Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[thilicen]

I'll reiterate the question for the 900th time.

"Congress, what the fuck are you guys doing? Republicans have a majority of like 1. You can't fucking drum up 50 Republicans to vote on a single specific piece of legislation that would expressly bar the President from pursuing the acquisition of Greenland or the use of the tariffs for coercing Denmark or European allies?"

Like, fucking do something?

Are you really just the Russian State Duma now?

Like at least fucking force a vote on this.

That or just drag Trump and his entire bloodline out in the streets and put their heads on pikes. Not even joking about that. Even in 2026 the shit he's pulling should be bad enough to just kill him and be done with it. He is risking a mass-destructive war because ego couldn't handle being told no. Even if it doesn't turn into a military conflict, the amount of people's lives on both sides that can be completely ruined by how he's fucking the economy is insane. Playing by the rules won't save anyone when you are dealing with people like this.

[Iphie]

is the push back sounding like "we strongly condemn this insane behavior and will utilize our legislative power to stop this madman", or is the push back more "we disagree with trump's wording and really wish he'd be more subtle about this"?

genuine question btw, i don't engage with social media whatsoever outside of this forum so i have no idea what "people say" about most anything, so i'm not trying to twist words i'm legit asking what you're seeing.

Actual missions from Senate republicans to Denmak to assure the government there that they have enough support in the senate to stop trump from using force. If I read correctly they even suggest impeachment is not excluded.

Additionally it is extremely unpopular even among republicans to take Greenland by force, like 8% approves of that idea even if 40% wants to acquire Greenland.

[En Sabah Nur]

do something?

Damn, dude, you became the meme.

Honestly, they could do something, and may even be trying to right now and we just don't see it yet. But for a president and administration that blatantly ignores rules and laws and everything else, would it actually stop them?

[Elder Millennial]

Damn, dude, you became the meme.

Honestly, they could do something, and may even be trying to right now and we just don't see it yet. But for a president and administration that blatantly ignores rules and laws and everything else, would it actually stop them?

This entire debacle is broadly unpopular.

"Trying to do something behind the scenes" is not doing anything here.

Sure, Trump and his minions will try and get away with whatever they can, but silent acquiescence isn't helping here.

He will veto it, it will get dragged before SCOTUS, he might ignore it etc etc. But at least he will fucking have to deal with it. He will have to address it.

We know both Trump and his inner circle are thin skin bitches, and they can't deal with opposition, so fucking do some opposition.

Silently wringing your hands isn't helping here.

Like fucking try something, public. Give the Europeans and Greenland some fucking ammunition in negotiations and public messaging. Something they can point at and say -Look, your own Congress doesn't want this.

[Fugus]

Looks to me like the republicans are hoping for him to die so they can martyr him or at least they can wait til after the midterms to deal with him both for fear of his followers and so JD Vance could get 2 terms afterwards.

Either that or Russia has enough blackmail material on them all to keep them all in line. At which point they are hoping to wait till after the midterms and keep power so they can let their claws truly out and Trump is just jumping the gun.

[Poopymonster]

Actual missions from Senate republicans to Denmak to assure the government there that they have enough support in the senate to stop trump from using force. If I read correctly they even suggest impeachment is not excluded.

Additionally it is extremely unpopular even among republicans to take Greenland by force, like 8% approves of that idea even if 40% wants to acquire Greenland.

What I'm hearing is "empty words" and "I hate being alive"

[Elder Millennial]

Either that or Russia has enough blackmail material on them all to keep them all in line. At which point they are hoping to wait till after the midterms and keep power so they can let their claws truly out and Trump is just jumping the gun.

You are giving the Russians too much credit here.

What if, Trump and his inner circle are just fucking morons, fascists and bootlickers?

What's more logical?

That Russia is somehow puppeteering the entire MAGA movement and Trump or that Trump is simply the physical manifestation of the fascism that was always present inside America and he just gave it an outlet?

[Fugus]

You are giving the Russians too much credit here.

What if, Trump and his inner circle are just fucking morons, fascists and bootlickers?

What's more logical?

