotten in the sate of Denmark, the USA needs to neither a borrower nor a lender be if not to be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
    The US has $7 trillion to refinance in 2026.

    A bond strike would be deadlier than 007...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,625
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    It will be a peaceful and friendly invasion and US troops will be deeply hurt to find their intentions are misinterpreted.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,336

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    They don't really have a choice, they will say yes.
    The military always has a choice.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 57,313
    AnneJGP said:

    Jenrick seems to have dialled his rudeness up a notch since his defection.

    Not sure it’s a great look.

    Interesting that his previous persona was Mr Nice Guy.
    Only to those who couldn't see he was a complete ....
  • isamisam Posts: 43,394
    edited 6:07PM
    Hard for Reform to say they’re any different from the rest. At least UKIP made defectors hold by-elections

    We need a complete political reform. Voters should be able to use the existing recall system to force by-elections on MPs who change parties mid-parliament. Let's #ChangePoliticsForGood

    https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1190735840621858816?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,671
    algarkirk said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
    in the technical sense what has to be considered and litigated next is (1) the relevance of Trump's alleged immunity from more or less everything - which would take ages and (2) the various actions which would be begun to enforce the ruling in respect of actual cases.

    In the end where the peaceful separation of powers breaks down entirely, which it might, it will be resolved by constitutional change either de facto or de jure, threats or force or any combination thereof.

    The very top level of the USA armed forces, who look a tough bunch to me, may of course at some point consider the significance of their oath to uphold the constitution.
    Tough bunch

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,547

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not everyone is as mad as him.
    I don't believe they do.

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

    And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,238
    Well, they do say Blue Monday is the most depressing day of the year..
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,809
    I don't suppose that was the sum of Kate McCann's questions but from the small amount we know that this two- faced horror show has done -particularly the cartoons-this does seem an odd place to start
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,238

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not everyone is as mad as him.
    I don't believe they do.

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

    And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
    We have to hope for more than that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543
    International politics is hard, especially with superpowers looking to increasingly throw their weight around, but surely no country not an authoritarian state could agree to set up a private UN for Donald Trump on the basis that they maybe might amend the draft charter terms later?

    Tony Blair is playing a key role behind the scenes along with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sources say. There is potential for the terms of the charter to be adapted following feedback on the initial draft, some of the people say.
    https://nitter.poast.org/alexwickham/status/2013273920518971397#m
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,671

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not everyone is as mad as him.
    I don't believe they do.

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

    And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
    Public support for the ICE cop is not around 50%

    Quinnipiac University Poll: 53% of registered voters said the shooting was not justified, while 35% said it was justified.
    CNN/SSRS Poll: 56% of U.S. adults labeled the use of force as "inappropriate," compared to 26% who called it "appropriate".
    Yahoo News/YouGov Poll: 53% stated the agent was not justified in shooting Good, while 28% believed it was justified.
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,058
    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    Which bears no relevance at all to my comment.
    Under what guise is there a national emergency? . Greenland can be defended by NATO and the USA can put as many troops there as it likes .
    That’s for them to decide.

    Trump has already claimed it’s a national emergency. I’m just pointing out there is an off ramp.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543
    edited 6:21PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not everyone is as mad as him.
    I don't believe they do.

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

    And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
    Well, cheating when you are 5% behind is a easier to pull off than when you are 30% behind, so sometimes it does matter what your level of support is.

    But a) I think his floor is 40-45%, since nothing will put off GOP voters long term (though support dips below on specific issues), and b) he probaboly won't take the chance.
  • algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    They don't really have a choice, they will say yes.
    Indeed. If Trump orders a seizure of Greenland, it will happen. Any senior leader at the Pentagon who refuses will be sacked and replaced with someone who'll say "yes, sir, Mr President!". The troops will obey orders because the alternative is a court martial and a cell.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,075
    Good news for Kemi that the public backs her decision to sack Jenrick but the real test will come in the next poll of voting intentions
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,238
    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    One solution could be to give a 999 year leasehold to a couple of bits of Greenland for US bases. So it just renegotiates the exisitng treaty. Trump dresses it up as a massive win.

    A new American President might then dissolve it.

    We gave 99 year leases on British (imperial) bases as part of the "destroyers for bases" deal in 1940, and the US handed most back in the 50s and 60s anyway.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543
    edited 6:23PM
    isam said:

    Hard for Reform to say they’re any different from the rest. At least UKIP made defectors hold by-elections

    We need a complete political reform. Voters should be able to use the existing recall system to force by-elections on MPs who change parties mid-parliament. Let's #ChangePoliticsForGood

    https://x.com/reformparty_uk/status/1190735840621858816?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    They think they are in the sweet spot where they can claim to be different, whilst doing the same things and being full of the same kinds of people.

