leicsmac

Also, none of this actually addresses the very real issue that the sentiment of self interest and Might Makes Right that drives people like Trump and his followers doesn't end anywhere good for them or for anyone else. It's in everyone's interest to find a way to address that. Sharpish, because the clock is ticking.

Yep, and look at the mess that's caused by people who supposedly aren't "snowflakes" letting such words get to them. But anyhow, that aside, assuming this is true, what really is the answer? A lot of lives may hinge upon it, because it's the key to our species doing the right thing at the right time. I do think the Trump/Hitler comparisons are lazy, because there's numerous differences. However, that should not in any way serve as distraction from the very real consequences of his actions, past, present and future.

Depends on the individual, clearly. I would agree that most people would prefer reasoned conversation, but two observations on that: - my own experience in science communication has taught me that a great many people, enough to affect policy in a democracy, don't accept reasoned explanation of consequences of poor decisions pointed out to them until those consequences are hitting them square in the face, by which time it's a bit late for them and often a lot of innocent sods they've taken along for the ride, the same may be true in other areas of policymaking And - given that attempts at reasoned and adult conversation have led us to where we are now, I'm not entirely sure of that solely as a method of winning enough minds to guide policy in the way it needs to be guided to avoid much more unpleasant times. In principle, I'd be happy to agree entirely here. In practice... not so much.

...which is then used as a convenient justification to avoid discussion/criticism of the very real bad stuff Trump and those who think like him are up to.

Is that possibly the highest value item ever actually insured?

I don't mind the cold. The dry air is hell for causing nosebleeds though.

Yes. But passive aggressive aside, I've learned for a while now when such arguments are in good faith and when they are not. This is the latter - a dichotomy of two sides (of which I'll happily and freely admit belonging to one) talking past each other. There will be no reconciliation, no common ground, because people like the ones in charge right now want neither. I see no utility in spending time and spoons addressing such arguments given the intractable nature of it. But it is as said above. Either that common ground is found and such nationalist powermongers are neutralised through it, or the Earth, along with warfare, does it for us. With the entire species, plus countless millions of others, along for the ride. A rather sad legacy for a supposedly enlightened species. No, just everyone west of roughly 20 degrees West and east of Easter Island. Monroe Doctrine.

I missed your mastery of obfuscation and rhetoric, Prussian. Welcome back.

A few people do appear to be in denial about that. But, in that case, the Earth itself is the great leveler. Pardon me for repeating myself, but the way any Might Makes Right leader, be it Trump, Putin or anyone else, does things is incompatible with the long or even medium term stability of our biosphere, whether as a result of increased natural disasters, warfare over diminished resources, or a combination of the two. That incompatibility will be punished, if will be punished in probably the harshest possible fashion, and even those leaders who think they are untouchable will answer to it in the end. And that's something that people aren't grasping that I find amazing; these people can do what they like, but doing so inevitably dooms us all in the end, so why simply accept that, when the possibility of so much better exists?

And I don't think anyone would deny that the double standard exists. For my part, I just want to see human civilisation actually last long enough to be worth more than a geological flyspeck and a cautionary tale for any future species that might come across it. Thinking the way that Trump and most of those who follow him will almost certainly ensure that doesn't happen. I'm not sure which political compass "wing" being in favour of ensured human future comes under, but whichever it is...

Seize Turnberry and immediately stage the next Open there thereafter. I'm sure @Izzy would approve.

Given past actions and attitudes recently and otherwise, I'm not sure where this highly charitable interpretation of what the man is saying is coming from. If this is true, perhaps one might wonder why the international community are making a noise about it all now then. Could the common factor be in fact the current incumbent of the White House and the way he is acting, rather than them all getting aerated for no legit reason? Perhaps because it's the year 2026 and it's about time humanity moved past the ridiculous and destructive idea of nationalism and spheres of influence, where the "powerful" do as they like with no consequence and the "powerless" do what they must. Perhaps it's time to stop being pathogens in sharp suits, knowing and being no better than mindless self interest. And also time to stop apologising for supposed human beings who act like the aforementioned pathogens in sharp suits.