That Russia is somehow puppeteering the entire MAGA movement and Trump or that Trump is simply the physical manifestation of the fascism that was always present inside America and he just gave it an outlet?

Wasn’t talking about Trumps inner circle, was talking about the republican majorities in both houses and why they refuse to exercise authority over this.

[Breccia]

Are you really just the Russian State Duma now?

Putin invited to join Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ for Gaza, Kremlin says

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited to join Trump’s “Board of Peace,” the committee that will oversee the reconstruction of Gaza, his spokesman said on Monday.

Speaking to reporters during a regular media briefing, Dmitry Peskov said: “President Putin also received through diplomatic channels an invitation to join this Board of Peace.”

He said the Kremlin is now reviewing the invitation and “hoping to get more details from the US side.”

Later on Monday, the Belarusian Foreign Ministry said President Alexander Lukashenko also received an invitation to join the board.

The ministry’s press service said Minsk “highly appreciates that the American side sees Belarus – and this is clearly stated in the text of the address – as a country ready to take on the noble responsibility of building a lasting peace and leading by example, investing in a secure and prosperous future for future generations.”

Lukashenko is Putin’s closest ally and has been described as Europe’s last dictator.

Nothing says "Board of Peace" like the man who threatened war to invade Greenland inviting the man who invaded Ukraine to reform the Soviet Union to allow Israel to murder Palestinians in the streets. For two billion dollars cash handed to him openly.

So, to answer your question, yes.

[Iphie]

Putin invited to join Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ for Gaza, Kremlin says



Nothing says "Board of Peace" like the man who threatened war to invade Greenland inviting the man who invaded Ukraine to reform the Soviet Union to allow Israel to murder Palestinians in the streets. For two billion dollars cash handed to him openly.

So, to answer your question, yes.

Sooooo.....Xi is next? or Kim Jong Un?

[Mayhem]

Putin invited to join Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ for Gaza, Kremlin says

Nothing says "Board of Peace" like the man who threatened war to invade Greenland inviting the man who invaded Ukraine to reform the Soviet Union to allow Israel to murder Palestinians in the streets. For two billion dollars cash handed to him openly.

So, to answer your question, yes.

So it's the Council of Doom, sneaky Trump memeing again.

[Breccia]

Sooooo.....Xi is next? or Kim Jong Un?

You joke, but honestly? Trump is all about "there are very fine people on both sides". That, and Trump is just asking people to hand him a billion dollars in cash out in the open. Expect him to ask both of these people. Expect Xi to say "no".

[Gorsameth]

What I'm hearing is "empty words" and "I hate being alive"

This, entire this.

If you want to stop Trump from invading Greenland you don't do it with "We will condemn it after he has invaded". You do it by putting into law that doing it would be illegal so that the military can point to said law with "I cannot follow an illegal order", instead of hoping they commit a coup d'état and effectively depose the President upon being ordered to start a war with an entire hemisphere of allies.

[Endus]

This, entire this.

If you want to stop Trump from invading Greenland you don't do it with "We will condemn it after he has invaded". You do it by putting into law that doing it would be illegal so that the military can point to said law with "I cannot follow an illegal order", instead of hoping they commit a coup d'état and effectively depose the President upon being ordered to start a war with an entire hemisphere of allies.

You also don't just stop by reminding military people that following unlawful orders isn't a defense.

You remind them that anyone who does follow an unlawful order, and then you list examples of the unlawful things that Trump is ordering them to do, will be prosecuted, will be dishonorably discharged on conviction, and will spend years to decades in a military prison for it.

You get real fuckin' specific. And if questioned about whether that's a threat, you say "yes, that's a threat. Stop breaking the law, assholes. Or else.

[diller]

LOL, if he doesn't get his way he will replace the supreme court judges, seriously I can't see this going well for him, I mean someone has to do something now.... right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/u...eer-trade.html

paywalled, just wanted to add the source

[Fugus]

LOL, if he doesn't get his way he will replace the supreme court judges, seriously I can't see this going well for him, I mean someone has to do something now.... right?

