Suggested
Yet again the respectable mainstream news media pretend Trump may be just messing with us.
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested he would consider using military force to gain control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, and “economic force” to acquire Canada.
During a free-wheeling news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump was asked by a reporter if he could assure the public that he would not use military coercion against Panama or Greenland, a goal he has floated in recent weeks. “No, I can’t assure you on either of those two, but I can say this, we need them for economic security,” Trump said. He said later that he would not use military force against Canada, only “economic force.”
You can call that suggesting or you can call it threatening. It looks a lot more like threatening to me.
He also wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
More shit to distract from the more concrete bad shit he’s doing (see Cuck Zuckerberg for an example of that). Not saying I believe he’s being particularly strategic, it’s just what he does.
Greenland, Canada…. I am suprised that he has not got Antarctica and Mexico on his list. Still, early days yet, I suppose.
He probably doesn’t want Mexico; if Mexico became a state, the Mexicans would be citizens, and he couldn’t keep them out anymore.
Trump is almost certainly serious, but he has little reliability and a poor track record with promises. In effect, regardless of what’s going on in his brain, his present ramblings aren’t especially threatening. I do agree that “suggested” is a rather weak way to put it – however, at the same time, I can understand that journalists would want to avoid more accurate terms for fear of granting Trump too much credibility.
What a Maroon, #1:
So, the President-elect of the most powerful nation in the world reinvents “Freedom Fries,” and a member of that nation’s Congress lauds this amazing achievement as an indication that his second term “is off to a GREAT start.” A great start indeed.
Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America makes no difference since Mexico is part of (North) America.
This whole thing of calling people from one tiny fraction of two continents “Americans” makes as much sense as calling Nigerians Africans instead of Nigerians. Your ancestors didn’t do a very good job picking a name, did they?
His present ramblings ARE especially threatening, not least because they underline yet again what an evil brainless reckless toad he is.
Rev,
I don’t disagree with you, but a few points. First, the name of our country is somewhat accidental. It was first used to describe the Confederation that fought the war of independence and then formed a government afterward. But that was a fairly loose confederation, without much consolidated central power, and people tended to think of themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers or whatever. It was meant to be purely descriptive, something like the European Union, and I don’t think anyone ever put a lot of thought into it. And even after the Constitution was adapted, people tended to use it in the plural (the United States are…). It wasn’t really till around the time of the Civil War that people started to identify more strongly with the central government, and by then it was too late to come up with something more unique. Personally I’d love to have another adjective to describe us–US American, or Estadounidense, or Yankee, or even Gringo, but that ain’t going to happen.
Second, and more relevant to this discussion, Trump clearly isn’t thinking of America in the broader sense. He’s being grabby and threatening and nationalistic as always, and calling it the Gulf of America is just another way to assert his bellicose jingoism*. So yeah, I’ll keep calling it the Gulf of Mexico.
*Is “bellicose jingoism” redundant? No matter, I like the way it sounds.
Has Trump never heard of the Vikings?
Denmark has now updated the royal coat of arms, on which Greenland is symbolised by a polar bear.
They are also spending money on improving Greenland’s defence capabilities.
Which raises another issue: Denmark and the USA are both members of NATO. Is Trump really prepared to invade the territory of another NATO country? At the very least this would split NATO. It could conceivably lead to a new World War.
Of course he’s prepared to invade the territory of another NATO country – prepared in the sense of willing and eager. In the sense of diplomatically or politically or strategically? Of course not, but he doesn’t think of it in those terms. He’s prepared in the sense that he wants to do it and has no intention of letting anyone stop him. We have to hope anyone will be able to stop him.
Jingoism can be blowhard as well as bellicose in the physical sense, so I don’t consider it redundant here.
As for the name, the colonies were known as the United Colonies; I suspect it was just a matter of staying with the familiar, even though it gives us a clunky name. United States of America doesn’t imply the same sort of thing that American does. It identifies one particular part of the two continents. But it gets shortened down to American because that’s the easiest form. USAians is really not easy to say, and it sounds awful. But yes, we need something else. I personally like WaM’s Estadounidense,.
This bellicosity would seem to keep me in employment (assuming loyalty oaths aren’t incoming) for the foreseeable future; that’s the closest thing to a silver lining I can summon up here.
Don’t see how he’s gonna pay for all of the other stupid shit he wants to do without cutting military spending and the big entitlements though (kidding, there’ll be even more deficit spending than there already has been).
iknklast @ #4: “…. if Mexico became a state, the Mexicans would be citizens, and he couldn’t keep them out anymore.”
No problem for Trump, I’m sure. He could simply divide the citizenry into two or more legally-based classes, each and all with their own rights, privileges, and assigned social place. Worked OK in the past, until the Civil War put an end to it.
Might require the odd constitional amendment, but I am sure Trump’s team is good to go for that.
Doesn’t even require that really; the sheer audacity to deny there are any rules seems to have been sufficient.
Does Trump really think that taking control of Greenland is necessary for Americaneconomic security? Given that the island Greenland has some of the largest deposits of rare earth minerals, which are crucial in the manufacture of batteries and high-tech devices, and given that Musk has a vested interest in cornering the market in such minerals, I suspect that the economic ‘security’ is more of a personal rather than national matter. Musk’s own little fiefdom in return for his investment in Trump’s election campaign?
“Takeaway from crazy news day: need to relearn lessons of Trump 2016
Ignore vast swathes of what passes for ‘news’
Trump wanging on about Greenland and Panama is noise. Ditto Musk’s latest disorientation post on X.
Zuckerberg gutting content moderation and kissing the ring is signal though.”
https://bsky.app/profile/petergeoghegan.bsky.social/post/3lf6pljquh22q
For my mental health I shall keep that in mind,
Acolyte: #16: In that regard he is a bit like Tricky Dick Nixon re Watergate, who had a hard time telling the difference between national security and Nixon security.