Ah, fair enough, a standard Appeal to Hypocrisy then. There's no disagreement from me on where the two American parties lie in terms of that policy area (apart from the manner in which it is being done), my own personal ire tends to veer towards other policy areas and general ethos and attitude there. The OP mentioned "an offer they literally cannot refuse". That for me rather obviously implies coercion and anyone familiar with the man knows that coercion is the way Trump mostly operates, so pardon if that conclusion wasn't immediately apparent in reasoning. Except to continue this analogy in this case you want that car no matter what the neighbour says about it and have no intention of going through official buying and selling channels for it, so everyone thinks, rightly, that's there's a good possibility you will try to steal the car if you can't buy it for the price you want it to be.

On the above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o Donald Trump has again proposed annexing Greenland, after Denmark's leader urged him to "stop the threats" over the island. Speaking to reporters, the US president said "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security". Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of the semi-autonomous Danish territory becoming an annexed part of the US, citing its strategic location for defence purposes and mineral wealth. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen responded by saying "that's enough now" and described the notion of US control over the island as a "fantasy". He said: "No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law."

What's the issue with blatant coercion of a sovereign nation into giving up its territory because you want it and you have the power to bully them into taking it?

Once again I have to ask; what is the specific point being driven at here? Fair, but it might be nice to acknowledge such things while at the same time considering the best way not to jump from the frying pan into the fire on this one.

Oh, and this is all providing a wonderful distraction from whatever the latest Epstein reveals might be, too.

All three results equally possible right now imo, we'll know a lot more after today's/ tomorrow's play.

The above being said, the UK forming some kind of bloc with Canada, the Antipodean nations and most of Europe would be useful right now. All three of the biggest global powers seem bound and determined to think it's still the Gilded Age where their "spheres of influence" still apply and are wishing to divide the world between themselves.

And @MC Prussian, as much as it is good to see you posting in Gen News again (perhaps we might see you again over on the sci or climate threads too), it's not immediately clear what the point you're trying to make here is with the recent posts. Is it that the US is some kind of misunderstood benevolent power, actually being altruistic under this administration? Is it that they're acting no worse now than they have done in the past? Is it that they're simply playing by rules of realpolitik that for some ludicrously perverse reason "everyone" apparently has to follow? Is it something else entirely? Some more additional clarity would be welcomed, if and when possible.

He's predictable in terms of only serving his own self interest, but other than that small point, this is a good analysis imo.

On topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o Denmark's prime minister has told Donald Trump to "stop the threats" about taking over Greenland. Mette Frederiksen said "it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the need for the United States to take over Greenland", adding: "The US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom". Her remarks come after Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's aides, Stephen Miller - tweeted a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag alongside the word "SOON". It may take more than words, Fr. Frederiksen.

That shouldn't be a relevant question if the real objective is making a better world for the people of those nations, and not being nationalistic, self interested and bullying hypocrites throwing their weight around for their own personal gain, giving our species a bad name... ... that first objective is the right one of the two, right?

I'm pretty sure that he pissed off a lot of people being the autocratic bad hombre he no doubt was (and you'd get similar videos of people celebrating after the leaving of practically any world leader in any nation, given you can't please all or even most of the people all the time as a leader), so it's a safe bet at least a lot of that footage is genuine. However, if being a bad hombre of that type justifies this kind of surgical action on the part of the US, they'd better get their schedule in order for similar behaviour in at least half or maybe more of the nations on the planet (or they're just fvcking hypocrites). Or, alternatively, it doesn't justify such extraordinary and extracurricular action and they've been self interested bombastic sacks of shit violating international law to their own ends when the job is deposing a leader remains, for the most part, that of its own citizens (when such a leader isn't waging an external war, that is). Either way, it doesn't look great.

Wouldn't that be the day... And thus we arrive at the conundrum. If Starmer won't tell Trump that he's acting like a shite, then what leader will? Neither Badenoch nor Farage will - they simp over him more than Starmer does. I think the same is true for anyone in their parties, come to that. Another one for Burnham, maybe? I've long since stopped thinking practically anything those people say and do is tongue in cheek, given what real and genuiney negative events they've wrought so far. Treat what they say seriously until absolutely proven otherwise, I think.