Well, when it came to Venezuela how many republicans actually crossed the isle to stop him versus how many went along with it?

And when it comes to the Democrats and their opposition, what would the Bailies do?

[alach]

Man, all the media and talking heads I watch are filled with just how utterly stupid, trump's Greenland strategy is today. Just how utterly stupid and foolish it is politically. Threatening NATO members with higher prices for the American public sure is a bold move. November is still a long ways away, I can't imagine how much more damage he can cause.

[Poopymonster]

LOL, if he doesn't get his way he will replace the supreme court judges, seriously I can't see this going well for him, I mean someone has to do something now.... right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/u...eer-trade.html

paywalled, just wanted to add the source

His followers would be more than happy to create openings on the Supreme Court.
2nd amendment and all that stopping the SCOTUS tyranny.

[Breccia]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/u...eer-trade.html

paywalled, just wanted to add the source

Trump’s Trade Negotiator Says Response to Court Loss Would Be Immediate

If the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs, the Trump administration plans to begin replacing them almost immediately with other levies, Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, said in an interview.

This is uncharacteristically poor writing by the NYTimes. "Begin replacing them" means replacing the tariffs with other tariffs from other laws. Team Trump has already said this much in public on purpose multiple times.

Mr. Greer, who is Mr. Trump’s top trade negotiator, said in a Jan. 15 interview with The New York Times that, following any adverse ruling, the administration would “start the next day” to reestablish tariffs “to respond to the problems the president has identified.”

Mr. Greer expressed optimism that the Supreme Court, which is currently reviewing the president’s use of an emergency law that underpins most of his tariffs, would rule in the administration’s favor. But Mr. Greer said that he and other advisers had given the president “a lot of different options” to achieve his trade goals at the beginning of the administration, meaning the president could turn to different legal authorities to impose similar tariffs worldwide.

“The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward,” Mr. Greer said.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump outraged the European Union by threatening to impose tariffs on exports from seven European countries unless a deal is made to sell Greenland, a territory of Denmark, to the United States. Ted Murphy, an attorney at Sidley Austin, said in an emailed response that he believed that Mr. Trump would likely rely on IEEPA, the emergency law being reviewed by the courts, to impose those tariffs.

“I am not aware of any other trade statutes that would cover this situation (e.g., another nation refusing to sell the United States its sovereign territory),” Mr. Murphy wrote.

So pausing right here. If the other laws that exist that allow Trump to impose tariffs were as powerful and sweeping as he claims IEEPA is, he would have used those. They aren't. They are far more limited. Trump believes IEEPA allows him to yell "Fentanyl!" at the cameras, then tariffs countries who don't want him to invade Greenland. In any reasonable, rational light, "national security" does not mean "every country on Earth is a threat to US". Madagascar is not a threat to the USA. Yet, tariffed.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tried to justify the president’s use of the emergency law by saying tariffs were preferred to some sort of armed conflict over Greenland.

“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” Mr. Bessent said, adding that the president was using “the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war.”

Yeah, pausing here again. Have any of y'all seen the Ben Affleck movie Paycheck?

"No."

Didn't think so. Have any of y'all seen the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report?

"Yes."

Saying "I had to shoot him first because he was going to shoot me" is real tenuous ground, morally, ethically, and legally. Even if you have ironclad proof that your next-door neighbor is going to shoot you tomorrow, you don't get to break down his door, shoot him while he's asleep, and say "It was self-defense". That's what the police are for. To mangle The Incredibles, if Trump is claiming everything is an emergency, then nothing is, because that's not what emergency means.

Critics called the president’s threats of tariffs against Europe a brazen misuse of the emergency statute. And some legal experts said the president was making his own legal case harder by threatening such an outlandish use of the emergency law.

“Emergency powers are for emergencies,” Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said on Meet the Press. “There’s no emergency with Greenland. That’s ridiculous.”

Stephen Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said it was “not exactly a good look for the Trump administration, while trying to persuade the Supreme Court to endorse a novel and atextual interpretation of IEEPA” to threaten an even more novel use of the same statute.

