[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Something your device can’t access. Google really is your friend you know. Why? The only explanation is that you’re choosing to ignore the whole post because it contradicts yours and now you’re playing silly games again.

It doesn't contradict mine. Britain still abolished slavery, and the Danes left the island because of that.

[Benjamin]

“Trump drops threat of tariffs over Greenland after Nato talks in Davos”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjrzjqg8dlwt

[bots]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

“Trump drops threat of tariffs over Greenland after Nato talks in Davos”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjrzjqg8dlwt

it makes no difference, it's too late. The USA have shown they cannot be trusted, so the words mean nothing

[joeysteele]

He actually sounds confused and comes across disorientated.

It's really dangerous having such an unhinged character in power in the USA.

He rambles, repeats himself and frankly seems unfit.

[bots]

someone will speak to him when he gets back to the WH and he will just as easily change his mind again

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by bots

it makes no difference, it's too late. The USA have shown they cannot be trusted, so the words mean nothing

Of course. He’s a loose cannon and finally people have woken up to it.

[arista]

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bots

the eu have frozen the trade deal negotiations, which means on 1st feb, the trade deal no longer applies, so they are whacking the pre-existing tariffs back on

Good

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

it makes no difference, it's too late. The USA have
shown they cannot be trusted, so the words mean nothing

That seems to be benign at this point. They wouldn't (and shouldn't) have full trust for us in the first place for already a good number of reasons. We've exported some of our problems to other nations, some things we're now trying to change and get rid of, so maybe breaking up from that influence does the whole world a great deal of good in the short term. Especially forcing other nations beyond wiggly words themselves to make commitments far beyond the immediate and maybe a reset will be beneficial for everyone... after Trump leaves, the US will probably have its own reset anyway and I would expect other nations would want to work with us rather quickly if that works in their favor. I can't see certain leaders turning down a chance to make that work in their favor...

Words never mean much in the grand scheme, especially in situations like foreign policy where there are so many moving parts. The world could use a whole less words, tbh. One thing I did realize though about words when listening to people speak is that when important leaders get together and sit next to each other, words do become valuable currency when you're in a room full of egos... some of these people very badly want acceptance.


Speaking of new President, Newsom is trying his best WWE CEO impression to try to get noticed. See, the madness is spreading. We have quite a few more than just these two walking around among the living being terrible:

[Maru]

Originally Posted by arista

Yeah, supposedly we got everything we needed or something.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

Yeah, supposedly we got everything we needed or something.

it was a concept of a deal ....... will be forgotten about until the next epstein dump is released

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

That seems to be benign at this point. They wouldn't (and shouldn't) have full trust for us in the first place for already a good number of reasons. We've exported some of our problems to other nations, some things we're now trying to change and get rid of, so maybe breaking up from that influence does the whole world a great deal of good in the short term. Especially forcing other nations beyond wiggly words themselves to make commitments far beyond the immediate and maybe a reset will be beneficial for everyone... after Trump leaves, the US will probably have its own reset anyway and I would expect other nations would want to work with us rather quickly if that works in their favor. I can't see certain leaders turning down a chance to make that work in their favor...

Words never mean much in the grand scheme, especially in situations like foreign policy where there are so many moving parts. The world could use a whole less words, tbh. One thing I did realize though about words when listening to people speak is that when important leaders get together and sit next to each other, words do become valuable currency when you're in a room full of egos... some of these people very badly want acceptance.


Speaking of new President, Newsom is trying his best WWE CEO impression to try to get noticed. See, the madness is spreading. We have quite a few more than just these two walking around among the living being terrible:

The dems could have taken this moment (or anyone one from a group of significant moments) to come together and create meaningful opposition .... but they didn't .... they are still squabbling amongst themselves and yet they think they will retake the senate this year? What planet are they on

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

The dems could have taken this moment (or anyone one from a group of significant moments) to come together and create meaningful opposition .... but they didn't .... they are still squabbling amongst themselves and yet they think they will retake the senate this year? What planet are they on

I actually think they think they're operating at their peak right now.

Chambers have reliably lost support for Presidencies during the midterms so I think Trump is using up all his mana in his 1st and 2nd year seeing as their majority is already slim. He becomes a lameduck in the last half of his final term and by that point, people are already looking forward for the next thing. That gives Democrats 2 years to cobble a message together to sell to the public. One would think Republicans might want to try to reign him in post-midterms, because 1) new candidate and 2) talks of a 3rd term are going to be campaign fodder.... but who actually knows.

For 80 years, the president’s party has almost always lost House seats in midterm elections, a pattern that makes the 2026 congressional outlook clear
https://theconversation.com/for-80-y...k-clear-271605

Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency (1901-2025)
https://wiredpen.com/resources/polit...ss-presidency/

Americans seem to prefer that the checks-and-balances envisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House.

— Contrary to popular belief, since post-WWII Congress and the President have been at odds. That is, most of the time the same political party does not control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

Only 17 times (34 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party; Democrats have held this advantage more often than Republicans (12 to 5).

However, it has happened six times (12 years) since 2003, making this seem more common that it has been historically (Republicans, four times; Democrats, twice).

— Congress has usually been controlled by the same party making the “odd man out” (literally) be the President.

Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only 10 times (20 years).

But since 2001, the House and Senate have been controlled by the same party five times. The first two were early 20th century (1911 and 1917). The next three (in succession) were under Reagan (1981-1986). The others have been since the 2000 elections, which makes this “seem” more normal to us than it is, historically.

There have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1949: in 1953, 1955, 1995 and 2007.