    Sometimes it works, but it's risky to open up to charges of hypocrisy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,238

    Foxy said:

    Barnesian said:

    The Economist's take on Trump

    Europe is not without tools to resist Donald Trump’s drive for Greenland. It could nobble American tech companies, review banking licences or sell Treasuries; the EU’s “anti-coercion instrument” could be invoked, allowing a range of other retaliations. But calibrating the response to such a mercurial and yet still-mighty president involves painful choices—and getting dozens of countries to agree makes it harder still.

    While Trump may well believe that there is something rotten in the sate of Denmark, the USA needs to neither a borrower nor a lender be if not to be exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
    The US has $7 trillion to refinance in 2026.

    A bond strike would be deadlier than 007...
    Doesn't Jeff Bezos own him now?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,075

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not everyone is as mad as him.
    I don't believe they do.

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

    And if he is planning on cheating in November it won't matter what his level of support is at. Starmer would give his right arm for Trump approval levels.
    Midterm elections are organised by state not federal governments.

    Trump's 55% disapprove, 42% approve rating is not that great either

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543
    edited 6:28PM

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    One solution could be to give a 999 year leasehold to a couple of bits of Greenland for US bases. So it just renegotiates the exisitng treaty. Trump dresses it up as a massive win.
    Pretty ridiculous, but if he's genuine and not just acting, then ridiculous may be the best that can be done since there's very few options to meet in the middle here.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,686
    FPT:

    Off topic, but more important than any subject discussed recently: Judging by this Wkipedia article, PEPFAR is damaged, but may be recovering:
    The United States President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the global health funding by the United States to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save the lives of those suffering from the disease. As of 2023, PEPFAR has saved over 25 million lives,[1][2] primarily in sub-Saharan Africa.
    . . .
    In 2025, the second administration of President Donald Trump put USAID on a 90-day freeze which involved putting PEPFAR on halt and taking its computer systems offline.[7] Later, on January 28, 2025, the Trump administration granted a waiver for essential medicines and medical services which included HIV medicines.[8]

    However, it was later estimated that only about 50% of PEPFAR programs restarted in February.[9][10][11] In July, The Lancet published a study about impacts of the funding freeze,[12] but the full impacts were still unknown as of September.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

    Given globalization, which is not going away, however much some may wish so, it is in our interest to control infectious diseases wherever they begin.

    Unfortunately, a sensible person has to be skeptical about Wikipedia in recent years, and Lancet for longer.

    (For some time I have been fascinated by the ignorance about PEPFAR in Western populations -- and the unwilingness to give it signficant coverage by most news organizations -- definitely including the BBC.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543
    edited 6:28PM
    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Kemi that the public backs her decision to sack Jenrick but the real test will come in the next poll of voting intentions

    I'm betting a solid...unchanged, or margin of error.

    What would be funniest would be if Labour are the ones dropping whilst both Reform and Tories increase, one from those Jenrickian Tories, and the other from grateful centrists deciding Kemi cannot be the culture warrior she was portrayed as initially after all.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,238

    I wonder what fresh hell this evening will bring

    As part of a compromise, Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau will accept the throne of Greenland.

    His ex-wife will first compose, and then sing, the new national anthem.
  • TazTaz Posts: 24,058

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    One solution could be to give a 999 year leasehold to a couple of bits of Greenland for US bases. So it just renegotiates the exisitng treaty. Trump dresses it up as a massive win.

    A new American President might then dissolve it.

    We gave 99 year leases on British (imperial) bases as part of the "destroyers for bases" deal in 1940, and the US handed most back in the 50s and 60s anyway.
    We’re at stage 6 of the Trump tariff playbook according to these :-1:

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2013281600725799182?s=61
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 133,075
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Kemi that the public backs her decision to sack Jenrick but the real test will come in the next poll of voting intentions

    I'm betting a solid...unchanged, or margin of error.

    What would be funniest would be if Labour are the ones dropping whilst both Reform and Tories increase, one from those Jenrickian Tories, and the other from grateful centrists deciding Kemi cannot be the culture warrior she was portrayed as initially after all.
    I think Labour might increase, there will be some Labour 2024 to Reform switchers who won't like Reform becoming a retirement home for rightwing Tory MPs and former Tory Ministers
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 59,387
    Pictures of the broken rail in Spain.

    https://euroweeklynews.com/2026/01/19/focus-of-guardia-civils-investigation-into-adamuz-train-tragedy-beginning-to-look-at-poor-maintenance/

    It looks uncomfortably similar to the accident in Poland a couple of months ago. That one wasn’t an accident.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,091
    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    The USA can station a 100,000 troops there if they like as part of the treaty .
    One solution could be to give a 999 year leasehold to a couple of bits of Greenland for US bases. So it just renegotiates the exisitng treaty. Trump dresses it up as a massive win.
    Pretty ridiculous, but if he's genuine and not just acting, then ridiculous may be the best that can be done since there's very few options to meet in the middle here.
    Hellicopter in?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,294
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Kemi that the public backs her decision to sack Jenrick but the real test will come in the next poll of voting intentions

    I'm betting a solid...unchanged, or margin of error.