“President Trump is doing no favors to his own legal arguments,” Mr. Vladeck added.

Now, the article goes on to discuss two things

One, there are other laws Trump could use. We've discussed them before, so here's the quick version.

Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act lets the WH put a 15% global tariff for up to 150 days to address a country not paying its debts. That's not the case here, but Trump could impose it saying that it is, because Trump is too fucking stupid, senile, and retarded to know what a trade deficit is.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 might sound like a winner at first, as the WH can issue tariffs on National Security Lol, but it requires an investigation they don't fully control. These investigations take months, and the tariffs can't be applied until the result is complete.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 allows the WH to apply up to 50% tariffs if they claim that a country has taken discriminatory trade measures against the United States. Not even Trump has used this before, because its very phrasing means it can't be used globally. It would be very difficult to use anyhow, because it would require proving a country has actually taken action, which as we can tell, the actions taken so far have been retaliatory at most. A retaliatory tariff is not unfair, for the same reason you're allowed to punch the guy trying to stab you, without being arrested for assault.

Section 301 allows the WH to impose tariffs to fight unfair trading practices, which require an investigation first. Obviously, Trump would order these investigations to be done in 30 seconds and basically be "They are bigly yuge unfair" written in Sharpie on a Big Mac wrapper. This is the big one, as Trump used it the first time. However, he's had the most legal success with this only on trade deals he's personally written. The ink on the EU one is barely dry. Not only would EU delegates challenge this in court and almost assuredly win, Trump breaking his own deals means all those promises of investment immediately vanish.

Which brings me to my next point: everyone keeps saying "Trump will just impose them anyhow, ignoring the courts." And, yes, he might try that. Here's the thing: I think it's pretty clear by now that large companies are sick of eating some of these costs, and will be even more sick of eating these costs when they're demonstrably illegal. Imagine that SCOTUS says "No, Greenland isn't a national emergency". Trump responds by using Section 301 and says "Yes it is." Importers immediately take this to court, wave SCOTUS ruling, and immediately win.

"Won't Trump just apply the tariffs illegally anyhow?"

This is where it could get ugly. Imagine SCOTUS removes IEEPA tariffs and then Section 301 tariffs. With what form, with what paperwork, does Trump demand the tariff money? He has no legal right to say "You didn't pay these ruled illegal tariffs, therefore, we block your import." That's theft. And the customs agents on the docks could literally be dragged away in handcuffs for trying that. Don't tell me New York and California wouldn't do that to what few workers are actually willing to risk jail time for this. Trump would have to use martial law to do this, which in turn, would end trade entirely. Like, that's it, game over.

Which could be the case anyhow. If Trump shows the world he's willing to block all trade, through the use of SCOTUS-ruled illegal tariffs, they might simply cut us off entirely. At the point where Trump is robbing his own country at gunpoint, the answer should be "fuck trade and fuck your debt too" crashing the dollar and destroying the US economy. 97% of the world can self-sustain better and longer than the 3% who live here. Especially when Trump's excuse is "suddenly Greenland is worth going to WW3 over".

The House and Senate GOP members need to look at this seriously. They won't, but they need to. Between this and the threat to banks over credit card 10% caps, 2026 could see a lot of money withheld from GOP coffers, on the completely understandable grounds of "why would I fund the party that's trying to destroy me?"

The obstacles here are many, enough that even Trump might see them. I think that SCOTUS will rule against IEEPA being used the way Trump is using it, and I think the implication will be "and don't test our patience with the other laws". Trump is a bully and a coward. He'll use the other tariffs far more targeted and sparingly, claim this is even better, and people will cheer him for getting his ass kicked on national TV.

[Gorsameth]

I can see the supreme court shooting down the tariffs but to go 'don't try this with another silly illegal law'. No, that boat sailed when they declared the President had full and complete immunity.

They will strike it down because they have to, and then sit and rest in the knowledge that it will take another year for the next case to work its way through all the lower courts to get to them and that Trump will leave them alone until then.

They are there to buy Trump time to do what he wants and then do the bare minimum of legality required to maintain the illusion.