Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning added to OP 10/1/26

"flood the zone" or "talking bollocks" as it should be properly put is not a distraction. If he was trying to implement his agenda through distraction he would be pitching new ideas but he is not. It's tariffs on repeat with a good measure of Canada and Greenland thrown in depending on the mood of the time of the day.

Most of his fans don't read.

while he was commenting on the Putin response and the ‘outcome ‘ of his meeting with Rotte he brought up the point of Greenland. He mentioned that “ —— we have a number of bases there and some soldiers and maybe we should put even more soldiers there” or words to that effect. Was this a threat to put ‘some more little green men’ on Greenland and then continue on along the Putin playbook when you want to take over a piece of land??????????

’HATE’ is a VERY EXPLOSIVE word. If anyone has even a modicum of Christianity - or equivalent in the other religions- in them that word would not be in their vocabulary. Imagine just hating , as a principal, a country , a culture , a sect, a religion, an individual, etc, etc, etc,etc just because they are DIFFERENT

You are not wrong, and conversely, while I have based my views on Trump directly on what he has said, rather than what other people have said about what he says, it has got to the stage where I can't stand to hear his voice.

Instead of just reacting to comments, why not give us some more proactive thoughts on what impresses you so much about him, why you feel he deserves to be taken seriously.

Can you explain why almost all the western leaders have recently spoken out against him - from a starting point of the US being accepted and respected as the leader of the free world up to the last 9 years or so?

Explain to us the justification for attacking Canada - and Mexico, though Canada seems much more harmless and had a very positive relationship with the US up to a couple of months ago. He seems to have given up on the Panama Canal, unless there is secret work going on that we are not hearing about, but why Canada?

He seems to suggest its an aesthetic thing, he doesn't feel the line across the continent is very pleasing. Is that a reason for attacking? He does give the impression that Canada and Greenland should be handed over just because he wants them. Or Russia wants them, its hard to know. It is hard to deny that he is trashing the economy, he argues that things will be a bit difficult for a while, is there an economist you can quote (not one of his stooges cabinet, they say what they are told to say) who would support this 'slight dip, then vast wealth' approach?

Why would he want Canada? As a state (or more reasonably, several states) it would tend to the left and only help the Democrats, assuming it was given equal and proper rights, which is what he seems to be offering. Surely he is not lying about his intentions?

His base argument seems to be 'the rest of the world has been treating us very badly, they have taken advantage of us'. It is not a point that I have heard much discussion of, either support from his followers or rebuttal from those who criticise him. Is it justified? In terms of trade he argues that other countries will not import low quality US goods; why should they? Produce goods that people want and they will buy them.

To people outside his cult he comes over as a whinging, self-centred, uneducated, irrational brat. I would love to hear your arguments that can actually be discussed.