    What would be funniest would be if Labour are the ones dropping whilst both Reform and Tories increase, one from those Jenrickian Tories, and the other from grateful centrists deciding Kemi cannot be the culture warrior she was portrayed as initially after all.
    I think Labour might increase, there will be some Labour 2024 to Reform switchers who won't like Reform becoming a retirement home for rightwing Tory MPs and former Tory Ministers
    I can see disillsuoned Lab-to-Ref switchers not being happy about the way RefUK is developing. But switching back to Labour feels like a step too far. Unless someone else emerges to sucessfully harvest that vote, Lab-to-Ref-to-Sofa seems more likely.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,151
    The BBC reports:
    "The US can do more for Greenlanders' security and prosperity than Denmark can, retired army general Jack D, Ripper tells Fox News.
    He also says a potential US acquisition of Greenland is "in Nato's interest", as the US "can do more" for regional security than Denmark can.
    Ripper, who served as vice chief of staff for the US Army from 1999 to 2003, says a plan needs to be formed to the benefit of all mankind.
    "It is essential that the USA acquires Greenland in order to protect the purity of our precious bodily fluids" he says."
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,985
    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.

    Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.

    He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.

    As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,543

    algarkirk said:

    AnneJGP said:

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

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

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

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

    I suppose all Mr Trump has to do is to declare that the US forces already in situ are now occupiers controlling the whole place. In practice nothing changes.
    If Trump was mad enough to make the decision that he’s seized Greenland, then there’s very little, practically, stopping him from doing so.

    Nobody is going to fire any shots.

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

    Of course it would in one stroke destroy the common security apparatus of the west and send US-European relations into a tailspin, embolden Russia, probably result in the loss of Ukraine, and make us all poorer as we suddenly have to pivot. Does Trump care about that, above being the man who increased the geographic footprint of the USA? I would like to believe he does, but evidence is very weak on that.
    Consequences of this would be unknowable. But could there be a non negligible chance that the USA military leadership would draw the line there and say 'No'. USA military is, obviously, deeply embedded in NATO structures at all levels tight to the top. Will they actually be prepared to attack a peaceful and friendly ally to the execration of every post WWII friend they ever had except Hungary?
    Some officers would probably say no, but Trump only needs to find one officer to say yes.

    Retired 3-star US General Ben Hodges has said that all retired US Generals and Admirals of 4-star rank need to speak out and clearly say - in a way that serving officers cannot do publicly - that an invasion of Greenland would be illegal according to domestic US law, and that any serving member of the US military should refuse to follow such an order.

    He says that laying this out clearly and unanimously in public beforehand would make it much easier for serving officers to tell Trump privately that it was not an option, and that they would not follow an order to invade Greenland.

    As far as I'm aware the retired officers have not spoken out.
    My country, right or wrong. I'm sure a lot of them think it's an insane idea and some might resign, but nowhere near the amount hinted at.

    Whenever you hear a lot about misgivings or outrage or whatever, yet it is vague and off the record apart from the handful of outspoken people, then those misgivings don't mean jack shit.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,985

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

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

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

    Given its previous decisions, the present SCOTUS has shown little interest in telling POTUS no, so I assume it won't do so now.
    So some of us, this well informed and educated panel, want SCOTUS to say no to Trump, some don't mind if it says yes!. Does this mean that top politicians, who after all would be well advised to take our collective advice most if not all of the time, will also have difficulty in dealing with the mad idiot.
    Even if they block him on the current tariffs he can claim Greenland is a national emergency and if the court agrees the tariffs apply.
    Question I don't know the answer to but would really like to:

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

    Obviously, a decent chap wouldn't dream of doing that, but...
    Article 2 of the Constitution lays an obligation on the President to enforce the law. If he refuses to do so in this case then Congress would be obliged to remove him from office due to failing to fulfil his Constitutional duties.

    I think the Republican Congress would be more likely to pass legislation depending to Trump the Executive authority to impose tariffs at will, than to impeach him for exceeding his current lack of authority.
Sign In or Register to comment.